Aspects of Atonement: What Did Jesus' Death on the Tree Accomplish?

[Paprika]

The gospels - our main sources for the crucifixion event - in general do not see the crucifixion as 'atonement', whatever that is supposed to mean, or at least not explicitly. We shouldn't import what Paul or the author of Hebrews says about the cross into the gospel narratives, which will most likely result in us missing out what the narratives intend to convey. Rather, we should read the gospels as story - of course with Jesus' self-understanding of his own death at the center - and let them tell of the event from their own perspectives (keeping in mind that each gospel differs in perspective and emphases).

[footwasher]

When Tyndale chose the word "atonement" (he didnt invent it as held by some) to represent what happened in the OT sacrificial ceremony, he walked in the footsteps of the writers of NT Scripture, who used words like sarx, Adonai, psyche etc., to convey Hebrew terms.

He was trying the convey the idea of kippur, the covering over of sins by the sprinkling of blood on the mercy seat. The sins were still there, God chose to ignore them, because of the blood.

Atonement as a term was already in use, to convey the act of making peace, by convincing the injured party to overlook the harm done to him, making at-one in the process:

For God was in Christ, and made agreement between the world and him self, and imputed not their sins unto them: and hath committed to us the preaching of the atonement (2 Cor 5:19, Tyndale)

And before Tyndale:

Shakespeare’s “Richard the Second,” written in 1597, Richard, failing to reconcile the two feuding noblemen, the Duke of Hereford and the Duke of Norfolk, orders them to fight a duel:

We were not born to sue, but to command:
Which since we cannot do to make you friends,
Be ready, as your lives shall answer it,
At Coventry, upon Saint Lambert’s day;
There shall your swords and lances arbitrate
The swelling difference of your settled hate:
Since we cannot atone you, we shall see
Justice design the victor’s chivalry.


......

In “Richard the Third,” we find the Duke of Buckingham saying about Richard to the queen,

“Ay, madam: he desires to make atonement between the Duke of Gloucester and your brothers.”

What Buckingham is telling the queen is that Richard wishes to get her brothers and Gloucester to make up.

[KingsGambit]

I always find your posts illuminating, hedrick.

[The Remonstrant]

The gospels - our main sources for the crucifixion event - in general do not see the crucifixion as 'atonement', whatever that is supposed to mean, or at least not explicitly. We shouldn't import what Paul or the author of Hebrews says about the cross into the gospel narratives, which will most likely result in us missing out what the narratives intend to convey. Rather, we should read the gospels as story - of course with Jesus' self-understanding of his own death at the center - and let them tell of the event from their own perspectives (keeping in mind that each gospel differs in perspective and emphases).

[Paprika]

I think we have to learn to read the crucifixion as part of an exodus narrative, this time of course the slavemasters are sin and death. This Paul also does.

[The Remonstrant]

I think we have to learn to read the crucifixion as part of an exodus narrative, this time of course the slavemasters are sin and death. This Paul also does.

And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure [exodos], which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. (Luke 9:30,31 ESV)

And concerning the Pauline literature, Romans 6 would probably be the primary text you have in mind.

[robrecht]

I always find your posts illuminating, hedrick.

Yes, indeed. It would be interesting to look up some Middle English uses of the verbal/adverbial form atonen, where you already see the combination of the words 'at' + 'one'. Any Chaucer fans out there? Wycliffe already used the verb 'oneing' and the noun 'onement'. St Thomas More used 'atonement' long before Shakespeare, also with respect to Richard III.

[themuzicman]

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Justification came to all men, propitiation made for the whole world.

Why is the OP even a question?

[Paprika]

And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure [exodos], which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. (Luke 9:30,31 ESV)

And concerning the Pauline literature, Romans 6 would probably be the primary text you have in mind.

It isn't just about explicit mention of slavery, but also deliverance and freedom language. So yes, Romans 6-8, but the major references include also Galatians 3-5; minor ones include Colossians 1 and Galatians 1.

[The Remonstrant]

Justification came to all men, propitiation made for the whole world.

Why is the OP even a question?

The question posed in the title of the opening post is not concerned so much with the scope or the extent of atonement specifically (although that is, of course, extremely important).

[dacristoy]

Of course historically different atonement theories have seen the atonement directed at us, God, Satan, and even the Accounting Office. Some of these (particularly ransom theory) seem to me to be the result of taking metaphors too literally. Ransom is a great way to talk about Jesus' death until you ask who the ransom is paid to.

The Father...

[The Remonstrant]

The Father...

Where does it explicitly say in Scripture that Jesus was offered as a ransom to the Father?

[robrecht]

The Father...

We are not enslaved to or otherwise held captive by the Father. The actual metaphors of ransom and redemption as they were actually practiced in Judaism at the time are very interesting.

[The Remonstrant]

We are not enslaved to or otherwise held captive by the Father. The actual metaphors of ransom and redemption as they were actually practiced in Judaism at the time are very interesting.

The whole notion that the Father requires a payment of some sort to quell his wrath strikes me as a rather pagan notion. If we are to maintain a unity within the godhead, there is no possible way the Father could ever be at enmity with the Son. God is not at enmity with God.

[robrecht]

The whole notion that the Father requires a payment of some sort to quell his wrath strikes me as a rather pagan notion. If we are to maintain a unity within the godhead, there is no possible way the Father could ever be at enmity with the Son. God is not at enmity with God.

I agree, of course.