Theology Of Atonement Research Articles

Toward a More Trinitarian Understanding of Atonement

Abstract While atonement theology has recently been taking a trinitarian turn, Calvin scholars have not caught on to this newly developing trend. Regrettably, most of their attention has been given to Calvin’s view on the extent of the atonement. Even when interpreters of Calvin address the person of the Holy Spirit in relation to atonement, they simply consider him to be the applier of the atoning work of Christ. In this context, the author will argue that the Holy Spirit plays an essential role in Calvin’s atonement theology itself. The author will show that, for Calvin, the Spirit is an indispensable component of Christ’s atoning work.

Athanasius’ Physical-Substitutionary Theory of Atonement & the Agikuyu Christians’ Fear of Kirumi

This research article sets out to explore Athanasius’ physical-substitutionary theory of atonement, and eventually demonstrate how it can be a remedy for the Agikuyu fear of kirumi (curse). This will drive us to construct an existentialtranscendental theology of atonement. Through an analytical design, the research article will methodologically strive to retrace the curse from the Garden of Eden tree to the reversing of the curse on the tree - the Cross of Christ. In retrospect, this evangelistic-remedial work intends to generate the Agikuyu Christians’ deeper understanding of the Christian doctrine of atonement towards overcoming the fear of kirumi. Theoretically, thus, it employs existential-transcendentalism as the concept that guides the construction of an existential-transcendental theology of atonement towards addressing the Agikuyu Christians’ fear of kirumi.

Graced Exchange and Vision of God in Calvin’s Atonement Theology

John Calvin structured his soteriology and doctrine of atonement around the patristic principle of graced exchange, the idea that Christ became what we are in order to make us what he is. In them, Christ’s descent to hell and the believer’s ascent to God represent the two furthest poles of the exchange. Descent to hell and ascent to God both involve vision of God. Calvin explains descent to hell as the terror sinners experience in their souls when they sense God’s wrath and judgment. In the passion and crucifixion, Christ arraigned himself before God’s tribunal as our surety to make satisfaction. Standing in the place of the accused, he saw God as an angry judge prepared to punish sin. As a real human being with the affections and infirmities common to human nature, Christ could not help but experience terror in his soul and even fear for his own salvation. Christ willingly underwent this ordeal to prove his obedience, demonstrate his love for humanity, and secure a more lavish redemption than otherwise possible. Christ emerged from the ordeal victorious and the Father accepted his obedience as satisfaction for our sin. As a result, the redeemed are adopted as sons who will ascend to God and see him face-to-face as a propitious Father.

Atonement Anticipated: Paul’s Use of Genesis 22 in Romans 8

Abstract It is commonly held that Paul’s atonement theology evinces the influence of the “Akedah” tradition in Judaism, a historical accretion based on Gen 22 affirming that Isaac was actually sacrificed and was a uniquely efficacious atoning sacrifice for the sin of Israel. One of the Pauline passages commonly supposed to exhibit this influence is Rom 8:32. Yet further examination of the documents espousing the Akedah tradition casts doubt on the plausibility of this supposed influence. It is unlikely that this tradition was formed when Paul was writing. Nevertheless, a preoccupation with the Akedah has dominated exegetical debates about Rom 8:32 and why Paul may allude to Gen 22 when he proclaims God gave up his son for us. Therefore, this curious reference needs a more plausible interpretation. This article aims to supply that by showing that Paul uses Gen 22 to illustrate the means, and the necessity, of atonement.

Articulating the atonement: Methodology and metaphor in atonement theology

AbstractDoctrines of the atonement have tended either to elevate the status of one biblical metaphor or to gather together various metaphors into a unified concept or chorus of equal metaphors. The purpose of this article is to shed light on how the biblical metaphors function, using by way of reference the contrasting interpretations of Charles Hodge and Joel Green, who tend towards opposing theories of language based on naïve realism and idealism respectively. Drawing on the work of Colin Gunton, I recommend a mediating approach based on a critical realist theory of language which aims to steer a middle course between rationalism and relativism. Such an approach, which values the epistemic and revelatory potential of metaphors, is facilitated by a more integrative theological method with respect to scripture, reason, tradition and experience.

Early American Women, the Novel, and God

Early American Women, the Novel, and God

Pictures of Atonement: A New Testament Study by Ben Pugh

Reviewed by: Pictures of Atonement: A New Testament Study by Ben Pugh Stephen Finlan ben pugh, Pictures of Atonement: A New Testament Study (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2020). Pp. xvii + 158. Paper $23. The first thing to say about this book is that it is very approachable, coherent, and useful for both church and academic settings. [End Page 333] This is Pugh's third book in a series on atonement, and in this treatment he emphasizes Scripture. He also stresses metaphor, saying, "Metaphor, far from being a frilly, aesthetic superfluity, is in fact the way we always grasp new truths, even scientific ones" (p. xvi). Further, P.'s study "is biblical study for theological results" (p. xvii), rather than an atomistic historical-critical approach. Pugh takes on the apparent dichotomy between an early (Jesus's own) emphasis on an anticipated kingdom and a later (early church) emphasis on cross and resurrection, which has more of a here-and-now focus. He rejects C. H. Dodd's solution that the emphasis on the cross and resurrection was a way of coping with the delay of the parousia. P. argues that the Pentecost event was the source of intense here-and-now experience (p. 7). "Until Pentecost, the 'already' aspect of the kingdom had only been implicit" (p. 12). I find this to be convincing. P. takes the early Christian experience seriously. Pugh seeks to discover a chronology among atonement metaphors, to see if there is a logical development. He addresses the metaphor of "victory" and affirms that Paul did indeed teach that the death and resurrection involved a triumph, not only over "principalities and powers" but also over the powers of death, sin, the flesh, and the law (pp. 16–18). There need not be a sharp choice between the "apocalyptic Paul" and the Paul who thinks in terms of covenant and justification. Similar to victory is the metaphor that builds on images of the redemption of Israel from Egypt and on the ransoming of captives or slaves. P. shares with N. T. Wright the notion that an important image was of a needed rescue from exile. He sees the metaphor of victory as more christological (speaking of incarnation, death, and resurrection), while the metaphor of redemption "focuses on what this does for us—it is soteriological" (p. 44). Gentile ideas play a major role here; aside from Luke, "[t]he New Testament writers seem to be negotiating a compromise with Greco-Roman ideas about propitiating gods, the manumission of slaves, or the ransoming of prisoners of war" (p. 43). In the chapter "Dying and Rising with Christ," P. makes a surprising concession to historical-critical scholarship by allowing that some of Paul's statements borrow broadly from the themes of dying and rising found in the mystery religions. P.'s discussion of dying and rising shows sensitivity to the participationist experience of "renouncing self-reliance and leaning upon Christ alone" (pp. 66–67). The longest chapter deals with the most common metaphor: sacrifice. In considering NT allusions to Levitical sacrifices, P. argues that "sin offering language comes to us wrapped in allusions to Isaiah 53" (p. 83). He is thinking of the silent lamb of Acts 8:32, the healing wounds of 1 Pet 2:24, and the sin offering of Rom 8:3 (p. 102). Chapters on justification and on reconciliation demonstrate more of P.'s careful consideration of, and willingness to draw on, differing scholarly theories. One thing that is absent from P.'s book is any deep consideration of the possibility that some atonement theology is spiritually retrograde, morally inferior, or psychologically unhealthy. In a very weak argument (p. 94), he defends Anselm's propitiatory concept. He admits that some sacrificial ideas can "seem a bit sadistic," preferring to assert that the basic sacrificial idea is gift giving, which enables the NT authors to emphasize the "loving self-gift" of Jesus (p. 103). He recognizes why many scholars recoil from the penal substitutionary idea. Pugh offers a "kaleidoscopic" understanding, drawing on several different theories of [End Page 334] atonement in order to get "big fat Rachmaninovian chords" instead of the "Chopsticks" of insisting on one theory (p. 133...

From Substitution to Solidarity: Towards an Abolitionist Atonement Theology

ABSTRACT The emphasis on retribution in American penal culture derives in part from our history of white supremacy and our Christian theological heritage, particularly the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. This essay considers the mutually-reinforcing ways atonement theology has acted in service of racialized narratives of punishment and control, and asks: is it possible to construct a liberatory theology of substitutionary atonement, which can undermine the retributive basis of mass incarceration? It uses the concept of “debt” incurred by harm to read substitutionary atonement as a divine intervention in human violence in two ways: as an interruption of the “transfer” of the debt of harm which defines retribution, and as an act of “doubled divine solidarity” with both victims and perpetrators of violence in a way that respects and does not erase the debt of harm owed to victims. It considers the human response of solidarity, reparations, and abolition such divine intervention provokes.

Getting the Cosmology Right

Getting the Cosmology Right

The Kingdom of Jesus and Atonement Theology: Friends or Foes?

Does maintaining that the Kingdom was central to Jesus’ ministry put one at odds with atonement theology? Some contemporary theologians have argued that these are mutually exclusive options, requiring one to choose between atonement theology and the Kingdom's centrality in Jesus’ ministry. Lending credence to this claim is the fact that some advocates of atonement theology have provided accounts that suggest such a dichotomy might in fact be the case. This essay investigates one such example. As a hopeful contribution to this discussion, this essay first explores how the Kingdom and atonement appear in Mark's presentation of Jesus. In addition to investigating some of the relevant Markan passages, this essay draws from the work of Schweitzer and Hengel to contend that it is indeed possible to affirm the centrality of the Kingdom in Jesus’ proclamation and still believe his death on the cross has an atoning function that serves the Kingdom's arrival.

Redeeming Redemption: Violence, Desecration, and Atonement

The red stain of Cain presents an evocative approach to the atonement based on theological reflection and doctoral studies in the social sciences on human violence and the notion of symbolic exchange. The value and worth of Jesus in exchange for our demerit and history of devaluing others and dishonoring God provides a fresh commendation for an evangelical theology of substitutionary atonement that is also participative. Violence is not incidental to the cross; it is central to its potency both for redemption and for healing. KEYWORDS: Violence, desecration, atonement, Cain, value, power, symbolic exchange

N. T. Wright and Paul’s Supersessionism: A Response to Kaminsky and Reasoner

AbstractJoel Kaminsky and Mark Reasoner offered a concerted critique of N. T. Wright’s account of Israel’s election as well as Wright’s description of the apostle Paul’s messianic atonement theology. They allege that Wright treats Israel’s election as instrumental rather than intrinsic and his exegesis of Rom 5:20‒21 results in a rehearsal of anti-Jewish tropes. This essay responds to them by 1) claiming that many of their criticisms are inaccurate representations of Wright’s views; 2) defending a missional perspective of Israel’s view of election; 3) asserting that Wright’s reading of Rom 5:20 about the Torah multiplying sin within Israel is neither immoral, nor implausible, nor idiosyncratic; and 4) offering some final thoughts about Wright and Jewish-Christian relations.

The Atonement in the Letter to the Colossians

ABSTRACT This article is a fresh study of atonement language in the Letter to the Colossians. Long-held assumptions regarding theology, semantics, and trajectories of Christian thought often force parts of the Colossians text into preconceived atonement schemata, whether it be of the substitutionary/satisfaction atonement variety, the Christus Victor family, or some form of moral-influence atonement. This paper takes this dilemma seriously, positing that a close examination of the atonement language in Colossians will yield a distinct perspective that stresses the continuity of God’s action, roots the atonement in Israel’s exodus narrative, and portrays the cross of Christ as the battle where God quells rebellion and reconciles all things. Monosemic bias, a linguistic concept that suggests individual lexemes are always semantically underdetermined until utilized in a text, will be one of the primary tools in this study to avoid importing centuries-worth of tradition onto key terms. Intertextuality will root the understanding of this letter’s atonement language firmly in the exodus traditions of the Jewish Scriptures. With these tools at hand, Colossians’s atonement language shows itself to not fit neatly in the major families of atonement theology, and points of contention with traditional atonement theories are mentioned throughout the article. The findings of this study are collected as a unique model of Christ’s atoning work that the author of this letter presents to the fledgling church at Colossae.

구속신학의 예배회중적 경험을 위한 실천적 방도와 과제

구속신학의 예배회중적 경험을 위한 실천적 방도와 과제

Making Sense of Atonement: What Kind of Sense?

Scholars in recent decades have attempted to rethink a theology of the atonement in light of feminist and pacifist critiques. This article addresses, not the substance of atonement, but the question of whether and how the work of Christ does or does not make sense. I take the position that it does make sense as long as we qualify what kind of “sense” we are talking about. By developing a section of Bernard Lonergan's 1958 address entitled “The Redemption,” I examine different aspects of the intelligibility that we can ascribe to a robust theology of atonement. In this way we can avoid some of the graver misunderstandings and pastoral misuses of the gospel message of redemption.

Mourning for forgiveness

This article proposes a new understanding of unconditional forgiveness as a human moral act, based on brief considerations of Scripture and atonement theology, as well as attention to forgiveness as a public and pastoral practice. The article seeks to define unconditional forgiveness as a specific and limited discipline of Christian non-violence, and as a pastoral and spiritual practice of Christian mourning.

THE COAL QUESTION BEFORE JEVONS

AbstractIn the early nineteenth century, political economists, politicians, and geologists debated the size and duration of the British coal supply. For mineral Malthusians, the argument about a dwindling supply sharpened anxieties about population pressure, fuel demand, and limited resources. They introduced a new sense of geological limits and long-term obligations into the theology of atonement. But for cornucopian liberals, the shift to a mineral energy regime supplied a powerful refutation to the Malthusian forecast. Inexhaustible coal promised growth without end.

The Doctrine of Atonement: From Luther to Forde by Jack D. Kilcrease

Reviewed by: The Doctrine of Atonement: From Luther to Forde by Jack D. Kilcrease Adam Morton The Doctrine of Atonement: From Luther to Forde. By Jack D. Kilcrease. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2018. 177 pp. This volume assesses the contributions of several modern Lutheran theologians to atonement theology. It also represents, in the last two chapters, one of the longer secondary treatments of Gerhard Forde’s theology. While appreciative of certain elements of these theologians, Kilcrease’s view is predominantly critical. Chapter one establishes a methodological basis for the “Confessional Lutheran Paradigm,” consisting in a particular configuration of scripture, Luther, and confessional writings, the yardstick by which Kilcrease will measure his modern interlocutors. That paradigm’s content is explicated in chapter two, which treats Luther’s view of atonement, and chapter three, which takes up Melanchthon and the Concordists. Kilcrease follows Theodosius Harnack in his interpretation of Luther, focusing on themes related to penal substitution. Concepts such as exchange, bridal mysticism, ransom, and satisfaction are tracked through the early Psalms lectures, Freedom of a Christian, the catechisms, and the 1535 Galatians commentary. Melanchthon’s contribution, considered mainly through the 1555 Loci communes, is assessed as in essential agreement with Luther’s, as are those of Chemnitz and the Formula of Concord. Finally, Johann Gerhard’s adoption of the threefold office of Christ, and Matthias Flacius’ doctrine of Christ’s active and passive righteousness are taken up as signal developments for Lutheran scholasticism. Chapter four examines three theologians termed “moderate revisionists” on the doctrine of atonement: Werner Elert, Gustaf Aulén, and Gustaf Wingren. Of these, Elert and Wingren are judged basically faithful to the confessional paradigm. Wingren in particular is taken as a useful supplement for his development of the recapitulation theme, while Aulén receives significant opprobrium for his rejection of penal substitution. “Radical revisionists” Wolfhart Pannenberg, Robert Jenson, and Eberhard Jüngel, so labelled for having subordinated soteriology to [End Page 467] other philosophical concerns, are the subject of chapter five. While Kilcrease is at times appreciative of these theologians, all three are deemed suspect on atonement and so on justification. Chapters five and six engage the theology of Gerhard Forde, first on his view of the law, and then on the matters of atonement and justification. Again, while in places appreciative (even defending Forde from misplaced polemics), the book’s overall reception of Forde is negative, arguing that Forde’s atonement theology compromises the doctrine of justification. The volume is valuable for drawing attention to atonement motifs in modern Lutheran theology, and assessing their place within larger frameworks. Kilcrease is at his best when challenging the questions asked and not asked by theologians. He is to be credited for making this reviewer a more attentive reader of Forde. The book is recommended for those looking to engage deeply on these matters. That said, the book failed to convince on two fronts. In places (for example, the assertion that for Forde the believer becomes righteous in himself by faith, losing external grounding, 158), this reviewer recalls Forde having written the opposite view. Kilcrease may have misunderstood the relationship between believer and preached word in Forde’s theology. Second, Kilcrease’s case for the confessional paradigm is at points thin. Readers may note that the author’s Luther citations appear to say little on a central thrust of his argument, namely, that the crucifixion constitutes a payment to the Father which removes wrath by satisfying the law. Resisting the suggestion that Melanchthon and Luther might not have been of one mind, he notes, “It would be strange if two theologians working in such great cooperation would not have noticed that they did not understand the death of Christ in the same way” (55). Indeed, aspects of the relationship between Luther and Melanchthon can appear strange, in light of evident disagreement on some weighty matters. Kilcrease has certainly presented a “Confessional Lutheran Paradigm” worthy of consideration. Whether his view is sufficiently [End Page 468] proven as to constitute the Confessional Lutheran paradigm is best left to the reader. Adam Morton Holy Trinity Lutheran Church Lancaster, Pennsylvania Copyright © 2019 Johns Hopkins University Press and Lutheran Quarterly, Inc

Sacrifice and Atonement: Psychological Motives and Biblical Patterns by Stephen Finlan

Reviewed by: Sacrifice and Atonement: Psychological Motives and Biblical Patterns by Stephen Finlan Barbara E. Reid stephen finlan, Sacrifice and Atonement: Psychological Motives and Biblical Patterns (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016). Pp. xx + 234. Paper $39. In the last several decades, a number of theologians and biblical scholars have examined theologies of atonement and the images of God that underlie them and their deleterious effects. Finlan has tackled this topic in two previous volumes: The Background and Content of Paul's Cultic Atonement Metaphors (Academia Biblica 19; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) and Problems with Atonement: The Origins of, and Controversy about, the Atonement Doctrine (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005). Now he explores psychological theories to uncover why atonement is so compelling. He sees a relationship between the way we think about God and the ways we learned to think about our parents: "atonement theology is largely based on childhood strategies for satisfying moody and explosive parents by 'paying for' infractions (or having someone else pay for them)" (p. xvi). In the first two chapters, F. studies the functions of sacrifice in the OT. He then explores psychological theories of attachment and his own theory about payment through suffering. In chaps. 4–6, he turns to Paul and Hebrews, which contain the most material on atonement. The final chapter traces the development of atonement concepts in Christian history. In his conclusion, F. proposes that the way we can understand "Christ died for all humanity" is not that God was "paid off, soothed, or mollified, or that sin was magically cleansed and deported" (p. 185). He "died for us" in the same way he lived for us: healing, teaching, and creating a community of love: "His death was part of his continuous revelation of God" (p. 187). I find much of F.'s work very helpful. He is right to expose the dangers of atonement thinking that extols God's power and goodness while at the same time presenting "a sacrifice-demanding God who is not free to forgive" (p. 188). Further, it is helpful to understand the psychological underpinnings of atonement, although I would not claim to be competent to assess F.'s use of psychology. F.'s exegetical work with the Pauline texts is his strongest section and showcases his area of expertise. His analysis of the OT on sacrifice and purity and his assertions about Jesus's approach to these systems, however, need far more nuance. For instance, F. delineates the functions of ritual and of purity systems: restoring order, solidifying a group and its values, identifying a society and helping to bind it together, and helping the human mind make distinctions and define and enforce boundaries. But then he would seem to regard these functions as completely detrimental and attributes a totally critical attitude to Jesus with statements such as: "the socialized religious mentality is stifling to those who seek justice or truth beyond conventional habits and beliefs. … Jesus seems to have been profoundly ill at ease with purity boundaries as is shown by his arguing with purity rules, and his disrupting the sacrificial trade at the temple" (p. 8). What of the instance where Jesus tells a man he healed of leprosy to show himself to the priest and make an offering for his cleansing (Mark 1:44; similarly the ten lepers in Luke 17:14)? When F. does mention these texts, he curiously remarks that Jesus is never infected by the impurity of the unclean people he heals and that "such recipients of healing would not think of purification as a ritual category so much as a Jesus category, because of what he did for them" (p. 12; italics original). Such an assertion falsely divorces Jesus from Judaism and is unhelpful to F'.s argument. F. rightly refers to important works that have [End Page 333] been done on sacrifice and purity in recent years, but he does not seem to be familiar with the carefully nuanced work of John P. Meier in Law and Love, the fourth volume of his A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (ABRL [vols. 1–3]; AYBRL [vols. 4–5]; New York: Doubleday, 1991–2008 [vols. 1–3]; New Haven...

“I’m Making the Streets Safer Ma’am”: Race, Coloniality, and the Redemptive Theologies of Pastoral Police Power

A number of scholarly studies have focused upon mapping the relationship between race, police power, and the sovereign capacity of law onto the coordinates of repressive force. No doubt, the racialized circuits of police violence, underpinned by the mystical foundation of sovereign authority, constitute a coercive apparatus that is marshaled by risk and security. However, rather than reduce mythic police violence to the singular vector of repression, I suggest that the propensity to punish the racialized body and make it suffer through police practices of the confessional and pastoral power imbricate with the pre-liberal Christian theology of redemption and atonement. Upon consideration of decolonial and theological-political concepts, I suggest pastoral forms of racialized police power have been articulated to utilitarian secular-liberal democratic justifications to increase community safety, suppress crime, and reify social and political solidarity through the appropriate dispensation of suffering, and, potentially death.