7. Atonement Theology
The Lumen Christi model uses some theological terms in different ways to traditional theories. For example, the word “substitute” is used to refer to Christ as a second “Adam” (1 Cor 15:45) who is righteous and not as someone for God to punish in humanity’s place. Since the atonement influences every area of systematic theology, changes to atonement theology have far-reaching effects. This is one reason theologians are reluctant to surrender entrenched ideas. But the pursuit of truth requires a constant reassessment of the church’s doctrines.
Lumen Christi’s multi-dimensional view of sin sees salvation as forming a people in communion with God, a people who hope for a resurrection to a righteous life in a perfect world. God repairs the damage done to every facet of creation. Since atonement is an ongoing work of God, theological terms may apply differently in each of its phases: before Christ came, the present church age, and in a renewed cosmos following Christ’s return. Another issue is where words conflate into terms with their own meaning (e.g. “justification by faith” and “saved by grace through faith”). The aim in this chapter is to clarify some of these matters.
The problem of redemptive violence in atonement theories was raised in Chapter 1. Over against this, Joakim Molander (2009, p. 108) contended, “punishment is not an act of vengeance, but of grace.” Molander said society’s punishment of the wrongdoer reinstates him within the law. Atonement retributivism thus places punishment in a moral framework whereby “the point of punishment was no longer to serve justice but to serve crime prevention. Punishment, traditionally regarded as a form of penance as an act of atonement” has become a deterrent, a discipline, and a means of transformation (p. 190). This view tries to present punishment as a gracious act of correction. But, God does not seek to control behaviour by manipulating a person’s free will. God refuses to use such methods. Besides, there is no positive result for a victim of eternal punishment.
Regarding eternal punishment, Edward William Fudge (2000, p. 204) put the case for conditionalism, which says God will annihilate the unrepentant on Judgement Day. Fudge pointed out that the traditional view of God’s wrath requiring unending punishment does not square with the fact that Jesus did not undergo such punishment himself. Yet the penal substitution theory says Jesus submitted to sinful humanity’s punishment.
Robin Collins (2012, p. 192) said: “The retributive theory of punishment is a key pillar of the penal theory.” But he raised the problem of how suffering in hell could be retributive and, since Christ died for everyone, what is the purpose of everlasting suffering? Therefore, Collins thought limited atonement is the only reasonable solution, but this defies Scriptures such as John 1:29 and Isa 53:6. So, Collins suggested (2012, p. 195) a participatory understanding of the atonement which emphasises the believer’s unity with Christ as the way forward. Lumen Christi embraces this proposal but, in order to remove all evil from creation, the unrepentant must be destroyed. This is the second death which is a consequence of sin rather than retributive punishment for sin. Terms like “the punishment of eternal destruction” (2 Thess 1:9), “the wrath of God” (Rom 5:9) and “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23), are descriptive of the outcome in human terms. It was not the divine intention to create people for destruction, nor is punishment redemptive. Note that the use of the word “consequence” should not be taken to imply Lumen Christi is consequentialist, which says “the end justifies the means.” Even the salvation of the world would not justify the crucifixion of an innocent person.
The Apostle Paul is the only writer in the Bible to use the phrase “Justification by faith” (Rom 3:28; 4:25; 5:1, 16, 18, 21; 2 Cor 3:9; Gal 2:16, 21; 3:11, 24). Although James comes close (Jas 2:24) but appears to teach the opposite. James’ sought to correct any false impressions that Christians need not concern themselves with doing good works because salvation is by faith alone (Jas 2:14-26). This is not faith but presumption. Christians are not building Satan’s kingdom. Paul would agree since he wrote to the churches of Galatia: “the only thing that counts is faith working through love.” (Gal 5:6b). Love for others motivates doing good works for them.
Alister McGrath (2005, p. 24) commented in his history of the doctrine that theologians interpret justification by faith in many ways, which is not surprising since they cannot even agree on what is the centre of Paul’s thought. For example, Calvin Roetzel (2005, p. 31) following Ernst Käsemann, said Paul did not centre on individual salvation as many maintain, but “the issue is if the church is sharing in God’s reconciling work and the ministry of righteousness.”
No particular atonement theory lays claim to the doctrine because the gift of justification is needed for atonement. McGrath (2005, p. 413) pointed out that “the doctrine of justification is of major importance in creating the fissures which opened up within the western church during the sixteenth century, and in maintaining that division subsequently.” Church unity is a strong motivation to resolve differences over this doctrine.
The theological problem is exacerbated by the lack of perspicuity in scripture. Where Paul used passive case, e.g. in Rom 3:28: “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law” it is not clear who does the justifying, God or the person of faith. We presume Paul expected his readers to understand it is God.
Yung Suk Kim (2019, p. 3) suggests that most translations have been influenced by the forensic view of salvation (p. 6). Where most translations of the aforementioned Bible passages have “faith in Jesus” some, such as the Common English Bible, have “faith of Jesus”. Kim points out this changes justification “by faith” from being “once and for all” to God justifying the one who “has the faith of Jesus”. Although Kim agrees that salvation is through faith, he understands it as living by the faith of Jesus, saying “In Rom 3:26, he [Paul] nails justification language by relating to Christ’s faith: ‘God justifies the one who has the faith of Jesus.’” (p. 3). So, Kim opts for a participation atonement theory.
My view of such translation ambiguities is that if the author in the original language did not differentiate between alternative meanings in English, then the original author did not see any reason to guard against the alternatives. In English, theologians take the translation that suites their theology. It would be more faithful to the original to accept all the alternatives as possibilities. A multifaceted atonement model is, in my view, more faithful to Scripture.
The Protestant Reformers denied that sinners play any part in their own salvation and adopted a doctrine where God imputes, bestows, or reckons righteousness to believers because of their faith (appealing to Scriptures such as Rom 4:5). Catholics, on the other hand, emphasised the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit to make believers righteous and to motivate them to do the works of faith. These opposing perspectives lean towards one of two extremes: either God chooses who he will save or humans contribute to their own salvation.
The Lumen Christi model responds to this impasse by not assigning any component of the horizontal Christ-human relationship to the vertical relationship of Jesus with his Father. In the horizontal plane, people have faith in Jesus who forgives them. The horizontal relationship is so secure that Jesus gives his followers eternal life (John 4:14) and the Holy Spirit. Salvation is won in the vertical plane: Christ is faithful to God who exalts him and gives him the people for whom he died. They will be raised to righteousness and their sins blotted out.
The phrase “justification by faith” brings together these two dimensions: sinners made right with God (“justified by his grace” Rom 3:24 and Titus 3:7) and sinners believing in Christ (“through faith in Jesus Christ” Rom 3:22 and Gal 2:16; 3:22). Thus, Paul writes to the Ephesians “For by grace you have been saved through faith” (Eph 2:8).
The mediatorial role of Christ is pivotal to Lumen Christi. McGrath (1984, p. 225) observed, “Scripture does indicate that the remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness are the two necessary, albeit distinct, elements of justification.” So, human salvation is a gift the Father gives to Christ because of his faithfulness and righteousness. The goodness of believers does not aid in their salvation before, or after, their conversion. Christ’s righteousness and faithfulness are the instrumental cause of human salvation. The sinner’s faith in God builds a friendship with the Saviour.
Reading onwards from Rom 5:1 reveals that the goal of justification by faith is the sharing in the glory of God: “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God” (Rom 5:1-2). Believers possess this hope through Christ. Neither a Christian’s faith nor works contribute to the outcome. Conversely, a Christian’s sins do not disqualify him or her from salvation.
Kathryn Tanner (1999, p. 513) warned about juxtaposing mercy and justice and to see them as complimentary relational terms supporting God’s covenant. Tanner wrote, “To justify someone is to restore that person to his or her proper or rightful place within the relationship, and thereby it involves the restoration or reconstitution of the relationship itself. Justice is that way of life, that body of ordinances or directives, set down by Yahweh, by which Israel is to exhibit its faithfulness to the covenant” (p. 514). God’s faithfulness to his covenant causes him to save his people. The covenant is not a legal contract or a two-sided agreement. “I will be your God and you shall be my people” is the believers’ assurance of salvation. God promises, using the metaphor of a covenant, to justify sinners in a relationship with him.
Words such as justification, condemnation and punishment coming from a law court setting, are not intended for a literal legal application in theology. The phrase “justification by faith” was not intended to describe the believer’s legal standing before God. When Jesus told the parable of the workers in the vineyard, he was teaching the disciples how to live in God’s kingdom. In the same way, Paul used the phrase “justification by faith” to teach how Christians live in God’s kingdom. Salvation means believers are made alive in the spirit, or freed from the flesh, so by faith they do justice and show kindness to others (Mic 6:8). Habakkuk 2:4 uses the phrase “the righteous live by their faith” in this way.
Daniel Fuller (1980, p. xi) said he turned away from the covenant theology taught by Luther and Calvin because he saw no antithesis between gospel and law. Fuller said God intended the Israelites to receive and obey the Mosaic law out of faith and not as a work to earn God’s approval. Critics of Fuller replied that Luther and Calvin also taught this because of human inability to obey the law. Fuller (1980, p. xi) wrote that he “concluded that the ‘law of faith’ in Romans 3:27 is not the principle of justification by faith alone, as Charles Hodge and other covenant theologians affirm, but that it is the very Mosaic law itself.”
Tom Wright (2009, p. 108) warned of “an old caricature … in which God has an initial plan about saving people (the law), but finds that nobody can make it that way, so devises an easier one (faith) instead.” God gave his people the law, whether the external Mosaic law or the internal law of the Spirit, for guidance, not salvation.
Since God is still working out atonement, justification is not merely a past event. McGrath (2005, p. 23) writes, “within the Pauline corpus, justification has future, as well as past, reference (Romans 2:13; 8:33; Galatians 5:4–5), and appears to relate to both the beginning of the Christian life and its final consummation.” When Christians place their faith in Jesus and follow him, they die to sin (Matt 10:38; 16:24). After physical death, the Christian goes to heaven, but they do not take their perishable sinful nature with them (1 Cor 15:42). When a good God raises a believer from the dead, he does not resurrect the sinful nature. The only reason God raises anyone to life at all is that of Christ’s sacrifice for them. God raises his people imperishable (1 Cor 15:52; 1 Peter 1:3-4).
As for justification by faith, translation alternatives play a role in theological considerations. Alister McGrath (2005, p. 27), following J. Reumann, sets out four different interpretations of the phrase, “the righteousness of God” used by Paul (Rom 1:17; 3:21-22; 2 Cor 5:21):
1. An objective genitive: ‘a righteousness which is valid before God’ (Luther).
2. A subjective genitive: ‘righteousness as an attribute or quality of God’ (Käsemann).
3. A genitive of authorship: ‘a righteousness that goes forth from God’ (Bultmann).
4. A genitive of origin: ‘humanity’s righteous status which is the result of God’s action of justifying’ (C. E. B. Cranfield).
The righteousness of God in Rom 1:17 and 3:21-22 refers to the ethical character of God, but in 2 Cor 5:21, Paul appears to be speaking about believers’ right relationships with God: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” The chiastic structure of the verse in Greek has resulted in most English translations rendering hamartia as “sin” instead of “sin offering” which according to Wright would be the more exact translation (Wright, 1993. pp. 205-206). If correct, the NLT rendering would be preferable: “For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.” This would appear to be a more logical translation since a person could be an offering for sin but not be sin itself. Paul in 1 Cor 1:30 said Christ became the righteousness of the believers in Corinth. The righteousness of Jesus, the second Adam, made him a “life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15:45). So, in 2 Cor 5:21 Paul wrote of the righteousness of God as resulting from the obedience of Christ to save God’s covenant people.
Paul spoke of two types of human righteousness: “. . . not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.” (Phil 3:9). Self-righteousness comes from the sinful nature, “the flesh”, but the righteousness from God proceeds from communion with God and the indwelling Spirit of Christ. Paul encouraged Timothy to pursue the righteousness of God (1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22).
The lives of Christians on earth display both types of righteousness. Peter said Christ has set Christians free from sins so “we might live for righteousness” (1 Pet 2:24). But Peter looked forward to a time when there would only be a devout righteousness when he wrote: “But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home.” (2 Pet 3:13).
Likewise, the Apostle Paul said, “we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness” (Gal 5:5) implying Christians will not have righteousness in themselves until the future. Nevertheless, Paul encouraged Christians to lead good lives in the meantime with the help of the Holy Spirit. He wrote to the Ephesians, “You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” (Eph 4:22-24). Paul looked forward to God ruling in righteousness: “From now on there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have longed for his appearing.” (2 Tim 4:8).
Human works of righteousness have no bearing on salvation. Paul said of Christ, “he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5). The Spirit bears witness to the righteousness of Christ. Jesus stated, “And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgement: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer;” (John 16:8-11).
In the same way that God raised Jesus from the dead, God will raise Christians (1 Cor 15:20). Sinful flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50) but the redeemed human spirit can. So, God leaves the sinful nature behind to perish and raises the spirits of Christians with a sinless incorruptible body in unbroken communion with God.
The covenant of God is foundational to atonement. God is righteous and faithful to his covenant. People are not. E. P. Sanders said, “Righteousness is thus defined as behaviour or attitudes which are consistent with being the historical covenant people of God.” (McGrath, 2005, p. 28). Humanity’s unfaithfulness to the covenant is seen in unrighteous behaviour. God’s faithfulness to the covenant gives rise to his plan of salvation.
Kathryn Tanner reasoned that God’s righteousness is his faithfulness to his covenant and his determination to save sinners. Tanner wrote, “if righteousness is faithfulness to covenant relations, it can be expressed appropriately in acts of mercy. … Yahweh does not break relations with them as they deserve - Yahweh is merciful. But in being merciful in this way, Yahweh remains righteous in the sense of faithful to the covenant, faithful to God’s own intent to be the God of Israel” (Tanner, 1999, p. 515). Tanner quotes Ps 89:29-36 to support her argument.
N. T. Wright (1999, p 205) translates 2 Cor 5:21 as “for our sake God made Christ, who did not know sin, to be a sin-offering for us, so that in him we might become God’s covenant-faithfulness.” Wright sees the righteousness of God that Paul is discussing here, to be the covenantal faithfulness of God seen in the “Christ-shaped ministry of Paul, reaching out with the offer of reconciliation to all who hear his bold preaching.” (p. 205).
But Michael Bird (2004, p. 265) in discussing imputed righteousness, reasoned, “the idea of righteousness as covenant faithfulness is problematic. If faith is reckoned as righteousness (and righteousness = faithfulness to the covenant), it means that faith is reckoned as faithfulness. But that amounts to a tautology.” In the Lumen Christi model, neither humanity’s righteousness nor faithfulness are factors in winning salvation. Christ’s righteousness and faithfulness win the salvation of those who follow him. God reckoned Abraham’s faith as righteousness (Gen 15:6), but Scripture does not say this righteousness helped to earn his salvation.
Michael Bird (2004, p. 253) noted: “For some authors a denial of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the sole grounds of justification amounts to a virtual denial of the gospel itself and an attack on the Reformation.” Even so, imputed righteousness is a contested doctrine.
N. T. Wright said of 2 Cor 5:21, “The verse has traditionally been read as a somewhat detached statement of atonement theology: we are sinners; God is righteous, but in Christ what Luther called a ‘wondrous exchange’ takes place, in which Christ takes our sin, and we receive his ‘righteousness’. And the difficulty with this, despite its being enshrined in a good many hymns and liturgies, as well as in popular devotion, is (a) that once again Paul never actually says this anywhere else; (b) that here it is God’s righteousness, not Christ’s, that “we” apparently “become”; (c) that there seems to be no good reason why he suddenly inserts this statement into a discussion whose thrust is quite different, namely, a consideration of the paradoxical apostolic ministry in which Christ is portrayed in and through the humiliating weakness of the apostle (4:7-6:13); and (d) the verse, read in this way, seems to fall off the end of the preceding argument, so much so that some commentators have suggested that the real break in the thought comes not between 5:21 and 6:1 but between 5:19 and 5:20.” (Wright, 1993, p. 205).
Mark Garcia (2009, p. 421) sounded a word of warning about the word imputation: “it is important to observe that ‘to reckon’ and ‘to transfer’ are not identical. To ‘reckon’ is akin to the understanding of imputation commended here for it communicates a verbal or linguistic action, something which works naturally with understanding justification as a judicial declaration. As such, ‘to reckon’ suggests attribution and to ‘impute’ is understood in those terms. To ‘transfer’, however, immediately suggests something quite different.”
The Lumen Christi model can use the established language of divine exchange while avoiding the problems of penal substitution. The Father gave his Son to save his people. Christ mediates between a righteous God and the sinners he saved. Scripture refers to Jesus’ sacrifice as being for sinners (Rom 5:8), not for those made or reckoned as righteous. God does not transfer righteousness to sinners. God saves (meaning makes right) and reconciles with everyone of faith in Christ. The Son of God joined himself to humanity even with its consequence of human mortality. This is why Scripture can say Jesus died because of sins (e.g. Heb 10:12).
Jesus bore humanity’s punishment for sin in the sense he died as all humans do because of humanity’s sin. Suppose that Satan and humanity had not conspired to crucify Jesus, and Jesus died of old age. But this would mean that Christ still would have borne the “punishment” for humanity’s sin. However, Satan would not allow Jesus to go unchallenged. At the crucifixion, the devil was fighting for his life and humanity was asserting itself in sin.
Faith in Jesus unites people with him and his righteousness. His right relationship with God, becomes the Christian’s inheritance. Humanity’s sin is plain to see, but the Holy Spirit encourages Christians to show righteousness to the world. Jesus taught his followers to receive a prophet (believe his message) and God would give them a prophet’s reward (righteousness) (Matt 10:41). Righteousness, itself, is a reward. Just so, when Jesus died for human sins out of love for God’s people, God rewarded him (Matt 5:12; Luke 6:35) by exalting him to the highest place (Phil 2:9). And for the people of faith in Jesus (which is the work that God requires of humans (John 6:29)), Christ at his second coming will reward them with righteousness and entry into the new Jerusalem (Rev 22:12-14). Christians, like all people, die because of sin, but God raises them