Cemteries Came Alive!

³ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. ⁸ Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me [Paul] …¹² Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³ But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴ And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ¹⁵ We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. ¹⁶ For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. ¹⁹ If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. ²⁰ But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. -1 Corinthians 15:3-8,12-20 ESV

Today, we join millions of Christians across this nation, if not across the whole world, celebrating the resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Today, millions of Christian gather together at sunrise to worship the risen Jesus, meeting at parks, at beaches, at mountains, and even at cemeteries. Yes, you heard me right, cemeteries. Doesn’t sound right for Easter, does it? Cemeteries are something we associate more with Halloween than with Easter.

Christians meeting in cemeteries for church shouldn’t sound like a foreign idea. It’s a rich part of church history. While recent studies may show that Christians didn’t meet in the catacombs in Rome as we thought, early Christians did indeed meet in cemeteries. At first, it was just for practical reasons. During times of persecution, Christians met in cemeteries because cemeteries lied outside the city limits and would not catch the attention of the authorities. Also, with the growing faith, Christians needed a bigger place to come together and worship. What bigger a space than cemetery. But as time went by, meeting in a cemetery to have a deeper meaning.

⁵² The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, ⁵³ and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. -Matthew 27:52,53 ESV

These two verses are commonly forgot in the crucifixion and resurrection story, probably because only Matthew mentions this part of the story, and he really doesn’t put a lot of attention or detail. Who are these “saints” or, as the Greek literally puts it, “holy ones”? Are they Old Testament heroes of the faith? Maybe they aren’t. After all, if Moses or Elijah was to resurrect, walk into the city and say, “Hey, I’m Moses” or “Hey, I’m Elijah,” how could they really prove it? Even today with all our forensic science, we too would have a hard time proving the identity of someone before the time Christ, whether dead or alive. Then perhaps maybe these saints or “holy ones” are people living in the first century A.D. who believed in Jesus as the Messiah and died during Christ’s ministry, like Simeon or Anna from the Christmas story. But then again, the Jews living in Israel today will tell you they know the final resting place of all those Old Testament heroes. They’ve clearly marked, or should I say “decorated,” the tomb of Samuel (trust me, I’ve been there). So maybe it could be those Old Testament heroes. Either way, the truth remains. Upon Christ’s death, the tombs broke open. Upon Christ’s resurrection, the residents of the tombs came alive. The life-giving spirit has given life to those who were dead!

All the early Christians knew what this meant. No longer was death to be feared as the eternal separator and end to all. Their Lord, Savior and God had overcome death once. Now the Christians had hope. They knew by believing in Jesus, they too could look forward to overcoming death and coming back to life, just like the saints and holy ones who had also died and come back to life when Jesus died and came back to life. The early Christians lived out this truth daily in their lives. The laid hands and prayed healing on those who had communicable and fatal diseases. They preached the word of God where the word of God was banned, and they were martyred as a result. Most pertinent to my introduction, Christians worshiped in cemeteries, believing that they were worshipping side-by-side with their brothers and sisters in Christ who were not dead but merely just sleeping until Christ’s return. In fact, cemetery in Greek is koimeteria, which literally means “sleeping place.”

Part of my Easter tradition consists of calling my grandfather to wish him a happy Easter. My grandfather, turning 86 years old this June, is well aware of how close to death. I’m not ashamed or embarrassed to say such, for every holiday he reminds of how close to death he is. Despite being as healthy as an 86 year old can be, he’ll still say something like, “I’m not sure if I’ll be alive when you graduate from seminary or when you sister gets married” or he’ll tell me, “I’m just taking it one day at a time, for I might die tomorrow.” One time he even told me he was just waiting to die! As you can imagine, these calls become quite depressing. Yet when it comes to time to end the call, my grandfather never lets me say “goodbye.” He always says, “No, Graham, do not say ‘goodbye,’ for this is not goodbye. Say ‘so long for now,’ for this is until we talk again.” When Jesus rose from the dead, he removed all the “goodbyes.” He gave us hope that this is not the end, but the best is yet to come. So next time you walk by or drive by a cemetery, remember the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and then remember, this is not “goodbye,” this is just so long for now.

The Atonement: A Multifaceted Diamond

Introduction

The Merriam-Website Dictionary defines the term “multifaceted” as “having many facets or aspects.” When most people think of the word “multifaceted,” they probably think of diamonds, and rightfully so. Facets have an important role in shaping the diamond. The more facets a diamond contains, the more the diamond will shine, and the more beautiful the diamond will look.

 

The Merriam-Website Dictionary defines the term “atonement” as “the reconciliation of God and mankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.” Since Jesus found the church in the first century, the church has always recognized the death of Jesus on the cross as an act atonement, unifying the broken relationship between God and humanity. How the death of Jesus on the cross has brought atonement has not been as well defined. As church history has changed, so has its theology on the atonement. With every change in atonement comes controversy. Some Christians try to hold on to the older theory, while other Christians embrace the new theory, and it brings about debate, sometimes vicious. Instead of debating, Christian should discuss. Christians should not see these different, contrasting theories, but rather view them as different facets of the same diamond. When Christians can see these theories as multiple facets the diamond of the atonement, the gospel of cross will shine, and it will help Christians see the cross as beautiful, not as abusive or violent. This paper seeks to help Christians appreciate each facet of the atonement diamond by backing each theory with Scripture, observing each theory in its historical context, and providing an example of an exemplary church leader who held the theory.

Recapitulation Theory

 

Possibly one of the first fully developed atonement theologies comes the Early Church Father Irenaeus. Irenaeus believed in the recapitulation theory of the cross. Irenaeus saw Jesus as divine God taking on human history when he became a man. Jesus differs from humanity, however, due to his sinless nature. Therefore, Jesus obeyed whereas Adam and humanity disobeyed, and Jesus succeeds whereas Adam and humanity failed. In essence, Jesus exchanged his sinless life with humanity’s sinful life, thus reversing humanity’s fallen history. For Irenaeus, this culminates at the cross. Whereas Adam brought disobedience by eating from the tree, Jesus brought obedience by dying on the tree. The Scriptures would defend Irenaeus’s view. Romans 5:19 says, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” 2 Corinthians 5:17 states, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Paul would have agreed with Iraenaeus that those who believe in Jesus God declares as righteous as Jesus, for Jesus took on humanity’s sinfulness as a man. Therefore, the recapitulation theory, which Irenaeus first developed, stands in line with the Scriptures, and Christians need to see this important aspect while gazing upon the cross.

Ransom Theory

 

Shortly after, Origen developed his theory, which would become known as the ransom theory. Origen knew the Bible said Jesus paid a ransom for humanity. Mark 10:45 states, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” 1 Peter 1:18-19 declares, “knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” Origen struggled, however, to understand who Jesus paid this ransom to. For Origen, it did not make sense that Jesus, God the Son, would have to pay ransom to God the Father. It would be as if God paid ransom to himself. Origen concluded the ransom had to be paid to Satan. At the fall, Adam handed over humanity to the devil. If the Lord wanted humanity back, God had to pay with the life of Jesus, just as the devil had expected. Out of his own pride, however, Satan did not expect Jesus to overpower him. Satan could not grasp Jesus, and so Jesus escaped from Satan’s bonds. Therefore, Satan lost everything, both humanity and Jesus.

 

While Origen receives the credit for developing the theory, ransom theory underwent many revisions during those early years of the church. Gregory of Nyssa positively described ransom theory as divine deception, for the whole ordeal completely fooled Satan. Of his ignorance, Satan did not see Jesus as divine, but instead, Satan saw Jesus as a perfect or near-perfect human because of his righteousness and performance of miracles. Satan wanted Jesus, and he offered God Jesus in exchange for humanity. When Satan received the payment of Jesus, he learned of the divinity of Jesus, which lead to his downhill. Gregory uses a fishing analogy to illustrate his view. The fish believes he receives a free meal by chomping down on the worm, the but hook inside the worm leads to his demise.

 

John of Damascus liked Gregory of Nyssa’s fishing analogy, but he hated Origen’s belief that Jesus paid the ransom to Satan. Instead, John of Damascus proposed that Jesus did indeed paid the ransom to the God the Father. Ever since Adam sinned against God, God handed humanity over to death. When Jesus died on the cross, and he paid the ransom to the Father and tricked death, which could not hold Jesus and his divine nature. This view understand the Scriptures that Origen focused on, while keeping God sovereign over Satan.

Satisfaction Theory

 

The Middle Ages brought about a new outlook on the atonement. In the Middle Ages, the people of Europe lived in a feudal system. Lords would let serfs live on and farm the land, and in return, the serfs would pay the lords back with a percentage of the harvest. This rate could fluxuate, depending on how much honor or dishonor the serf gave the lord. If the serf dishonored the lord, the lord would require the serf to pay a higher price, almost too high to afford. Anselm, living in the Middle Ages, saw the cross in light of this context. The sin of humanity brought dishonor to God. Therefore, humanity owes God a payment in order to restore his honor. Indeed, the sinner cannot afford the payment of sin. No amount of righteous acts could undo all the evil that the entire human race had committed. Even the death of the all humanity would not fulfill the payment. Thus, man cannot pay the price, but only God can. The one paying needs to be both God and man. As God, he can make the payment. As human, he represents the party in debt. Since Jesus had both a divine and human nature, only Jesus could pay the price. By dying on the cross, Jesus paid a price he did not have to pay. Because of his love for humanity, he gifted the reward to all who believe him. Anselm, in feudal context, saw Jesus on the cross as propitiation, as described in Romans 3:25-26.

Moral Influence Theory

 

While a majority of Christians in the Middle Ages held to Anselm’s satisfaction theory, not everyone appreciated as much. Abelard did not like Anselm’s recent satisfaction theory, nor he did like the older ransom theory. Instead, Abelard opted for the moral influence theory. According to Abelard, Jesus came to inspire humanity to love God. Jesus demonstrated how this love should look all throughout his life, but that demonstration of love culminated with his death on the cross. When Abelard looked upon the cross, he did not see a payment for sin, but he saw Jesus display God’s love, which in turn would encourage humanity to love God in return, even it means death. Abelard saw Jesus on the cross as an act of love, just like Paul said in Romans 5:8, “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” In turn, Aberland encouraged his listeners to follow Christ’s example, even to death, as Peter commands in 1 Peter 2:21.

Penal Substitution Theory

 

During the Reformation, the Reformers developed a new theory of the atonement, although it contained many similarities to Anselm’s satisfaction theory. The Reformers disagreed with Anselm on the idea that humanity’s sin brought dishonor to God. In all God’s sovereignty and greatness, nothing could cause God to lose his honor, not even humanity’s sin. Rather, the Reformers laid the foundation of their theory on God’s view of justice. The just God gave humanity the law, defining the difference between holiness and sinfulness. The law reveals God as holy and humanity as sinful. The holy God exercises his wrathful judgment towards sin by punishing sinners with death. Just like Anselm, the Reformers declare the human race as helpless to pay the penalty, but the hope of salvation lies in Jesus. As both God and man, Jesus became the perfect sacrifice. He took on God’s wrathful judgment against sin, so humanity would not have to. He died, so humanity may live eternally. Jesus substituted himself for humanity, taking on the punishment for sin, so humanity would not have to, just as Hebrews 9:6-15 explains.

Christ as Victor Theory

 

 

Although its roots began during the period of the early church fathers, Gustaf Aulen made the Christ as Victor, or Christus Victor, popular in the twentieth century. J. Denny Weaver would make it popular again in the twenty-first century with his book The Nonviolent Atonement. As the name hints, this view of the cross centers around the idea of victory. The Fall enslaved humanity to the evil powers of the world, such as the Law, sin, death, Satan and his demons. When Aulen looks upon the cross, he sees Jesus victorious over the Law, sin, death, Satan, demons and all worldly. Aulen reinterprets Irenaeus’s recapitulation theory, Origen’s ransom theory and the Reformers’ penal substitution theory to prove that through history the church has held to the Christ as victor theory. While anyone could easily question Aulen’s reinterpretation of church history, the Scriptures back Aulen’s theology. Colossians 2:15 tells the reader, “ He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.” Hebrews 2:14-15 informs the reader, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,  and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” Indeed, after the cross, Jesus stood victorius.

Healing Theory

 

Bruce Reichenbach, in the book The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, offers a fresh, new view of the cross for the twenty-first century. This new view Reichenbach calls the healing view, or the healing theory. Reichenbach uses the whole Bible to develop his theory. First, Reichenbach defines humanity’s fallen nature as a sickness. Reichenbach proves this by showing a consistency between sickness and sin in the Old Testament. Staying in the Old Testament, Reichenbach defends God’s role as healer, and then he shows how God invited the priests into this role of healing with the Levitical law. To wrap up the Old Testament, Reichenbach focuses in on Messianic prophecies that describe the Messiah as a healer removing disease. Turing to the New Testament, Reichenbach turns right to Jesus. He emphasizes the healing miracles of Jesus because he sees those miracles as displaying Jesus as God the healer and the priest aiding in the healing. Therefore, when the Gospel narratives climax at the crucifixion, Reichenbach sees the ultimate healing, the healing of humanity’s sin. Jesus takes on the virus of sin. The virus of sin kills Jesus, but not permanently, for the healer cannot die. Therefore, Jesus cures humanity of sin and brings peace through his healing on the cross.

Conclusion

Christians need to view the atonement as multifaceted, for the Bible views the atonement as multifaceted. In Romans 5:19 and 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul defines the atonement as recapitulation, for on the cross Jesus exchanges places with humanity. Humanity becomes pefect and Jesus becomes sin, taking the punishment for sin. In Mark 10:45 and 1 Peter 1:18-19, both Mark and Peter call Jesus on the cross as paying the ransom so the slaves of sin may become the slaves of Christ. In Romans 3:25-26 and 1 John 2:2, both Paul and John label the cross as propitiation, satisfying the dishonor humanity’s sin brought upon God. In Romans 5:8 and 1 Peter 2:20-21, both Paul and Peter see the cross as moral influence, for Jesus becomes an example of love and obedience, even unto suffering and death. From reading Hebrew 6:9-15, the first century Christians would have called the cross penal substitution, for they would have seen Jesus become the perfect sacrifice to pay God’s wrathful judgment towards sin, just like the sacrifices in Leviticus did. From reading Colossians 2:15 and Hebrews 2:14-15, Paul and other Christians of the first would have gazed up on the cross and acknowledged Jesus as victorious over sin, death, Satan and all the evil powers of the world. Since the Bible talks about all these views, Christians can conclude that the Bible sees the atonement as multifaceted.

 

 

Not only did first century church hold all these theologies of atonement, but the church continued to hold these theologies throughout history, sometimes emphasizing one point over another. During the centuries of the early church fathers, Irenaeus saw the atonement as recapitulation. During that same time period, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus looked up the atonement as payment of a ransom. When the Middle Ages came, Anselm emphasized the satisfaction theory because focused on the wrongdoing on humanity’s sin on God’s honor, whereas Abelard emphasized the moral influence theory because he focused in on God’s love. The Reformers at the time of the Reformation drew towards the idea of humanity’s sin as the object of a holy God’s wrath, so they developed the penal substitution theory. When the twentieth and twenty-first century arrived, Christians wanted to think less of violence and more on overcoming worldly powers, so Gustaf Aulen and J. Denny Weaver reminded the church that the atonement displays Christ as the victor of those evil, worldly powers. At some point in time in history, the church has held at least one of these views, if not more. Therefore, history provides a testimony of the importance of each facet. Some Christians in the church talk about returning the good days of the first century church. While this belief lacks respect for church history, it would be helpful for the church when it comes its theology of the atonement, for it will gives the church a more complete picture of the atonement.