CYPRESSWOOD CHURCH OF CHRIST

November 2, 2008

25424 Aldine-Westfield, Spring, TX. 77373

http://www.blakehart.com

http://geobme.blogspot.cm

www.cypresswoodchurchofchrist.com

No matter what happens this Tuesday, there are several things we need to keep in mind. Our God rules and according to Daniel 2, God raises up kings and takes them down. God’s will will be done even if we do not understand why. Two, we are to pray for our leaders as both Paul and Peter stated, and the Roman emperor of their day was Nero. No matter who is elected, there will be challenges for all of us and we need God’s help.

THE ATONEMENT

“This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

We know and understand that Jesus came and died for our sins, and was raised by the power of God. Over the centuries theologians have attempted to define this systematically and developed a doctrine called the atonement. Within this doctrine are a number of important themes including covenant, blood, redemption, ransom, reconciliation, propitiation, justification, righteousness, and forgiveness (1). Theologians are notorious for going into minute details concerning words and subjects which many of us in the pews really are not interested in. Eventually however, their thoughts filter there way down to the pew and this can be good or not, depending on how we hear and state ideas. There are various aspects of atonement. Each has its advocates and some have fancy names. Their idea is to choose one as the only way to see the atonement. In truth, there is truth in each view and we should not choose one above another (2).

The word atonement itself is not found in the New Testament. This is not uncommon for neither is the Trinity or Godhead found in scripture, yet the concepts are found there. With that in mind, we need to look at some of the scriptures used, define the words that are involved, and speak carefully to what we are saying when we speak of the cross.

Here are some scriptures that we need to consider when talking about the atonement.

“For even the son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his

life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness

of sins” (Matthew 26:28).

“God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement through the shedding of blood”

(Romans 3:25).

the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

“For this reason he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way,

in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service

to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17).

“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins

of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

These are just a few verses of many that we could look at. The book of Hebrews, based as it is in Old Testament theology; something that should be considered in the study of the atonement; is rich in atonement talk. Many of our songs are also rich in atonement language. Just consider one.

He paid a debt He did not owe, I owe a debt I could not pay

I needed someone to wash my sins away” (3).

When we look at the various texts, we begin to ask questions. For instance, how was Jesus a ransom and who received that ransom? When we speak of a substitution, that is, Jesus taking my place, what does that mean? Some speak as though Jesus became a sinner which certainly is not correct. The word “substitution” is not in scripture either. What are we saying and what are we hearing when we make such statements? One theologian suggested, and I think he is right, that a number of the words used in speaking of the atonement are metaphors that are not meant to be expanded into great detail. Rather, they draw a picture of what Jesus was accomplishing on the cross.

The ransom suggests that a price had to be paid for our sins and Jesus, through His blood paid that price. It is a picture of what is involved in dealing with sin. In 2 Corinthians, Paul states that God “made him who had no sin to be sin.” I think that this is a picture drawn from the Old Testament sacrificial system, something Paul would be familiar with, and in particular the Day of Atonement. In the footnote on this text in the TNIV, it states this alternative translation: “be a sin offering.” The sinless Jesus bore our sins like the goat who had the blood of another goat sprinkled on it, and then was led out into the wilderness. It is yet another picture of what was happening at the cross.

Much of the discussion of the atonement today centers around the wrath of God. The word “propitiation” is used in older translations. This word means the appeasement or satisfaction of God’s wrath. How does Jesus accomplish this? His He paying the penalty for my sin, and if so, how and why? Why would an innocent person pay such a price? Is it voluntarily done? And why would God do such a thing? Greg Boyd, who isn’t a fan of the penal substitution theory of atonement, in a recent discussion, suggests the following: “It’s just that God’s wrath against sin was expressed by him delivering Christ up to the Powers in our place. Sin was judged and Christ was our substitute -- hence, Penal Substitution” (4). Again, maybe going into too much detail misses the importance of the metaphor. Another word is used in some translations is “expiation” which is defined as the cleansing or wiping away of sins (5). Was God punishing an innocent person for our sins? That question has been the center of the debate and many fine it repulsive and unscriptural. That is why we need to be careful how we express ideas that could be misunderstood.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to understanding the cross but I think theologians do us a disservice when they get into minute debates and end up confusing the issue. Let me try then to sum up the meaning of the atonement.

God had planned for the redemption of His creation before He began creating (1 Peter 1:20) because He gave Adam and Eve a choice (to eat or not to eat). When they sinned and were cast out of the Garden, the process of redemption began. Sin separated humanity from God. Several things happened in this. One we will see the grace and mercy of God, God giving us what we need, not what we deserve, which would happen in Christ. We also see that sin would have to be dealt with in some way. One aspect of this is the wrath of God due to sin. Just consider Sodom and Gomorrah and the unfaithfulness of Israel as well as cities, states, and nations with the various destruction seen in scripture. We also see it in individuals such as Ahab and Pharaoh. Yet there is a redemption aspect to this wrath as Jim McGuiggan explains in his book, Celebrating the Wrath of God, subtitled the relentless pursuit of God’s love.

All of this came to a head at the cross where we see God’s Son dying for us. How was God’s wrath dealt with at the cross? Was it the sacrifice itself at the hands of sinful humans? Was it the separation from God, however short that might have been? Is it the cost of having to come into this sinful world as a human to accomplish what the blood of bulls and goats could not (5)? All of this has a role in the atonement.

We then find forgiveness at the cross, and salvation from our sins. We have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and reconciled to God. Our sins have been dealt with through His blood and so too the wrath of God. We might not grasp all of this but we understand the end result. In all of this, Jesus was the innocent Lamb of God who offered the pure and holy sacrifice as our High Priest; other ideas that can be equally confusing.

What is interesting that some of the words of atonement were already familiar to the Roman world. Paul would use those words that many applied to Rome and the emperor and applied them to Jesus as Lord. This would also draw conflict with the government of Rome and a challenge to its power and authority, not in the sense of rebellion, but in who ruled the world.

Finally, in all the debate about the atonement, the resurrection needs to be an important part of the discussion. The cross is not the end in the sense that Jesus was raised to show not only the power of God but the purpose of God fulfilled. Many in the debate seem to forget this aspect of the atonement.

I don’t know if we can fully grasp what all God had, and has, in mind in the atonement. The metaphors are rich and the Old Testament sacrificial system offers insights that we might not have seen before. We do need to be careful how we express what we are saying when we talk about Jesus dying for us.

George B. Mearns

(1) This comes from Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross.

(2) Most of the material I have been reading on this are from theological aspects and involved detailed descriptions of the debate. Most popular level treatments understand that there are differences though some still choose one aspect above another. Jim McGuiggan as written on this in his book, The Dragon Slayer, but even he is somewhat more theological than normal.

(3) Praise for the Lord, He Paid a Debt, #859.

(4) www.gregboyd.org on his blog under A Christus Victor AND Penal Substitution View, 10/24/2008.

(5) Rohintan K. Mody, Penal Substitutionary Atonement in Paul, The Atonement Debate, Derek Tidball, editor, Zondervan, 2008.

(6) see Philippians 2:5-9 and Hebrews 9-10.