| |
 |
| The atonement in scripture |
|
Rev'd Dr David Peterson
This paper was delivered at the Fourth Annual Oak Hill College School of Theology in May 2000. An expanded version of this paper appears as the first two chapters of 'Where Wrath and Mercy Meet: Proclaiming the Atonement Today' (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001).
Please click the links below to read the different sections of the paper.
> Introduction – see below
> Sacrifice and Atonement in the Pentateuch
> Sacrifice and Forgiveness in the Prophets and the Psalms
> Jesus and his Sacrifice
> Pauline perspectives on the atoning work of Christ
> Conclusions
> Notes
Introduction
Nearly a decade ago, Dr Peter Carnley, now the Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia, published a series of articles in his diocesan magazine headed, 'Theory of Atonement makes God look cruel' and 'No Scriptural warrant for "penal substitution"'.(1) He rightly pointed out that 'theories of atonement simply try, in a stammering and halting kind of way, to give a verbal account of how the atoning life and death of Christ "worked" on a heavenly level so as to reconcile God and human beings, thus to give us open access to God'. But he argued that the notion of Christ paying the penalty for our sins is unbiblical and certainly not part of orthodox Christian faith, so that Anglican clergy are not authorised to teach it.
This last point is quite remarkable considering the teaching of the Articles, Homilies and Prayer Book, especially the teaching of the Prayer of Consecration in the Communion Service that Christ's death on the cross was 'a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world'. The archbishop was unable to see any reference in the New Testament to divine punishment for sin being directed at Jesus. Indeed, he argued that such a theory produces an image of God 'of a morally repugnant kind, whose Son becomes the hapless victim of his Father's righteous anger'.
Peter Carnley might well have quoted a number of recent scholars to support his dismissal of this understanding of the cross. Even though it was a central element of Protestant orthodoxy in the sixteenth and seventeenth century and then became a particular focus of Evangelicalism from the eighteenth century onwards, the penal substitutionary view has had a succession of formidable critics. But what is unusual about this last decade is the fact that several writers from the evangelical movement have stepped forward to join them.
For example, in 1995 John Goldingay edited a volume of essays entitled Atonement Today. Goldingay himself denies that there is any link between atonement and punishment in the Old Testament and argues that the improper linking of punishment with sacrifice in much Christian thought is particularly due to a misunderstanding of Isaiah 53. Stephen Travis surveys some of the key texts in Paul's letters that have traditionally been taken to mean that Christ suffered the punishment due for our sin and concludes, for example, that Galatians 3:13 is not a statement about atonement in general or about the salvation of individuals. Paul's concern is to show how the death of Christ 'makes possible the coming of God's blessing to the Gentiles (Gal. 3:14)'.(2) In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Christ is said to identify with sin as our representative and break its power, thereby freeing those who are in him to share his righteousness. But Travis does not believe that either here or in Romans 3:24-6 Paul taught that Christ experienced retributive punishment on behalf of humanity. Rather, 'standing where we stand, he bore the consequences of our alienation from God. In so doing he absorbed and exhausted them, so that they should not fall on us'.(3)
In America, Joel Green combined with John Carroll and others to produce a volume entitled The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity. Almost the first half of the book is devoted to the Gospels and a consideration of the death of Jesus within the framework presented by each evangelist. However, the sacrificial dimension of Jesus' suffering is not well explored. Examining the Pauline letters in only twenty-nine pages, Carroll and Green seem determined to exclude any sense of vicarious punishment from the apostle's thought. The concluding chapter specifically argues that 'Paul uses an almost inexhaustible series of metaphors to represent the significance of Jesus' death, and penal substitution (at least as popularly defined) is not one of them'.(4) These writers are particularly sensitive to the concerns of feminist theologians, who argue that the penal view of the cross makes God the patriarch who punishes his son in order to satisfy his own parental honour and sense of justice. Although there have always been moral objections to this view of the atonement, the notion that our salvation can only be accomplished at the expense of 'the abuse of one perfect child' is particularly abhorrent in an age when issues of parental punishment and child abuse are so prominent.(5)
How this paper will proceed
My aim in this paper is to take a broad, biblical-theological approach, to set questions of detail within the widest possible context and thereby to open up some different perspectives on the issues. Biblical Theology as a discipline can be pursued in different ways, but its general aim is to bring the contents of the Bible to a greater degree of systematization than is found immediately in the Bible itself, while remaining 'as close as possible to the method God himself has used in giving us his revelation.'(6) It is primarily concerned with the final form of the canonical text, rather than with sources or patterns of interpretation based on theories of composition. Interpretation of Old Testament books in their canonical form is particularly important as a basis for understanding the way New Testament writers use scripture, since this was the form in which the material was available in the time of Jesus and the apostles.
As this overview of biblical teaching proceeds, I will examine key texts in some detail, responding to contemporary views in the process. Instead of defining what the Bible means by atonement from the start, I will expound the relevant texts exegetically and thematically, before attempting any doctrinal synthesis. Some trace the meaning of the term to its roots in Middle English – 'at-one-ment' – and so understand it as essentially a synonym for reconciliation. But the inadequacy of this equation soon becomes obvious when the relevant Hebrew terminology is examined in its context. There are several dimensions to 'atonement' in the Old Testament. The New Testament similarly has various ways of describing the effectiveness of Christ's death, which belong together under the doctrinal heading of 'atonement'.
Although I want to affirm that there are many profound dimensions to the work of Christ and that all are important, the penal, substitutionary dimension is the focus of attention in this study. This is so because it is rejected or neglected by many today, but also because it is theologically foundational to New Testament teaching about the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. What is theologically foundational must also be evangelistically important, as a key element of the message which God wants people to hear, to experience salvation by his grace. What is theologically foundational must also be pastorally important, for the strengthening of God's people in their devotion to him.
In response to the current debate, I want to answer four specific questions:
1. What does atonement mean in the Pentateuch?
2. What does Isaiah 53 mean in the context of prophetic teaching about the future of God's people?
3. Did Jesus view his death as a substitutionary payment for human sin and see himself as the fulfilment of Isaiah 53?
4. Does Paul teach penal substitution and, if so, how significant is it in his view of the cross?
> Click here for next page
© David Peterson 2000. This material is copyright and may not be reproduced or copied without due acknowledgement of its authorship and source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
