Doc Ryan and Matt begin a series on Biblical Atonement.
Today’s Episode covers
- What is Atonement? Atonement is a made-up word in English because we didn’t have a word to completely express what the action of sacrifice accomplished from a Hebrew perspective.
- Sin: In the OT we have a few terms for sins such as rebellion (pesha), infidelity (meshubah), disloyalty (beged), getting dirty or stained (tum’ah), wandering (‘avon), trespass (ma’al), transgression (‘abar), and missing the mark (chatta’t). Most of these can be summed up under the last word here of missing the mark. But what mark are we missing???
- The Image of God- we are cracked icons (images) and Jesus puts us back together modeled after him, the true image. This missing the mark not only stains us, but it stains the world and the systems we create.
- Does the popular view of Atonement (Penal Substitution) actually take Sin seriously?
- Forgiveness: If forgiveness requires payment or blood is it actually forgiveness?
- Exile thinking
Some questions to think about on this journey through Atonement:
- Retribution or Restoration?
- Substitution or Representation?
- Transaction or Transformation?
- Judicial or Relational?
- Did God need his mind changed about us or our mind about God?
- Is there a debt owed? How does the cross bring about justice?
- Holiness and/or Love… are they opposed to each other?
- Who killed Jesus? God or us?
- Is our view of the cross to individualistic?
- What does the cross solve? Sin? Death? Evil? (Powers) All of the above?
Atonement Theories
- Moral Influence
- Ransom Theory
- Christus Victor
- Satisfaction Theory
- Penal Substitution
- Scapegoat Theory
- Recapitulation
- New Covenant
Some interesting History
Though PSA is seen in evangelicalism as the gospel (This has been depicted in the recent documentary “the American Gospel”) but it is interesting to note that in all the orthodox creeds and early church ecumenical councils there is no definition of the atonement in terms of accepted or rejected theories. Where the early church agreed that Christ had saved the human race from sin and its consequences, there was no unambiguous tradition as to how this was brought about. The only line in the creeds that talks about the cross is in the Nicaean Creed and it’s “For us and for our salvation”. There was no discussion on the mechanics of the cross except in Christ’s victory over sin and death, and our salvation because of that. So, to make PSA “the gospel” and the rejection of that view as heresy actually flies in the face of church history.
