Different Views of the Atonement
Thus far, we have been giving a defense for the doctrine of substitionary atonement. But are we even sure that this is the Bible’s teaching on the subject?
Some emergent authors have recently argued that the Bible speaks of the Cross in a multifaceted way, and the Cross is bigger than just the concept of substitution. For instance, emergent author Brian McLaren writes,
“I think the gospel is a many faceted diamond, and atonement is only one facet, and legal models of atonement (which predominate in western Christianity) are only one small portion of that one facet.”
Of course, we would agree that the Cross is multifaceted. It didn’t occur purely or solely for the purpose of substitution; other purposes were no doubt in view in the mind of God. However, we strongly contend that substitution was the primary or central purpose of the Cross. We hold this view for a number of reasons:
REASON #1: Many passages speak about the active wrath of God.
While Scripture does speak of God’s passive wrath (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28), it also speaks of his active wrath (Rom. 2:16; 12:19; 1 Thess. 1:10; Lk. 12:48; Eph. 2:3). If God is actively wrathful against sin, something (or someone) would need to pay for that wrath. The Bible uses the language of propitiation to describe how God’s wrath was satisfied on Christ (Heb. 2:17; 1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10).
All other models of the atonement fail to adequately interact or engage with the language of propitiation (for more on propitiation, see comments on Romans 3:25).
REASON #2: The OT points toward substitutionary atonement.
In the OT, an innocent animal was substituted for the sin of the people (Lev. 4, 16). Isaiah writes, “He [Jesus] was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed” (Isa. 53:5). Erickson explains this OT concept of atonement:
The Hebrew word most commonly used in the Old Testament for the various types of atonement is כָּפַר (kaphar) and its derivatives. The word literally means “to cover.” One was delivered from punishment by the interposing of something between one’s sin and God. God then saw the atoning sacrifice rather than the sin. The covering of the sin meant that the penalty no longer had to be exacted from the sinner.[13]
The NT authors use this OT terminology to describe Christ’s substitionary work (1 Pet. 2:24; 1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10). While the Passover lamb died in the place of the Israelites in Egypt (Ex. 12), Paul writes, “Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7). When he first saw Jesus, John the Baptist said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (Jn. 1:29) Paul refers to Jesus’ death
as “an offering for sin” (Rom. 8:3), couching this verse in OT sacrificial imagery.
The concept of the blessings and cursings comes from the OT, where God would judge or bless Israel based on their obedience to his law (Lev. 26; Deut. 28).
Paul writes that Christ became the curse for us, and he gave us his rightful blessing (Gal. 3:13).
Finally, when we consider the entire context of Hebrews 9 specifically (vv.16-28), we see that this discussion is framed in the OT sacrificial system, where an innocent animal was forgiven for the sins of the people. The NT authors framed these other passages in an OT context as well (Jn. 1:29; Mt. 26:28),
making the OT sacrificial system the proper context in which we should understand the atonement.[14]
REASON #3: The NT claims that substitutionary atonement is the primary—though not exclusive—way that we should understand the Cross.
Paul says that he delivered the message of the gospel to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:1-2), and he explained the message that was of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3). His language does not refer to the order of speech (i.e. “this is the first thing I need to say…”). Instead, “first importance” refers to the primacy of this doctrine (i.e. “this is at the top of the list…”).[15] There are a number of reasons for affirming substitutionary atonement:
1. The Bible affirms that sinful humans get their righteousness from Christ.
(2 Cor. 5:21) He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(1 Pet. 3:18) For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.
(Phil. 3:8b-9) That I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.
(Rom. 5:19) For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
(Rom. 3:25-26) God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
(1 Pet 2:24) He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
2. The NT ascribes the blood of Christ as the means through which we have peace with God.
(Rom. 3:25) God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.
(Rom. 5:9) Having now been justified by His blood.
(Eph. 1:7) In Him we have redemption through His blood.
(Eph. 2:13) In Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
(Col. 1:20) Through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
(Mt. 26:28) This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
3. Christ died for human beings as a substitute for our sin.
The Reformers called this The Great Exchange: We give Christ our sin, and he gives us his righteousness. The word “justification” (Greek dikaiosis) is a legal term, referring to being declared judicially not guilty. Paul writes, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).
Earlier in Romans, Paul argued that as sinful people, our “condemnation is just” (Rom. 3:8) and sin results “in condemnation” (Rom. 5:16; c.f. v.18). However, by virtue of the Cross, we have “no condemnation” (Rom. 8:1).
(1 Thess. 5:10) [Christ] died for us.
(Rom. 8:32) He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all.
(2 Cor. 5:14) [Christ] died for all.
(Eph. 5:2) Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us.
(Gal. 1:4a) [Jesus] gave Himself for our sins…
(Rom. 4:25) He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.
(Rom. 5:8-9) But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
4. The NT affirms that Christ’s death was a substitutionary ransom. Jesus said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45).
Erickson explains that the concept of “ransom” implies a substitute and payment. He writes, “The word λύτρον (lutron—‘ransom’) with its cognates is used nearly 140 times in the Septuagint, usually with the thought of deliverance from some sort of bondage in exchange for the payment of compensation or the offering of a substitute.”[16] Of course, Christ saw himself as a substitute for us (Jn. 15:13).
5. Jesus viewed his work as completed on the Cross. Before he died, he said, “It is finished!” (Jn. 19:30) Of course, if Jesus’ atonement continued after his death, what was “finished” at the Cross?
In addition to these passages, the gospels emphasize the death of Christ through selective history. We know virtually nothing about the childhood of Jesus, but we know considerable details about his death. In fact, much of the Gospel of John (Jn. 13-19) focuses on the last day of Jesus’ earthly life. Why would these authors spill so much ink over the Passion Week, unless this was theologically significant?
For these reasons, we hold that penal substitutionary atonement makes the most sense of the biblical data on the Cross.
You want to say something @synergy?
