Incarnation and Atonement
June 1st, 2008 by Sean
Presented by John Obelenus at the One God Conference, Seattle WA June 1st 2008, commentary by Sean Finnegan. Click here to listen.
John seeks to deal with two major issues related to Jesus’ death for our sins: (1) the notion that God identifies with us through the incarnation and atonement (2) a flawed understanding of penal substitution.
(1) God identifies with us through becoming a man and dying for our sins as a requirement. It is typically believed that God became a man and in such a way identifies with what it is to be human. But, this is totally unbiblical. The Scriptures speak of Jesus identifying with us because he was tempted and he suffered the human plight and even crucifixion (Heb. 2.18). Furthermore, God is not so limited that he needs to become a human in order to understand what it would be like to be a human. Jesus lived a life of identifying with his people with the role of Isaiah’s suffering servant as his template. He substitutes himself for others and in so doing performs restoration (whether physical, social, or related to forgiveness). Then in his last act of identifying with the human plight Jesus died on the cross. To this the Christian may identify through baptism and communion. In baptism the Christian dies to the old life and is crucified with Christ (Rom. 6). Through communion the Christian eats the body and drinks the blood of Jesus which amounts to memorializing his suffering on the cross and also renewing the covenant to follow him.
(2) Penal substitution has been grossly exaggerated in the past. Penal relates to the notion that Jesus took the penalty for sin. Substitution relates to the idea that Jesus died in our place as a substitute. But, orthodox Christian have said (at least since Anselm) that the death of Christ can only be effective if Jesus is a God-man. Only then would his death actually pay for all the sins of the world. But the God that the Scriptures present is not a mathematical principle or karmic principle. God does not require the payment be equal to the offense (just remember back to the animal sacrifices under the Mosaic covenant). In fact, what makes Christ’s death so valuable is that God accepts it on behalf of humanity. If God accepts the sacrifice then the sacrifice accomplishes its purpose.
John does not seek to cast aside the doctrine of penal substitution. God is personally offended and angry at our sin. But, that does not mean that he must require an equal payment to satisfy himself. It turns out that God did choose to architect his salvific restorative program through the death of Jesus on the cross. So someone who fully identifies with Jesus is by God declared right, forgiven, and ultimately given entrance into his coming kingdom so long as he or she perseveres.
Sean, this is an excellent article. It’s very worthwhile to note how close the relationship is between penal substitution and the trinity, as the two are often used to reinforce each other.
I’m commonly confronted by trinitarians with ‘Aha, but if Jesus isn’t God then you have no atonement, or the doctrine of penal substitution must be wrong!’, to which I reply ‘Yeah, it’s wrong, and?’.
I think you put your finger right on it here:
‘God does not require the payment be equal to the offense (just remember back to the animal sacrifices under the Mosaic covenant).’
I’d like to carry this idea further and suggest that a payment was not in fact given or received at all. The fundamental flaw I see with many traditional interpretations of the atonement (at least since Augustine), is that they see the atonement as a means of reconciling GOD to MAN, whereas the Bible tells us clearly the purpose of the atonement was to reconcile MAN to GOD.
What’s the difference? Well the difference was who’s attitude had to change, ours or God’s. The Bible says our attitude was wrong, we had to change and agree with God. Standard interpretations of the atonement say God’s attitude had to change, and it took the death of Jesus (God), to get God thinking straight (Philip Yancey expresses this in incredibly bold terms without even a blush).
I hold to the participatory model of the atonement myself. There’s a great article on it here:
http://consequently.org/papers/pa.pdf
Reading this over again, I think that this statement really deserves to be in all caps:
‘So someone who fully identifies with Jesus is by God declared right, forgiven, and ultimately given entrance into his coming kingdom so long as he or she perseveres.’
The atonement is absolutely about identification, or ‘participation’ to put it another way. Christ participated in our sufferings, and we participate in his.
1 Peter 2:
21 For to this you were called, since Christ also suffered for you, LEAVING AN EXAMPLE for you to follow in his steps.
22 He committed no sin nor was deceit found in his mouth.
23 When he was maligned, he did not answer back; when he suffered, he threatened no retaliation, but committed himself to God who judges justly.
24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, THAT WE MIGHT CEASE FROM SINNING AND LIVE FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. By his wounds you were healed.
25 For you were going astray like sheep but now you have turned back to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
1 Peter 4:
1 So, since Christ suffered in the flesh, you also arm yourselves with the same attitude, because the one who has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin,
2 in that he spends the rest of his time on earth concerned about the will of God and not human desires.
1 John 2:
6 The one who says he resides in God OUGHT HIMSELF TO WALK JUST AS JESUS WALKED.
1 John 3:
6 We have come to know love by this: that Jesus laid down his life for us; thus we ought to lay down our lives for our fellow Christians.
Fortigurn,
Would you deny any substitutionary aspect of atonement? I’m just curious.
JohnO, actually yes I would. I find in Scripture that Christ died for us, not instead of us. The very fact that Christ’s death compels us to change demonstrates that he is not our substitute. If he did the work instead of us, then we don’t have to do it.
Then what would you do with these verses:
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. – John 6.53
Partaking of the blood gives life. The implication of this verse is that Jesus did something for us which we cannot. And, as my first paper shows, Jesus substitutes for us that we can have what he has, while he takes away our sin onto himself.
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. – 1 John 1.7
He cleanses our sin as he substitutionally takes it upon himself (Is 53 clearly states this). In his victory the sin which he has taken upon himself is utterly defeated.
And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, – Rev 1.5
Jesus is the one that does this, he washes us in his blood. We cannot wash ourselves.
JohnO, I certainly agree that Jesus did something for us which we cannot do for ourselves. But partaking of his blood is participation in his sacrifice. If his blood had to do with something he did instead of us, our involvement would be both unnecessary and inappropriate.
Yes Christ cleanses our sin, and yes he has washed us in his own blood. These are metaphors for the forgiveness we obtain through Christ’s work, the forgiveness you rightly say we could not obtain for ourselves (‘We cannot wash ourselves’).
But they do not tell us how that forgiveness was made available through Christ. For that we need to read other passages.
It’s also useful to note that Isaiah 53 is expounded by Matthew which shows it has nothing to do with the substitutionary doctrine of the atonement (Matthew 8:17).
Fortigurn,
In my first paper Mt 8.17 is very central to its thoughts. Reading Is 53 on its own is clearly talking about some of atonement. What makes me think it is substitutionary is because the servant of 53 clearly steps into our place for us. I believe Matt 8.17 just shows us that all of Jesus’ ministry is substitutionary – not just the cross. The idea permeates his healings and miracles.
JohnO, I ready your paper and its discussion of Isaiah 53. But I’m not sure how healing someone constitutes substitution.
When your local doctor prescribes medication or binds a wound, that’s not substitution. When you’re operated on in hospital that’s not substitution. When Christ healed people that wasn’t substitution, that was simple care.
Substitution would require Christ to have taken on the wounds and sicknesses of those he healed, bearing the injury or affliction in their stead. That clearly didn’t happen.
This is exactly what the quote of Is 53.4 in Matt 8.17 says! Is 53 says he will take on their infirmities. Hence I conclude substitutionary
JohnO,
‘This is exactly what the quote of Is 53.4 in Matt 8.17 says! Is 53 says he will take on their infirmities. Hence I conclude substitutionary’
But Matthew 8:17 interprets Isaiah 53 in a manner which is not substitutionary. Christ wasn’t afflicted by the sicknesses he healed. He didn’t take on the diseases from which he cured people. That’s the point here.
The gospel records (and Matthew 8:17 in particular), demonstrate that a substitutionary reading of Isaiah 53 cannot be correct. Jesus never took on the diseases he cured. He was the means by which they were taken away, but he did not achieve this in a substitutionary manner.