CHRISTOLOGY.docx

Aizawl Theological College Department of Christian Theology Christology and Soteriology Topic: Etymology & Classical theories of Atonement (Christ the Mediator) Course Facilitator: Prof. Lalnghakthuami Presenter: Gogou Sitlhou Respondent: Rama Ralte Presented on: 25-1-2018 Introduction Atonement is the bedrock of Christian beliefs and practices. It is one of the most important doctrines as well as the foundation of major doctrines of Christianity. The meaning and impact of atonement are rich and complex. It made human salvation possible. To better grasp and comprehend atonement, this paper gives brief etymological discussion along with biblical teachings. With that, some classical theories of atonement are also delineated. The correct meaning of atonement is also presented. Lastly, current understanding and critiques of atonement from contemporary liberationist, interdisciplinary reflections of literary critic of Rene Girard, feminist/womanist, tricontinental liberationist and antiviolence perspectives are also given. 1. Etymology of Atonement James Atkinson is of the view that the English word ‘atonement’ is derived from the words ‘at-one-ment,’ to make two parties at one, to reconcile two parties one to another. It means reconciliation. He says that in modern usage, it has come to have a more restricted meaning, namely, the process by which the obstacles to reconciliation are removed. In current usage, the phrase ‘to atone for’ means the undertaking of a course of action designed to undo the consequences of a wrong act with a view to the restoration of the relationship broken by the wrong act. James Atkinson, “Atonement,” in A Dictionary of Christian Theology, sixth impression, edited by Alan Richardson (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1979), 18. It also meant “the quality of being at one (with).” “Atone, Atonement,” in The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, edited by Allen C. Myers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 105. Moreover, Dillistone understands ‘atonement’ in two ways: firstly, it originally signified the condition of being ‘at-one’ after two parties had been estranged from one another. Secondly, it denotes the means, an act or a payment, through which harmony was restored. F.W. Dillistone, “Atonement,” in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, second impression, edited by Alan Richardson & John Bowden (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1984), 50. Eddy and Beilby write that “within the Christian tradition, the term (atonement) signals the work of Jesus Christ that makes possible a reconciled relationship between God and humanity, a relationship previously broken by sin.” P.R. Eddy & J. Beilby, “Atonement,” in Global Dictionary of Theology, edited by William A. Dyrness & Veli- Matti Karkkainen (Nottingham: Inter- Varsity Press, 2008), 84. This is the meaning which the word ‘atonement’ carries in a religious or biblical context: to speak more precisely, it means the work of Christ culminating at Calvary. James Atkinson, “Atonement.” 18. It refers to human reunion with God through Christ. The Hebrew and Greek terms designate the manner in which Christ puts the sinner in the right relationship with God. “Atone, Atonement,” in The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary…, 108. The term occurs frequently in the KJV of the OT as the rendering of the Hebrew root kaphar but only once in the NT (Rom. 5: 11) where it translates the word katallage which means here ‘reconciliation.’ In the RV and in modern versions the word is rendered ‘reconciliation,’ which means that the word atonement does not appear in modern English versions of the NT at all. Nevertheless, though the word is not there, the idea is expressed in many forms. It is this fact of the various biblical images used to explain the atonement which gives us the seeming theological complexity of the several ‘theories of the atonement.’ James Atkinson, “Atonement.” 18. In the OT, (AV/KJV) the phrase ‘to make atonement’ frequently occurs in a ceremonial context. It denoted an action or series of actions by means of which guilt could be removed. At some time in Israel’s history, an annual Day of Atonement (Lev. 23: 26ff) began to be observed. Elaborate ceremonies were performed and these were designed to expiate the sins of the whole nation. F.W. Dillistone, “Atonement.” 50. 2. Biblical Teachings 2.1. Hebrew Bible: Usually atonement was made through the substitutionary sacrifice of an animal (Ex. 30: 10; Lev. 1:4; 4:20-21). “Atone, Atonement,” in The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. 105. It is described in the Hebrew cultus as sacrifice, substitution, mediation and judgment. Consecration of priests required sacrifice of a bull as a ‘sin offering for atonement” (Ex. 29: 36). Daily sacrifices were offered for the forgiveness of sin (Lev. 4:20). The repentant sinner “slaughtered the sin offering” (Lev. 4: 29). On the Day of Atonement, a goat was slain (Lev. 16:9). Hence, atonement necessitated the death of a victim. Kenneth D. Mulzac, “Atonement,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 127. 2.2. Christian Bible: Even though the word ‘atonement’ does not occur in the Christian Bible, the meaning behind the word is constantly present. Unlike the Hebrew practices, atonement is related entirely to Jesus Christ especially the death of Christ at the cross. C.L. Mitton, “Atonement,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, sixteenth printing, edited by George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986), 311. Paul says Christ “died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3); for him, Christ’s blood (Rom. 5: 9) is not merely human blood but, specifically, atoning blood and his death is an atoning sacrifice, recalling the sacrificial arrangement of the old covenant (Isa. 53:10; Heb. 7: 1-10, 18; cf. 1 Pet. 1: 18-20). While Paul stresses the centrality of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice, the Synoptic Gospels note that Christ claimed to give his life as a “ransom for many” (Mt. 20:28; Mk 10:45). The Christian Bible leaves no doubt that atonement is accomplished through the believer’s participation with the Lord in his death rather than merely by Christ’s death on the cross (Rom. 6:2, 6, 8; cf., Gal. 2: 19-20). Thus Christ not only suffered for the guilt of human sin with his death, but also freed human beings from the power of sin. “Atone, Atonement,” in The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary…, 106. Moreover, in Christ and his death is all that human needs in order to find their sins forgiven and their life reconciled to God; in Christ is that which can cancel out the ill effects of sin, release human from the burden of guilt, and grant them peace with God. C.L. Mitton, “Atonement,” 311. 3. Classical theories of Atonement How have theologians understood and expounded this evidence? The various theological theories in which the Church has expressed its theology of the atonement are quite simply various answers made by different theologians in different ages to the question: How did Christ effect this great change in human’s relation to God of which Christian life and faith are the evidence? Some of the main theories have presented themselves down the ages: 3.1. Ransom Theory: This theory was developed by Origen (185-254), and also held by Augustine advocated that Satan held captive people, a ransom had to be paid, not to God, but to Satan. Paul Enns, The Moody handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 319. According to this theory, because of their sin people rightly belong to Satan, the teachers of faith reasoned. But God offered Jesus Christ as a ransom, a bargain the evil one eagerly accepted. When, however, Satan got Christ down into hell, Satan found that he could not hold him. On the third day Christ rose triumphant and left Satan without either his original prisoners or the ransom he had accepted in human’s stead. It did not need a profound intellect to see that God must have foreseen this, but the thought that God deceived the devil did not worry the teachers of faith. They took that as evidence that God is wiser than Satan as well as stronger. They even worked out illustrations like a fishing trip: The flesh of Jesus was the bait, the deity the fishhook. Satan swallowed the hook along with the bait and was transfixed. This view has been variously called the devil ransom theory, the classical theory, or the fishhook theory of atonement. L. Morris, “Atonement, Theories of the,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, tenth printing, edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1994), 101. Criticism: In response to this view, it should be noted that God’s holiness, not Satan’s, was offended, and payment had to be made to God to avert God’s wrath. Furthermore, Satan did not have the power to free human, God alone had the power. This theory is false because it makes Satan the benefactor of Christ’s death. This view has too high view of Satan; the cross was a judgment of Satan, not a ransom to Satan. Paul Enns, The Moody handbook of Theology. 319. 3.2. The Recapitulation Theory: This theory was advanced by Irenaeus (130-200?) in which he taught that Christ went through all the phases of Adam’s life and experience, including the experience of sin. In this way, Christ was able to succeed wherein Adam failed. Paul Enns, The Moody handbook of Theology. 319. By his incarnation and human life, Jesus reverses the course on which Adam by his started humanity and thus becomes a new leaven in the life of humankind. Jesus communicates immortality to those who are united to him by faith and effects an ethical transformation in their lives, and by his obedience compensates for the disobedience of Adam. L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, eleventh printing (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969), 385. Criticism: The element of truth is that Christ is known as the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15: 54), however, Christ has no personal encounter with sin whatsoever (1 John 3:5; John 8: 46). The theory is incomplete in that it neglects the atonement; it is the death of Christ that saves, not his life. Paul Enns, The Moody handbook of Theology. 319, 320. 3.3. The Juridical/ Satisfaction/Commercial Theory: This theory is associated with Anselm (1033-1109), the Archbishop of Canterbury, who argued the doctrine in terms of the satisfaction due to the outraged honor of God conceived as human’s feudal overlord. In his book, Cur Deus Homo? He subjected the patristic view of a ransom paid to Satan to severe criticism. L. Morris, “Atonement, Theories of the…,” 101. He strongly argued against the long prevalent view that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to the Devil, the price demanded to release human from Satan who held human in its grip. He took the view that ransom was paid not to the Devil but to God, whose pure majesty had been outraged by the sin of human as stated earlier. The juridical/satisfaction/commercial view means essentially that Jesus Christ, as human, bore the penalty for human sin and offered satisfaction for it in our stead. James Atkinson, “Atonement.” 23. Anselm taught that through sin, God was robbed of the deserved honor. Hence, this necessitated a resolution that could be achieved either through punishing sinners or through satisfaction. God chose to resolve the matter through satisfaction by the gift of Jesus Christ. Paul Enns, The Moody handbook of Theology. 320. He saw sin as dishonoring the majesty of God. A Sovereign God may well be ready in God’s private capacity to forgive an insult or an injury but because God is sovereign, God cannot. Therefore appropriate satisfaction must be offered. Anselm argued that the insult sin has given to God is so great that only one who is God can provide satisfaction. But it was done by one who is human, so only human should do so. Thus he concluded that one who is both God and human is needed. L. Morris, “Atonement, Theories of the…,” 101. Criticism: Although this view changed the focus from payment to Satan to a proper emphasis on payment to God, there are nonetheless problems with this view. Most agree, however, that the demonstration is not conclusive. In the end Anselm makes God too much like a king whose dignity has been affronted. He overlooked the fact that a sovereign may be clement and forgiving without doing harm to his kingdom. L. Morris, “Atonement, Theories of the…,” 101, 102. It emphasizes God’s mercy at the expense of other attributes of God, namely, justice or holiness. It also neglects the obedience of the life of Christ, and in addition, it ignores the vicarious suffering of Christ. Rather than emphasizing Christ died for the penalty of sin, this view embraces the Roman Catholic concept of penance, “so much satisfaction for so much violation.” Paul Enns, The Moody handbook of Theology. 320. A further defect in his view is that Anselm found no necessary connection between Christ’s death and the salvation of sinners. Christ merited a great reward because he died when he had no need to (for he had no sin). But he could not receive a reward, for he had everything. To whom then could he more fittingly assign his reward then to those for whom he had died? This makes it more or less a matter of chance that sinners be saved. Not very many these days are prepared to go along with Anselm. But at least he took a very serious view of sin, and it is agreed that without this there will be no satisfactory view. L. Morris, “Atonement, Theories of the…,” 101, 102. 3.4. The Exemplarist/Moral Influence Theory: This theory is associated with Peter Abelard (1079-1142) and has since been taught by modern liberals such as Horace Bushnell and others of a more ‘moderate’ liberal stance. This view was originally a reaction to the juridical/ satisfaction/commercial theory of Anselm. This view taught that the death of Christ was not necessary as an expiation for sin, rather, through the death of Christ, God demonstrated love for humanity in such a way that sinners’ hearts would be softened and brought to repentance. Paul Enns, The Moody handbook of Theology. 320. Differently said, the suffering of Christ was a supreme example. Christ brought the message of divine forgiveness, and his whole life revealed the love of God in a way which stirs human’s hearts to fresh repentance. Hastings Rashdall (1858-1924) in his Bampton Lectures The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (1919) upheld this Abelardian or exemplarist theory with considerable energy, arguing that it isolated the central truth, attested to in the Fathers, that the atonement was a revelation of the love of God, intended to call forth an answering love in human. James Atkinson, “Atonement.” 22, 23. Criticism: Of course the theory is true, but two grave reservations may be made. The first is if Christ’s work only symbolizes or signifies the love of God, it shows only what the OT had already long taught. There must be a sense in which it is God’s act, an act of power which changed things, not a revealing gesture of what was already true. The second objection would be that neither psychological nor theological evidence convinces us that a declaration of this kind release a sinner from the power and enslavement of sin save in a very limited field. James Atkinson, “Atonement.” 23. Moreover, this view also teaches that somehow the moving of people’s emotions will lead them to repentance. Scripture affirms that the death of Christ was substitutionary (Mt. 20:28), and thereby the sinner is justified before God, not merely influenced by a demonstration of love. The basis for the death of Christ is love rather holiness. Paul Enns, The Moody handbook of Theology. 320. 3.5. Penal Substitution: The Reformers agreed with Anselm that sin is a very serious matter, but they saw it as a breaking of God’s law rather than as an insult to God’s honor. The moral law, they held is not to be taken lightly. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), and it is this that is the problem for sinful human. They took seriously the scriptural teachings about the wrath of God and those that referred to the curse under which sinners lay. It seemed clear to them that the essence of Christ’s saving work consisted in taking the sinner’s place. In human’s stead Christ endured the death that is the wages of sin. Jesus bore the curse that sinners have to borne (Gal. 3:13). The Reformers did not hesitate to speak of Christ as having borne punishment or as having appeased the wrath of God in human’s place. L. Morris, “Atonement, Theories of the…,” 102. Criticism: Such views have been widely criticized. In particular it is pointed out that sin not an internal matter to be transferred easily from one person to another and that, while some forms of penalty are transferable (the payment of fine), and others are not (imprisonment, capital punishment). It is urged that this theory sets Christ in opposition to God so that it maximizes the love of Christ and minimizes that of the God. However, there in much in the NT that supports this theory. For e.g. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Godself (2 Corinth. 5:19). L. Morris, “Atonement, Theories of the…,” 102. 4. Correct Meaning of the Atonement Although there are some points of merit in the previously discussed theories concerning the death of Christ, the views are incomplete or deficient in their evaluation of Christ’s death. The foundational meaning of the death of Christ is its substitutionary character. Jesus died in place of sinners that Jesus might purchase their freedom, reconcile them to God, and thereby satisfy the righteous demands of God. 4.1. Substitution: Christ’s death was substitutionary- Jesus died in the stead of sinners and in their place. The death of Christ is vicarious in the sense that Christ is the Substitute who bears the punishment rightly due sinners, their guilt being imputed to Christ in such a way that Jesus representatively bore their punishment. It was a legal transaction in which Christ dealt with the sin problem for the human race. Jesus became the substitute for humanity’s sin. Paul Enns, The Moody handbook of Theology. 323. 4.2. Redemption: The purchase price for the believer’s freedom and release from sin was the death of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev.5:9; 14:3,4). Christ sets believers free from bondage to the law and from its condemnation (Gal. 3:13; 4:5). Believers have been redeemed by the precious blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:18). Paul Enns, The Moody handbook of Theology. 323, 324. 4.3. Reconciliation: The emphasis of reconciliation is that of making peace with God. Human, being estranged from God is brought into communion with God. Through Christ that enmity/ separation and the wrath of God was removed (Rom. 5: 10). God initiates reconciliation and thereby moved to reconcile sinful human to Godself. Human is the object of reconciliation. Paul Enns, The Moody handbook of Theology. 324. 4.4. Propitiation: It means the death of Christ fully satisfied all the righteous demands of God toward the sinner. Through the work of Christ, God is fully satisfied that the righteous standard has been met. Through union with Christ, believer can now be accepted by God and be spared from the wrath of God. Paul Enns, The Moody handbook of Theology. 325. 5. Coeval understanding and Critiques of Atonement The traditional understanding of atonement has been subjected to renewed conversation and exploration within Christian theological circles today. Some are as follows: (a). From feminist/Womanist, Tricontinental liberationist and antiviolence perspectives, traditional interpretations of the atonement have been subjected to theological and ethical critiques. Theories such as satisfaction and penal substitution are seen as encouraging apathetic tolerance of oppression and abuse unduly glorifying the experience of suffering. Moreover, such theories are charged with fostering the idea that cosmic child abuse (i.e., the Father’s willing sacrifice of the Son) is divinely ordained path to salvation. P.R. Eddy & J. Beilby, “Atonement…,” 84. (b). In the backdrop of interdisciplinary reflections of literary critic of Rene Girard and his ‘scapegoat’ theory of ritual violence, the gospel story offers and reveals that the scapegoat-Jesus- is innocent, and in doing so unmasks the ritual violence associated with the scapegoat myth for the tragic mistake that it is. In Girard’s assessment, Christian theology through the ages has all too often slipped back into an endorsement of sacred violence by encouraging the (re)interpretation of Jesus’ death in sacrificial terms and the like. Thus, similar to feminist and liberationist critiques, Girard’s work suggests that traditional atonement theories have contributed to the sacrilization of violence within the Christian tradition. P.R. Eddy & J. Beilby, “Atonement…,” 85. (c). Contemporary liberationist theories of the atonement express another type of “humanward” approach to the saving work of Christ. Here, the revelatory power of the atonement is highlighted, namely, the revelation of God’s solidarity with the poor and oppressed. In the words of C.S. Song, the crucified Jesus “tells whereabouts of God: Jesus on the cross is where God is…The cross of Jesus and the cross of suffering women, men, and children are linked in God and disclose the heart of the suffering. C.S. Song, Jesus, the Crucified People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 122. This revelatory knowledge itself is an atoning force as it offers hope to suffering people that God’s self-sacrificial love is boundless, that God is for suffering people and not against them, that God is “a suffering God.” The liberationist models emphasize the holistic nature of the atonement, and thus the atoning efficacy of the incarnation itself as manifest in the specific historical realties of Jesus’ life- his humble origins; his identification with the poor; the marginalized, the unclean, the outcasts; and finally his humiliating and tortuous death on the cross. In Jesus’ life and death, God has entered fully into the suffering of humanity. God can intimately understand and relate to the poor, the suffering and oppressed. God stands in solidarity with such people, empowering them in the midst of their suffering. In addition, the death of Jesus unmasks the violent, oppressive structures of the world not only as committing injustice against those human beings who suffer beneath the weight of their regimes, but also as committing violence against Godself. P.R. Eddy & J. Beilby, “Atonement…,” 90. (d). To move beyond the confines of traditional atonement motifs, there is conscious fusion of liberation motifs with inculturation theologies for culturally relevant Christologies that go beyond traditional categories. These efforts have produced a number of new soteriological images of Jesus, images that communicate the power of Christ’s atoning work in terms that are more easily understood and naturally embraced within an indigenous context. For example, within both African and Asian context contexts, the image of Jesus as Proto-Ancestor or Ancestor Par Excellence as the one who not only realized the ideal of the honorable ancestor/mediator, but also who “infinitely transcended that ideal and brought it to new completion has been explored. P.R. Eddy & J. Beilby, “Atonement…,” 90. Conclusion The scope of Christ’s atonement remains a problem for biblical exegetes and theologians. All the above views, in their own way, recognize that the atonement is vast and deep. While there are some major objections to some of the theories, it is understandable that each one possesses a dimension of the truth. All the theories are important and each draws our attention to an important aspect of our salvation. We should not expect that all the theories will ever explain it fully. Even when we put them all together, we will no more than begin to comprehend a little of the vastness of God’s saving deed. Having said that we can conclude atonement is God’s work in Christ. The death of Christ is propitiation, sacrifice, redemption, reconciliation and victory over the Devil. Jesus is the perfect remedy in that the atoning work is unmistakable note of finality, of completeness, of something unrepeatable, done once for all time: Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many (Heb. 10:14) and Jesus was the High priest who could do this (1 Pet. 2: 24). Bibliography Atkinson, James. “Atonement.” In A Dictionary of Christian Theology. Sixth Impression. Edited by Alan Richardson. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1979, 18-24. Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. Eleventh Printing. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969. “Atone, Atonement.” In The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Edited by Allen C. Myers. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987, 105-106. Dillistone, F.W. “Atonement.” In A New Dictionary of Christian Theology. Second Impression. Edited by Alan Richardson & John Bowden. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1984, 50-53. Eddy, P.R. & J. Beilby. “Atonement.” In Global Dictionary of Theology. Edited by William A. Dyrness & Veli- Matti Karkkainen. Nottingham: Inter- Varsity Press, 2008, 84-92. Enns, Paul. The Moody handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989. Mitton, C.L. “Atonement.” In The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Sixteenth Printing. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986, 309-313. Morris, L. “Atonement, Theories of the.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Tenth Printing. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1994, 100- 102. Mulzac, Kenneth D. “Atonement.” In Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000, 127-128. 8