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.
No comments:
Post a Comment