He Took Our Place
For many of you who read these ramblings the idea of atonement I critique today will be familiar. Love it or hate it, most Protestants have heard the language of substitutionary atonement more than any other. If you are among the more conservative Protestants, this is probably the language that comes to mind first when you think of atonement.
In very condensed form substitutionary atonement works like this. Jesus is born of a virgin, and leads an absolutely sinless life. Because he is sinless and perfect Jesus alone is able to atone for human sin by taking the guilt/penalty for the sins of the world. In essence Jesus becomes a substitute for us. Both the virgin birth and sinless life are essential for this model of atonement because the atoning sacrifice must be perfect in order to bear sin for everyone else. Since he bore the penalty of sin, we don't bear it any more and we have peace with God. Typically, substitutionary atonement is thought of in penal terms were Jesus bears a punishment in our place. It can also be used in sacrificial terms where he is a sacrifice on our behalf, in this case he becomes the "Lamb of God," and is the culmination and perfect fulfillment of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament.
If you're not really up on all this fancy, theoretical atonement talk here are some of the terms and concepts that are hallmarks of substitutionary atonement. Sacrifice, wrath, blood, propitiation, dying instead of us not just for us are all integral parts of this theory. Thinking about the framework of this theory it's not surprising that proponents of substitutionary atonement tend to emphasize the pain and agony of the cross more than proponents of other theories. The language of substitutionary atonement is commonplace in hymnody as well. It is found in numerous hymns about the cross such as "O Sacred Head Now Wounded," "My Hope Is Built," "Ah, Holy Jesus," "Rock of Ages," and "The Old Rugged Cross." Though not a hymn about the cross as such, "It Is Well With My Soul," one of the most powerful hymns of our faith, has a very subsitutionary line- "my sin Oh the bliss of this glorious thought, my sin not in part but the whole, is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more, praise the Lord, praise the Lord Oh my soul!"
As with all of these theories of atonement there is scriptural warrant for substitutionary atonement. To name just a few places: the suffering servant passage of Isaiah 53, 2 Corinthians 5, Galatians 2, 1 Peter 2 and 3 all use strong substitutionary language. Including sacrificial themes of atonement with this, and we find that we can add the strong sacrificial language of Hebrews and nearly the whole book of Revelation where Jesus is referred to as "Lamb" twenty seven times.
Now, to critique this. I'll begin with a personal recollection. The first time I preached an Easter sermon I was in seminary, but hadn't been taught anything about atonement theory yet. In my background I knew only to think of atonement in substitutionary terms. As I wrestled with the Easter sermon then, I discovered what I later learned in class. This particular view of the atonement doesn't account for the resurrection. If the penalty is paid on the cross and because of that we have life, where does the resurrection fit in? This isn't the only criticism of this model of atonement. At times this view of the atonement suffers from the language of its own proponents. To hear some proponents describe it, God sits in Heaven waiting to throw all us poor humans into the fiery pit with the great cosmic "Smite" button until Jesus takes the "smiting" for us. Distorted like this, this view of atonement can lead one to think that God is eager to condemn, and also to view the Father and the Son as being at enmity with each other. Additionally, many modern critics dislike this view of the atonement because it emphasizes the blood and pain of the cross. By itself, penal substitutionary atonement is unsatisfactory in my opinion.
Let's not totally dispense with this model of the atonement, however. There's too much language that points to it in the Bible. Additionally, it is unwise to try to clean up the cross too much. A sterilized, sanitized cross can't say much to a world that continually asks "where's God?" amid the ugliness and strife of this fallen world. Understanding the cross as what it was, a brutal instrument of torture, humiliation, and execution allows us to understand that God can be present in the midst of the horrors that we can sometimes see in the modern world.
Now that I've poked more than a few holes in these three, in a few days a more comprehensive look at the atonement will arise from the marinate.
In very condensed form substitutionary atonement works like this. Jesus is born of a virgin, and leads an absolutely sinless life. Because he is sinless and perfect Jesus alone is able to atone for human sin by taking the guilt/penalty for the sins of the world. In essence Jesus becomes a substitute for us. Both the virgin birth and sinless life are essential for this model of atonement because the atoning sacrifice must be perfect in order to bear sin for everyone else. Since he bore the penalty of sin, we don't bear it any more and we have peace with God. Typically, substitutionary atonement is thought of in penal terms were Jesus bears a punishment in our place. It can also be used in sacrificial terms where he is a sacrifice on our behalf, in this case he becomes the "Lamb of God," and is the culmination and perfect fulfillment of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament.
If you're not really up on all this fancy, theoretical atonement talk here are some of the terms and concepts that are hallmarks of substitutionary atonement. Sacrifice, wrath, blood, propitiation, dying instead of us not just for us are all integral parts of this theory. Thinking about the framework of this theory it's not surprising that proponents of substitutionary atonement tend to emphasize the pain and agony of the cross more than proponents of other theories. The language of substitutionary atonement is commonplace in hymnody as well. It is found in numerous hymns about the cross such as "O Sacred Head Now Wounded," "My Hope Is Built," "Ah, Holy Jesus," "Rock of Ages," and "The Old Rugged Cross." Though not a hymn about the cross as such, "It Is Well With My Soul," one of the most powerful hymns of our faith, has a very subsitutionary line- "my sin Oh the bliss of this glorious thought, my sin not in part but the whole, is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more, praise the Lord, praise the Lord Oh my soul!"
As with all of these theories of atonement there is scriptural warrant for substitutionary atonement. To name just a few places: the suffering servant passage of Isaiah 53, 2 Corinthians 5, Galatians 2, 1 Peter 2 and 3 all use strong substitutionary language. Including sacrificial themes of atonement with this, and we find that we can add the strong sacrificial language of Hebrews and nearly the whole book of Revelation where Jesus is referred to as "Lamb" twenty seven times.
Now, to critique this. I'll begin with a personal recollection. The first time I preached an Easter sermon I was in seminary, but hadn't been taught anything about atonement theory yet. In my background I knew only to think of atonement in substitutionary terms. As I wrestled with the Easter sermon then, I discovered what I later learned in class. This particular view of the atonement doesn't account for the resurrection. If the penalty is paid on the cross and because of that we have life, where does the resurrection fit in? This isn't the only criticism of this model of atonement. At times this view of the atonement suffers from the language of its own proponents. To hear some proponents describe it, God sits in Heaven waiting to throw all us poor humans into the fiery pit with the great cosmic "Smite" button until Jesus takes the "smiting" for us. Distorted like this, this view of atonement can lead one to think that God is eager to condemn, and also to view the Father and the Son as being at enmity with each other. Additionally, many modern critics dislike this view of the atonement because it emphasizes the blood and pain of the cross. By itself, penal substitutionary atonement is unsatisfactory in my opinion.
Let's not totally dispense with this model of the atonement, however. There's too much language that points to it in the Bible. Additionally, it is unwise to try to clean up the cross too much. A sterilized, sanitized cross can't say much to a world that continually asks "where's God?" amid the ugliness and strife of this fallen world. Understanding the cross as what it was, a brutal instrument of torture, humiliation, and execution allows us to understand that God can be present in the midst of the horrors that we can sometimes see in the modern world.
Now that I've poked more than a few holes in these three, in a few days a more comprehensive look at the atonement will arise from the marinate.
"Where does the resurrection fit in?"
ReplyDeleteKeep reading or continuing as He says to do. See Heb.7:12, noting that a change of the priesthood also has resulted in making a change to the law.
Paul describes this in Rom. 5:20 and 2:13.
Slimplified. Your salvation is predicated upon obeying a law that has been added to the law by Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection and ascention. Clear?