August 15, 2004/Cawson Street

August 29, 2004/Gospel Meeting: Ramer, TN / 8-29 to 9-1

Mural Worthey

Atonement is a prevalent Old Testament word. The Old Testament lays the foundation for the need of a blood atonement. The word atonement occurs 48 times in Leviticus alone. The English word occurs only once in the KJV New Testament. "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Rom. 5:11.) But the concept is found often in the New Testament. The words, reconciliation and reconciled, are from the same root word. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." (Rom. 5:10.)

"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. To know, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5:18-19.)

The need for atonement. Atonement implies that something is wrong between us and God, a barrier to be removed, and an estrangement to be overcome. Of the various terms used in the NT to describe the setting right of our relationship with God, probably the most comprehensive is reconciliation. It implies the re-establishment of right or friendly relations after any sort of alienation or disturbance of relationship. Man has a desperate need for atonement. Man cannot reconcile himself either to God or to his fellows. The Bible says that "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." (How Jesus Christ Saves Men, Norman L. Robinson, 15-18.)

Paul carefully laid the foundation for our need for atonement in Romans 1:1-3:20. Then we have the transition with these words: "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being manifested by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference." (3:21-22.)

Some important questions concerning the estrangement between God and man, and the atonement: 1) Is man reconciled to God or God to man? 2) Man’s carnal nature is at enmity with God. (Rom. 8:6-7, Phil. 3:18.) 3) Man committed the wrong against God; God did no wrong. 4) God is not only a God of love, but he also is angry (Psalm 7:11), and has wrath (Rom. 1:18) against ungodliness. Vengeance belongs to God! (Heb. 10:30, 2 Thess. 1:8.) 5) God, out of love for man, took the initiative in redeeming man. (2 Cor. 5:17-21.) 6) We have been given the Word of Reconciliation. Any theory of atonement must include these great truths.

The Ransom Concept (Ransom and Freedom)

"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45, Matt. 20:28.) (Gr. lutron) "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Tim. 2:5-6.) (Gr. antilutron)

"They that trust in their wealth and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him. The ransom for a life is costly; no payment is ever enough, that he should live on forever and not see decay." (Psalm 49:6-9.)

The earliest theory of atonement regarding how Christ’s death saves us is a ransom. It was taught consistently by most of the church fathers, including Augustine and Irenaeus. The theory dominated the field of study for about 1000 years, until it was debunked by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 AD) in his work, Why God Became Man. The ransom concept is, in part, based upon several NT passages. The essential notion is the payment of a price paid to release captives from slavery. The grim meaning of slavery and ransom was all too well understood in those days. Spiritually, all men are in slavery or bondage to sin. If man is to be free, a ransom must be paid. Those bound in slavery cannot pay it. The experiences of the children of Israel in Egyptian bondage and being freed to journey to the Promise Land typifies our bondage in sin and freedom from it. There are several ways in which we might understand our freedom and how Jesus obtained it on the cross. One way is that a ransom was paid.

The ransom that was paid for our freedom was the blood of Jesus Christ. Since the life of the flesh is in the blood thereof, our atonement was secured by the life of Jesus Christ. We are bought with a high price. (1 Cor. 6:19-20.) In conversation with the Ephesian elders, Paul spoke of "the church which was purchased with the blood of Jesus." (Acts 20:28.) Peter wrote about false teachers who "denied the Lord that bought them." (2 Peter 2:1.) If the figure here is buying slaves, when we are bought as slaves of Christ, we are set free. We are in bondage to Christ, yet we are free. Hosea bought his sinful wife back. Hosea and Gomer represented God and sinful Israel. He redeemed her with fifteen pieces of silver and an homer of barley. He betrothed her back to him in righteousness, in judgment, in lovingkindness and in mercies. (Hosea 1-3.) "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death." (Hosea 13:14.)

The figure of a ransom is pressed too far when we ask, To whom was the ransom paid? Was it paid to the Devil or to God? Those are the two possibilities. To answer that it was paid to the Devil is to put Satan in too great a position, greater than he deserves or possesses. To answer that it was paid to God divides the Deity and positions one member against the other. Irenaeus of Lyons, second century, argued that Jesus’ death was a ransom paid to the Devil. This was a clever ruse on God’s part, for unknown to the Devil, Jesus was God in the flesh. The Devil could not constrain the soul of Jesus upon death. Jesus came forth victorious from the grave, defeating Satan’s power. It was for this part of the ransom theory that Anselm and others rejected it in the eleventh century.

We will see with each of the theories or figures that there is a valid biblical basis for each and that each can be pressed too far. Figurative language is intended to be used only for the purpose intended by the writer. If the figure is carried beyond its original intention, then the meaning is distorted and confusion results.

The Sacrificial Explanation (Sacrifice and Forgiveness)

The practice of offering sacrifices has a long and rich history, both within Scripture and outside. It dates back to the very beginning of man. (Gen. 4:4.) Abel, a shepherd, offered the firstling of his flock; Cain a tiller of the ground offered the fruit of the ground. In the days of Enoch, men began to "call upon the name of the Lord" in public worship. (Gen. 4:26.) There were many sacrifices offered to God in Scripture. Animals, birds, oil, wine, and meal offerings were given under the Law. The sacrificial system is the most carefully presented of all the explanations in Scripture.

Many different kinds of sacrifices were offered. In these we understand their purposes. The one most often remembered are the sin-offerings, but there were thanksgiving offerings, peace or fellowship offerings, drink offerings or libations (pouring out of oil or wine), and guilt offerings. Today, we offer unto God "the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name." (Heb. 13:15.) God rejected sacrifices if the sacrifices were sick or lame or spoiled. He also rejected them if the people offered them without repentance or true thanksgiving.

Sacrifices expressed repentance, faith, adoration, and thanksgiving to God. Sacrifice represents surrender to God through the offerings, but also in the heart of the worshipper.

Micah pondered what kind of sacrifice would be sufficient to forgive his sins, perhaps doubting the common sacrifices of the day. He asked, "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" (Micah 6:6-7.) The answer then was: "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good and what the Lord doth require of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God?" (verse 8.) David wrote that the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart God will not despise. (Psalm 51:16-17.)

The supreme and final sacrifice for sin is Jesus Christ. Hebrews works out this imagery and figure more completely and fully than any other writer. This book is the Christian classic on sacrifice. (See especially chapters 9 and 10.) This description of what happened at Calvary is more fully developed in the Bible than any other figure. Jesus’ death is even physically similar to the sacrifices under the Law. It was a blood-atonement; Jesus died for us. John the Baptist called him "the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world." (John 1:29, 36.) John sees Jesus in the midst of the throne of God as a lamb that had been slain. (Rev. 5:6.)

Here are some references to the sacrificial concept of atonement from Hebrews. "Neither by the blood of bulls and goats, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9:12-14.)

"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he comes into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had not pleasure." (Heb. 10:4-6.)

Before Jesus came, there were numerous stories about a virgin-born savior-god who dies as a sacrifice for mankind’s wrongdoing? Where did man get this concept? It first started with the idea of sacrifice. From the fall of Adam and Eve man has been keenly aware of his own sinfulness and need for redemption. Humans also understood that some type of atoning sacrifice was required to absolve them of sin. Cain and Abel offered their sacrifices to God. Since Cain was a farmer, he offered a grain offering to God. Abel, the shepherd, offered an animal, blood sacrifice. (Genesis 4:2-4.) The New Testament says "by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain." (Heb. 11:4.) Abel offered the first of his flock and from that time forward humanity began offering sacrifices to a deity in the hope of receiving forgiveness of sin.

All over the world, man with his universal religious yearnings made many sacrifices to God. The general rule for the atonement value of a sacrifice was this: the more costly and perfect the sacrifice, the more sins it would atone. David would not offer an animal that was given to him. He said, I will not offer unto the Lord God that which cost me nothing. (2 Sam. 24:24.) Many sacrifices pre-dated the Law and were offered by non-Israelites. God regulated what should be offered in the Law.

"You shall offer of your own free will a male without blemish from the cattle, from the sheep, or from the goats. But whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it shall not be acceptable on your behalf. (Lev. 22:19-20.) The Lord always demanded that blood be shed for the remission of sins. (Heb. 9:22.) However, the Law prohibited human sacrifices. (Lev. 18:21.)

Someone could argue, and they would be right, that animal sacrifices were nothing new in the worship of God when the Law was given by Moses. Others before them had offered animals in sacrifice to God.

The Jews were not the only ones offering sacrifices and seeking atonement for their sins. The Gentiles without the Law sought reconciliation with God. They often did offer their children to various deities, especially Moloch or Molech. While Israel had their own history and closely regulated worship, the Gentiles followed a different path. Among them arose the noted religious philosophers. They wrote about the gods in heaven and sought to understand the underworld. Sins and death weighed heavily upon their minds.

Wendy Davis, in Widdershins, wrote, "Our ancestors often gave the best they had, their firstborn, to save themselves. A child is precious and sinless, but it lacked one quality---a willingness to be offered." In "No Greater Sacrifice," she wrote that the greatest sacrifice of all would be a willing sinless god who would be offered for a one-time final sacrifice." Davis is an atheist who promotes unadulterated paganism.

So, with two streams of history coming down to Jesus’ day, we have two things being developed. One was the plan of God for man’s redemption through Israel with Jesus, the Son of David. Another was the effort of the philosophers through mythology to understand man’s predicament in life and a way to find atonement. They wrote stories that paralleled the life of Jesus Christ before he was born. They were not right in every detail, but the overall need of man for salvation was presented. They knew that man needed a better sacrifice than animals, than even an innocent child. Many had concluded that God himself would need to come and be offered.

Unbelievers object to all of this about Jesus. They say that he simply repeated what the prophets of Israel had said about him. His moral teachings were no different in some respects from what others had concluded about life. Jesus did often quote the Old Testament as it related to him. Unbelievers say that Jesus’ story is very similar to those written by the philosophers. In many ways, it is. That should not surprise us at all; no more so than that animal sacrifices were offered before the Law of Moses. Jesus is the unique Savior of mankind. There is none other. (1 Cor. 3:11.)

It is vital to Christian salvation that none other than God Himself took the burden of our sins upon His suffering heart, and thus bore the cost of a reconciliation, which involves forgiveness and judgment all in one. The idea, which is inherent in some views of the Atonement—that the sacrifice of Christ was needed to buy or win from God a salvation which without such payment He was necessitated to withhold, is a blow at the very heart of the Gospel of grace. God can never be regarded as the object of some third party’s intervention in reconciling (that is, Christ intervening to reconcile God to man). This puts at odds the Godhead, the Father against the Son. This view also makes salvation something that could be bought, procured, or the work of a pardon broker. Listen to Paul—God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. (2 Cor. 5:19.) The truth that Christ’s sacrifice is ultimately the sacrifice of God Himself gives us an "objective" atonement. It is God who saves men at great cost. It is God who pays the price of redemption.

How fearful to think, What if there was no sacrifice for our sins? In ancient Israel, sacrifices were not a permission to sin. When stubborn rebellion existed, God sometimes refused to accept any offering. When Israel sinned by demanding that Aaron make a golden calf for them to worship, God refused to accept any atonement until there had been a great loss of life. Three thousand were killed with the sword and the Lord plagued Israel. (Exodus 32:28, 35.) Moses pleaded with God for Israel and asked the Lord to blot his name from his book. The Lord said, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. (32:33.) The first generation of Israelites out of Egyptian bondage so sinned against the Lord that he would not accept an atonement. That generation died in the wilderness. (Num. 26:65.) In the New Testament, Ananias and Sapphira were not given the opportunity to repent. No sacrifice was acceptable.

Anselm argued that the "Ransom theory" gave too much power to Satan. Therefore, Anselm said that the ransom was instead paid to God. Anselm’s book, Why God Became Man (1098), is a landmark in the history of the doctrine of the Atonement. God has been offended by sin and He must be satisfied. The chief aspect of this view was that the holiness of God necessarily demanded the punishment of sin. God’s honor had been offended by man’s rebellion. The cross becomes in this view an expression of God’s retributive justice. Jesus’ death satisfied the demands of God’s holiness. In this sense, the death of Jesus is a ransom paid to God to satisfy the demands of a holy God. This satisfaction theory of Anselm was held by many until the days of the Reformers, who explained the cross more in light of a penal substitution. They based their views upon the following passages.

"But he was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed." (Isa. 53:5.) Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46, Psalm 22:1.)

But who punished Jesus? Some reject the idea that Jesus suffered in our place. They say that the forensic view is doubly unfair. It lets the guilty go free, and punishes the innocent. But isn’t that exactly what the Bible teaches about what happened? By God’s grace we, the guilty, are pardoned, while Jesus, the innocent, is punished. Peter wrote, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." (1 Peter 3:18.)

Note what Isaiah said about who caused Jesus to suffer. First he wrote, "He is despised and rejected of men." (53:3.) Wicked men put him to death and rejected Him. Yes, but that is not all that is said. Note these comments: "We did esteem stricken and smitten of God." (53:4.) "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief." (53:10.) "He shall see the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied." (53:11.)

McLeod Campbell, Moberly, Robinson, and others reject the penal substitutionary view. They argue that it separates the Godhead, putting the Father against the Son. Secondly, they say that it is unjust. They see Jesus’ death as "the perfect confession of sin" and "a perfect penitence on man’s behalf."

But when we see that there is no separation in love, will and desire to save man between the Father and the Son, then no schism exists at the cross. Jesus did suffer for sin there, but not because the Father despised the Son. God became flesh and dwelt among us. He offered himself. He so loved that he gave.

Nowhere has the principle of vicarious suffering found clearer expression than in Isaiah 53. Vicarious means that one represents another; suffers in the place of another. The Pope is called the Vicar (pron. Vik’er) of Christ; that is, he is seen as serving in the place of Jesus as the Head of the Church. We reject that notion, but the use of the word helps us to see how Jesus took our place on the cross.

"For he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. 5:21.) The Bible surely teaches that Jesus’ death on the cross was substitutionary, penal (suffering punishment due to breaking the Law or will of God), vicarious (representing man) and efficacious (effective in its purpose to bless).

Some writers who reject the notion of our sins being imputed to Christ and his righteousness being imputed to us call this concept legal fiction. They say that we just imagine that such a divine transaction occurred. However, the Bible teaches that when we are baptized into Christ, we put on Christ. (Gal. 3:26-27.) We cannot see this righteous garment, but we do put on Christ by faith in baptism. We continue in our lives to put on the Lord Jesus. (Rom. 13:14.)

The father of this view is Peter Abelard, a Frenchman (1078-1142 AD), who lived just one generation from Anselm. He emphasized the centrality of the love of God. "God commended his love toward us in that we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8.) "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." (John 3:16.) "We love Him because he first loved us." (1 John 4:19.) Many passages so teach. This great love of God has a powerful impact upon us, so much so that we respond to Him in loving obedience. This is the reason that this view is called the subjective or moral influence view. Jesus’ death is seen primarily in the light of the power of its influence to touch the hardened hearts of men and turn them to God. No one should deny that both these statements are true: God has shown the depth of his love by the gift of His Son, and we show our love to God in return. The cross does touch our hearts.

This weakness and fallacy of this view alone to explain the cross is that it places justification upon the faithfulness of men after their hearts are moved by the Gospel. It denies the vicarious, efficacious role of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It rejects the objective nature of our salvation and places the subjective role in the most prominent position. It minimizes the necessity of Jesus’ death for our salvation. His blood does not save us, except in a subjective sense after it sparks love in our hearts for God. We then are saved by our love and obedience.

It is also true that men respond differently to the story of the cross. Women may be more emotionally moved by hearing the story than men. Some may weep; others may not weep outwardly. Several went to see Gibson’s movie, "The Passion of the Christ." One was so touched by the movie that she openly wept in the foyer of the theater. Others did not. Is our salvation dependent upon how emotional we are? How well we respond to the love of God? Or is the perfect sacrifice of Jesus sufficient when we accept it by faith? Yes, the latter is true.

(See The Nonviolent Atonement by J. Denny Weaver, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001.) This explanation of Jesus’ death is made by Mennonites like Gordon Kaufman and John Howard Yoder, Preface To Theology. Black, feminists and womanist theologies likewise challenge the violence satisfaction theology of Anselm. Weaver’s work is based on Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, 1969.

The theology of nonviolence is taken from passages in which Jesus advocates a peaceful life. "You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That you resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." (Matt. 5:38-41.)

When Peter cut off the high priest’s right ear, Jesus told Peter, "Put up again thy sword into its place. For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matt. 26:52.) Jesus rebuked the Romans who came after him armed to the teeth. "Are you come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple and you laid no hold on me." (26:55.)

Nonviolence atonement rejects the satisfaction view of Anselm that God demanded such a death of his Son. This death occurred, but not because God planned it and orchestrated it. They see Jesus coming to show the peaceful reign of God in a violent world. Jesus did not resist the violence against him, though, of course, he could have called ten thousand angels to destroy the world.

Demonic forces of evil are behind the violence that is in the world. Man in his rebellion against God participates in the violence and sinfulness of the world. Jesus came to teach a peaceful life, not just submitting to violence but actually overcoming it with a greater force. Jesus overcame the violence against him by being raised from the dead. Any biblical theory of the atonement should take into account the immediate role of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. In Jesus’ death and resurrection, he defeated the powers of darkness and evil. He showed that nonviolence works under the reign of God. Ever since Cain murdered his brother Abel, a better way has been needed among men. Jesus came to show that way. His death was a way of saying, Let there be an end to all the violence in the world. Let it end with my death. You may now enter into the Kingdom of God and participate in God’s way. You are accepted by grace, mercy and forgiveness.

In this view, God did not plan the death of his Son. Evil men and Satan caused his death. We are saved by the cross, in the sense that we come to understand our participation with the evil forces of this world and we repent. We are freed from those powers. We enter into the peaceful reign of God.

Jesus told a parable about who was responsible for the death of His Son. "There was a certain householder which planted a vineyard and hedged it round about. . . when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen that they might receive the fruits of it. The husbandmen took his servants and beat one and killed another and stone another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first, and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir, come, let us kill him and let us seize his inheritance. They caught him and cast him out of the vineyard and slew him." (Matt. 21:33-39.)

This explanation, the nonviolence theory, rejects the notion that Jesus’ death was a divinely arranged plan, necessary for the salvation of man. God did not require the scourging and murder of his Son, they say. Yet, the Bible speaks of Jesus being a "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8.) We are saved by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." (1 Peter 3:19-20.)

The strengths of this view are: 1) the emphasis it gives to the resurrection of Jesus for our justification and Jesus’ victory over the Evil one, 2) avoids the conflicts over who caused the death of Jesus, and 3) it deals with violence which is not a part of other theologies. However its weaknesses are: 1) that it makes the death of Jesus unnecessary for our salvation, 2) it was not planned before the world began as the Bible says, and 3) it minimizes the need for a blood atonement.

1. The notion that the death of Jesus Christ is to be considered apart from His life, eternal and incarnate life, as the atoning work, is far too narrow to express the teaching of the Bible and far too shallow to meet the demands of an ethical conscience. (ISBE, Vol. 1, 324.)
2. The various classical theories of the atonement have some truth in them. The problem is that no one concept or theory can fully explain the depth of the story of the cross and our redemption in Christ Jesus. But all the analogies of Scripture together present a complete picture of the Gospel of reconciliation. Thomas Hughes called this the "Constructive View." (The Atonement, 308.)
3. Nothing in the speculation concerning the Atonement can be more false to its true nature than making a breach between God and his Son in their attitude toward sinful men. The Father was not angry with the Son. There is no retribution or revenge. But there is holiness, honor and purity. Sin is an affront to the holiness of God. God’s anger is toward sin, not the sinner and especially not the Son.
4. A blood-atonement is the requirement throughout Scripture. The shedding of blood means the giving of one’s life. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood. I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atone-ment for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul." (Lev. 17:11.) When Jesus shed his blood, he gave his life for us. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." (Rom. 5:10.)
5. We must maintain that the offering of Jesus on the cross was full, sufficient and able to atone for all of our sins. Any doctrine that limits Jesus’ life and death in its power to save mankind is false and must be rejected. (See my sermon on "Limited Atonement" in regard to two ways Jesus’ death can be limited: according to how many and how much.)
6. We should have a view of the cross that includes Jesus death, burial and resurrection as a vital part of our justification. We must not separate Jesus’ death from his life or his resurrection to life again.