Atonement

What exactly does it mean and what is the significance of Jesus dying on the cross? What relevance does it have for our lives and what if any are the cosmic consequences to that action? Also, what is the importance of his life and resurrection if the cross is the central point of why he came to earth in the first place? If we are as Christians going to accept that, “…Jesus’ death and resurrection (which non – Christians usually deny) are nothing less than the centerpieces of world history. Here lies the key to all God’s dealings with humanity. Through Jesus’ death and resurrection, God freed us from the tyranny of evil and reconciled us to himself. Our relationship with God and our eternal destiny depended on what Jesus did when he died and rose again. On this all Christians have always agreed (Boyd, Eddy, 2009, p. 125). It will be the intent of this paper to examine the differing views on how the above questions are answered by the Penal Substitution, Christus Victor and Moral Government views and explain as well what my position is and why in the atonement debate.

The reason for the atonement debate is that even though there is agreement about the general purposes and affect of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, “What exactly this reconciliation and how exactly this reconciliation was achieved is a matter of dispute…”(2009, p.125). One of the views that attempts to answer these questions is the Penal Substitution position, it has its roots “In the sixteenth century, John Calvin and Martin Luther advocated a view of atonement….They believed that Jesus bore the punishment humanity deserved. Only in this way, they argued, could humanity be reconciled to an all - holy God….that Jesus actually bore the sin of humanity and actually took the punishment humanity deserved” (2009, p. 126). In this view Jesus is the fulcrum from which all punishment and restitution and wrath are assuaged, as, “God the Son freely agreed with the Father to align himself with fallen humanity and to suffer God’s wrath against sin by dying on the cross. This view of the atonement is called the penal substitution view, for Christ accepted the punishment for sin in our place” (2009, p.127). According to this view it is Jesus who actually became sin and as a result the Father poured all his wrath out on his Son so as a consequence, all of us who believe in the name of Jesus will not have to experience what it was that Jesus did on the cross as he did that in our stead for all of our sins. And in, “Another way the New Testament expresses the substitutionary significance of Christ’s death is by saying that Christ was the propitiation for our sin….Christ’s death appeased God’s wrath toward sin because Christ received the punishment God’s holiness demanded” (2009, p.129). The most advantageous aspect to this view is that, “…it is the only view that makes clear how an all-holy God could reconcile sinners with himself (2009, p. 130). However, the most troubling aspect of this view is that it, “…requires us to believe that the Father literally rejected and judged the Son while he hung on the cross….a real separation occurred between the Father and Son. This opinion runs counter to the biblical and traditional understanding that the three Persons of the Trinity are inseparable” (2009, p.142).

Another way to answer the questions surrounding the atonement is the Moral Government View that believes, “The point of Jesus’ death was for God to ‘show righteousness.’ Because of his love, God demonstrated his wrath against sin to deter all humankind from sinning. The atonement, in other words, was the means by which God preserved his moral government of the world” (2009, p. 138). This position emphasizes the importance of how a person ought to live when considering the consequences of sin and contrasts with penal substitution because even, “Though many believers mistakenly think holiness before God is merely a legal stance made possible because Christ took the punishment for sin, the Bible emphasizes that God’s goal for his people is that they live actually live holy lives….God established his moral government by showing the severe consequences of disobedience, thus motivating people to walk according to God’s law. One of the unfortunate consequences of the penal substitution view of the atonement is that it often has the opposite effect” (2009, p. 139). Perhaps, the strongest aspect of this position is that it, “…does not require people to believe the incoherent notion that Jesus literally bore the guilt of other people. Nor does it ask people to believe that God sees them as righteous even when their lives are sinful” (2009, p.141).

The third way in which to view the atonement is the Christus Victor position which holds that, “The primary significance of Christ’s death and resurrection is that they defeated God’s archenemy, Satan” (2009, p.132) As, “Jesus thus acknowledges that Satan is the highest power of this present fallen world, at least in terms of his present influence. That is why Jesus does not dispute Satan’s claim that he has been given ‘authority’ over ‘all the kingdoms of this world’ (Luke 4:5-6) (2009, p.133). What does this mean, it is simply this, “The central significance of the Messiah is that he is victorious over everything and everyone who opposes God and all the evil forces that have enslaved humanity throughout the ages” (2009, p.133). And, “The main way Jesus defeated Satan and his kingdom, however, was by his death and resurrection” (2009, p.133). The clearest scripture on this is, “And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Col 2:15 TNIV). Jesus in this view, “…did all that was necessary to release us from the bondage to Satan, sin, and condemnation” (2009, p.135).

The most compelling aspect to the Christus Victor view of the atonement is that it, “…brings a thematic unity to Jesus’ life, teachings, and ministry, while the other views do not. The unifying theme of Jesus’ ministry was his warfare against the kingdom of darkness. His teaching, exorcisms, and healing ministry were all warfare activities. His death and resurrection simply culminated this activity” (2009, p.135). And perhaps the culminating thought on this view as opposed to the other two views presented is that, “While Jesus’ death paid the price for human sin (substitutionary view) and/or demonstrated the severity of God’s judgment against sin (moral government view), these views isolate Jesus’ death and resurrection from the rest of his activity. They are combined with the Christus Victor understanding (2009, p. 135).

In the introduction I posed the question as to what if any affect the atonement had on the cosmic realm and it is only the Chritsus Victor view which in any way attempts to answer this question. It does so because, “The atonement is a cosmic issue before it is a soteriological issue because evil is a cosmic issue before it is a human issue. The primary battle that ravages creation is not the battle between God and rebellious humans but the battle between God and cosmic principalities and powers….Christ entered our world as a man, conquered Satan, and then empowered the church to apply his victory to every area of life. As a result, not only is humanity freed from the power of the devil, but the entire creation is also restored” (2009, p.136).

As I have been writing this paper and contemplating the differing views on the atonement I feel most comfortable with the Chritsus Victor position and I am somewhat sympathetic to the Moral Government position, and the most distant from Penal Substitution position. This is likely due to the fact that I hold a warfare worldview and the Christus Victor position is most closely if not completely aligned with that view.

An Afterthought:

Here is a thought that occurred to me while thinking about the atonement: Jesus on the cross is God. Then in some way, mysterious as it may be, God “knew” sin as Paul wrote, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God “ (2Co 5:21). So, for sake of argument, Jesus in the hypostatic union became “sin for us” if we are to have a literal reading/understanding of this text then some change had to have happened within the Trinity. God then is more mutable than immutable at least in an existential sense and quite possibly in an ontological sense if this “sin for us” in all its potentiality had to go somewhere and be absorbed in some definitive way as to be eliminated in principle on the cross.

Taking Karl Barth’s concept of “nothingness” and thinking about it with Greg Boyd’s concept of a middle way between the annihilationist and classical view of hell that he outlines in the final chapter of Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy where he also uses Barth’s “nothingness” in his argument and thinking about these ideas in the context of the cross and atonement what I am proposing is this: evil – which is “nothingness” or “darkness” as it is ultimately devoid of any life (zoa) or “light” when completely separated from God or to borrow from Tillich, “the ground of all being” evil then devoid of “being” in a very real ontological sense is no longer a participant in “the ground of all being.” Then when Jesus is “sin for us” on the cross all sin/evil/missing the mark/nothingness/darkness is absorbed into the “ground of all being” and extinguished into itself in a similar way that matter collapses into itself in a black hole. There “sin for us” is enveloped into itself and its being is “nothingness,” it state is separation in complete self absorption and all this is occurring for the briefest of moments in time (Jesus as God in time) on the cross when Jesus died. And in that brief window of time, Satan glimpsed his utter and complete defeat into oblivion and nothingness but now cannot comprehend it while in complete self absorption – hence his futile attempts to still conquer grace [But where sin increased, grace increased all the more… (Rom 5:20 b)] In principle then evil/sin on the cross was dealt a death blow (Col 2:15) and is now merely in a state of anticipatory collapse into “nothingness” at the culmination of time at the return of Christ.

Bibliography

Bible, TNIV.

Boyd, Gregory, A and Eddy, Paul, R. (2009) Across the Spectrum. Baker Academic.