The atonement



    The 'atonement', as the word says, relates to 'at - one - ment': it is the belief that God and man, once separated because of man's sin, are brought together, or reconciled. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines the word as 'the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ', or 'reparation for an offense or injury: satisfaction', or 'Religious concept in which obstacles to reconciliation with God are removed, usually through sacrifice'.

    In Christian belief, Christ's death effects the atonement that removes the barrier between God and humanity, and the typical evangelical Christian will often claim that 'Jesus died for me', or 'his blood takes away my sin'. However, I have found it to be very unusual if anyone who makes such statements will have bothered to actually think about the mechanics of this.
    Apart from the fact that very little blood was shed in a crucifixion, and it is obvious that the belief of the early Christians concerning blood and 'being washed in the blood' was influenced by other beliefs current at the time, the New Testament is hopelessly inconsistent in providing any clear explanation of how Christ's death actually removes 'the sins of the world'. It should be noted at this point that while there are a number of biblical texts that refer to Christ's death removing the sins of the world, mainstream Christian belief, and particularly evangelical belief does not accept the idea of 'universal salvation' (Christ's death takes away the sins of all humanity), but teaches the atonement is for a limited number of people only.

    A number of 'explanations' have been offered to show how the death of Christ was able to cancel out the sins of believers. The following is only a very brief summary of the subject and the interested reader is advised to consult some of the many publications produced to deal with this subject.
    One explanation of how the atonement was achieved is known as the 'Classical' or 'Christus Victor' theory that argues the death of Christ provided the means, or victory, through which evil is overcome in the format of a drama. The term arose from the book Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, written by Gustaf Aulen, and published in 1931. The resurrection was God's triumph over satan by which humanity is rescued from those forces of evil by which it is ensnared, e.g., death and sin. The obvious flaw in this belief is that evil continues and increases and there is no indication of any victory being achieved through Christ's death.
    This theory is closely linked to the Ransom view as this believes it was necessary for a price to be paid to purchase humanity from the control of the devil. A good definition of this is:

'Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip.'
- Robin Collins, Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theory
    Some adherents of the Ransom Theory do not believe there was any 'trick' by God and others reject the idea that anything was paid to the devil. This particular doctrine has many factors that are incomprehensible or conflict with traditional Christian thinking.
    Another theory is the Satisfaction Theory, the architect of which was Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) in his book, Cur Deus Homo. Anselm believed that Christ's death had given what was necessary to deal with God's offended honour. The satisfaction required was so great that it could only be made by God, but as it was for humanity, it required a human being to offer up what was required. Consequently only a person who was both God and man would be able to offer the honour required by God and this was made possible by the divine Son of God. The theory essentially sees God as the offended party who is 'bought off' by someone who, incomprehensibly, has two different natures. This theory is well described in the following:
'Every rational creature owes it to God to bring his own will under subjection to God s will. This is the honour that belongs to God. Whoever rebels against His law robs Him of His honour...But [Jesus] does not owe it to suffer and to die, seeing he is all-powerful and without sin. If, then, he freely lays down his life, he gives something of infinite value, which is more than sufficient to balance man s debt. He thus earns merit which God cannot fail to reward...
The Son, who already possesses everything by right of birth, cannot be personally recompensed. He therefore has over and above a surplus of merit, and the benefit will be carried forward to the account of sinners and for their salvation. They are let off, because their debt is now paid'.
Doctrine of the Atonement And its Historical Evolution, Auguste Sabatier, pp.70,73-74
    The Satisfactory Theory is based on God's honour and is also a substitution theory but different from the theory of Penal Substitution, which, as its name suggests, argues the penalty required because of humanity's sin was paid by Christ's death. The difference between the two is essentially that in the Substitutionary Theory, Christ suffered for believers, while the Penal Substitution theory asserts that Christ was punished instead of believers. Adherents of the latter theory believe they find support in the Bible where a sinless Christ is said to have become sin or cursed for those he redeems, e.g., Isa 53:4-6,10-11, Rom 3:23-26, 2 Cor 5:21, Gal 3:10,13. This belief, mainly associated with Protestantism and evangelical Christianity, has a host of flaws, e.g., the New Testament repeatedly refers to God's forgiveness, but it is difficult to see where this can be found in the Penal Substitution theory. Moreover, if all of those who are saved by the one death of Christ are worthy of death, there is a clear factor of being wholly disproportionate. Of this theory, it is noted that 'The cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse - A vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offense he has not even committed' (Steve Chalke & Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus, p.16).
    Another theory is that of Moral Influence: this believes that Christ's example brings about a change for the better in human beings. The death of Christ was to influence mankind and show humanity the greatness of God's love. Christ offered himself as a self-sacrifice and an example. His death does not make a 'payment', nor is it a substitution, as neither are needed. The obvious problem with this theory are those biblical texts that clearly do refer to the 'ransom' death of Christ. Furthermore, the loving example that is supposed to have been shown by Christ's death and supposed to produce 'better people' has clearly failed and ironically, this is most evident in Christianity which has produced so much hatred and ignorance.
    In addition to these theories of the atonement, there are many more, but the above examples should provide an idea of the thinking behind this doctrine, and the many problems that arise.

    The first problem is that exponents of each theory have no difficulty in finding support or uniformity in the Bible. The second problem is that each school can point to periods of Christian history when it was the dominant view and was then abandoned. The third, and most damaging problem, is that none are logical or comprehensible.
    The general theme of the New Testament is that humanity has inherited the sinful nature of Adam and is unable to help itself. To resolve this, God sent his Son, who was sinless, to die for humanity. His death, as the sinless Saviour, frees believers from the death which is due to them because of their sinfulness, e.g.,

    'For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many'. Mark 10:45.
    'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...The redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood'. Rom 3:23-25.
    'We also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation'. Romans 5:11
    'Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned'. Romans 5:12
    'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures'. 1 Corinthians 15:3
    'For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive'. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22
    'He died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves'. 2 Corinthians 5:15
    'The man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all'. 1 Timothy 2:5-6
    'But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one'. Hebrews 2:9
    'For we have not a high priest...who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin'. Hebrews 4:15
    'Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins'. Hebrews 9:22
     '[Jesus] committed no sin'. 1 Peter 2:22
    'We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world'. 1 John 2:1-2
    'You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin'. 1 John 3:5
    'The Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world'. 1 John 4:14
    In today's world, the idea of someone taking the place of another person or other persons, to receive the punishment (in this case, death) due to them is repugnant and wholly out of place. All civilised countries of the world have now outlawed the death penalty so the idea of one man suffering the death penalty which is due to another is outdated and alien. Even if this is ignored, there is the important issue that if Person A is due to receive a death sentence but an innocent Person B volunteers to suffer this instead, this will result in Person A suffering overwhelming guilt and will hardly make them 'a better person'. Additionally, the matter is not as simple as 'Christ died for me' as Christ's death results in a situation with many conditions attached if anyone wishes to take advantage of the event.
    If a person wishes to be 'saved' (justified) and escape eternal damnation through Christ's death, he is obliged to follow all the conditions, commands and instructions (inconsistently) laid down in the New Testament. Consequently, Christ's death is not a straightforward matter of one person taking the punishment due to another, but rather a situation when the person supposedly 'freed' by the atonement has to surrender his freedom and all possible choices that he/she should be able to make in his/her life.

    There is of course the very considerable question of why anyone should suffer damnation because of Adam's transgression: Paul reminds his readers that Christ came to undo the works of Adam that brought death in all human beings.
'For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive'. (1 Cor 15:21-22)
    But there is no explanation about why anyone should suffer punishment for a misdeed that took place thousands of years ago. There may be attempts to introduce the subject of free will into the discussion, with Christians arguing that human beings have 'a choice' as to whether they obey God or not, but there is more than adequate evidence that demonstrates free will is an illusion and the choices we make are actually determined by factors over which we have no control (and about which we often have limited or no knowledge), e.g., the result of our culture, hereditary influences, our upbringing, the environment in which we are raised, the chemical composition of our brain, how we react and respond to information, how easily we are persuaded by external forces, the influence of technology, and so on. Therefore, the idea that God eternally torments and punishes millions of people for actions over which they had no control (which of course is how God supposely chose to make human beings) makes God appear as nothing more than a deranged tyrant with no interest in justice.

    The Christian doctrine that Christ pays the price required to free the believer from eternal hell also fails to take into account that while Christ was only inconvenienced by being dead for a few days, those who do not take up the offer of this atonement will not die for a few days but burn in everlasting torment. We therefore have the incomprehensible belief that the one death of Jesus Christ atones for the sins of not one person but an unknown number of people and not only this, the one death of Christ cancels out not only these deaths but the eternal and agonising damnation supposedly due to all of them.
    There is the further problem of validity. As Christ is understood to be not only man but God, his death could not have been a normal human death. The Christian understanding of the atonement is that Christ, as a sinless human, was able to take on the sins of human believers. But Christ's sinlessness was only because he was not a normal human being and not able to sin even if he had wanted to do this. This factor is relevant if we consider that the New Testament claims human beings are unable to do anything but sin because of their nature and are damned for ever because of this. In stark contrast, Christ, who was unable to sin. is counted as a saviour – because he was something that he could not avoid being.

    The Christian belief in the incarnation, that is, Jesus was God who also became man and therefore had the two natures of divinity and humanity, invalidates the belief in the atonement. If Jesus was, as the church teaches, 'truly God and truly man', then his death could have no bearing on the sinful state of humanity or remove the curse that sin produces as Christ was not human as is normally understood. There is of course the further point that the Christian teaching of Christ being 'truly God and truly man' is illogical as his humanity would have been wholly eclipsed by his divinity. If his human nature had wished to sin, his divine nature would have automatically prevented this and always succeeded in this as the stronger force, In fact it is impossible to envisage how any human being who is 'truly God' could be or function in any manner than resembled a human being.

    As the atonement doctrine finds its origin in the story of the Fall, it may be worthwhile looking at this account in Genesis 2 and 3:

Genesis 2. [15]The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. [16] And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; [17] but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."..
Genesis 3. [1]Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, `You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" [2] And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; [3] but God said, `You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" [4] But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. [5] For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." [6] So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. [7] Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. [8]And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
[9] But the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" [10] And he said, "I heard the sound of thee in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself." [11] He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" [12] The man said, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." [13] Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent beguiled me, and I ate."
[14] The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. [15] I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." [16] To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
[17] And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, `You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; [18] thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. [19] In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
    It is immediately apparent that this story does not offer any weight to the Christian belief of the atonement. It should be noted that God tells Adam that 'of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die', although Adam did not die when he ate the fruit. Christians will attempt to account for the contradiction by saying 'die' means 'spiritual death', that is, separation from God. However, the text does not say or even suggest this.
    In this story God clearly fails to inform Adam of the full consequences of his action. In his warning, God informs Adam says that eating the fruit will cause his death, but it is only after Adam eats, that God advises him fully: the stated consequences in 3:16-19 are very different indeed from what God says in 2:16-17. Clearly, the warning given by God was wholly inadequate.
    The Christian doctrine of the atonement also fails to recognise the absurdity of one person taking the punishment due to another. A parallel would be John Smith who is arrested by the police who then charge him with murder: he is taken to court and accused of this crime and found guilty and sentenced to death. He is then told the murder for which he was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced, is a murder committed by his great-great-grandfather or great-great-great-great-grand-uncle. Any rational person would condemn such a process as totally unjust apart from being absurd. And yet this is the very process that Christianity teaches God implements as each and every human being is punished for Adam's sin and/or the sinful nature that all humans automatically inherit from Adam. It would also seem that billions of animals have suffered, and do suffer because of this as it is the sinful nature that humans inherit from Adam that directs human beings to carry out outrageous and merciless cruelty on the animal kingdom that has no one 'atoning' for it. The suffering of animals is of no interest to Christian theology: indeed the most we receive are rambling, near-incoherent attempts to 'explain' their terrible suffering, saying the reason for this is unknown to us, i.e., a mystery (e.g. John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (Collins, 1966), pp.345-353).

    To complicate matters further, and serving as a demonstration of how the Bible is inconsistent, some Christians believe the New Testament teaches 'Universal salvation', i.e., that Christ's death saves everyone and not just those who are 'believers', e.g.

'The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, 'Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'' (John 1:29 )
'Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself'. (John 12:31-32)
'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive'. (1 Cor 15:22)
'Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all' (Rom. 5:18)
'For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all'. (Rom 11:32)
'For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men-the testimony given in its proper time'. (1 Tim 2:5-6)
'...(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe'. (1 Tim 4:10)
'My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world'. (1 John 2:1-2)

    Returning to the matter of Christ's atoning death, it should be noted that while Paul argues the purpose of Christ's coming was to undo the 'works' of Adam and heal the sinful nature inherited from Adam, there are Biblical texts that reject such an idea and say we only pay for our own sins and not anyone else's. Two such passages relate to when Judeans complained they were suffering because of their ancestors' wrongdoings, but God rejects this and says punishment is only for one's own wrongdoing:
Jeremiah 31:
'[29] In those days they shall no longer say: `The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' [30] But every one shall die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge'.
and Ezekiel 18:
'[2] "What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, `The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? [3] As I live, says the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel…[20] The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself'.

    Consequently, it is not difficult to see the Christian doctrine of the atonement is a patchwork of absurd ideas, not consistent with each other and contradicted by various Biblical texts.