why so many atonement theories are bankrupt
5 Comments
»
In my 2 Corinthians class, we have been discussing various interpretations of Paul's soteriology/theology of atonement. One of the books we read, Paul on the Cross by David Brondos, highlights the deficiencies of several "popular" (though I'm not using that word in a derogatory fashion, simply trying to connote something that has held the most weight for the longest time) readings of Paul particularly on Jesus' death and resurrection. That we should be reading such is ironic, especially since Dr. Reese didn't think about these readings' proximity to Holy Week beforehand.
What really stuck out to me concerning this book is that, despite many areas where Brondos lacks in his historical and exegetical analyses, he is not afraid to ask questions which have, to this point, generally been assumed or worked around. Questions such as, "Did Jesus have to die, and why?" have really plagued the development of biblical soteriology throughout the centuries, generally with the result of working backwards from logical conclusions to the text rather than the other way around. Brondos asks what it means for Jesus to die for (ὑπερ) us or for our sins; what about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are actually salvific? Is it proper to ask questions of mechanics concerning the atonement (i.e., how salvation is brought about)? All of these are formed under the general concern for what, specifically in Paul, we have inducted from Scripture and what we have deducted.
A classical penal-substitutionary theory of the atonement holds that Jesus had to die to ransom us, or to pay back a debt we owe though cannot pay back. Did Jesus really have to die? Is God under any compulsion to act? Judaism says "no"; God acts as he pleases. Who is this ransom paid to? The devil? Surely not! The Father? Yet what kind of Father would make his son die, and why should he to pay back our "debt"? What kind of logic is really involved here?
Were blood sacrifices really required in the Old Testament for the remittance of sins? Didn't the Law make exception for those who couldn't bring lambs? Or even birds?
And what about a participatory understanding of the atonement? How can we actually (whether ontologically or spiritually) be said to "participate" in his death and resurrection? Well...ok. I have to stop here. I tend to agree with Brondos on much, but here he lost me.
Essentially Brondos now shows that we basically imitate Christ through our lives, and minimally through the sacraments. What about divine participation? What about Augustine, Irenaeus, Athanasius, or the Cappadocians? Though Paul may not explicitly evince the possibility of "divine participation" (which, admittedly, is what he is looking at - Paul - despite also bringing Hebrews into the discussion at one point), I don't think what Brondos does is quite fair. He looks at overarching atonement theologies, pointing out their faults just through looking at Paul, and though Paul is of course a main influence in the development of any NT theology, one also has to factor in other writings of the NT. What does Peter say about divine participation? How does he connect the seemingly-impossible event of the Word's incarnation with our salvation? Why is it "unbiblical," as Brondos attempts to show, that to a large extent our salvation comes from the Word's assumption of humanity in order to heal us rather than simply Christ's "life plea" to the Father for our salvation?
I think here, we lose part of the wonder of Jesus' death if we look at it only under the lens of the "logical conclusion" of Jesus' life lived for our sake. Maybe I want to out-Brondos Brondos here...God's love for us went beyond living a holy life to plea for our salvation: the Word became flesh that we might become divine.
Of course, none of this comes to fruition until the Son is raised, and the Holy Spirit is given. So we wait...
Subscribe by RSS