As we move on in my book analysis of Stephen De Young’s The Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century, we now come to Chapter 7: “Atonement for the Whole World.” The word “atonement” tends to create quite a kerfuffle in competing factions of Protestantism. Theological wars have been waged over the concept and over the question of how to explain it. Needless to say, it can be a touchy subject—certain people have very opinionated opinions on it.
That being said, although De Young’s chapter is one of the longer ones in his book, and although there is quite a lot to work through and digest, I find his treatment of atonement to be quite good and revealing. Still, there is quite a lot to go through, so this post might end up being a “Part A analysis” of Chapter 7, with a “Part B analysis” soon to follow. I feel I also have to remind you that one of the primary reasons for my blog, in particular of my various book analyses, is the rather selfish reason that it simply gives me a platform to hash out my own attempts to make sense of various books I read. And so, I hope you enjoy my efforts to work through De Young’s pretty darn good treatment of atonement.
How Should We Understand “Atonement”?
The first thing De Young points out is that the actual word “atonement” was actually a made-up English word from the 14th-16th centuries. John Wycliffe translated the given word in Jerome’s Vulgate as “at one-ment,” and that eventually morphed into our word “atonement.” It tries to convey the concepts of reconciliation, purification, and purgation. No wonder why there is so much debate over the word.
De Young then points out that the original Hebrew term comes from the Hebrew Yom KIPPUR (what we call in English, “The Day of ATONEMENT”). But it really just can mean “to wipe,” or “to smear,” or “to cover.” So, the question becomes, “What does that action by the priest on Yom Kippur (be it wiping, smearing, or covering) actually do? What does it actually effect?” We might immediately jump to the assumption that is “covers over” or “atones for” sin. Well, sure…but what does that really mean? De Young argues that the Hebrew word kippur really involves two things: (1) The restoration of relationships and community, which includes (2) Ritual elements that are aimed at removing (or covering over) the cause of that relational estrangement. Therefore, when we talk about atonement, it needs to be understood within that context: reconciliation and ritual to remove the cause of estrangement.
The problem with Protestantism concerning atonement is that theologians came to take what was essentially a description of what Christ accomplished on the cross, and they turned it into endless arguments over trying to explain the particular way Christ accomplished what he accomplished. C.S. Lewis actually makes this same observation in his book Mere Christianity—namely, instead of arguing over trying to explain how Christ did what he did, we should try to understand precisely what he actually did and accomplished. That being said, De Young says that both the Scriptures and the Church Fathers understand Christ’s atoning death ultimately as a revelation of His divine glory. So, let’s try to tease that out.
The Wrath of God
The general Protestant view the atonement in relation to God’s wrath this way: Because of human sin, God is bound by His justice to fully punish everyone for their sin—and that means pouring out His wrath on human beings, because they deserve death. Instead, Christ the Son becomes a human being, the Father then pours out His wrath on the Son, and thus the Son suffers the wrath/punishment we filthy sinners deserve. God then transfers the Son’s righteousness on us, and we become (in the words of John Calvin) “snow-covered dung.”
Given that general understanding, it is easy to see why skeptics and critics of Christianity have a problem with the atonement. Not only that, it’s also easy to see why so many Christians are guilt-ridden! I mean, they are told, “Okay, Christ died for you, so you’re saved and considered righteous, but don’t fool yourself, you’re just like snow-covered pieces of crap!”
Well, De Young gives a slightly better understanding of atonement in relation to the wrath of God. In particular, he says that in order to fully understand what the wrath of God is, you have to see it within the context of two things. The first thing is the concept of the fire of judgment. This fire is associated with the very Presence of God Himself. His Presence, when it is fully revealed, will do one of two things: (A) It will purify those who have repented, or (B) It will result in the destruction of the unrepentant. The second thing is the concept of distributive justice. This kind of justice is aimed at restoring the injured party to wholeness.
Both of these things need to be seen against the backdrop of creation itself. The problem with the current state of the world is that, because of sin and death, it has become disordered and corrupted. Thus, God’s justice and righteousness will come when He sets the broken created order right again by dealing with sin and death, and by restoring injured humanity who has become enslaved to death. Throughout the Bible, this future time when it happens is referred to as the Day of YHWH. It isn’t just a time when God angrily pours out His wrath on those filthy sinners. It is when He re-orders and re-creates the broken created order. It is when His Presence is fully experienced throughout creation.
Given that, De Young points out the significance of the New Testament talk of Christ’s parousia—mostly commonly translated as “return” or “coming,” and almost always assumed to mean His future “second coming.” The word actually means “presence” and refers to when God’s Presence in Christ is “all in all” throughout all of creation. It is when all things are subjected to Christ’s rule. It is when God’s righteousness, justice, holiness, and glory fill all creation. And that is the context in which we should understand “atonement” and the function of God’s wrath. It isn’t a matter of God “abusing” His Son so we filthy sinners get off scot-free. It is about how God, in Christ, brings about His justice and righteousness throughout all of creation.
Propitiation and Expiation
The next thing De Young discusses are two terms often associated with atonement: propitiation and expiation. Propitiation refers to an offering that pleases or pacifies the recipient, whereas expiation refers to an offering that purifies the offeror. Both terms, De Young says, show that Scripture views sin through an ontological lens—meaning, sin is viewed as a taint, an impurity, similar to a deadly disease. This leads De Young to a brief discussion of the Old Testament sacrificial system, particularly the ritual of the Day of Atonement.
It is at this point that De Young points something out that, admittedly, I have often (an unthinkingly) assumed. Most people (scholars included) often describe the sacrificial system along the lines of how the priest would lay his hands on the animal, thereby placing the sins of the people on the animal, and then killing it. That simply is not true. As De Young states, “This is something that occurs nowhere in the sacrificial system as outlined in the Torah” (179).
Instead, what happens in the Day of Atonement, for example, is that there are two goats. The priest lays his hands on, and thus transfers the sins of the people onto, the scapegoat, and then releases the scapegoat into the wilderness, to the region controlled by the evil spiritual powers. The point is that the animal that gets sacrificed is not the animal burdened with sin. The scapegoat, along with the sins of the people, is sent back to where the sin belongs, whereas the sacrificial goat is then offered to YHWH. And the point of this sacrifice isn’t to “punish sin,” but rather to make a meal that the offerer then eats in the Presence of YHWH (i.e. at the Tabernacle or Temple), celebrated the restoration of the relationship made possible because the sin has been removed, like curing an impurity. Thus, simply put, propitiation is nothing more than an offering that is pleasing to God. And why is it pleasing to God? Because it celebrates the restoration of relationship and a demonstration of His justice and righteousness.
The Handwriting of Our Sins
In the next section, De Young brings up another interesting observation concerning what Paul says in Colossian 2:4, as celebrated in the Orthodox liturgical tradition: “He [Christ] canceled the handwriting in the decrees against us, which were opposed to us. And He has taken from it from our midst, by nailing it to the Cross.” DeYoung points out that this description of “handwriting of a decree” actually describes the relationship between human sin and death.
In particular, the Greek word translated as “handwriting” most commonly was used to refer to a promissory note—and IOU. It is the language of being in debt and being obligated to make a payment: Sin as a debt. And most often in the ancient world, debt was connected to slavery, where the person in debt was enslaved until he paid off his debt. Thus, one of the ways Paul describes the atoning work of Christ is by referring to this practice of freeing people who were enslaved due to their debts.
Not only that, but the fact that Christ’s death took place, not on the Day of Atonement, but rather on the Passover is also significant. Just as YHWH proving His power over the enslaving gods of Egypt, so too does Christ, by His death and resurrection, prove His power over the enslaving power of death itself. He has not only defeated the power of death by paying off the “debt of sin” Himself, but He is now the Pantokrator, the all-powerful Lord and Judge of all creation.
The Tree of the Cross
The next section discusses Deuteronomy 21, particularly the instructions regarding the execution of someone by means of hanging them on a tree. In particular, the body must be removed by evening, because the person who is hung on a tree is cursed by God. Here’s the point: leaving the cursed body hanging on a tree was seen to defile the land itself. This is why Joshua follows these instructions during the taking of Canaan—he didn’t want to defile the Promised Land that YHWH was giving the Israelites.
This practice in the Israelite religion highlights a fundamental difference in the way they viewed sin and the way we in the Western world view sin. To the point, we view sin in juridical terms, and thus look at God’s curse as a punishment, whereas the Old Testament, the Judaism of the Second Temple period, as well as early Christianity, viewed sin in more “biological” terms—as an infection. Therefore, the curse was seen as something that can infect not only other people, but ultimately the creation itself. It, therefore, wasn’t just something that needed forgiveness, but also purification.
Hence, all the rituals in the Old Testament regarding atonement, propitiation, and purification were seen as ways to transform human beings—both individually and as a community—by bringing about the healing of damaged relationships. Of course, they only did so in part, and in many ways, symbolically. Yet when we get to Christ’s atoning work, death and resurrection, we see that the early Church established new rituals that stemmed from the old rituals but were seen as transforming them and fulfilling them because Christ’s atonement fulfilled and transformed those old rituals.
Not Only for Our Sins, but for the Whole World
…and this eventually extends, not just to Israel, and not just to the initial followers of Christ, but indeed (as is the Church’s vocation) is extended throughout the world. Thus, the forgiveness of Gentiles and the extension of salvation to Gentiles is often spoken of in terms of the Old Testament/Temple language of purification and making things clean. Why? Because sin isn’t just seen as a legal violation, but as sort of a disease that infects God’s good creation. And thus, Christ’s atoning work is aimed ultimately as purifying and sanctifying the entire creation and restoring broken relationships, both between human beings and God, and between each other.
And this is why, as De Young ends this chapter, Paul talks about Christ’s atoning death in Adamic terms. The body of the Christian (and the Church as the body of Christ) is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. And just as God breathed into the nostrils of Adam and had the intent to send Adam out to subdue His creation and extend order throughout it, so too now are Christians, as the new Adam/the body of Christ, send out throughout the world. As De Young concludes, “The entire creation is now the possession of our Lord Jesus Christ, who wields all authority within it. We, as His assembly the Church, bring that rule and its effects to realization within the world as we receive God’s creation, bless it, and hallow it” (197).
Does that help shed some light on the actual Scriptural and early Christian understanding of atonement? I think it does.
Just to point out that Calvin’s ideas are not held by all Protestants (or Messianics).