[This post was created from a comment (#2957) in the The Atonement thread.]
Was Jesus’ primary role as the Son of God to atone the world?
To answer this question one must look into the history of atonement. We first encounter the word “atonement” in the book of exodus to describe the “lid” that covers the Ark of the Covenant. (Exo. 25:17). But in the book of Leviticus, the word atonement is an action word (Lev 5:6) where the priest of the temple will make atonement for the sins committed. Here the word is used to mean reconcile, or make "at one". From this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation is effected. This theology of atonement is primarily based on 2 Cor 5:19 “For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” Col 1:20 claims that the peace of that reconciliation was accomplished by the death of Jesus the “Redeemer”, "making peace through the blood of His cross". Thus, this redemption is accomplished not so much by the death of Christ, but by the shedding of his blood. This understanding of Jesus’ mission on earth does not sit well with me.
I would like to believe that Jesus’ primary mission on earth was to “reveal” the full identity of his Father, and show us a “new way” of life.
In the BH/OT, God was always someone to fear Exo 3:6 “At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God”. Jesus changed this image of an angry and vengeful God, to a God who is deeply concerned with our lives (Matt 7:11), who is overly generous (Matt 6:8), and who always gives good things to those in need (Luke 11:13). By revealing his Father to the world, Jesus makes God accessible to the average Joe. One no longer needs to be a high priest to be in the presence of God, for now we are his children, heir of God.
Also, Jesus came to show us a new way of life, not outside the Law but within the Law. This new way of life takes into consideration the love of God and neighbour as is found in Matt 22:37-39, Luke 6:27-35 and John 15:17.
This is a brief overview about Jesus’ mission. I would appreciate any comments?
Re: Was Jesus' primary role as the Son of God to atone the wor
Hi Servant,
You wrote, "Thus, this redemption is accomplished not so much by the death of Christ, but by the shedding of his blood. This understanding of Jesus’ mission on earth does not sit well with me."
I guess I see these as synonymous. What’s the distinction in your mind between His death and His bloodshed? Why does this not sit well? I find it to be a wonderful truth of the faith, that the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and give Himself as a ransom for many, that He laid down His life for His sheep.
You wrote: "I would like to believe that Jesus’ primary mission on earth was to “reveal” the full identity of his Father, and show us a “new way” of life."
I would agree. I guess I don’t see why this is in tension with the first statement. As the author of Hebrews puts it in chapter 10, "19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water."
You go on to write, "In the BH/OT, God was always someone to fear Exo 3:6 “At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God”. Jesus changed this image of an angry and vengeful God, to a God who is deeply concerned with our lives (Matt 7:11), who is overly generous (Matt 6:8), and who always gives good things to those in need (Luke 11:13). By revealing his Father to the world, Jesus makes God accessible to the average Joe. One no longer needs to be a high priest to be in the presence of God, for now we are his children, heir of God."
There is some truth in this (in Christ God is accessible to the average Joe). But I would disagree with the phraseology of Jesus changing ‘this image of an angry and vengeful God, to a god who is deeply concerned with our lives…" God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Christ’s coming is no mere PR campaign for a friendlier, kinder God. God has always been a God of love, mercy, and compassion (as the OT makes clear again and again). He is also (still) a God who judges, exercises wrath, and condemns those who disobey Him (as Jesus also taught, e.g., Mt.7:21-23; Jn.3:16-19, 36). God has not changed, nor has His ‘image’ in Scripture. But the covenant has (Hebrews 8:6-13); the new covenant inaugurated in His blood has brought us near. See Hebrews 12:18-24.
What do you think?
Re: Was Jesus' primary role as the Son of God to atone the wor
There is so much charged imagery in the word atonement. It is handed down through the Older Testament, especially Leviticus, as what happens through sacrifice and blood rites. Paul in the NT uses many images to describe the significance of Jesus’ life and death. Later writers locked onto imagery and metaphor and “wrote it in stone.” As a result we deal today with atonement doctrines (ransom, substitution, propitiation, heroic sacrifice, etc.) that ALL have problems attached to them, especially in the ways in which God is then reflected—harsh judge, child abuser, punishment-seeker, and so on.
A community who’d lost a beloved leader/teacher/friend, and life resonated grace, forgiveness, nealing, reconciliation and whose death in scandalous circumstances, and subsequent resurrection, that community needed to explain and make sense of all. In their own context, sacrifice and atonement offered a solution.
Human beings by nature live out of two fundamental and universal instincts, according to Stephen Finlan: nothing is free and the intuition that ritual establishes order. Cultic ritual served those instincts and we continue to struggle with the atonement theories/doctrines that have been handed down to us in history and tradition.
One question that arises is that atonement focusses to exclusively on the death of Jesus. Was his life not also worth something? Jesus’ once and for all atonement for the world (including all of creation), was as much accomplished by his life and teachings and ministry as by his death, which I don’t believe was preordained, or required by God.
If we were to reject the notion of atonement altogether what would that mean? What if we focussed instead on the Incarnation—Christianity’s most unique and essential doctrine? God came to us intimately through the person/body of Jesus the Christ—the divine covenant renewed through the blood (i.e. life force) of Jesus. Theosis becomes a possible path, bound to the doctrine of the Incarnation which encompasses Jesus death and resurrection but also his whole life (which is considered more than just a prologue to the Calvary event. Live according to the commandments—love God and love your neighbour. Faith, not belief, is key. Faith transforms. Your faith has made you well. Your faith has saved your. Scripture offers these alternatives also. If Jesus’ death atones for the whole world, then no less does Jesus’ life.
Re: Was Jesus' primary role as the Son of God to atone the wor
"A community who’d lost a beloved leader/teacher/friend, and life resonated grace, forgiveness, nealing, reconciliation and whose death in scandalous circumstances, and subsequent resurrection, that community needed to explain and make sense of all. In their own context, sacrifice and atonement offered a solution."
This assumes, however, that such an interpretation was neither the inspired word of the apostles of Jesus Christ, nor the interpretation given them by the Lord Himself. Both assumptions however contradict the biblical record (e.g., Mk.10:45; Lk.24:15-27, 44-49; Acts 1:3; Gal.1:11-12; etc.).
I would agree that the doctrine of the atonement, though centered on the death of Christ, cannot be separated from His divine life and righteousness. However, I would disagree with you when you write: "What if we focussed instead on the Incarnation – Christianity’s most unique and essential doctrine?" You say this in contrast to the focus of His death. Yet, though I would never want to separate the two (see Col.1:19-20; Phil.2:6-8; He.2:14), it is ‘Christ crucified’ rather than ‘God incarnate’ that was the ‘crux’ of the apostolic kerygma (e.g., 1Co.1:22-23; 2:2; Gal.3:1; 6:14; etc.).
"God came to us intimately through the person/body of Jesus the Christ – the divine covenant renewed through the blood (i.e. life force) of Jesus."
This ‘blood of the covenant’, for example, in Christ’s institution of the Lord’s Supper, can only be understood in terms of His (then) impending death, in which He gave Himself up for our sins (Gal.1:4; cf. Eph.5:2, 25; 1Ti.2:6; Tit.2:14; see also 1Pe.2:24), for the forgiveness of which His blood was poured out (Mt.26:28; cf. 1Co.15:3; 1Pe.3:18). Negatively, as Hebrews 9-10 makes clear, the ‘blood of the covenant’ cannot be understood apart from the Levitical economy and sacrificial cultus of the Mosaic covenant (e.g., Heb.9:22).
Moreover, it will not do, exegetically, to render ‘blood’ as ‘life force’ in contrast to sacrificial blood-shed. See Leon Morris’ "The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross," and (an essentially abridged version) "The Atonement". The blood of Christ is clearly understood as synonymous, not with his life, but his (sacrificial) death (e.g., Rom.5:8-9; Eph.2:13-16; Col.1:20; Heb.9:7, 12-25; 10:4-10; 13:11-12; Rev.5:9).
Re: Was Jesus' primary role as the Son of God to atone the wor
Your questioning of atonement’s primacy strikes me as reminiscent of the Socinian theory of atonement, which essentially claims that Christ’s death was a means of fulfilling the need for an example of total love (revealed in God) and an inspiration to pursue such love (establishing a new way to live.) The Socinian view falls short when it comes to encountering the full magnitude of Jesus Christ.
Millard J. Erickson presents Christ’s functions as being threefold. Erickson asserts that Christ was prophet, priest, and king. A Socinian view of Jesus seems to favor solely His prophetic function.
In Scripture, Christ prophetically spoke of the coming days, opposed the hypocritical and condemned the sinfulness of man. He revealed how to live as children of God, and revealed the true heart of the father. But, His ministry did not end there.
Christ also was King, seeking to establish His kingdom. Throughout Scripture there are prophetic accounts detailing the throne of Christ in heaven. Philippians 2:9-10 emphasizes the supremacy Christ has as king, “in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.”
It is also important to recognize Christ as priest. As such, He makes our salvation and atonement possible. Erickson writes, “The doctrine of the atonement is most crucial for us … it has made our salvation possible.” Without atonement, how would one encounter the true image of God? How would one rightfully obtain a chance to live this "new way?" Atonement makes both of these activities possible.
Christ did not favor His function as prophet, solely revealing the heart of the Father or the way we are to live. Nor did He favor His function as king, solely establishing a kingdom. How could we encounter the heart of the Father or join His kingdom had He not been our atonement? The primacy of atonement must remain. Without it, God could not be revealed because our sin would ultimately separate us from Him. Without atonement, there would be no chance for us to be called the children of God, and thus live according to the new way Jesus established. A proper view of Christ as prophet, priest, and king is necessary.
I agree with your argument, but I challenge you to broaden your horizons. You’re right that Jesus reveals God and shows us How to live… but what good is that function if atonement is no longer the primary function of Jesus’ ministry? Revelation of the true image of God and the establishment of a new way to live are only ramifications of atonement. Atonement is central to the ministry of Jesus Christ.
Re: Was Jesus' primary role as the Son of God to atone the wor
wmw
Yes, Jesus’ primary role as the Son of God was to atone the world. But the further question is How? I submit not only through the Crucifixion, not only the Incarnation but through His whole radical, scandalous life.
I adress the issue of salvation through the Blood of Christ. The Crucifixion was only the way to access the blood. The blood remains the point of unity in Leviticus and Temple sacrifice, through to the Cross and still in Holy Communion. It is through the Blood of Christ that the theme of cleansing and purification runs, and still in the Book of Common Prayer in the prayer of approach to Holy Communion we pray “…And our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen”
Here at the communion table where we are touched, physically, by the Blood of Christ we are cleansed and then sent out into the world to live the Eucharist, to remember and live in Him, and He in us.
Re: Was Jesus' primary role as the Son of God to atone the wor
I have been doing a lot of thinking lately about the doctrine of an eternal hell. Lately I have been leaning towards the Universalist concept of Christ death as a means of all creation being redeemed to God. I have read some articles about the interpretation of the greek word “Aion” being incorrect by the translators of the King James Version. According to these articles the translators misinterpreted the word to mean “eternity” when the correct meaning was more or less a peiod of time or an “age”. The crux of the argument is that there is no eternal hell but rather a time of judgement/purification for the world and that all humanity will ultimately be drawn to God. Please let me know your thoughts.
Eternity's not forever
I agree with you about the length of eternity. I think it is broadly correct to say that the biblical phrase ‘for the age’ means something like ‘for the duration of the relevant period of time’ - it could be the lifetime of an individual or the lifetime of a culture or civilization. It doesn’t mean ‘for ever and ever beyond death and the end of the space-time continuum, etc.’
I’m not so sure, though, about reinterpreting the language of hell as purification, at least from a biblical perspective. Judgment comes as suffering and destruction, both at an individual level and at a national level. If the righteous get caught up in that suffering and destruction, they may be purified - I think we see this in Daniel 11:32-34; 12:10 and at a number of points in the New Testament. But for the wicked there is no redemptive outcome: destruction is destruction, death is death; neither of these consists of endless suffering.
The final position that the New Testament reaches would appear to be not that creation is redeemed but that it is completely remade - at least, that seems to me to be the implication of Revelation 20:11 and 21:1: the old disappears and something completely new comes in its place. Both human wickedness (the sort of wickedness, for example, that has recently accounted for the deaths of five prostitutes in the Ipswich area in the UK) and death/Hades are excluded from the new creation not by redemption but by destruction (Revelation 20:14; 21:8).
The other consideration that I would put forward is that these visions of a final renewal of creation are there in part at least to give shape and hope to the renewal of creation in microcosm, through the people of God, in the present. I would suggest, in fact, that it is the calling of the church to be an authentic humanity in the fullest sense that should primarily occupy us, and in this respect the question of universalism hardly arises. In Europe at least 95% of the population haven’t the slightest interest in being part of that redeemed, renewed creation.
Thanks for the response
Thanks for the response Andrew,
I think part of my concern with the doctrine of final destruction of the wicked is that I feel it contradicts Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness. I find it difficult to worship a God who tells me to forgive my enemies then destroys His. When I think of God as a forgiver of mankind, statements like “His mercy endures forever” seems to have more weight to them. Or when Jesus asks the Father to forgive His torturers the statement rings more true. I don’t want you to get the impression that I am basing my thoughts soley on sentimental impulses, it doesn’t seem to make sense logically either.
Also don’t lose heart over there in Europe, your doing a good work by this site.
Re: Thanks for the response
Part of the answer to this problem lies, I think, in understanding the place of forgiveness within a narrative theology. So, for example, I would question the description of God as ‘a forgiver of mankind’. What we see in the Gospels is God as a forgiver of his people: Jesus came to save his people from their sins. Israel has rebelled against the God to whom it has bound itself covenantally. Sooner or later that rebellion will end in destruction, but at the same time God is compassionate and will forgive those who repent.
I would suggest that Jesus commands his disciples to forgive others, in the first place, as a recognition of the fact that God has forgiven Israel. Love for enemies may have the same motivation, but there may be a more practical side to it: the way of salvation for Israel, which is a salvation from its enemies, will not come about through violence towards Rome (that only ended in war and defeat) or through Pharisaical isolationism or through the sort of political and religious compromise represented by Herod and the Sadducean aristocracy. It will come about by trusting the God who loves (not the same as ‘forgives’) the whole world.
Of course, it’s possible to become part of that forgiven people, but that means accepting the terms and conditions of membership. The overarching objective is not to save all mankind but to maintain in the midst of the nations and cultures of the earth an authentic, God-centred humanity, a creational microcosm, defined and demarcated not by law but by grace.
I think we can approach the moral problem - the very real moral problem - of the destruction of God’s enemies in a similar fashion. YHWH brings into existence a people for his own possession, promising that he will bless them and that they will be a blessing to the nations of the world. When he rescues that people from slavery in Egypt, they enter into a binding covenant relationship with him: if they observe the commandments (ie. preserve the spiritual and ethical integrity of the community), they will prosper; if they do not observe the commandments, they will suffer - and ultimately suffer defeat and destruction by other nations. But even when things go badly wrong, God remains faithful to his promise to Abraham and eventually Israel is delivered from its enemies - from the nation (Babylon, for example) that was the instrument of God’s wrath against his people.
That, if you like, is the theological narrative, but it is also politics as usual in the ancient near east (as indeed in the modern near east). What the theology does is ensure that Israel located its traumatic political experience within a coherent narrative about God. So when the Persian king Cyrus invaded Babylon, it is interpreted as God’s defeat of his enemies (Is. 45:1). Babylon was destroyed.
Destruction is normal, it’s a fact of life; violence is a fact of life. We live, we die, sometimes as a result of violence, our bodies return to the earth. Societies live, die, sometimes as a result of violence. Theologically this is a consequence of sin - or at least, the biblical narrative offers the hope of escaping from that ‘bondage to decay’ by attaching ourselves to the living God. That is true for individuals, and it is true for the ‘society’ of his people, which God preserves in an often hostile and destructive world because of his promise to Abraham.