FOUR BIG WORDS

ATONEMENT

"Christ of St John of the Cross", Salvador Dali

 Music:
"Behold the Lamb of God" (Handel, from "Messiah")

As you'll be aware, there are many aspects of Christian theology about which absolute conformity of belief is required, or has been throughout history. At different times and in different places, differing views and beliefs have been condemned as "heresies" as distinct from "orthodox belief." Books have been burnt and so-called heretics have been burnt. Queen Mary burned Protestants and Queen Elizabeth I burned Roman Catholics, to name but two examples. In more recent times, a number of well-learned Catholic scholars have been deprived of their teaching posts for daring to suggest anything other than the party line; one such example is Hans Kung.

Heresy has something of a bad name, but that's because history tends to be written by the winning side in any dispute. For many years, an Oxfam poster graced the wall of my study, until it got too dog-eared and yellowed by the sun. The poster quoted an old African proverb and related it to apartheid in South Africa . It said, "Until lions have their own historians, tales of hunting will always glorify the hunter."

For the most part, the so-called heretics were merely expressing one particular solution to a theological riddle, such as the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son, the nature of the incarnation of Christ or what happens to bread during a Eucharistic Prayer. The Church opted for one point of view and condemned all others.

The Atonement is an odd example of a chunk of theology for which there is no real "orthodox" viewpoint, no politically-correct way of believing. The Atonement has been understood in various ways at different points in history, and this variety of belief moves in and out of fashion, apparently on a whim!

So, we'll have a look at the four "big" theories of atonement as one fourth part of our series on four big words for the autumn, and I'll do my best to let go of my more usual obsession with just three things!

Top

An apocryphal tale was told when I was at Cuddesdon, about the American tele-evangelist who was asked to define the not dissimilar theological word, "justification," or "justified." In reply, he broke the word up, added a couple of letters and lost another in the process to come up with "just-as-if-I'd" and he defined justified as "just as if I'd never sinned!"

That does rather make one cringe, but a definition of atonement can be derived in a similar way.

Atonement is "at-one-ment," as it restores our relationship with God; it makes us ONE with him again, despite our sinful nature. And, unlike the word game with justification, this is an authentic etymological derivation!

In the 16th century, when William Tyndale was working on his English translation of the Bible, he was troubled by the Hebrew word for what we now call atonement. The obvious translation was "reconciliation," but the Hebrew word also carries the sense of something being covered. What we translate as "The Day of Atonement" is the great Jewish festival, Yom Kippur. And "kippur" comes from the Hebrew word for "a covering." So Tyndale wanted a translation that conveyed the sense both of reconciliation and of our misdeeds being covered over, being hidden from sight. No such word existed in the English language and so he invented one. His new word was "onement," and he said that we are "at onement" with God, which later got run together to produce tonight's big word, atonement.

So, we're concerned, tonight, with the question of HOW we're put back in a right relationship with God, or, more specifically in the Christian tradition, HOW the life, death and resurrection of Christ effects this restoration and reconciliation, and HOW our sins are covered over and forgiven.

Top

As with many aspects of Christian theology, we find the roots of what we believe within the Jewish faith of Jesus himself. The Old Testament gives detailed rules about how you achieve forgiveness from God for the diverse sins you may have committed, and it all revolves around sacrifice. If you want to say "please," "thank you," or "sorry," to the God of the Old Testament then you offer a sacrifice. You give up something of value to you, like a sheep, a goat or a sack of grain, and you buy back your relationship with God. It's very messy, gory stuff, utterly unlike anything in our religion or in Judaism today.

This is one example from Leviticus 5.4-6:

When any of you utter aloud a rash oath for a good or bad purpose, whatever people utter in an oath, and are unaware of it, when you come to know it, you shall . be guilty. When you realise your guilt . , you shall confess the sin that you have committed. And you shall bring to the LORD, as your penalty for the sin that you have committed, a female from the flock, a sheep or a goat, as a sin-offering: and the priest shall make atonement for your sin.

There are pages and pages of different regulations for different people - a sinful priest has to offer a bull rather than a sheep - and there's a form of means-testing: if you can't afford a sheep, you offer two turtle-doves or two pigeons (remember this from the Candlemas story?) and if even that's beyond your means then you offer one tenth of an ephah of choice flour. Rather quaintly, the priest scoops up a handful and throws it on the sacrificial fire, and keeps the rest for himself. Home-baking at an economy price!

There's no sense in the scriptures of this being a bit heavy-handed on God's part. The people and their God are bound to one another; they are "at onement" to use Tyndale's word, by virtue of the covenant that exists between them, the double-sided promise. God promises to be their God, to give them land and offspring, and the people, for their part, promise to abide by his laws for them. So, if the people break their God-given laws, then God is JUSTLY angry with them, and atonement has to be made by his chosen method of sacrificial offering. The Old Testament God is a God primarily of justice, and much less of mercy.

This notion of appeasing God by sacrifice is taken over by the Church and applied to Christ's death on the cross. Christ is sacrificed to make atonement for our sins. But, here, theology makes a crucial distinction: Christ was perfect; therefore his sacrifice is a perfect sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice is good for all time, all people and all their sins. Under the old dispensation, you had to offer sheep and goats repeatedly each time you committed an offence. Three of Leviticus' "rash oaths" on three occasions meant the loss of three sheep or goats, six turtle-doves or pigeons, or three tenths of an ephah of choice flour. (A lot of baking's going to be done at the priest's house today!)

Top

A further twist is seen in the fact that Jesus is divine; he's God's Son. So, in our Trinitarian view of God, God offers a sacrifice OF himself and TO himself. And this is seen as a measure of his generous love for us. No longer are we required to give up any of our livelihood in the form of livestock or foodstuff, for God himself provides the sacrificial offering for us. (Of course, that shouldn't deter us from generosity at the time of our Harvest appeal and stewardship renewal!)

The Letter to the Hebrews spots another interesting facet of Christ's death. Since Christ fulfils the priestly function of MAKING the sacrifice for sin, as well as BEING the sacrifice for sin, he can be called both priest and victim, both priest and sacrifice. So our generous God provides us with both a perfect sacrifice and a perfect priest. We're no longer dependent on fallible worldly offerings and functionaries to make atonement for us.

 Ghent Altarpiece:" The Adoration of the Lamb"

Hebrews 7.23-28

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he [Jesus] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests those who are subject to weakness, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever.

So the first of the four great theories of atonement is the SACRIFICIAL model. (NB: There's no consensus on what each theory is called; a lamentable lack of order abounds!)

Before we move on to the other three theories, we need to note the way in which this model has been used by different parts of the Christian Church. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ's sacrifice is effective in atoning for our sins through the daily celebration of the Mass. I'm not suggesting that you believe what comes next, merely that you understand it!

Top

The doctrine of transubstantiation says that the bread and the wine of the Mass are transformed by the recitation of the words of Christ ("this is my body; this is my blood") into the REAL flesh and blood of Christ. The priest then offers Christ as a sacrifice to God. This is a bit of a distortion of the idea of Christ's sacrifice being sufficient for all our sins. In the Roman Catholic view, instead of the sacrifice being effective for all time, you use the same sacrifice over and over again. You conjure up Christ on the altar and then you sacrifice him to God to make atonement. (The picture makes a clear link between the crucified Christ and the bread of the Mass, and the lance wound in his side is directly over the chalice, as if filling it with his own blood. The word "host" applied to the bread, comes from the Lain "hostia," which means "victim.")

The contrasting Protestant view re-affirms the ideas in Hebrews that it was a once-for-all sacrifice, not in need of repetition. Some of you will be familiar with the words from the Book of Common Prayer Communion service:

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.

The bread and wine are just what they appear to be: bread and wine and no more. They certainly don't form any kind of sacrifice in the Protestant view.
Protestant and Roman Catholic both make use of the sacrificial theory, but in very different ways.

The second theory is one that we'll label RANSOM or BATTLE. In the 4 th century, St Gregory of Nyssa, one of the Cappadocian Fathers, whose territory we visited on pilgrimage last year, developed the theory of a "ransom to Satan," based on such verses as Mark 10.45:

For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

In this model, it's Satan rather than God who's paid off. Our sins have enslaved us to the devil and to death, but we are liberated from our enslavement by Christ's act of ransom. The lives of imperfect humanity are exchanged for the life of the perfect Jesus. This achieves a victory over Satan; it thwarts his plans.

A variation on this model is called the "Christus Victor" theory - Christ the Victor. This sees Christ defeating Satan in a great spiritual battle rather than ransoming us from his clutches.

"Resurrection of Christ", Piero della Francesca

Colossians 2.15:

And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it.

The "rulers and authorities" refers to Satan, not to anything Earthly - it's a bit of Platonism.

Top

This was the model most favoured by Luther at the Reformation. Sin and death are defeated by Christ's death and resurrection; we are ransomed, our oppressor is defeated. The model arose at a time of persecution in the early Church - the image of a battle won was morale-boosting; it was popular again amongst the battles of the Reformation, and it rose again to the fore in the 20 th century after the experience of two world wars, largely due to the influence of Gustav Aulen and his book "Christus Victor" (1931).

With St Anselm in the 10th century, the emphasis shifts back from satisfying Satan to satisfying God, but without the emphasis on the sacrifice of something we possess. Anselm wrote a book, called "Why did God become man?" ("Cur Deus Homo?"). In this model, the God who is justly angered by our sins, quite reasonably requires that we should suffer for our sins. God has been insulted by our disobedience and, rightly, demands satisfaction. We have committed offences and justice requires that we suffer for them. In this PENAL SUBSTITUTION or SATISFACTION or LEGAL model,

Christ takes our place and suffers on our behalf; he pays the ransom to God, and God is satisfied because justice has been done. Christ takes on the punishment that we deserve. (A little later we'll look at one or two of the flaws in each theory, as you may just have spotted a glaring one!)

Romans chapter 5 to 8 is loosely on this theme, but I'll leave you to read that for yourselves.

And finally, gentle Abelard in the 11th century set out the fourth theory, the EXEMPLARIST or HEALING model, made popular again in the 20 th century by Paul Tillich, the Protestant theologian.

Top

In this model, Jesus' death on the cross demonstrates the extent of God's love for us. We are moved by this great act of love, we respond, and we're transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. So this model is more about love than justice.

John 15.13 is the great text for this:

No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends.

John 13.12-15 is also relevant, although not linked with the cross, but with the Last Supper.

"Jesus Washing Peter's Feet",
Ford Maddox Brown

After he had washed their feet, had put on his robe, and had returned to the table, he said to them, 'Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord - and you are right, for that is what I am. So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.

 Of all the theories, this would be the one that makes most sense to me. I can relate to it and respond to it, but the others are a bit too obscure. As a scientist I always feel the need to know and understanding, and I can't understand the first three theories. As with so many things, I think that our personalities play a not insignificant part in which models make sense to us or inspire us. Somewhere in the list there ought to be something for everyone!

One of the things the psychologist, Jung, says about personality is that each of us exhibits a preference for processing information either with thinking or with feeling. Thinking types, generally, will be attracted by the apparent logic and reason of the first three models, whilst feeling types are more likely to be drawn to the loving example model.

I want to spend a few minutes, now, being critical of the theories, simply to raise a few questions in your minds.

Top

SACRIFICIAL
Blood sacrifice is no longer a part of our culture or our religion, so is it helpful to base our understanding of our salvation on such a thing?
Does it make any sense to say that God sacrificed himself to himself?
If Jesus was divine, then was it such a great sacrifice to lay down his human life, only to return to divine life?
In our ecologically-friendly, conservation-minded society, is it helpful to focus on the wholesale destruction of vast numbers of sheep, goats and bulls to keep God happy?

RANSOM / BATTLE
If there is a battle, what has it got to do with us, if we're not actually involved in it?
Is there really any such battle going on?
Is the enemy described in the theory real?
If the battle has been won, why does the world look like it hasn't?
If the battle has been won, then does it actually matter whether we do right or wrong?
If God is so powerful, why does he have to pay a ransom to the Devil?

PENAL SUBSTITUTION / SATISFACTION / LEGAL
Is it really "just" to punish the innocent and acquit the guilty?
Surely it matters WHO is punished.
What has happened to the God of love; could he not acquit us without payment?
It's an easy model to describe when we're so familiar with the image of crucifixion, but it's harder to justify when we think of how horrific a death it really is. We're too used to images that soften or glorify the suffering of Christ.
Isn't this all a bit like celestial book-keeping?

EXEMPLARIST / HEALING
Is there a place for God's grace, or is it all about our own efforts?
There are plenty of other examples of how to lead a good life, governed by love; what's so special about Christ and why was he necessary?

These are things to ponder!

We'll draw things together with a little party game.

We make extensive use of hymns in our worship. These make use of the various theories of atonement; but are the hymn writers clear-thinking theologians?

We'll have a look at a number of well-known hymns and try to spot the atonement theories in them. If you're interested, you might also look at the set of Eucharistic Prayers in Common Worship and see how they use the different theories of atonement.

.............................................................................

Finally, a hymn that's a great favourite of mine, but not in our books. It started out as a poem at the end of W H Vanstone's book, "Love's Endeavour, Love's Expense." It expresses, in fine poetry, my favoured exemplarist view of the atonement.

Morning glory, starlit sky,
soaring music, scholar's truth,
flight of swallows, autumn leaves,
memory's treasure, grace of youth:

Open are the gifts of God,
gifts of love to mind and sense;
hidden is love's agony,
love's endeavour, love's expense.

Love that gives, gives ever more,
gives with zeal, with eager hands,
spares not, keeps not, all outpours,
ventures all, its all expends.

Drained is love in making full,
bound in setting others free,
poor in making many rich,
weak in giving power to be.

Therefore he who shows us God
helpless hangs upon the tree;
and the nails and crown of thorns
tell of what God's love must be.

Here is God: no monarch he,
throned in easy state to reign;
here is God, whose arms of love
aching, spent, the world sustain.

Words: W.H. Vanstone (b. 1923)

© Mark Powell

Top

-------------------------------------

Links