Romans 3:25-26 - God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
What do you think of when I mention the word theology?
Does it make you nervous?
Does it make you cringe?
Does it make you excited?
As a theology nerd, who has a theology degree, I’m definitely in the latter category.
What do you think of when you hear the word atonement?
Do your eyes glaze over?
Are you puzzled?
Do you sit up in anticipation?
Are you preparing for a confrontation?
Currently, I’m reading about the various theories of atonement - the restoration of a relationship, in the Christian context, through the actions of Christ.
Across church history and various church traditions, the understanding and explanation of how Jesus restored the division between Creator and humanity has undergone a variety of explanations.
The most common are…
The Moral Influence Theory: that Jesus lived and died to be a catalyst for human and societal reform as believers follow the example of Christ.
The Ransom Theory: that, with the fall of humanity into sin, we are now owned by Satan. The death of Jesus has paid a ransom to the devil to redeem humanity.
The Christus Victor Theory: that the death and resurrection of Christ is a victory (like in battle) over the forces of sin, death and the Enemy.
The Satisfaction Theory: that, as a just and holy God, He had to punish sin and the cost had to be bloodshed. Jesus’ death was an appropriate balancing payment worthy to meet the scales of justice God had weighed against sinful humanity. In short, what our injustice/sin stole from the justice of God, Christ could paid back and balance the scales.
The Penal Substitution Theory: this follows closely to the Satisfaction Theory, but with a stronger legal framework. Here, Christ’s death satisfied a legal requirement that God had against humanity’s sin. In this case, the classic analogy is that God is the judge, we are the guilty criminal and Jesus pays the fine the court issues against us.
The Governmental Theory: while Christ takes a punishment for sin upon the cross, it is not to pay a precise debt that humanity owes, but instead shows the degree of seriousness that God takes of sin.
The Scapegoat Theory: mirroring the Jewish Day of Atonement from Leviticus 17, Jesus has our sin placed upon Himself and it is dealt with on the cross. Here, Christ is as much the victim of the cross as He is the willing sacrifice.
All of the theories above (and there are a few more), to some degree, are drawn from the scriptures.
Chances are you’ve heard these theories - or elements of them - preached in your church.
I suspect, you’ll gravitate towards one as your preferred understanding of what Christ did and what His death achieved.
No matter, we must always keep in mind that the person and results of Jesus are more important than any squabbles we may have over the precise explanation of what happened at Easter.
Undoubtedly, theological debates about the atonement will simmer away until Jesus returns.
Nonetheless, no matter how we put the consequences into words, we should always be thankful that the division between us and God has been dealt with completely by Jesus.
This all believers can agree on.
No comments:
Post a Comment