|
HOUSMAIL
HM114B
7 February 2004 THEORIES OF
THE ATONEMENT -- PART 2 In
Part 1 of this paper we discussed some of the barriers to reaching a proper
understanding of this subject. Part 2 will briefly describe some of the more
popular speculative and false "Theories of the
Atonement" which exist. As
might be expected, there are sometimes points on which the different theories
contain similarities, which overlap to some extent, whilst disagreeing on
major issues. However, in this short article, I cannot possibly produce a
"condensed version" which will adequately summarise all that. The
task is further complicated by the fact that many of the sources of
information I consulted, do not always agree about the content of some of the
"theories" described. Just between you and me, I often wondered
whether they were talking about the same subject! If any of you think you
have better or more reliable information, or a better description, please let
me know so that I can update this paper accordingly. Many
of these theories present the Atonement as some sort of complicated
commercial transaction, with no more emotion attached than buying sausages at
the butcher's shop! You would need to be a lawyer to work out the meaning of
the "fine print". The place of repentance is frequently dealt with
inadequately. There is little or no emphasis on the "broken spirit and
contrite heart, without which sacrifice is meaningless ritual, and there can
be no forgiveness and no reconciliation. (Psalm
51:17) Indeed for many, concentration on an
unscriptural "cheap grace" view of Atonement completely overshadows
the other equally important element of the Good News about the way of
life that pleases God and prepares us for immortality! As
you read, and prayerfully assess for yourself the Biblical worth of any
"Theory of the Atonement" look for the following "marks": *
Does it reveal God's
love for a lost world? Or does it dwell on unscriptural things like God's
alleged need for appeasement of "wrath" against us, or satisfaction
due to His "offended deity and holiness"? *
Does it motivate real,
life transforming respect and love for God -- leading to REAL Faith, and
Repentance, and the wholehearted LOVE which disposes men towards the goal of
obedience, rather than sin? Does it promise ability to face temptation and
overcome? *
Does it call
"believers" to love each other as much as Jesus has already
demonstrated that He loves them? *
Does it offer the
Kingdom of God on Earth, and Conditional Immortality, as the Gospel Hope of
those who become reconciled to God? Or does it instead offer the false and
therefore unattainable hope of immortality inherent at birth, and
transportation to "heaven" at the instant of death? *
Has what you believe
about this subject, achieved any of that for you personally? 1.
THE MARTYR THEORY Many,
feeling justifiable revulsion for the unbiblical "Satisfaction of an
Angry God, Substitutionary Theory", have opted for an alternative which
sees the death of Jesus as no more than some sort of divinely orchestrated
Martyrdom. This, it is said, leaves us an example of faith and obedience and
trust in God, which we also must follow, in order to be saved. Problem Of
course Jesus did leave us an example of faith and obedience to follow - but
experience suggests that it would be fairly safe to speculate that those who
hold this theory, might not understand all the implications of that. The real
problem with this theory, is that the Scriptures tell us very precisely that
Jesus died as a saviour. They do not ever say that He was a
mere martyr. Certainly
Jesus was persecuted, and the motives of the Jews in condemning Him to death
include some elements of martyrdom. However, there is far more to it than
that. The entire Old and New Testaments are full of the language of
"blood sacrifice". No one took the life of Jesus against His will.
At every step of the way, He gave himself to provide a Ransom, for
our need. (Matthew 20:28, 1
Timothy 2:6, 1 Peter 3:18) Nor
are all Christians subjected to a Martyr's death, simply to prove their
personal trust in God. What sort of a God would that be? How would that
inspire love for God? In any case, if we read Paul correctly, martyrdom in
itself, proves nothing! (1 Corinthians 13:3) 2.
THE ACCIDENTAL THEORY I
found this theory mentioned briefly in Alva Huffer's "Systematic
Theology". I did a fairly extensive Web search for additional
information, but unlike most of the others, I was unable to find any detailed
description. Nor was I able to find a reference to anyone actually promoting
it at any time in history. The brief description below is adapted from P293
of Huffer's book. The
theory says that the death of Jesus was a mere accident, unforeseen by God or
Jesus. Crucifixion was not in God's plan. It took God by surprise, and things
got out of hand, before He knew what was happening! God had to make the best
out of this unfortunate situation and incorporated it into His plan as an
afterthought. Problem The
death of Jesus was NOT an accident. Anyone familiar with the Old Testament,
knows that it contains many prophecies of the death of Jesus, written
hundreds of years before the time. They include many tiny details which
cannot be written off as mere accident! It was all, says the Apostle Peter,
according to the "definite plan and foreknowledge of God." (Acts 2:23 RSV) 3.
THE MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY This
one is quite similar in many respects to the "Martyr" theory above.
It describes the death of Jesus in terms which amount to some sort of
"sacrificial suicide". (although it does not use that term!). It
says the death of Jesus is designed to impress us with a sense of the love of
God, soften our hearts, and influence us to walk in the same paths of
holiness that Jesus did. It specifically denies that there was any
requirement for a "blood sacrifice" for sin. Problem It
is of course true that Jesus has left us an example of what it means be
"made perfect" by learning obedience. (Hebrews 5:8-9) It did cost him his
life. However that is only part of the story. The
rest of it is contained in the great wealth of Scripture which does refer to
the "Blood Sacrifice" and "Ransom" aspects of Jesus death
on the cross. 4.
THE "APPEASE THE ANGRY GOD" THEORY One
would expect to find this more often amongst PAGANS than Christians! History
records many pagan cultures in which the people lived in fear of the wrath of
"gods" who had to be regularly placated by human blood. In the Law
of Moses there were commandments specifically forbidding such evil practices
by the Jews. They were frequently accused of worshipping these gods and
sacrificing their children to them. It should not surprise us therefore to
discover that this perverted pagan view should also have invaded the
Christian Church, in a modified form, and influenced its theology of
sacrifice. Problem Of
course there surely will come a day when unrepentant sinners do face the
wrath of God, for their wilful unrepentance and rejection of God's offer of
salvation. (Luke 3:7, Acts 17:30-31, 5.
THE "RANSOM TO SATAN" THEORY Also
known sometimes as the "military" theory Attributed
to early Church "fathers", including Gregory of Nyssa. (circa
335-395AD) It teaches that the death of Christ was a Ransom which has bought
us back from the Devil. I have read that one version of this one uses a
picture of God baiting a "fishhook" with Jesus, first tricking the
Devil into releasing us in exchange for the 'greater prize", and then
reclaiming the "bait" through Resurrection, thus cheating the Devil
of both prizes! Problem This
theory presents not only an unbiblical view of the "Devil", but
also a VERY dishonouring view of God as a cheat and deceiver! This is VERY
important! How could anyone ever really trust a God like that, to keep any of
His other promises? 6.
THE "COMMERCIAL THEORY" Attributed
to Anselm of Canterbury. (1033-1109) Anselm is said to have developed it in
reaction to the inadequacies of the "Ransom Theory". This theory
has been said to reflect the "feudal" social outlook of Anselm's
day, with its emphasis on the "honour" due to the lord who
controlled the life and land of the peasants who lived on his estate. It was
a time when men fought duels to defend their reputations against perceived
insults to their "honour". Anselm taught that God's majesty had
been dishonoured by sin and required "satisfaction" or
"appeasement” before sins could be forgiven. He reasoned that because
God's majesty is infinite, it requires an "infinite punishment".
(whatever that means!) And since Jesus was also thought to be infinite,
punishing Him was an exact equivalent to the eternal torment due to finite
sinners! Problem Anselm's
Jesus is NOT a REAL man! No other man has ever been "infinite"! The
teaching is just one more version of "Jesus is not come in the
flesh"! Nor is God concerned with any "satisfaction" to Divine
honour. It was all about saving US! And of course Jesus demonstrated how God
really viewed it, by submitting without retaliation, to great insult and
dishonour and physical abuse of the worst kind, from those who rejected Him. 7.
THE "GOVERNMENTAL" THEORY This
theory was propounded early in the seventeenth century by Hugo Grotius
(1583-1645) in opposition to the Socinian theory described below. It says
that although God requires no payment for sin, public justice did require
some token display of how much God despises sin. Thus Christ suffered as an
example of the penalty due to sinners, without bearing any punishment in
their place. By this, God's law is supposed to be honoured and upheld, whilst
at the same time the way is cleared for sinners to be pardoned. This
view is called "governmental" because Grotius envisions God as a
ruler or a head of government who passed a law which says that "The soul
that sinneth, it shall die." Problem There
are no supporting Scriptures for any of this. To suggest that God was free to
forgive without the Cross, is VERY dishonouring! It presents God as some sort
of MONSTER who unnecessarily required His sinless Son to die that terrible
criminal's death, merely to reinforce a technical legal principle about who
is "boss" in the universe! 8.
THE "SUBSTITUTIONARY PUNISHMENT" AND "VICARIOUS WORKS"
THEORY The
most popular current evangelical view of the Atonement says that God punished
Jesus to appease His alleged wrath against us. In
many cases this sadly mistaken view of God is accompanied by a theory of
"Substitutionary Righteousness", which says that "Jesus has
done it all", and that there is nothing left for us to do. According to
this theory, the righteous life of Jesus stands in place of any need for
works on the part of the believer. Any discussion of "obedience" is
arbitrarily rejected as "Legalism" and "Salvation By Works”
and labelled as a denial of "salvation by faith and grace alone". Problem The
Scriptures tell us over and over again, that it was not wrath, but love, that
moved God to give His Son to save us from our sins. It is simply not true
that God needed to be placated. Rather it is our attitude towards God that
needs to be changed. Further
God does not punish anyone for the sins of another. (Exodus 32:33, Ezekiel 18:4) There is however a
vast difference between that unworthy view of God, and what actually happened
when God and His Son loved us so much that they worked together, to ransom us
from the penalty due to us. As
to "substitutionary obedience" the Apostle John says: "let no one
deceive you. He who does right is righteous". (1 John 3:7)
And subject to the proviso that "blood sacrifice" is also
necessary, (Hebrews 9:22)
there is no such thing as forgiveness without genuine life changing
"Repentance". When
you think about it, the theory which says that the righteous deeds of Jesus,
can stand in place of the evil deeds of sinners, is in fact not so very far
removed from the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. In this doctrine, the
"surplus" good works of dead so called saints, can be used to
cancel out the unrepented and unforgiven misdeeds of Church members, who die
in good standing with the Church, but are nevertheless suffering awful
torment in an intermediate state between death and heaven! The
most serious mistake of this theory is that it ignores the many Bible
references which do call for a VERY high standard of works from those who
believe. Faith, says James, that does not produce works, is not real faith at
all. (James 2:18-26) 9.
THE "JESUS DIED FOR HIMSELF" THEORY This
theory appears to be unique to the several mutually exclusive groups of
Christadelphians, amongst whom significant divergences in detail have been
the source of a number of major divisions. On
the good side of things, the Christadelphians reject the theory that the
death of Jesus satisfied God's "honour" and appeased
his wrath against sinners, in order to change His attitude towards
us. The
downside is that what they have managed to put in its place, is a most
unsatisfying explanation which says that the death of Jesus was primarily to
save Himself by exchanging His mortal body for an immortal one! One
extreme "version" has it that Jesus died to save Himself from a
"defiled" and "sin prone nature", inherited from Adam,
and so obnoxious in the sight of God, that it had to be deliberately put
aside by nothing less than that awful "criminal's death" on the
cross. In the most extreme variation which I personally encountered amongst
them, Jesus was said to have deserved the cross because of his
alleged defiled nature -- which sooner or later, it was claimed, would
inevitably have led Him to sin! How truly MONSTROUS it is to say of the "Holy,
Harmless, Undefiled" Jesus, (Hebrews 7:26) that he was in any
way, or at any time, "defiled" and "obnoxious" in the
sight of God, through mere possession of the nature He was born with! And yet
it is claimed that this interpretation, is somehow supposed to
"honour" God"! In
another much less extreme version, it is recognised that the use of words
like "defiled", about Jesus is not acceptable. How could that be
true of the sinless son of God? However, in rejecting
"substitution" of any sort, the rather meaningless statement is
offered, that Jesus died "for us or on account of us, but not instead of
us". Nevertheless, the word "us" is passed over, in order to
emphasise that somehow the death of Jesus was primarily for Himself, required
of Him as an act of obedience to deliver Himself from "mortality".
Had He not submitted, He would have been regarded as disobedient and
therefore lost, along with the rest of us. To
be fair, there is today a significant number of the younger generation, who
besides admitting that it is most inappropriate to use words like
"defiled" about Jesus, are also prepared to endorse the view that
the great weight of the Scriptures says that it was ALL FOR US, and that
without our need, Jesus would not have been there on the Cross!
Nevertheless, the other older views are still held by those "in
authority", and the official Basis of Fellowship still retains
the offensive words, "defiled" and "condemned nature",
and places the major emphasis on the death of Christ as an offering "for
himself" to escape from His mortality. The "Doctrines to be
Rejected" section, insists that to be in fellowship, one must reject the
teaching "that there is no sin in the flesh". (which is defined
elsewhere in the writings of the author of that document as something within
human nature that results in "our native
tendency to disobedience, and our native inability to conform"!) The
third major opinion amongst Christadelphians is the "Socinian"
version discussed below. Problem In
the Scriptures the death of Jesus is NOWHERE described as a sacrifice FOR
HIMSELF! In fact Daniel 9:26 says clearly that when Jesus was "cut off", it was
NOT for Himself. Where is the justice in requiring that terrible Criminal's
death of a totally innocent man, primarily to rid Himself of His mortal body?
For those who truly know Him, God is not like that at all. It
is significant that amongst those who profess belief in these things, few
know with any real assurance that their sins are forgiven and will never
again be remembered against them. (Ezekiel 33:16) Many remain in fear of the judgement, expressing the rather
forlorn and wishful "hope" that if they "get lucky" on
Judgement Day, God might somehow exercise a "mercy" they do not
really expect! 10.
THE SOCINIAN THEORY (Almost
Identical with "Clean Flesh" Christadelphians) Personally
I did not even know of the existence of the Racovian Catechism of the Polish
Brethren until about 10 years ago. However now that I have my own copy of
this remarkable 16th century document, I can recognise the considerable
contribution it has made to the faith of my Christadelphian "clean
flesh" spiritual ancestors. I
am grateful to them for faithfully upholding the truth and opening my eyes to
see that the Scriptures do NOT support the Roman Catholic doctrine of
"original sin", (or anything like it amongst the thinly disguised
Protestant alternatives), in human nature, before or after the fall. And of
course this leads inevitably to the conclusion that there is nothing in our
common human nature now, which might prevent us from exercising a freewill
choice to obey God. Men are not condemned or punished for Adam's sin,
but for their own. The
Socinian view also rejects the death of Christ on the cross as in any way, a
"blood sacrifice" or "ransom payment" to purchase salvation
or pay the penalty of sin. It says instead that the sacrificial offering of
Jesus was the whole of His 33 years of obedient life, -- not just His death
on the cross. And it insists that if a "ransom payment" is
required, it cannot with truth be said that God freely forgives the sinner's
debt. In
some mysterious way, (which is not adequately explained), Christ's lifelong
obedience, "even to death on the cross", (Philippians 2:8) has been made the
ground for forgiveness and remission from the penalty of sins. The
Socinians also said that the death of Christ was in some measure part of the
fulfilment of his prophetic office, in that it somehow communicated God's
will to humankind and sought our response through it. Problem This
Socinian theory successfully rejects "original sin". It also
refutes Orthodox Mainstream substitutionary teaching, in which an angry God
vents His wrath on Jesus, until He is "propitiated", and His
attitude towards us is thereby changed. It recognises that God is not like
that at all. It was our attitude that needed changing -- NOT God's! And in
those aspects one can find a great deal of Bible truth. However,
by teaching that God forgives sin without the need for a blood sacrifice, it
neglects to come to grips with those Scriptures which say plainly that there
is no forgiveness of sin without a blood sacrifice. (Hebrew 9:22) Further,
it fails to distinguish between the perfect life of Jesus, and His
sacrificial DEATH. It was His sinless life which qualified Him
to pay the "Ransom for many", through the offering of a "blood
sacrifice". We must not confuse the two, lest we detract from the
importance of either. CONCLUSIONS If
you want to know more beyond the brief descriptions given above, you can do your
own research by wading through some of the countless thousands of pages of
technical "Religious Rhetoric"! To be frank, I think much of it is
the sort of thing that Peter and Jude meant by " great swelling
words"! (2 Peter 2:18, Jude
1:16, KJV) The
problem with most of these, is that they concentrate rather too much on how
the theory works! -- at the expense of the Biblical emphasis on what
is meant to be the end result!! The
simple bottom line are these questions: *
Has what we believe
about the Atonement reconciled us with God? *
Has it caused us to
love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength? *
Has it caused us to
love our neighbour as ourself? *
And has it caused us
to pursue the ultimate goal of a completely holy character and lifestyle,
modelled on that of Jesus? If
it has not achieved THAT for us, we have neither understood nor believed the
Scriptural Doctrine of Atonement! This
is one of a series of papers on this topic. It should be read in company
with: *
HM113 What do You
Mean - Atonement? *
HM114A Theories
of the Atonement - Part 1 - Faulty Foundations A Barrier to
Understanding *
HM114C The
Lamb of God and the Ransom Allon |