Atonement and Resurrection

Critics of the Penal Substitution viewpoint generally object to PSA on an emotional level, that is, the image of Christ being punished to satisfy some standard of justice seems unfair (since he was innocent) and makes God look vindictive and violent.  Of course many of those who object are progressives who question pretty much everything and want to reinvent atonement according to some social justice narrative.  So in some of the wild new atonement speculations, Jesus died to identify with the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed.  Depending on how far they have gone in redefining sin and justice, the very notion of needing salvation from moral guilt and judgment seems nonsensical to some.  Others want the cross to be about politics, the Roman empire executed Jesus so real Christianity is about resisting empires (usually Western democracies get classified as empires while Communist regimes and Muslim caliphates get a pass).

But others are still somewhat connected to orthodox faith and even to evangelicalism and merely have been influenced by the emotional response of some to the "cosmic child abuse" charge.   Isn't there a better way to think about this whole sacrifice thing?  (More)

I think part of the problem here is that the definition of atonement has been conflated with the totality of salvation, that is if atonement is seen as the whole picture and not merely one step in the process of reconciling man to God, then an unbalanced view results that might seem, on the surface, unfair. 

If the salvation was only about the image of atonement and ended with the cross, the critics might have a point, but Christian salvation begins with the cross and ends with the resurrection.  It is more than just 'tasting death', it is about new life, something recreated altogether.  And on that point, we need to be clear - we have no power to effect salvation - it must be an act of the God-Man on our behalf.  

We as human beings made in God’s image, have an innate sense of justice.  When we watch a movie or read a good book where there is a particularly vile antagonist, we do not want the bad guy to get off scot free.  If he has stolen, raped and pillaged we are outraged if in the end he winks at the camera and just walks away.  We want the hero to catch and bring the bad guy to justice, which often means killing the bad guy, and we cheer because we know a crime must be punished.  In real life we may be squeamish about the death penalty, but we still want war criminals tried and brought to justice.  We want mass murderers to be captured and punished.   

The problem is, while we know who the worst of the bad guys are in fictional stories, we also know who we are in real life.  We know, innately, no matter how our philosophical rationalizations might try to tell us otherwise, that we have some level of guilt of our own.  We know that we are not quite "good guys" and we know that we have some injustices of our own to deal with.  We also know that motivations get cloudy – sometimes we do the wrong things for confused and mixed up reasons, sometimes thinking we are doing the right things.  Justice gets a little less clear cut.  But we still know something needs to be set right. 

So  what is to be done to balance the scales?  It may seem unfair for someone else to pay the penalty on my behalf.  After all, I can perform some act of restitution for some of my moral failings and balance the scales a bit in this life.  In the next life I could salve my own conscience by spending time in a purgatory pushing a stone up and down a hill, that might satisfy MY sense of justice...but in the end that is not enough...for justice is not just breaking of a legal decree, and that is a biblical image, it is ultimately a crime against another person.

So even if I can finish off a legal requirement, I can never undo the harm I have done to someone else, which is why the debt is something I cannot pay.  Atonement is certainly about justice, but it is not only about justice.

I can't un-murder someone I have killed.  I can't undo adultery or rape and give another person her dignity and innocence back.  I can't undo the emotional wound of harsh words to a child, of threats to a rival.  Those are crimes against another and ultimately crimes against God.  And once those crimes are committed, etched in time, once those scars are inflicted on another being, no amount of kindly deeds on my part can fully restore things to their original state.

The OT image of atonement is repeatedly one of God providing a sacrifice - substitution - and there is no getting around that theme short of cutting major passages in scripture out of the Bible altogether.  In Genesis, Adam and Eve are covered with the skins of dead animals that they did not kill.  Abraham leads Isaac to the mountain to face the test of his faith in God's promise of descendants with the words “God will provide the sacrifice” and Isaac is spared because a ram suddenly appears trapped in a thicket.  The Tabernacle and Temple paint vivid images of a spotless Lamb bearing the sins of the people and whose blood covers the mercy seat.   

But we are told in the Epistle to the Hebrews that those Old Covenant sacrifices were also insufficient.  While the substitutionary sacrifices show us how God Himself planned for a legal justice is satisfied in the negative, showed that a penalty can be paid, that a crime can paid for, the sacrifices do not turn the wrongs right-side up.  They never completely take away the suffering of the fall.

But the resurrection - that is another matter.   

We are told that in the new Heavens and New Earth, every tear will be wiped away.  We are told that our ultimate healing will be complete.   The broken hearts, the broken bodies, the wounded spirits will all be healed and made whole.   We are told there is coming a new Creation, new bodies, a New Jerusalem, the ultimate city of peace.   Old is passed away - all things become new. 

This is the point:  Only the Creator can re-create.  Only God can heal all the wounds.  

Regarding atonement, it is not enough for God to sweep injustices under the rug and take a short cut to healing.  There is a real sense of justice being satisfied in the cross and salvation cannot  be accomplished without some sort of payment of debt.   Right and wrong matter.   The cross must precede the resurrection.  And it would seem quite unjust if it ended there, but Christ did not only die to satisfy justice, he rose to restore everything to a newly re-created state.  If the cross seems like a horror in the eyes of some, it has to be understood that in the resurrection the horror of the cross is completely subverted.   

Christ did not die only to leave justice satisfied.   He rose and undid death itself.   

Which is why the phrase “cosmic child abuse” is so utterly short sighted.  The biblical imagery of the work of Salvation includes elevating Christ to the right hand of the Father, naming Him Prince of Peace, exalting Him above all names.  The innocent victim becomes King of Kings. 

Atonement is an indispensable aspect of salvation, and I believe it is an evangelical essential, but salvation is not complete until the final chapters of Revelation are fulfilled and we inhabit new bodies in a New Jerusalem on a New Earth in a New Heaven.    

We do not need a better atonement.   

The most perfect sacrifice has been completed and Christ as both High Priest and paschal Lamb has been raised to new life and has completed His work - now he sits down at the right hand of the Father putting an end to sacrifice and those who are "in Christ" are both forgiven and in the process of being remade.   

How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?  Why in the world do we need to redefine it?