이 정석 교수의 신학 문답 Q&A

1. What is Atonement?

 

(i) Atonement is the amendment or reparation of the offense by the sacrifice of expiatio i`lasmoj and propitiation for the purpose of forgiveness and re-conciliation. This typical English expression is a composite noun of ‘at-one-ment’, developed from the medieval English word, simply ‘one-ment’. Theologically, it is the sacrificial work of Christ for the reconciliation between God and human race who were separated because of sin. This term appears only once in the New Testament as katallagh meaning reconciliation rather than atonement, but its idea is prominent throughout the Scripture.

 

(ii) This doctrine of atonement is often called “the heart of the Gospel”, because it is the decisive and central achievement of Christ which made our justification and salvation possible. Our salvation happened in this once-for-all event of atonement and reconciliation. Therefore, it is called the objective salvation which is the foundational reality of the subjective salvation dealt in soteriology.

 

 

2. Three Theories of Atonement

 

(1)   Satisfaction Theory

 

(i) In his treatise entitled Cur Deus Homo (1094-8), Anselm developed a full theory of atonement. According to him, man robbed of the honor of God by the rebellious violation against His law and made an infinite offence against God, and it had to be vindicated either by punishment or satisfaction. Though the mercy of God prompted to seek the way of satisfaction, it required satisfaction equally infinite, but no finite being could offer such satisfaction. He sent His Son for this purpose. Christ satisfied Him with the perfect obedience to His law, and in addition He suffered and died for human race. This supererogation made a complete satisfaction to the divine justice and this merit of Christ was transferred to men who believe this gracious work of atonement for them.

 

(ii) This theory has been most popular in the Christianity since Anselm. Thomas Aquinas accepted it, though he denied the intrinsic necessity of exact satisfaction, even which was not infinite satisfaction due to the finitude of human being. Therefore, the infinite satisfaction of Christ was more than adequate but superabundant. The Reformers and Protestant theology adopted this theory, though its penal aspect was strongly emphasized.

 

(iii) It is criticized in several aspects: denial of absolute necessity to satisfy the essential justice of God, penal aspect of atonement, exclusion of active obedience of Christ from atonement, and commercialism without considering mystical union and faith in atonement and reconciliation.

 

(2)   Moral Theory

 

(i) In opposition to Anselm, Peter Abelard(1079-1142) held that God did not require the satisfaction of His justice, but rather God showed how much He loved human race in the death of His Son, so that they would love Him again by the grateful response to His own sacrificial love. Socinians adopted this view and insisted against the Reformers that “Christ saves men by revealing to them the way of faith and obedience as the way of eternal life, by giving them an example of true obedience both in His life and in His death, and by inspiring them to lead a similar life.” Later, Liberalism took this moral example or moral influence theory in general and emphasized Christ as the Moral Teacher with a denial of His divinity.

 

(ii) This subjective theory has been seriously criticized by the traditional Christianity, for it denies the objective efficacy of atonement at the Cross. It makes God an arbitrary Being without retributive justice and neglects the penal sufferings of Christ. Moreover, it presupposes the human autonomy of Pelagianism with the denial of spiritual death and original sin. Also, it cannot explain the salvation of the Old Testament believers, who had no chance to imitate Him.

 

(3)   Ransom Theory

 

(i) First, Origen(c. 185-254) offered an explanation of atonement that Christ paid ransom to Satan to release human race from him by His deceptive death, for human race had been under the bondage of Satan after the Fall. It became the leading theory of atonement in the early church in spite of some criticisms until Anselm succeeded to replace it with his satisfaction theory in the West.

 

(ii) However, this classic idea was revived by Gustaf Aulen who advocated the return to the early church understanding of atonement in Christus Victor (1931), with insisting that it cannot be dominant in the early church without the agreement with the Apostolic teaching of the New Testament but it lost support to some rationalizations of trans-rational atonement. Also, he understood that Martin Luther revived this theory but his followers neglected his teaching of atonement. This resurgence was possible due to the modern situation of the world which showed the reality of Satanic evils.

 

(iii) This theory is criticized in several aspects: complete neglect of the justice of God, overestimation of Satanic power, so focusing on Satan rather than God in the vicarious work of atonement and reconciliation.

 

 

3. The Biblical System of Atonement

 

(1)   The Blood-Shed Punishment Principle

 

(i) In the Eden, God made a covenant with Adam that the violation of the divine command will result in the death: “when you eat of it, you will surely die.”(Gen 2:17) After the Fall, Cain’s murder of Abel prompted God to set the principle of blood-by-blood retribution: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.”(Gen 9:6) This principle of atonement, i.e., paying the price of sin, has been consistently enforced in the history of Israel: “it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.”(Lev 17:11, Num 35:33) “In fact … without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”(Heb 9:22)

 

(ii) So, God prohibited not only the shedding of blood but also the eating of any blood with a severe punishment of excommunication: “If anyone eats blood, that person must be cut off from his people.”(Lev 7:26-27, Lev 17:10, 14)

 

(iii) Covenant of God with His people was made with an oath of blood: “Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words”(Ex 24:8) New covenant of grace required the atoning blood for the gracious forgiveness of sins by “Jesus the mediator of a new covenant”(Heb 12:24): “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”(Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24)

 

(iv) Therefore, the atonement of Christ necessarily required the blood, i.e., the blood-shedding death. The precious blood of Christ redeemed our sins: “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.”(1Pet 1:18-19), as it “purifies us from all sin.”(1Jn 1:17) and “cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!”(Heb 9:14)  And, “by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross”(Col 1:20), we “who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ”(Eph 2:13) and reconciled with God in Jesus Christ.

 

(2)   Sacrificial System of Penal Substitution

 

(i) After the Fall, Adam’s sons Cain and Abel are recorded to make offering to God, and this tradition was followed by Noah and Abraham. However, the sacrificial system of Israel was instituted by the divine Law through Moses, and it included a system of atonement. Among five main offerings regulated in Lev 1-7, sin offering taj'x; is most directly related with the atonement of sins, and its two principles are animal substitution for man and penal aspect of blood-shedding death.

 

(ii) For the atonement of sin, the sacrifice should be animal which has blood to shed. But before the slaughtering animal for blood, the sin of man had to be first transmitted to the innocent animal to make atonement effective. It is done by the sinner’s laying his hand on the animal: “He is to lay his hand on its head” “and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him”(Lev 1:4, 3:2, 8, 13, 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33). In the Day of Atonement, the scapegoat, called azazel, which symbolically carries away all the sins of Israel had to pass the same procedure of transmission: “He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites--all their sins--and put them on the goat's head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert.”(Lev 16:21-22).

 

(iii) The Messiah was prophesied to be the real and perfect scapegoat for all the sins of human race who is able to make the eternal atonement for many:

 

(Is 53:4-12)

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all … Yet it was the LORD'S will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering … by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities … he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

(iv) John the Baptist called Jesus as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”(Jn 1:29), and Jesus Himself had a clear self-consciousness that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many lutron anti pollwn”(Mk 10:45).

 

(v) Before His blood-shedding death, God transmitted our sins to His innocent Son: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us”(2Cor 5:21) God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all”(Rom 8:32) “as a sacrifice of atonement i`lasthrion”(Rom 3:25) and “as an atoning sacrifice for our sins”(1Jn 4:10, 2:2). Therefore, “Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many”(Heb 9:28), for “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God”(Eph 5:2) His suffering death was necessary for the atonement of human race(Mt 26:39, Lk 24:26, Heb 2:17), and it was the only way both to maintain the righteousness of God and bestow the gracious justification to sinners: “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice … so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”(Rom 3:25-26)

 

(3)   Perfect Sacrifice Acceptance Principle

 

(i) Even before the Sacrificial Law was given, Noah “taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.”(Gen 8:20) The Mosaic Law required clean and flawless sacrifice in order to be accepted by God: “If an animal has a defect, is lame or blind, or has any serious flaw, you must not sacrifice it to the LORD your God”(Deut 15:21), “for that would be detestable to him”(Deut 17.1) and “because it will not be accepted on your behalf.”(Lev 22.20)

 

(ii) No human sacrifice was acceptable because he/she has a serious defect to be a sacrifice of atonement. In fact, all sinned and there was no righteous man(Rom 3.23, Eccl 7.20). Due to the sinful rebellion against God, every human became enemy of God(Is 59.2, Col 1.21), and “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law”(Rom 3.20), “because by observing the law no one will be justified.”(Gal 2.16) Human atonement for other human was impossible(Ezek 18.20).

 

(iii) Jesus Christ was sinless by the perfect observation of the Law and the total obedience to His Father, and therefore He was qualified to be an acceptable sacrifice of atonement. The obedience of Christ obedientia Christi, including obedientia activa and obedientia passiva, was crucial in the achievement of atonement: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”(Rom 5.19) Furthermore, His infinite divinity made His infinite atonement for all believers possible.

 

(4)   Christ as the Vicarious Representative of Human Race

 

(i) To be the real sacrifice of atonement, different from the symbolic animal in the shadowy system, required a genuine representation of human race, i.e., the incarnation of the Son of God. So, God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man”(Rom 8.3)

 

(ii) God made two covenants with man, old one with “Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come”(Rom 5.14) as the natural human representative and the new one with Christ as the Second and Last Adam(1Cor 15.45). “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.”(Rom 5.18) These two representatives of human race are compared as death and life, disobedience and obedience, sin and grace, condemnation and justification(Rom 5.12-21, 1Cor 15.22) Therefore, Christ was punished to death and atoned all the sins as the vicar of the human race in the new covenant. Moreover, by the mystical union of Christ with believers, He made a perfect identification with all humans and so perfect atonement: “For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.”(2Cor 5.14) Following the long process of humiliation and preparation, Christ finally achieved the atonement of human race for the reconciliation between His Father and His people: “Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.”(Heb 9.26)

 

4. Limited or Unlimited Atonement?

 

(1)   Limited Atonement

 

(i) Since it is stated in the Canons of Dordt, the doctrine of limited atonement has described as one of the five points of Calvinism. While all agree that only those who believe in the atonement of Christ even though it is sufficient for all human race, this Reformed position insists that Christ atoned only for the elect, not all. It is based on some particularistic passages as well as the doctrine of election and sola gratia salvation. Some biblical passages seem to limit the object of His sacrificial death as my sheep, my friend or my people. Also, Rom 5.10 shows that our atonement and reconciliation happened even before our faith

 

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me--just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep.(Jn10.14-15)

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command.(Jn 15.13-14)

All that the Father gives me will come to me … I shall lose none of all that he has given me.(Jn 6.37-39)

 

(ii) The major argument of particularism is well presented by Louis Berkhof: “It is impossible that they for whom Christ paid the price, whose guilt He removed, should be lost on account of that guilt.” Though some critics insist the rejection of Christ as the only reason of punishment, their explanation that “people suffer in hell because of the sins of rejecting Christ, even though their other sins were paid for” is not persuasive.

 

(2)   Unlimited Atonement

 

(i) However, the Protestant majority tends to be universalistic in the extent of atonement on the basis of some inclusive passages such as “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”(Jn 1.29), “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”(3.16), “The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh”(6.51), “God was reconciling the world to himself”(2Cor 5.19), “[Christ] gave himself as a ransom for all”(1Tim 2.6), and most clearly “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”(1Jn 2.2) Moreover, some passages which affirms the possibility not to be saved of those for whom Christ died are suggested as counter-argument(Rom 14.15, 1Cor 8.11, 2Pet 2.1).

 

(ii) The major arguments of universalism is as follows: The seeming limitations are indefinite and actually ever-expanding. It is awkward to insist that “It is as if God, in giving a dinner, prepared far more food than was needed, yet refused to consider the possibility of inviting additional guests.”(Millard Erickson) Two positions are not contradictory if limited portion is included in all. Even, some possibility to offer two kinds of salvation, i.e., objective and subjective salvation, is suggested on the ground of 1Tim 4.10: “the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.”