good purpose, which almost seems to suggest that “the end justifies the means.” The cryptic remark that the act of deception was for Satan’s benefit as well as ours is not explained further.
Gregory and Rufinus particularly liked the image of the fishhook and the bait. They even thought that Job
41:l (“Can you draw out Leviathanwith a fishhook?“) may have been an anticipation of the atonement.33 Gregory the Great compared the cross to a net for catching birds,34 and even Augustine likened the cross to a mousetrap, with Christ’s blood serving as the bait.j5
As Western theology developed, the idea of justice was worked out more thoroughly. This is not surprising, given the pervasive influence of the Roman judicial system. By maintaining that the deception of Satan should not be thought of as something that God did, but rather as something that he justly permitted, Augustine disarmed the charge that God had been unjust or dishonest. 36 There is in Augustine
no hint thatChrist’s deity had been veiled in order to trick Satan. Rather, Satan was a victim of his own pride, for he thought that he could overcome and hold Christ, when in reality he had no such power. Because Jesus had never sinned, and therefore was not liable to death, he was not under Satan’s control; it was an arrogant miscalculation on Satan’s part to think that he could hold the Son of God.37
In whatever form the theory was expressed in this early period, the dominant theme was victory over Satan and deliverance of mankind from bondage to him. About the only notable theologians of this period who did not adopt the ransom theory were Gregory of Nazianzus and Athanasius. A somewhat later figure who also felt the incongruity of the idea that God would make such a deal with Satan was John of Damas- cus. He found repugnant the belief that God would offer Christ to the enemy. Having no other theory to fall back on, John agreed that the atonement was in essence a triumph of God, but he held that the power that had ensnared man and was then in turn ensnared by God was death rather than the devil. God by offering his Son destroyed death:
God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant. Wherefore death approaches, and swallowing up the body as a bait is transfixed on the hook of divinity, and after tasting of a sinless and life-giving body, perishes, and brings up again all whom of old he swal- 33. Ibid., 24.
34. Gregory the Great Morals of Job 33. 15.
35. See Peter Lombard Sententiae 3.19.
36. Augustine De trinitate 13. 12.
37. Ibid., 13. 14.
7 9 6 The Work of Christ
lowed up. For just as darkness disappears on the introduction of light, so is death repulsed before the assault of life, which brings life to all, but death to the destroyer.38
With the rise of the theories of Anselm and Abelard, the ransom theory, at least in the form in which we have stated it, lost its large following. In recent times, Gustaf Aulen has reinstated it. He terms it the classic view, maintaining that, whatever the form in which the theory is expressed, the essential point is God’s triumph.39
Inasmuch as the ransom theory holds that Christ’s atoning work was not directed primarily toward man, it is an objective theory of the atone- ment. To be sure, the ultimate purpose of Christ’s death was the liberation of man. This, however, was accomplished through a work which related primarily to another party; as a result of that work, there was an altera- tion of man’s condition. The ransom theory is unique among the theories of the atonement in that it holds that the direct effects of Christ’s atoning death were neither upon God nor upon man. Rather, in the earliest and most common form of the view, it was the devil toward whom Christ’s death was directed. Christ’s work in relationship to God was secondary at this point.
Of all of the theories that we are examining in this chapter, the one that most clearly regards the major effect of Christ’s death as objective is usually termed the commercial or satisfaction theory. It emphasizes that Christ died to satisfy a principle in the very nature of God the Father.
Not only was the atonement not primarily directed at man, but it also did not involve any sort of payment to Satan.
Some of the later Latin theologians had anticipated the satisfaction theory. For in maintaining that the transaction with Satan served the cause of (or at least was not inconsistent with) God’s justice, they recog- nized a Godward dimension in the atonement. Augustine and Gregory the Great had even argued that there was something in the very nature of God that required the atonement, but they did not develop this thought?
It should be noted that the Latin theologians worked in the setting of Roman law, which gave to their statements a judicial cast. Anselm (1033-
38. John of Damascus Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.27.
39. Aulen, Christus Victor, 26-27.pp.
40. Grensted, Short History, pp.1 2 0 - 21.
Theories of the Atonement
797
1109) archbishop of Canterbury, lived in a different milieu. By the
timeof his writing, the political structure had changed. It was not the Roman Empire, but the feudal system that was the most powerful force
inthe structuring of society. Justice and law had become more of a personal matter; violations of the law were now thought of as offenses against the person of the feudal overlord.
In addition, there was a growing emphasis upon the concept of satis- faction. The Catholic church had been gradually developing its peniten- tial system-by rendering some form of satisfaction, one could avoid punishment for his offenses. This was in keeping with a legal principle of the time: in matters of private offense, various forms of satisfaction could be substituted for punishment. By Anselm’s time the concept of satisfac- tion had become an integral part of the feudal structure. We therefore find in Anselm’s thought a shift in imagery from the earlier treatments of the atonement. Anselm pictures God as a feudal overlord who, to maintain his honor, insists that there be adequate satisfaction for any encroachment upon it.41
Anselm deals with the atonement in his major work, CUY Deus homo?
The title indicates the basic direction of the treatise. Anselm attempts to discover why God became man in the first place. The method Anselm employs is to show that there was a logical necessity for the atonement, and therefore there was a logical necessity for the incarnation.
Anselm clearly and definitely rejects the standard form of the ransom theory, and even the modification of it which Augustine had developed.
The problem lay in the contention that Satan had a “right of possession”
over man. Anselm denies this supposed right. Man belongs to God and to no one but God. Even the devil belongs to God. Neither man nor the devil has any power apart from him. Therefore, God did not have to purchase man from Satan. God’s only obligation was to punish his former servant who had convinced a fellow servant to follow him in leaving their com- mon Lord. There was absolutely no necessity to pay ransom to the devil.42 Anselm’s understanding of the atonement builds fundamentally upon his doctrine of sin, for what sin is understood to be will strongly influence one’s view of what must be done to counter it. To Anselm, sin is basically failure to render God his due. By failing to give God his due, we take from God what is rightfully his and dishonor him. We sinners must restore to God what we have taken from him. But it is not sufficient merely to restore to God what we have taken away. For in taking from God what is his, we have injured him; and even after what we have taken has been returned, there must be some additional compensation or
41. Ibid., p. 123.
42. Anselm Cur Dew homo 1.7.
‘, i
I
798 The Work of Christ
reparation for the injury that has been done.43 A good comparison is modern judicial rulings which stipulate that a thief, in addition to restor- ing his victim’s property, must pay punitive damages or serve a prison sentence.
God being God, he not only may act to preserve his own honor; he must do so. He cannot simply disregard it. Thus, he cannot merely forgive or remit sin without punishing it. Nor is it enough for us to restore to God his due. There must be additional reparation. Only with some form of added compensation can the things that have been disturbed by sin be restored to equilibrium Sin left unpunished would leave Gods economy out of order.44
God’s violated honor can be put right again either by his punishing men (condemning them) or by accepting satisfaction made in their behalf!5 Anselm carefully distinguishes the two concepts. Why did not God simply inflict punishment? Some theologians would say that be- cause God is love, he would rather receive satisfaction than condemn humans. That is not Anselm’s approach, however. Remember that he is trying to demonstrate the necessity of the incarnation. The way in which he proceeds is to contend that some men must necessarily be saved. He adopts Augustine’s argument that some men must be saved to compen- sate God for the loss of the fallen angels. Because fallen angels cannot be restored or saved, they must be replaced by an equal number of men.
Thus, God cannot inflict punishment on all humans; at least some of them must be restored. Satisfaction has to be rendered in their behalf.46 But what of the nature and means of this satisfaction? How was it to be accomplished? Man could not possibly have rendered satisfaction in his own behalf, for even if he were to do his best, that would be nothing more than giving God his due. Since God had been wronged, some greater compensation was required. Further, man had permitted himself to be overcome by the devil, God’s enemy. This was an especially grievous offense. The satisfaction also had to include some special compensation for this wrong, namely, the defeat of the devil. How could this have been rendered by man, weakened as he was by sin and already defeated by Satan? If things were to be set right in the economy of Gods kingdom, something had to be done for man by someone qualified to represent him. Note how closely Anselm’s doctrine of man and sin is tied up with his doctrine of atonement.
This, then, was man’s predicament. He was made for God and was
43. Ibid., 1. 11.
44. Ibid., 1. 12.
45. Ibid., 1. 13.
46. Ibid., 1. 16-18.
Theories of the Atonement
799
intended to choose, love, and serve the highest good, God. This, however, he did not do; consequently, death came upon him. God, however, nec- essarily had to save at least some of fallen humanity. Satisfaction had to be made, if this was to be accomplished. But how was it to be done? To be effective, the satisfaction rendered had to be greater than what all created beings are capable of doing, since they can do only what is already required of them. This being the case, only God could make satisfaction. However, if it was to avail for man in relationship to God, it had to be made by man. Therefore, the satisfaction had to be rendered by someone who is both God and man. Consequently, the incarnation is a logical necessity. Without it there could be no satisfaction and, there- fore, no remission of punishment.47
Christ, being both God and sinless human, did not deserve death.
Therefore, his offering his life to God in behalf of the human race of which he was a part went beyond what was required of him. Thus, it could serve as a genuine satisfaction to God for man’s sins. But was it sufficient to accomplish what was needed? Was the payment enough?
Yes, it was. For the death of the God-man himself, inasmuch as he, being God, had power over his own life (John 10:18) and did not have to die, has infinite value. Indeed, for his body to have suffered even the slightest harm would have been a matter of infinite value.48
Anselm’s argument was heavily based on logic. Except at a few points, we have not paid much attention to this fact. It is important to keep in mind, however, that he believed and represented each point in his theo- logical system-the atonement, the incarnation-to be a matter of logical necessity.
We have seen that Christ’s death is interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Each of the theories we have examined seizes upon a significant aspect of his work. While we may have major objections to some of the theories, we recognize that each one possesses a dimension of the truth.
In his death Christ (1) gave us a perfect example of the type of dedication God desires of us, (2) demonstrated the great extent of God’s love, (3) underscored the seriousness of sin and the severity of Gods righteous- ness, (4) triumphed over the forces of sin and death, liberating us from their power, and (5) rendered satisfaction to the Father for our sins. All of these things we as humans needed done for us, and Christ did them all. Now we must ask, Which of these is the most basic? Which one makes the others possible? We will turn to that question in the next
47. Ibid., 2. 8.
48. Ibid., 2. 10.
800 The Work of Christ
chapter. As we do so, it will be with a profound appreciation for the full measure of what Christ did to bring us into fellowship with the Father.
And can it be that I should gain An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain?
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! how can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
(Charles Wesley, 1738)
The Central Theme of Atonement
Background Factors The Nature of God Status of the Law The Human Condition Christ
The Old Testament Sacrificial System The New Testament Teaching
The Gospels The Pauline Writings
The Basic Meaning of Atonement Sacrifice
Propitiation Substitution Reconciliation
Objections to the Penal-Substitution Theory
The Objection to the Concept of the Necessity of Atonement The Objection to the Concept of Substitution
The Objection to the Concept of Propitiation
The Objection to the Concept of the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness The Penal-Substitution Theory in Relation to the Other Theories
The Atonement as Example
The Atonement as a Demonstration of God’s Love The Atonement as a Demonstration of God’s Justice The Atonement as Triumph over Evil
The Implications of Substitutionary Atonement
801
The Central Theme of Atonement
803
1 l_n examining the several theories of the atonement in the pre- ceding chapter, we noted that each seizes upon a significant aspect of Christ’s atoning work. We must now ask which of those aspects is the primary or most basic dimension of that work, the one to which the others adhere, or upon which they depend.
Background Factors
As we indicated at the beginning of chapter
37, thedoctrine of the atonement is the point at which the organic character of theology is most apparent. Our views on the other doctrines influence strongly our conclusions in this area. So we begin by reviewing the background against which we will construct our doctrine of the atonement.
Just as biblical passages appear in contexts, so also do doctrines. If we attempt to abstract a doctrine from its context, the result will be distor- tion. In every matter for theological study, the broadest context is, of course, the doctrine of God. This is particularly the case when we are dealing with matters involving a relationship in which one of the parties is God. The doctrine of salvation comes immediately to mind, as does the atonement.
The nature of God is perfect and complete holiness. This is not an optional or arbitrary matter; it is the way God is by nature. He has always been absolutely holy. Nothing more need or can be said. It is useless to ask, “Why is God this way?” He simply is so. Being contrary to God’s nature, sin is repulsive to him. He is allergic to sin, so to speak. He cannot look upon it. He is compelled to turn away from it.
The second major factor to be considered as we construct our theory of the atonement is the status of God’s moral and spiritual law. The law should not be thought of as something impersonal and foreign to God.
Rather, it should be seen as the expression of God’s person and will. He does not command love and forbid murder simply because he decides to do so. His very nature issues in his enjoining certain actions and 802
prohibiting others. God pronounces love good because he himself is love.
Lying is wrong because God himself cannot lie.
This means that, in effect, the law is something of a transcript of the nature of God. When we relate to it, whether positively or negatively, we are not relating to an impersonal document or set of regulations. Rather, it is God himself whom we are obeying or disobeying. Disobeying the law is serious, not because the law has some inherent value or dignity which must be preserved, but because disobeying it is actually an attack upon the very nature of God himself. Thus, legalism-the attitude that the law is to be obeyed for its own sake-is unacceptable. Rather, the law is to be understood as a means of relating to a personal God.
Some have objected to the idea that God’s nature can be expressed in propositional form, that God’s will is somehow cod&able. Behind this objection there seems to lie a kind of Kantian skepticism: We can never know the ultimate realities, for the only valid basis of knowledge is sense perception. Certainly statements claiming to express God’s will (the law) transcend sense experience and hence must be regarded by us as with- out foundation. There frequently is also an objection along the lines of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s conception that religion is not primarily a matter of doctrine, but rather of feelings. But if we hold that God is an objective reality, and that he has revealed rational, objective truth about himself, surely there is also room for the law as an objective representa- tion of his will and, even more, of his nature.
A further point to be borne in mind is that violation of the law, whether by transgressing or by failing to fulfil it, carries the serious consequences of liability to punishment, and especially death. Adam and Eve were told that in the day that they ate of the fruit of the tree they would surely die (Gen. 2:15-17). The Lord told Ezekiel that “the soul that sins shall die”
(Ezek. 1820). According to Paul, “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), and “he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption”
(Gal. 68). There is a definite link between sin and liability to punishment.
Particularly in the last of the citations (Gal. 67-8) a virtual cause-effect connection between sin and punishment is in evidence. In each case, however, it is understood that punishment is an inevitability rather than a possibility.
The Human Condition
Another crucial factor in our understanding of the atonement is the
nature and condition of man. We noted earlier (pp. 627-3 1) the fact of
total depravity, by which we meant not that man is as wicked as he can
possibly be, but rather that he is utterly unable to do anything to save
himself or to extricate himself from his condition of sinfulness. Since this
Dalam dokumen
00031 Erickson Christian Theology Part 2.pdf - MEDIA SABDA
(Halaman 97-121)