Category: Atonement

7 stories: a book review

The trajectory of the biblical story is toward non-violence. We see this not only in the movement from the Canaanite conquest (and other so-called holy wars) to the cross of Christ, but also in the very telos of New Creation—wolf and lamb together, a child playing on a snake hole, swords into plowshares, and no tears in our eyes. Anthony Bartlett traces Seven Stories of seismic transformation themes working through the biblical narrative and culminating in Christ.

Bartlett read philosophy and theology at London University, spent 10 years as a Catholic priest, left the priesthood and came under the guidance of Carlo Carretto, discovered the works of René Girard and pursued and got Ph.D. from Syracuse University where he studied under James William (eminent Girardian scholar). Seven Stories is the product of eighteen years of Bible Studies which he and his wife led. This is a course book designed to explore the movement toward non-violence in Scripture.

The book divides into Seven Stories (clever title, right?) with an introductory section exploring methodology. Each section has three chapters. In the method section, Bartlett lays out the nature of scripture, and historical-critical methods, an overview of (objective) atonement models throughout Christian history, and he provides an explanation of Girard’s non-violent atonement. In each of the story sections, the general structure is: a lesson showing a concept in the Hebrew Bible, a second lesson showing the way an idea developed or began to be redefined by the Hebrew community, and a third lesson examining how the trajectory of Hebrew scripture reaches a radical conclusion in the person of Jesus Christ. The transformative shifts which Bartlett describes are the following:

  • 1. Oppression –> to Justice
  • 2. Violence –> to Forgiveness
  • 3. The Land and its Loss
  • 4. Wrath –> to Compassion (with special attention to Second Isaiah)
  • 5. Victim –> to Vindication
  • 6. The Temple and its Deconstruction
  • 7. History –> to its End.

These 7 stories, or lenses on the biblical narrative, probe different aspects of the Bible’s move toward non-violence. Because Bartlett is a teacher, and this book is set up as a text, for personal or group study. Each chapter concludes with lesson questions, questions for personal reflection, a glossary of relevant terms, resources for background reading and cultural references (e.g. relevant movies, literature or music). Each chapter begins with a description of learning objectives, core biblical texts, key points, and keywords. Similarly, there is an at a glance overview at the start of each section of the book.

The gift of each “story” is that it illuminates an aspect of the larger biblical story. However, a peculiar lens can also obscure certain details. Because of Bartlett’s Girardian bent (one that I am sympathetic with), he focuses his discussion of the history of the atonement (Method1.2) on objective models (Christus Victor, Sacrifice, and substitutionary atonement) without any reference to concurrent developments of subjective atonement models (i.e.  Moral Influence models). When he discusses the Hebrew concept of land and its loss (S.3), he offers a superficial analysis of the Hebrew theology of land, though certainly, he notes the shift that happens with exile and the coming of Christ.

I mention this less as a critique and more an acknowledgment of the book’s limitations. It doesn’t delve deeply into every concept in theology or the biblical text, nor does it deal with every issue comprehensively. This is an introductory text designed to call attention to a particular shift in the text—the shift towards non-violence in biblical revelation. I think it succeeds to that end, and while I am still sometimes confused by Girard (though I  like what I’ve read of him) Bartlett sharpened my understanding of his perspective.

This could be a good book for exploring biblical non-violence in a group setting. One of the things I appreciated most was the attention that Bartlett gives the Hebrew Scripture and the literary sensitive way he reads the text. He describes the calling of Israel as the Hapiru (marginalized outsiders). patriarchs, Deuternomistic history, the role of the go’el, and the sacred symbols of temple and land. Of course, Bartlett’s Christocentric reading means that he has an eye to where Jesus builds on and redefines what went before, but he notes continuities in the development of revelation as well as discontinuities. I give this book four stars. -★★★★

Notice of material connection: I received a copy of this book via Speak Easy, in exchange for my awesome review

Y is for Yes (an alphabet for penitents)

“Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”” (Matthew 26:39, NIV)

“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.”” (John 10:18, NRSV)

Yes was Jesus’s answer to God in submitting to the cross. Yes is God’s answer to us through the cross.

It was late in the evening as Jesus knelt in the garden, full of dread at what awaited him— the desertion of the disciples, night time trials, beatings, flogging, mockery, and derision from law enforcement, the rejection of his people, and death on a Roman cross. Luke’s gospel tells us that he the sweat on his brow as prayed was like drops of blood (Luke 22:44). He was in anguish, anxious about the horrors he’d soon face. He prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” He knew how hard it would be and part of him didn’t want to do it.  But then he adding his yes to God, “Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

When he refused to offer a spirited defense of the trumped up charges against him, he was willfully accepted his fate. Nobody took his life from him. He laid his life down of his own accord.

✝✟✝

Why the cross? Why did our salvation take this shape? If you spend time in Christian circles, you have probably heard debates about the nature of Christ’s atonement—the way the cross saved us from our sin. The dominant theory for Evangelicals since the Reformation is a penal understanding: God is just and therefore must punish sin, we are sinful deserving of death, Jesus—both God’s Son, and sinless human—took our punishment for us on the cross. This is just one understanding of the work of Christ, but there are others: Christus Victor and Ransom models(Jesus’ victory over the powers), Moral Influence and subjective models(Jesus dies on a cross to make vivid the love of God for us), the Satisfaction model (like penal substitution, but more focused on God’s honor),  Sacrifice, mimetic atonement (Jesus breaking the cycle of  mimetic human violence), and variations on each of the above.

I don’t have a definitive answer for why the cross. I know that there are caricatures of God we need to avoid in whatever atonement theory we ascribe to or construct (i.e. ones that make the crucifixion seem like divine child abuse, and those that deny the unity of God in His plan for salvation) and I would say the cross is some combination of all the above. In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19). The Triune God was acting to welcome humanity back into their (His) embrace.  In the wisdom of God, this was the plan, God’s  yes.

✝✟✝

My seven-year-old daughter asked recently, “Why do we call it Good Friday when it is the day Jesus died?” Anyone who has grown up in the church has asked that same question. Today could have just as easily been called Bad Friday, the day we killed God. We call today good because of what the cross accomplished, the way Jesus’s death opened for us. There he hung—his arms stretched out while his body slumped forward, a”Y”— God’s yes for us.

 

Union with Our Atoning Christ: a book review

Many recent treatments of the atonement questions the dominance of forensic model in evangelicalism. There are few cranky Reformed folks that are piping out the centrality of penal substitution, but many are hunting for other models (i.e. Christus Victor, or Moral Influence, non-violent models, etc) or proposing a multi-metaphor, mosaic approach (see, for example, Scot Mcknight’s A Community Called Atonement).  Andrew Purves also questions the dominance of legal models, but he does so through a sustained engagement with three major theological voices from the Scottish Reformed tradition: John McLeod Campbell, Hugh Ross Mackintosh and T.F. Torrance.In Exploring Christology & Atonement, Purves examines each thinker’s contribution to atonement theology and Christology. While these theologians are not exactly the same in approach (Torrance and Mackintosh had their criticisms of Campbell, and Mackintosh had been Torrance’s teacher), they represent a common trajectory. Each theologian sets the atonement within the context of the relations between Jesus, the incarnate Son, with the Father. The result is that union with Christ becomes the guiding idea for properly understanding God’s purpose for the Cross and its result.

9780830840779Purves is  one of my favorite pastoral theologians. His Reconstructing Pastoral Theology: A Christological Foundation and the shorter, more accessible The Crucifixion of Ministry explored ministry in the image of Christ, allowing the cruciform nature of ministry and what it means to minister in his name. Purves teaches Historical Theology at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary [Edit: Purves is now Emeritus Faculty at Pittsburgh]. In his earlier volumes he showed the practical fruit of engaging biblical, historical and patristic theology. That goal is not far off in this volume either. Campbell, MacKintosh and Torrance were first-rate theologians (Campbell was not a professional theologian but a pastor). They were also men-of-faith mindful of the implications of their theology for ordinary believers.

In seven chapters, Purves walks through the thought of these theologians. His first three chapters explore Christology, setting the atonement within the context of Christ’s Union with God and his representative union with humanity, “The Magnificent exchange is to be thought of as Jesus Christ as he unfolds himself out in saving ministry by which he joins us to himself in his human nature and us to him. Union with Christ is embedded as one work within the magnificent exchange as by the Holy Spirit he binds us to himself in his human nature to share his benefits” (124).

In the next three chapters, Purves examines Campbell, MacKintosh and Torrance in turn, exploring how each move away from Jesus being merely a satisfaction for God’s wrath but the cross being the way in which God in his love unites us with Himself.  These chapters are sympathetic-critical. Purves acknowledges aspects of their theology that are underdeveloped (such as, for example, Campbell’s pneumatology) but also gives them the benefit of the doubt, following the trajectory of where their theology leads.

Campbell’s emphasis is on how the incarnation in the atonement affects our union with God, “The atonement is not punishment for sin but rather a spiritual and moral access to the Father through Christ’s confession our sin and through union with Christ, having adopted us as ‘sons’ of God” (145).  While Christ’s atonement is vicarious, and in some sense substitutionary (in our stead), this is not conceived as a primarily legal exchange but ‘morally’ or ‘spiritually’ (152-53).  MacKintosh also moves us beyond the legal metaphors as he explores the nature of divine forgiveness. For MacKintosh, “The death of Jesus has significance for reconciliation only when considered in the light, and as expression, of His life” (183). The cross is the culmination of how he lived, Jesus already made our sins his own in his baptism and bore our transgressions throughout his earthly ministry. Jesus death reveals both God’s condemnation of sin and “God’s absolute revelation of love toward sinful people” (183-184).

Torrance’s chapter shows how clearly he stands in the tradition  of Campbell and MacKintosh and reveals that he is more than simply Barth’s acolyte. Torrance explores the interconnection of Christology and atonement, expoloring the kingly, priestly and prophetic nature of Christ’s redemption (208). He grounds Jesus’ priestly ministry in the ontological relationship between Father and Son and Christ’s hypostatic union (216).  In  Christ’s atonement, God is the primarily actor in the atonement, both in the human and Divine dimensions of his person, (220-221). “The divine Logos united himself with our human nature, revealing himself within our humanity, but also within our humanity enabled us to receive his revelation personally in love and faith and understanding” (230).

The last chapter serves as a postscript exploring how each of these theologians were concerned with how their theology worked out practically and pastorally.

My awareness of each these theologians and their work  is minimal. I have read a little Torrance, had MacKintosh’s book unread on my shelf, and had not heard of Campbell before picking this book up. As such, I probably didn’t get as much out of this book as I could have, but appreciate the window that Purves provided into the theologies of these three churchmen. I also appreciate their joint emphasis (and Purves’s) on union with Christ in the atonement and how the cross is more than just a satisfaction of God’s wrath but his means to make both his Love visible and accessible to us. I give this four stars

Note: I received this from IVP Academic in exchange for my honest review.

Accept no Substitute? a book review.

In recent years the idea of substitutionary atonement is often attacked. Substitution is the hallmark of classic Protestant thinking about the way Christ’s cross saves us from our sins; however many are questioning whether the language of substitution does adequate justice to Christ’s cross and biblical theology.  In Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul, Simon Gathercole surveys the contemporary discussion on substitution and its merits, the strongest exegetical challenges to the doctrine, and examines two key texts from the Pauline literature that explore the nature of substitution in Paul’s thought (1 Corinthians 15:3 and Romans 5:6-8). Gathercole is not attempting to eradicate the insights of substitution’s critics. He merely seeks to demonstrate that the language of identifying, representation and apocalyptic views of Christ’s atonement do not do full justice to the totality of the atonement or Paul’s theology of the cross. Gathercole is bringing the notion of substitution back to the table so we can see a richer picture of Chris’t work.

This book originated as an SBL paper in 2006 which underwent revision as Gathercole presented the material as a  academic lecture series  at three different institutions (Concorida, Biola and Acadia). Published here as part of the Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology series (ed by Craig Evans and Lee Martin McDonald), it still maintains the accessibility necessary for a public lecture format (10). Gathercole, here, is as brief as he is suggestive of the ways substitution rounds out our contemporary understanding of the atonement.

After an introduction, Gathercole’s argument unfolds in three chapters, a brief excursus and a conclusion.  In his introduction, Gathercole describes the importance of substitution for both Christian doctrine and pastoral care (14). He defines substitutionary atonement as ‘Christ’s death in our place, instead of us’ (15). While substitution is associated with penal models, Gathercole untangles this, claiming, “Substitution is logically distinguishable from related concepts such as penalty, representation, expiation and propitiation” (18). He t sharpens the idea of substitution by profiling the distinctions between substitution and penalty (18-20), representation (20), propitiation (21-2) and satisfaction (22-3). This helps set limits on what Gathercole’s claims in this essay. It is conceptually possible to speak of punishment, representation, divine appeasement and satisfaction apart from the idea of substitution. Substitution does not necessarily entail all (or any) of these other ideas. Gathercole closes his introduction with a survey of various contemporary criticisms of subsititutionary atonement (i.e. that it is a legal fiction, an immoral doctrine, its rejection on philosophical and logical grounds).

In chapter one, Gathercole turns to what he feels are three strongest antisubstitutionary exegetical cases for the atonement. He profiles the Tübingen understanding of representative ‘place-taking,’  Morna Hooker’s Interchange, and apocalyptic deliverance. The Tübingen school (building on the work of Gese and Hofius) describes Christ’s death through the lens of the Day of Atonement rituals (Lev. 4-5, 16). In the sacrifice of the bull and the goat, the priest and the people were invited to identify in the sacrifice through the laying on of hands. In a similar way we are set free by identifying with Christ in his sacrifice (36-7). Hooker’s interchange emphasizes our union to and participation with Christ in his death (41). The apocalyptic view focuses on how Christ’s death sets us free from the powers (46). Gathercole praises each of these approaches for the way they handle some biblical texts and describe aspects of the atonement; however, he also observes where each fails to do justice to everything that Paul says on the atonement. One area that he critiques  all of these approaches is in their failure to grapple with how Christ saves from our ‘sins’ (individual infractions) and not just our ‘Sin’ (our condition).

Chapter two and three provide the exegetical case for where Gathercole sees the language of substitution in Paul. Chapter two focuses on 1 Corinthians 15:3, “Christ died for our Sins according to the Scriptures.” Chapter three explores the vicarious death of Christ as described in Romans 5:6-8, “For although we were weak, yet at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might dare to die. But God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Between these chapters is a brief excursus on why if Jesus died in our stead, we still die. Gathercole argues convincingly that 1 Cor 15:3 builds on the notion of substitution with Isaiah 53 in the background whereas Romans 5 describes vicarious atonement with Roman and Greek parallels in the background.

Gathercole isn’t out to debunk contemporary discussions of how we participate in Christ’s death and his atoning sacrifice. He has no bone to pick with idenitfication, representation or Christus Victor undderstandings of the atonement. What this essay highlights is the way these, in various ways, fail to describe all that happens in the atonement (and even all that Paul has to say about it). Nor is Gathercole foisting on us an either/or understanding where we ought to see the atonement as substitutionary only. Rather he helps us see a fuller picture of the atonement where in a very real way, Christ died so we don’t have to. This book helps illustrate the richness of God’s work in Christ. Personally I found it helpful because while I appreciate some of the developments in atonement theology, I’ve found the blanket criticisms of all things substitutionary puzzling. Another insight I gained from the way Gathercole profiles the alternative views, is he shows how a totalizing vision of the atonement determined what a passage is allowed to say. When our conceptual framework is too rigid we fail to see the full richness of what is described in Paul’s theology (or other writers). Gathercole has a fuller atonement theology because he allows for the diversity in the meaning of Paul’s material. I give this book four stars.

Notice of material connection: I received this book from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.