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

[Paprika]

It's possible that I overreacted, but his position seems to be "Christ paid that penalty through his death for all of us. Ergo we were ransomed by the death of Christ to appease the righteousness and holiness of this decree issued by God..."

I think a good question that a penal view has to answer will be what punishment did Christ bear for us that we would otherwise have to bear? It's certainly not death - since many Christians have died. Probably the answer would be that Christ was separated from God for us...which would explain the heavy support for the separation interpretation of Matthew 27:46/Mark 15:34.

I object to any concept that the goal of the atonement is to appease God.

But surely you cannot deny that God's wrath is upon sinners - both against their unrighteousness (Romans 1) which will be meted out on the day of judgment (Romans 2), but not upon those in Christ - having been justified, we are at peace with God. So the aim of the atonement may not have been appeasement, but it resulted in appeasement. Indeed, as Paul says, "since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God" , which is of course, future tense.

[Paprika]

I would like to highlight an often undernoticed aspect of the substitution effected by Christ death. From Galatians 3:

For Paul, the subject of "us"- probably the Jews- were under the curse of the Law. However, Jesus, who wasn't under the curse, became a curse "for us", with the result that we have "redeemed" from the curse, we are no longer under the curse. This, of course, fits into the logic of the letter: having been set free from the curse, do you Galatians want to rely on the works of the law and be under the curse again?

Now, this is the point of the substitution: that the blessing of Abraham might "come to the Gentiles", so that they might "receive the promised Spirit through faith". I believe that the blessing is adoption as sons of God as per the parallel in Galatians 4:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

And because we are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.

Of course, here it is adoption and not "merely" atonement - but I do not mean to say that these two are antithetical and have to be played off against one another. Rather, my point is that our usual categories and models aren't big enough or completely appropriate, and we, as always, have to go back to the texts.

[hedrick]

First, Christ becoming the curse seems to be about Gentiles. After all, the section climaxes in the statement "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles"

My understanding is that Christ effectively became a Gentile, one cursed by the Law. One can argue that he became in effect a sinner, but sin isn't actually mentioned in this section, and it seems very specifically aimed at Gentiles. However the argument can clearly be extended to include sinners in general and not just Gentiles, so I don't think that distinction is so important.

So if Christ became one outside the Law, and thus joined us, how does that save us? The argument continues in 15-18. Paul says that the promise (of free justification?) was made to Abraham and his offspring, and his offspring was Christ. Those who Christ joins and identifies himself with outside the Law become his people and receive through him the promise of justification. One commentary I read agreed with Paprika that the blessing is adoption. That's certainly introduced in 4 as a benefit. But that section of 3 seems to be focused on justification by faith.

[Paprika]

One commentary I read agreed with Paprika that the blessing is adoption. That's certainly introduced in 4 as a benefit. But that section of 3 seems to be focused on justification by faith.

The thing is that having faith and thus being justified is inseparable from becoming a son of Abraham.

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith

Also Romans 4:

but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham

Of course, being the son of Abraham is not necessarily synonymous with being a son of God.

[dacristoy]

hedrick: My bad, I had taken dacristoy to be arguing for substitution instead of penal substitution.

What criteria do you use to separate the two?

From my perspective there is one penalty (Penal) for sin (disobedience) and that penalty is death, Christ died for our sins. The penalty for sin is death. Through his death we are once again allowed to live....

[Paprika]

What criteria do you use to separate the two?

Penal substitution is a subset of substitution.

[RBerman]

RBerman: There is more to respond to, of course, but I wanted to get that out of the way first.

Thank you. In light of the translation data that you and I recounted, do you still think it's accurate to say that 1 John clearly teaches expiation rather than propitiation?

How did I miss this post?



Yes, I quite like dry humor myself.

But dry Oreos are always better with milk.

[RBerman]

One of the things that surprises me is that Reformed theology fixated on penal substitution. Calvin himself used many images of the atonement. In the chapter in the Institutes he primarily used Rom 9. He said that Christ' obedience became ours through our faith in Christ. So how did penal substitution come to be the mandatory Reformed understanding? My theory is that it was at least in part a response to the modernist crisis of the late 19th / early 20th Cent. It led conservatives to defend what was being attacked so strongly that it came to take on a role that it hadn't before.

I agree. I am opposed to a strictly penal substutitionary view of the atonement, just as I am opposed to a view which denies a penal substitutionary element to the atonement. An overemphasis on penal substitution, to the detriment of a moral exemplar element for instance, tends toward just the sort of easy-believism that one finds in the unhealthier sectors of the 20th century evangelical church. The opposite error, downplaying penal substitution in favor of moral exemplar or Christus Victor themes, tends toward legalism, as we imagine that acting like Jesus can earn us God's favor. Christus Victor alone tends to neglect Christ's death as an incidental that was necessary for his triumphant resurrection. Even Ransom theory, properly understood, has its place in reminding us that we have been rescued from the world and must not be of it. When I teach on the atonement, I teach all four.

But to me the critical question is what the goal of the atonement is. Is it, as in Hebrews, to purify us, or is it to appease God? There's lots of talk about ransom, atonement, etc. But I have been unable to find anyplace in Scripture where it says that God can't forgive us without punishment.

"Can't" may not be the right word. How about "won't"? In Roman 3, Christ's propitiation is mentioned in the same breath as God being "both just and the justifier." I understand this to mean that, within God's salvation economy, he shows his justice by only justifying those whose sins have been propitiated by Christ, through the faith which unites them to Christ.

That understanding that Jesus' death (and resurrection) purifies us fits perfectly into Reformed theology, since Calvin's ordo salutis starts with God deciding to save us, grafting us into Christ, and regenerating us through that union with him. Faith, justification and sanctification are a result.

Since we are invoking John Calvin, it's only fair to see what he himself has to say about the passage I mentioned:

Being justified freely, etc.judiciumwe are not otherwise just than through Christ propitiating the Father for us. (Calvin's Commentary on Romans 3:24, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.vii.viii.html)

Here Calvin affirms the importance of both Christ's active obedience (i.e. his perfect life, that vicariously satisfies God's demand for us to be perfect) and Christ's passive obedience (i.e. his propitiatory death, satisfying God's demand that the guilt of sin be punished). In the following section of his commentary, Calvin goes on to affirm expiation as well, but not to the exclusion of propitiation. Many other examples from Calvin's thoughts could be cited along the same lines.

[RBerman]

First, Christ becoming the curse seems to be about Gentiles. After all, the section climaxes in the statement "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles" My understanding is that Christ effectively became a Gentile, one cursed by the Law. One can argue that he became in effect a sinner, but sin isn't actually mentioned in this section, and it seems very specifically aimed at Gentiles. However the argument can clearly be extended to include sinners in general and not just Gentiles, so I don't think that distinction is so important. So if Christ became one outside the Law, and thus joined us, how does that save us? The argument continues in 15-18. Paul says that the promise (of free justification?) was made to Abraham and his offspring, and his offspring was Christ. Those who Christ joins and identifies himself with outside the Law become his people and receive through him the promise of justification. One commentary I read agreed with Paprika that the blessing is adoption. That's certainly introduced in 4 as a benefit. But that section of 3 seems to be focused on justification by faith.

Where do you get that Galatians 3 is about Christ becoming like a Gentile outside the law? Here's the text in question:

Don't you agree that this list of curses is a warning to the Israelites that they are to avoid doing certain things? So when Paul quotes this text in Galatians 3, his point to a Gentile audience is, "Why do you want to become Jewish anyway? Look at all these laws you'll have to keep perfectly if you want salvation through Judaism! Foolish Galatians. Better to trust in Christ, who took these curses onto himself on the cross, bearing God's wrath. That's the better way to become a 'child of Abraham' who enjoys God's favor."

[hedrick]

I get that Gal 3 is about Gentiles from the context. vs 8 and 14. I agree that the original passage was what you say. But this would not be the only time Paul repurposed an OT passage. The conclusion of 3:13 is "the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles," not "and so we see that Christ redeemed sinners."

[hedrick]

As far as I know, everyone agrees that there was some kind of substitution on the cross. If you're willing to throw away everything except the Synoptics you might be able to avoid substitution, though even that would be hard. But the moment you say Christ suffered for us, he is to some extent our substitute. Metaphors such as calling him the Lamb of God point to that. Similarly referring to him as ransom.

I'm about a hardcore against penal substitution as you'll find. But when I teach it in Sunday School I still talk about Jesus as taking the consequences of our sin. The OT sees unrepented sin as polluting the land. The prophets see it as causing God to have foreigners punish Israel. Jesus sees it leading to 70 AD, and on an individual level to judgement.You can see it today. it creates areas of cities where you can't go, and economic crises The Logos didn't deserve that kind of consequence. But if we stay as far from traditional substitution as possible, at the very least the Logos decided to join us and experience the consequences of sin with us. The moment you allow any of Is 53, Heb, Jesus as Lamb, etc, you've got Jesus experience consequences to some extent in our place.

Where I draw the line with penal substitution is the idea that God has to be appeased. He is certainly angry at sin. But the way you deal with that is repentance, maybe even vicarious repentance, though I think Jesus expected us in union with him to experience repentance ourselves. I am not convinced that the NT says that God's anger has to be appeased by Jesus' death. Rather, I think in his love for us, he came to join us and take on the our sin himself and deal with it, thereby renewing our hearts and purifying us (joining the words of institution and Heb 9).

It comes down to whether you understand Rom 3:25 as atonement or propitiation. (The passages in 1 John use the same word and have the same issue.)

[Paprika]

I get that Gal 3 is about Gentiles from the context. vs 8 and 14. I agree that the original passage was what you say. But this would not be the only time Paul repurposed an OT passage. The conclusion of 3:13 is "the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles," not "and so we see that Christ redeemed sinners."

The law brings a curse. So if Paul speaks of Christ redeeming those under the law from the curse, that must at the very least include Jews who are under the curse.

Re 3:8 and 14: the point has always been that the Gentiles would be blessed through the Jews, so the context shouldn't be treated as either Jew or Gentile.

and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed

[Paprika]

Just a bit more context for Gal 3: previously Paul writes that

For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

It's rather dense, but I've highlighted the important aspect. This is my understanding: as a Jew, Paul was under the Law. As with all the other Jews, he could not keep the Law fully and was under the curse. Jesus the Messiah was able to keep the Law*, and was not under the curse. Yet He became a curse for them by dying on a tree, because the Law curses those killed on a tree. Now, if a Jew dies he is no longer under the law. But because of how Paul is in the Messiah, the Messiah's death is imputed to them, meaning that those in the Messiah have died, and died to the Law as the Messiah has. This is why Paul can say he has been crucified with the Messiah, and has died to the Law through the Law (cf the parallel train of thought in Romans 7:1-6, especially verse 4).

*which would come out more fully if you translate as subjective genitive, though my reading doesn't hang on this point. I wish to emphasise: how to translate pisteous Christou isn't the main point of this post, so please don't focus on this at the expense of the larger argument, which is to explicate the passages in Galatians 2 and 3.

[RBerman]

I get that Gal 3 is about Gentiles from the context. vs 8 and 14. I agree that the original passage was what you say. But this would not be the only time Paul repurposed an OT passage. The conclusion of 3:13 is "the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles," not "and so we see that Christ redeemed sinners."

The blessing of Abraham is that he enjoyed God's favor and was promised various benefits as a result. Paul had already outlined the benefits of God's favor in the previous paragraph at the end of Chapter 2. His concern is, "How can I be seen as justified, rather than a sinner?":

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (Gal 2:15-21)

Within that Gal 2 context, Paul's message concerning Gentiles in Galatians 3 is that the "promises of Abraham" involve justification, the forgiveness of their sins, the imputation of Christ's own righteousness to them. Gal 2 tells them what they get, and Gal 3 tells them the right (faith) and wrong (law-keeping) ways to try to get it. Paul doesn't quote Genesis 15:6 ("Abraham believed God, and it [belief] was counted toward him as righteousness") in Galatians 3 as he does in the very similar discussion in Romans 4, but the parallelism of the thought seems clear.

[RBerman]

Where I draw the line with penal substitution is the idea that God has to be appeased. He is certainly angry at sin. But the way you deal with that is repentance, maybe even vicarious repentance, though I think Jesus expected us in union with him to experience repentance ourselves. I am not convinced that the NT says that God's anger has to be appeased by Jesus' death. Rather, I think in his love for us, he came to join us and take on the our sin himself and deal with it, thereby renewing our hearts and purifying us (joining the words of institution and Heb 9).

It comes down to whether you understand Rom 3:25 as atonement or propitiation. (The passages in 1 John use the same word and have the same issue.)

Propitiation is a kind of atonement (reconciliation), so it's not quite right to say that the issue is "propitiation vs atonement." The issue is whether those passages intend to include or exclude propitiation as a significant factor in atonement. If you translate hilasmos and its cognates as "propitiation," as was common in both Vulgate and in extra-biblical texts, then the ball game is over. This was how the early church understood it; in the Vulgate, the "mercy seat" on the Ark of the Covenant was translated into Latin as the propitiatorum, the "place of propitiation" for the OT Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) sacrifice.

ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα χρυσίου καθαροῦ δύο πήχεων καὶ ἡμίσους τὸ μῆκος καὶ πήχεος καὶ ἡμίσους τὸ πλάτος

Exodus 25:17 (Vulgate) Facies et propitiatoriuma mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth."

We see the same comparing the Vulgate, Greek, and English for Hebrews 9:5, as part of the discussion of how Jesus fulfills the Levitical sacrificial system. In the description of the Ark, we find:

Hebrews 9:5 (Greek NT) ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς χερουβιμ δόξης κατασκιάζοντα τὸ ἱλαστήριονpropitiatorium: de quibus non est modo dicendum per singula.

Hebrews 9:5 (ESV) Above it [the Ark of the Covenant] were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

The word used for the mercy seat, ἱλαστήριον in Greek, propitiatorium in Latin, is the same word which appears in Romans 3:25 to describe Jesus' atoning work:

Romans 3:25 (Greek NT) ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων

Romans 3:25 (Vulgate) quem proposuit Deus propitiationempropitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

The point is that the same propitiation which the sacrifice on the mercy seat indicated in the OT, Jesus' sacrifice indicates in the NT. You would have to argue that the Vulgate was simply wrong in these places, that Hebrew kapporeth, Greek hilasterion, and their cognates should not have been translated into Latin propitiatorum and propitiatonem, and into English "propitiation," which is simply a transliteration of the Latin word and is intended to have the same meaning.

But even putting that aside, I must disagree that the argument comes down to just the translation of those single words in those single verses. Those words got those translations in those verses precisely because the whole thrust of the Levitical system was that God requires appeasement for sins. It's unpalatable to some moderns, but true all the same. I showed in previous posts how Leviticus links man's guilt from sin, God's wrath over sin, and the propitiatory sacrifices all together. Jesus came to fulfill that Levitical system by offering himself as the appeasement.

Out of love, the Son did this. Out of love, the Father made this plan. We appreciate God's love most fully when we comprehend this. We don't do God any favors by denying the very real issue of propitiation which he has revealed to us.