3. God’s Vision for Atonement
The model presented in the following chapters takes a different approach to the atonement to that of earlier models. So, this chapter establishes the foundation for a new theory before presenting its logic in the next.
When devising a model to explain the atonement, we first need to be clear about the problem we are trying to solve. For example, if our concern is with human rebellion against God, the solution will centre on restoring order. If the main issue is a broken relationship, the question is how to reconcile the parties. Likewise, for God’s honour and rule of justice to be reinstated. A subjective atonement model looks at changing the individual to be right with God. Additionally, there is the evil that manifests in nature whether or not it stems from human malpractice. God would desire to eliminate natural disasters. Each of these approaches applies its distinctive premises as though they describe the real problem. The differences may appear unimportant, but for an argument to be sound, both the argument and the premises must be valid. So, what are the correct premises?
Thomas Talbott (1993, p. 168) said, “If we suppose that God’s moral nature is simple, we must also admit that his justice requires exactly the same thing his love requires: the absolute destruction of sin.” And we could add “the removal of evil in creation.” Since in sinning, humanity colludes with evil, sinful actions are an attack on God even when another human is the immediate victim. Sin entails such things as disobedience to God, flouting justice, broken fellowship, disrespect for the Creator, lack of care for the environment, and a need for personal renewal. Humanity does not harm God by sinning, but itself.
The basic problem then is how God can both save sinful people and abolish evil from creation. Christus Victor has Jesus defeating Satan on the cross, but in this theory, Jesus did not eliminate evil. Similarly, the satisfaction theory centres on the lack of due respect given to the person of God but leaves the other effects of evil intact. Likewise, penal substitution focuses on justice but fails to engage with other issues. Moral influence prioritises making humans Christlike but neglects other consequences of evil. One reason atheists continue to raise the so-called problem of evil is because of the failure of traditional atonement theories to offer a thorough response.
For Martin Luther, soteriology, and in particular justification by grace through faith, was the centre of theology. Other reformers, such as John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, gave priority to the sovereignty of God. But God’s intention in creation was to make a people for himself. As such, the covenant of God, “I will be your God and you will be my people”, is a fitting central truth for atonement theology. Larry Shelton (2004, p. 21) said: “Perhaps the most central theological integrating motif of Scripture is the concept of covenant.” The covenant expresses God’s vision for his people. The central message of Christianity is the gospel, which is primarily good news for God in accomplishing his vision. But, the gospel is also good news to humanity. God honours his promise to be God to his people by overcoming evil and restoring creation. If God’s covenant is central, then law (penal substitution), power (Christus Victor), and exemplar (moral influence) are insufficient. Christ is more than a victor, substitute, example, teacher, mediator, or even saviour. He is God to his people and a God who loves his children.
Scripture claims Christians are citizens of God’s kingdom (Eph 2:19; Phil 3:20). Prabo Mihindukulasuriya (2014, p. 197) contended, “Scriptures do provide us with a consistent narrative, with its own coherent logic, of how the death of Christ brings about God’s acknowledged rule, which accomplishes his redemption and judgement upon his creation.” Furthermore, “A kingdom perspective of the atonement is able to hold together the many emphases that models of atonement attempt to convey. It shows how the covenantal expectations of the Hebrew Scriptures are fulfilled in Christ, indicating the significance of his life and ministry, as well as his death and resurrection, and links seamlessly the themes of the kingdom of God and the cross. Through it we see how the messages of personal salvation and cosmic renewal cohere.” (p. 213).
Paul wrote in Romans 14:17 that “… the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit gives Christians pledges or samples of these things in the present evil age. God will ultimately renew the world (Rev 21:1) and remove all evil. For a model of atonement to be comprehensive, it must explain more than Satan’s defeat or how God effects justice. A wide-ranging theory must encompass all of the following: the Son of God’s incarnation, Christ’s life of obedience, Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension, the coming of the Holy Spirit, and God’s renewal of the earth.
Paul Fiddes (2007, p. 2) drew attention to the duality between the objective event of Christ’s crucifixion and the subjective response of faith. Fiddes’ view of salvation was as transformation “to divinization, and from sin.” He thought it impossible to integrate fully the subjective and objective facets of Christ’s atoning work (p. 4). He claimed that, apart from the moral influence theory, traditional atonement theories start at the objective end of the spectrum and add a subjective appendix (the response of faith). The trend in recent times has been to move the focus from the historical fact of the cross towards the personal response. Fiddes saw a tension between the Jesus of history and the Christian’s faith in Jesus.
However, such things as God’s response to Jesus’ death and the changed lives of Christians, are also objective facts. Stephen Williams (2014, p. 6) said “there is an objectivity, in fact, a deep objectivity, in Abelard’s view of the atonement. In the death of Jesus Christ, a new age is inaugurated – the age of the Spirit – and the death of Christ is the channel of entry for the Spirit into the world ...”
It can also be said that Jesus’ death on the cross occurred because of Jesus’ subjective response of obedience to God. There are multiple responses involved in salvation: (1) the individual Christian to Christ, (2) Jesus to both God the Father and his followers, and (3) of God the Father to Christians and to Jesus. The physical and spiritual aspects of Christ’s death on the cross are intimately entwined.
Larry Shelton (2008, p. 28) proposed that a way around the subjective/objective dichotomy is to base atonement theory in the covenant of God: “The covenant view of the participation of the believer by faith-union with Jesus Christ in the work of sacrifice (Romans 6:1-14) retains both the subjective and objective, the expiatory and the propitiatory emphases, as well as the necessity and centrality of the Resurrection.” God upheld his covenant by sending Jesus to mediate the new covenant in his blood (Luke 22:20). In this way, the subjective and objective aspects of the atonement both rest in Jesus. Although traditional theories acknowledge Christ’s mediatorial role, they try to make atonement orbit around another focal point. Placing such things as God’s honour, human obedience, justice or law at the centre of soteriology puts the theory off balance and unable to sustain a consistent theology.
The Covenant of God is contrasted in Scripture with the illusory covenant of works whereby people try to justify themselves before God by their good works. This false covenant should not be confused with the Old Covenant, which was the phase of God’s Covenant prior to the coming of the Holy Spirit.
Evil anywhere in creation is offensive to God. Offences are not limited to sin. Human suffering and death from disease and natural disasters are abhorrent to God, too. Evil is easy for God to eliminate. God could withdraw support for the existence of anything contaminated by evil. But that would entail God in destroying everything and starting again. God wants to save people. The covenant, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people,” is an expression of God’s desire for atonement. This is why Michael J. Gorman (2011, p. 26) thought it remarkable that no covenant model of the atonement exists. Although Gorman argued for a covenant model, he refrained from attempting a complete account. He explained, “I do not find preoccupation with the details of the ‘how’—the ‘mechanics’—to be particularly helpful or biblical, but that is not the same as recognizing no efficient cause.” (p. 68).
Despite Gorman’s reticence, the Lumen Christi model is an attempt to present the omitted reasoning with God’s covenant as the driver of atonement. The mechanism of atonement was a mystery before the incarnation of the Son of God (Eph 1:9; 3:5; Col 1:25-26) who came as Jesus Christ, the Lord and Saviour of God’s people, the mystery revealed. Jesus as God in human form (Phil 2:7) was qualified to act as a mediator of salvation between God and humanity. Thomas Torrance (2009, p. 287) wrote, “As the incarnation is the meeting of man and God in man’s place, so the ascension is the meeting of man and God in God’s place.” Christ’s mediatorial role is essential to atonement. God displayed his love for the world through Christ who “humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross” (Phil 2:8). Jesus exemplified the eternal virtues of sacrifice and humility that God rewards: “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you in due time.” (1 Pet 5:6). How Christ saves people involves a range of issues.
A good soteriology not only adheres to the criteria given in Chapter 1 but, in order to be all-embracing, must at least engage with the following subject areas.
a) Human responsibility for sin.
b) Forgiveness and reconciliation.
c) Justice and punishment.
d) Sacrifice and atonement.
e) Righteousness.
f) Goodness, mercy and holiness.
g) Evil in nature and the angelic realm.
Each of these core issues is discussed below. The Lumen Christi model will be evaluated against this list in Chapter 9.
God intends human beings to be free (Gal 5:13), so it follows that God does not object to humans using free will. But just as Jesus said of his miracles that he only did what he saw the Father doing (John 5:19, 30; 8:28; 12:49; 15:5-7), Christians, too, can receive guidance from the indwelling Holy Spirit. Sins occur when the independent actions of people are in opposition to, or in rebellion against, God. The prime targets of those actions are mostly other people. Underneath the sinful actions, is the misbelief that people can determine what is good without deference to God.
Darlene Weaver (2003, p. 48) argued that the basic cause of sinful actions and bad attitudes is humanity’s alienation from the life of God (Eph 4:18). Weaver said, “Sin is self-estrangement from God and its reflection in moral evil against oneself, others, and the world.” Everybody is born into a world estranged from God. Subsequent actions only continue the revolt against God. The apostle Paul said, “But the Scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin,” (Gal 3:22). Even children of Christian parents have a sinful human nature. This is because sin is a spiritual state or stance of separation from each other and God.
An objection to the doctrine of original sin is that it is unfair to a person who dies in infancy. But the birth of humans in a sinful world does not imply everyone is unsaved at birth. Salvation is a gift to those with faith in God (Mark 11:22). Jesus’ comments on little children imply that infants have faith in God (Matt 19:14; Mark 10:14-15; Luke 18:16). Therefore, a newborn child is a sinner “saved” by Jesus in the same way adults are. Obviously, a baby cannot articulate its faith, but faith is not mere intellectual assent to a creed. Jesus knows those who believe in him.
When God breathes life into a newborn person, the spirit enters a body in a creation estranged from its Creator. But there is now reason why a newborn infant cannot have faith in God. William Wordsworth expressed this idea poetically in his “Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood.”
“But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home” (lines 64 and 65).
The temptations of a world alienated from God entice people to abandon their childhood faith. Jesus saves through faith, not through learned knowledge or the will of the flesh (John 1:12-13) or good works. This same reasoning applies to those born with a mental impairment, including those with a debilitated conscience. Troy W. Martin’s response to Gorman’s article on the covenant of God raised this problem but added, “All the other theories of the atonement, however, also fail to address the modern psychological view of a human without a conscience at all or with a severely deficient one.” (Gorman, 2011, p. 64).
Culpable sin is a breach of covenant. To break faith with God is analogous to breaking a marriage engagement. The betrothed person rejects God when falling from faith and thereafter continues to do so, even in those actions thought of as good or morally neutral (e.g. breathing). This is as Paul said in another context, “... whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23c). Sin causes a rift between humanity and the one who upholds its life, resulting in death (Rom 6:23). People see death as God’s judgement, but God wants to free them from sin and raise them from death (Rom 8:2).
Regarding human responsibility for sin, one may suspect the biblical account of God’s over-riding Pharaoh’s free will and hardening his heart (Exod 4:21; 7:3; 14:4, 17) implies that human free will always acts within God’s sovereign will. But, if everything people do is within God's will, God would be ultimately responsible for evil. Besides, isolated instances of God over-ruling human free will do not prove that God normally acts this way. There would be no reason for God to get angry at sin. God’s strengthening of Pharaoh's resolve against God’s people, which Pharaoh himself chose, is not an evil act. Pharaoh’s harshness towards the Israelites was the reason God intervened to liberate his people.
The free will argument is consistent with the revealed nature of God as love (1 John 4:8). If anyone is free, it is God, and God created humanity in his own image to freely love each other and God. Love requires the freedom of both parties to do otherwise. God cannot coerce his creatures to love him.
Atonement includes the restoration of humanity’s relationship with God and this is consistent with Christ’s emphasis on love and forgiveness. Jesus taught people to forgive others as God forgives them (Matt 6:14; 18:21-22). During his ministry leading to the cross, Jesus said he had “authority on earth to forgive sins” (Matt 9:6). So, Jesus’ death was not the unique instrumental cause of forgiveness. John wrote, “your sins are forgiven on account of his name” (1 John 2:12b), not on account of his death.
Forgiveness occurs when a person responds to another’s offence in love instead of resentment. God is willing to forgive human sin. The personal nature of forgiveness means that a mere legal pardon is inadequate. On the other hand, while forgiveness is essential for salvation, it is not the only requirement. Divine forgiveness does not make sinners guiltless (Exod 34:6-7). Nor did Jesus’ crucifixion, by itself, bring about human salvation. The crucifixion was one event in Jesus’ lifetime. Everything people do is significant. Every step Christians take in their life’s journey is a step on the road to heaven. The journey may pass through unimportant places, horrible places, or be a triumphant procession. Jesus, from his birth to his death and beyond, committed himself to God’s strategy for atonement. The Son of God’s incarnation, Jesus’ ministry on earth, his death, resurrection, ascension, and the coming of the Holy Spirit were all significant milestones in God’s plan of salvation. An example of an apparently minor action was Jesus’ decision to go up to Jerusalem where events would conspire to bring about his crucifixion. Even the minor details of Jesus’ life were significant in his obedience to the Father’s plan to save people (Luke 18:31).
The writer of Hebrews, in discussing atonement, does not mention the resurrection of Jesus, but that does not mean he thought the resurrection has no significance for salvation. Neither does the Apostle Paul, in his letters, give priority to Jesus’ resurrection over his faithfulness in submitting to crucifixion (Kim, 2019, p. 57). As we have seen, every aspect of Jesus’ life has importance. The atonement does not hinge solely upon Christ’s death on the cross. The enemies of Christ in killing him unwittingly acted to thwart God’s plan of salvation. In so doing, humanity added to its myriad sins against God, its most heinous sin. Did Christ’s death achieve anything? Yes, but it did not do everything. For instance, it did not remove evil.
Jesus once remarked in passing that people are evil (Matt 7:11). Sin even taints the life of a faithful saint. Sin separates the human race from God. T. F. Torrance (2009, p. 111) conjectured this separation from God is a “merciful act of God by which he holds himself at a distance from fallen men and women”, withholding judgement because “his immediate presence which, apart from actual atonement, could only mean the destruction of humanity.” So, for reconciliation between God and humanity, atonement for sin is needed.
Forgiveness and reconciliation are different, but related, actions. Anthony Bash (2011, p. 145) said, “If we forgive, we forswear our right to justice: we do not thereby receive justice but choose to forgo it.” Even if the victim forgives the offender, they may not reconcile with each other. For example, victims of assault may not want to befriend their attackers. The damage done by sin might preclude this. Scripture enjoins forgiveness but does not demand an ongoing harmonious relationship between the disputants.
Unlike people, God seeks to both forgive and reconcile with his people. But in common with human relationships, God’s forgiveness does not mean God ignores sin. If we miss this distinction we might assume God’s forgiveness of sinners, even repentant sinners, implies God is reconciled with them. In setting out the detailed logic of atonement, it is necessary to include both God’s forgiveness of sinners and how God reconciles with them.
The prophet Micah made it clear that God requires justice amongst his people: “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8). God’s redemption of sinners must not only establish justice but also be just in itself. But does justice require punishment? Did God punish Christ in our place or was it that Christ endured the punishment for sin that we deserved? How could Jesus’ death satisfy justice?
The penal substitution theory sees Jesus taking the punishment for the sins of the entire world as a fitting means of salvation. It is said God imputed the guilt for past, present and future human sin to Christ who was without sin. But how can punishment bring about justice? A just situation is one free of sin. Human society controls sin by using punishment as a deterrent. Don McLellan (2005, p. 10) pointed out “justice cannot undo the offence … and very often takes no thought of its ramifications on innocent people connected to those it punishes.” The families of imprisoned offenders are unintentionally punished. Although McLellan saw justice as inadequate to deal with offences (p. 10), he conjectured justice would be meaningless without punishment, and so he continued with the substitutionary atonement theory (p. 15).
God’s atonement restores justice and saves his people, but this does not necessitate retributive punishment. Atonement brings about reconciliation. The destruction of the wicked removes evil, but it does not bring about atonement for believers. James Merrick (2006, p. 300) took issue with McLellan’s view that justice requires punishment saying “Of course, one might reply that there is a disjunct between human forgiveness and divine. For instance, Stott: ‘The analogy between our forgiveness and God’s is far from being exact’ because God is the creator and we are mere humans. Or Michael Horton: ‘God cannot simply forgive the way we are enjoined, because unlike us, he is not simply violated personally…, but God’s moral character that establishes and upholds the moral order of the cosmos must be sustained.’ Yet both Horton and Stott affirm that God commands humans to be and do only that which is true of himself. By arguing that human forgiveness is not analogous to divine, they undercut this position.” Merrick’s quotations are from (Stott, 2006, p. 104) and (Horton, 2005, p. 190).
Justification by faith is a doctrine in need of a theology of atonement to mesh with. Theologians have given much attention to justification in recent years, partly because of concerns with the traditional atonement theories, but without reaching a consensus. N. T. Wright (2009, p. 70) claimed the terms “justification” and “righteousness” come from a law court setting. This ties in with the penal substitution approach. But this reading is not the only possibility.
Alister McGrath (2005, p. 22) sees “justification” and “righteousness” as grounded in the Old Testament idea of rightness or rectitude. As such, justification means correcting a relationship. So, in atonement, God seeks a right relationship, not payback justice.
Wiard Popkes (2005, p. 139) probed the meaning of justification in Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians and concluded, “Both texts interpret ‘justification’ in terms of personal relationship.” This is because “Meeting God/Christ is a personal encounter, effecting a new personal relationship.” (p. 139). The advantage of seeing justice secured by righting the wrong of a broken relationship is that it breaks the nexus between atonement and violence. Even God cannot justify anyone by the use of brutality.
Paul Leer-Salvesen (2009, p. 175), concerned that forgiveness may not dispense justice to victims, wrote, “A theology of reconciliation which consists only of forgiveness, and no longer moral anger and judgement, is a theology which has betrayed the victims.” Societies set up judicial systems as substitutes for God’s authority. These systems use punishment for “behaviour control and justice” (Wenzel & Thielmann, 2006, p. 451). Penal substitution applies a human approach to justice to the atonement. But this only pertains to people-to-people relationships, not people-to-God relationships. People may not desire reconciliation with each other, but this is God’s aim. God cannot reconcile with anyone by punishing them, or by Christ taking the punishment in their place. Even though the sacrifice of Jesus engenders thankfulness, the Father’s punishment would not draw us to him.
Of course, idealised and earthly concepts of fairness do not regulate how God acts. The Lord is holy, and he sets the benchmark for righteousness. Humanity does not get a vote. God provided the Old Testament laws through Moses to restrain wrongdoing in Israel (Gal 3:24). He is the source of peace and justice in a rebellious world.
Thomas Talbott (1993, p. 161) asked, “What sort of thing would satisfy justice to the full in the event that one should do something morally wrong? The answer, it seems to me, is obvious: If one could somehow make amends for the wrong action, that is, undo any harm done, repair any damage, in a way that would make up for, or cancel out, the bad consequences of the action (in one’s own life as well as in the life of others), one would then satisfy justice to the full. … But justice requires not only that a criminal’s unfair advantage be erased; in many cases, it also requires a victim’s unfair disadvantage be erased” (p. 162). Talbott noted that prison populations are skewed to the disadvantaged. Human judicial systems are far from perfect. Talbott said, “Perfect justice requires reconciliation and restoration”, that is, “full atonement for sin” (p. 163). God’s justice pertains more to love than order. Punishment cannot deliver perfect justice. But what of those not willing to submit to God?
Jesus said people have a choice of two paths, one leading to destruction, the other to life (Matt 7:13). A deathbed conversion suffices to inherit everlasting life, but is this fair? Christ’s parable of the labourers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16) portrays this implication of divine grace for saved evildoers. As for the unrepentant, their sin ultimately destroys them. The Almighty does not appear to apply degrees of punishment. If God has no scale of penalties commensurate with sinful behaviour, the sinner finds little motivation to avoid evil. Is it reasonable to destroy all unbelievers regardless of how slight or heinous their sin? But the source of such objections is Satan. Clinging to any trespass, no matter how small, betrays the intention to side with evil over against God. And rejecting Christ is to reject one’s Saviour.
John the Baptist described Jesus as the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29). This is an allusion to the lamb provided by God to Abraham to sacrifice instead of his son, Isaac (Gen 22:13). Christians need to discern the metaphorical use of this phrase in order to avoid a heathen view of sacrifice. Animal and