Perhaps more than usual, this book begs for a clear and helpful summary. While the point has been to offer an expansive and vision-casting project resistant to overly simplistic summary, the proclamation of Christ’s saving work is too central to the mission of the Church to leave any ambiguity in this matter. Understanding and embracing the riches we have in Christ will nourish the Church and its members, as long as we articulate those riches, or the diversity proper to the doctrine, with a clear and concise summary of the doctrine. A thorough appreciation of the complexity of the atonement funds our delight and worship, while equipping the Church to relate Christ’s work meaningfully to a host of other areas. An equally strong grasp of the simplicity of the doctrine yields a sense of the overall shape and structure of the doctrine, offering meaning and direction to our inquiries within its many elements. Just as in the doctrines of the Trinity and divine attributes (in fact, precisely because of them), the interplay between unity and diversity, simplicity and complexity, plays a vital role here as well.
Summary I
The best summary statements about Christ’s atoning work in Scripture are the following two (closely related) verses:
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself. (2 Cor. 5:19)
In [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things. (Col. 1:19-20)1
In short:
God was in Christ, reconciling all things to himself.
The beauty of this short statement is fourfold. First, the emphasis is first and foremost upon God, which is absolutely vital for the doctrine. The atonement is the work of God bringing God’s creation back to God. God is the origin, means and end of this act, and the role of theology proper is singularly and absolutely determinative for the shape of the doctrine and the coherence of our account of the atonement. Second, this is the work of God as man, as Jesus. That is to say, it is an entirely human work, the work of God as one of us, one of our kind living out his life under the same realities and circumstances as we do. It is a work from within our life and experience, in which God makes our situation his own, rather than a work from the outside. Third, this is a work of reconciliation. One could say that God was in Christ, atoning (at-one-ing) all things to himself in Christ, though this does not communicate as readily in contemporary English. In principle, one could substitute ‘reconciling’ for any of a number of soteriological synonyms, including ‘saving’, ‘redeeming’, ‘ransoming’ or ‘sanctifying’. ‘Reconciliation’ is preferable, however, for its positive (indicating salvation for just as much or more than it does salvation from) and comprehensive nature.2 In other words, it isn’t as readily reducible to merely marshal, judicial or commercial concerns as some of its peers.
The final reason which makes this summary the best single statement in Scripture concerning the work of Christ is its comprehensive scope: all things! Of course this must be unpacked, but such a comprehensive and indeed cosmic affirmation runs no risk whatsoever of leaving anything out.3 All things are involved and bound up in the death and resurrection of Christ. This is no mere matter of meeting some particular need or void in our lives – the death and resurrection of Christ are of much bigger scope than that. They gather up the identity, condition and fate of all of God’s creation, for in Christ all things are taken up and reconciled to the Father. Regardless of whether we recognize this to be the case, there is nothing in life that is not reconciled to God through the work of Christ (Col. 1:20).
In short, for a single statement that grasps the foundation of the doctrine of the atonement in the being and act of God, the means of the atonement in the man Jesus Christ, the positive and life-giving nature of atonement as a work of reconciliation, a restoring of relationships, and the scope of the atonement, which brings all things into their proper relationship and fellowship with God, there is no better statement than Paul’s claim that God was in Christ reconciling all things to himself.
Summary II: Expanding the statement
The purpose of a summary statement is to bring clarity by highlighting the basic elements or structure of that which it summarizes. Accordingly, summary always plays its role as one part of the task of understanding its object, which is to say, summaries play a role within the dynamic movement necessary for understanding a complex reality, moving between a vision of the overall structure and interacting with the smaller parts of which the whole is composed. To honour this dynamic movement, we will briefly unpack the above summary, offering a slightly more complex rendition of the same basic statement:
The triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the fullness of the divine perfections, was in Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, bringing all created things in heaven and earth to the fulfilment of their God-given purposes through reconciliation with God.
To affirm that God was in Christ, that this was the work of God and his presence in this act is what makes it what it is, what gives it its defining features, characteristics and significance, is to affirm first and foremost that this is the work of Father, Son and Holy Spirit – the triune God. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus are what they are because they are events in the life of God, willed by the Father, executed by the Son, in the fellowship and power of the Holy Spirit. It is only because the atonement is the work of the triune God, bringing our humanity and sin into the relational dynamics of Father, incarnate Son and Holy Spirit, that this work is what it is. And it is because God does this work through his own life, that it simultaneously involves the fullness of the divine character. In this event, God enacts his love, wisdom, mercy, righteousness, holiness and presence, the fullness of the divine attributes, in his overcoming of sin and evil, and restoration of all things according to his purposes for them.
To affirm that Jesus was a man is to embrace the fact that he was not any man, but an Israelite: born of the line of David, realizing in himself the covenants, prophecies and laws of the Old Testament as the Messiah, the prophet, priest and king, the one who in himself was the faithful Israelite.4 As such, he is, of course, a human being just as we are, but one with a specific history, and with that history a specific identity and role. Salvation is from the Jews (Jn 4:22), and more concretely, from the Jew, Jesus, the son of Mary. And his work was a work of reconciliation, of atonement – of making one through restored relation to God and through him to all things. Relationally, he made things one by bringing about reconciliation or the restoration of fellowship. Cosmically, he made creation one by removing evil, conflict and decay. Judicially, he made us one by doing away with the crime, guilt and punishment. His work was a work of creating and sharing oneness according to the many forms it takes in different contexts and relationships, bearing in himself and thereby doing away with all sin, evil and discord.
And his work, as we have seen, touches on all things: angels and demons, Jews and Gentiles, dogs and cats, mountains and graveyards. And because the centre of God’s election in Christ was for a people, for a relationship with humankind, his work relates to middle management and racial relations, body and soul, emotions and habits, families and friendships. Extending far beyond the guilty conscience, God became man in Jesus Christ to bring every aspect of creation, and every aspect of our human existence, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, with all the flourishing and mutual exaltation that this entails for every aspect of our being (physical, spiritual, social, sexual, economic and otherwise) and that of the creation of which we are a part.
This more expansive summary is but a springboard to fuller reflection on each of these areas – a reflection we have made in more depth over the course of this book. But for the sake of clarity and definition, it is helpful that we be able to pull back from detailed exploration of the sub-points of the doctrine, and also be able to affirm with brevity and understanding that:
The triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the fullness of the divine perfections, was in Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, bringing all created things in heaven and earth to the fulfillment of their God-given purposes through reconciliation with God.
Or even more briefly, that:
God was in Christ, reconciling all things to himself.
Biblical and historical implications
What then do we do with this simple yet vast account of the work of Christ? A temptation is to emphasize simplicity, subtly twisting it into oneness or monotony: selecting one or a handful of favourite aspects of the work of Christ as the sum, heart or whole of the doctrine. My argument to this point has consistently fought such a move, so I will not repeat an argument against it here. The alternative is much more aggressive, challenging and exciting. We must continue to develop and understand the work of Christ and all that it entails.
Biblically, this means that we must approach Scripture with a hermeneutic which reads Scripture in dialogue with the death and resurrection of Jesus as the central event giving the whole its meaning: reading Scripture knowing nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified (and risen) (1 Cor. 2:2).5 To do this well, we must keep firmly in mind the synthetic nature of the doctrine of the atonement, comprised as it is of the doctrines of the Trinity, divine attributes, Christology, hamartiology and eschatology (especially the doctrine of heaven/salvation). Relatively few passages of Scripture offer a developed account of precisely how Christ’s work is saving. But much of Scripture in some way speaks to one or more of the factors that together comprise the doctrine of the atonement. Our challenge is to read Scripture in such a way as to keep in mind the Paschal focus of the canon, while allowing the parts and pieces of Scripture to play their role in shaping our understanding of the larger synthetic picture of which they are a part.
A brief example may be helpful at this point. We may be tempted to gloss over much of the law in the Pentateuch. Leviticus 16 and a handful of other passages are clearly relevant to the atonement, but much of the material might seem to be largely irrelevant (bewilderingly so). But this may have more to do with the categories we bring to the table than anything else. When we think of law we think in judicial categories. And while these do have a place in the Pentateuch, the Law of Moses is far more interested in becoming and staying clean than it does in anything else. Guilt and punishment prove to be ‘thin’ categories for interpreting these matters, but cleanness proves much richer, as we see it developed in individual, social, physical, moral and theological ways throughout the law. And when we come to Hebrews (among other places), we find this emphasis on cleanness developed and brought to bear upon the work of Christ:
For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Heb. 9:13-14)
Working back from this emphasis on defiling, cleansing and sanctifying, we come to the holiness of God, the source and ground of all these concepts, and a vision of the Christian life (and afterlife) as a life of sanctified holiness as the holy people of God (Lev. 20:26; 1 Pet. 1:16).
While the Mosaic law may seem to have relatively little to offer us by way of a doctrine of the atonement, this is in fact far from the case, for its development of the nature of holiness (and its perversions) falls within a canonical development of the holiness of God, his will for his holy people and the cleansing and sanctifying work of Christ and his Spirit, all of which develops a line of thought as foreign to Western theology as the sacrificial system or the worship of idols. If we expect detailed theology of the atonement in discrete passages of Scripture, we will find it thinly attested. However, if we embrace Scripture’s development of the different elements that together constitute the synthetic doctrine of the atonement, we will find ourselves continually nourished and challenged by passages and books rarely if ever mentioned in treatments of the work of Christ.
Building on the synthetic nature of the Christian doctrine, we can move from an account of sin to the character of God which it perverts, and from there to an account of eternal life as a creaturely inhabiting of that aspect of God’s character. On this basis, we can mine Scripture and theology for ways in which Christ bore in himself the reality and consequences of that dimension of sin, restoring us to life in fellowship with God through participating in the corresponding dimension of the divine life through the resurrection and ascension. In sum, because the atonement is both a synthetic doctrine, and is comprised of mutually related doctrines, it is a fluid and natural process to build an account of the work of Christ by starting with any of the constituent elements of a theory, facilitating faithful and creative work on the atonement through reading of Scripture.
Much the same is true with the history of doctrine. Whether we are reading Tertullian, Chrysostom, Melanchthon, Theresa of Avila or Ritschl, some of their works speak directly of the atoning work of Christ. In this case, our privilege is to interpret their works carefully, honouring them in the historical context, seeking to learn from the history of Christian interpretation of Scripture and theology, eager to embrace new and helpful categories, arguments and insights regarding the work of Christ. More often, we come across elements of the doctrine of the atonement not formulated as such, affording us the same opportunities delineated above concerning the reading of Scripture.
Quite often, however, we come across material that we cannot fully embrace, whether that is (perceived) sins of theological omission or commission. By means of the synthetic nature of the doctrine rooted in the divine life and act, we can move beyond careful and charitable interpretation to a more constructive project, taking the work of the theologian in question and breaking the various elements of their account into distinct components. That being the case, we are in a position to offer a more precise account of what we find to be their mistakes, while simultaneously freeing us to appreciate and appropriate the strengths of their account.6
That is to say, simply because a theologian’s Christology is inadequate doesn’t mean that their hamartiology is contaminated. This may well be the case, for theology, as it gives witness to the God who is one, ought likewise to be one, such that commitments in one doctrine will shape commitments in other doctrines. However, there are several reasons why this may not be the case. First, theologians, myself included, rarely live up to the task we have embraced, and are often inconsistent – sometimes for the better, and often for the worse. Second, the materials with which we work are so varied and complex, we may inadvertently develop lines of thought the connections of which we do not fully appreciate. Finally, just as the Holy Spirit is at work in the Church, so he is at work in its theologians, even those who more or less frequently err and even sin in their theological writing.
We need not therefore offer a wholesale rejection or affirmation of the work of any theologian (or school of thought). Assuming careful historical interpretation, breaking up the doctrine of the atonement into its many parts, we are free to appropriate and develop the work of these theologians in new and better directions. No matter the heterodoxy or danger attributed to the work in question, the possibility always exists that we might find therein doctrines or elements thereof that we can and should appropriate into a fuller account of the work of Christ.
Ironically, this makes theological works with which we disagree one of the most promising avenues for further theological development, for such works are far more likely to take up lines of thought we minimize or fail to see altogether. Though our conclusions regarding these works may remain the same, the resources they contain for theological development have more promise than those with whom we are theologically more sympathetic. We should make every effort, therefore, to complement household theological staples with a combination of historical classics (including Irenaeus, Athanasius and many of those used throughout this book) and theological outcasts, whoever those may be.7 We must be nurtured on classics, and test our mettle in constructive (though sometimes critical) interaction with those outside our own traditions and comfort zones.8
In short, this book provides some of the essential resources for a charitable and creative re-appropriation of resources within the history of the Church, as well as some of the key tools for a theological interpretation of Scripture focused on the atonement. Towards this end we have explored both the sum and gist of the doctrine, and a more in-depth exploration of its basic elements. All of this, however, is intended to energize further study more than to finalize or complete our faith seeking understanding of this doctrine.
Cultural implications
I conclude this book with an outward look: a gesture towards theological integration with culture. Theology is a task worth doing for its own sake. Employing the intellect in knowing God and his works needs no additional justification, as ‘God is the only beatitude; for every one is blessed from this sole fact, that he understands God, in accordance with the saying of Augustine (Conf. v.4): Blessed is he who knoweth Thee, though he know nought else’ (ST, I.26.3). But that does not mean that there are no further benefits to the task; in fact, there are many. One of the chief of these is the way that theology provides us with resources for interacting constructively with culture.
Inasmuch as we think of the atonement in concrete terms through a specific theory or metaphor, we are limited in our ability to relate that theory to the culture around us. That is to say, inasmuch as we are limited to such concepts as bearing punishment vicariously, rescue from slavery, or the like, our opportunities for integration are both limited and wooden. But as we unpack the doctrine, and emphasize its synthetic nature, we have far more resources for interaction. Just as with the argument above concerning biblical interpretation, so with culture: while a given trend or artefact may have little or nothing to say about resurrection or the character of God, it may have a profound understanding of some aspect of human sin, or a vision of the eschaton and what such heavenly life looks like. We are then free to bring this understanding into dialogue with our synthetic vision of the atonement rooted in the divine life, expanding the cultural artefact to incorporate other necessary components of a full theory of the atonement.9
For instance, it seems that American culture is growing in its awareness of the reality of shame.10 Films and TV shows are incorporating the word into their titles, and more importantly, into their content. So what might it look like, to bring the atonement into this cultural discussion? First, we must simply listen, seeking to understand, in its own terms and on its own premises, the American understanding of shame as found in specific artefacts. Second, we can bring the biblical material into the discussion, allowing the cultural material to heighten our awareness of material we overlook, or teach us material undeveloped in Scripture, while allowing Scripture to critique culture where it must do so. So far so good, but the real challenge is to move the discussion more explicitly into the world of Christ’s atoning work by asking: How might we develop an account of the atonement which would take as its understanding of sin this cultural understanding of shame (as chastened, critiqued and filled out by Scripture)? The film or show itself may have little to say on the matter, but that need not stop us from employing our theological resources to build a theory of the atonement around this vision of shame, that could speak richly and meaningfully to our culture.
We stand to gain theologically and culturally through this exercise. Theologically, we are blind to so much that the Bible and Church have to teach us. Sin and over-familiarity breed bad reading and thinking. If culture can awaken or teach us to better readings of Scripture, we stand to benefit. And on the other hand, culture stands to gain much if the value of the theological task is but a fraction of what the Church claims it to be. Our culture is working through the meaning of shame, freedom, law, individuality and a host of important issues – and we could bring the death and resurrection of Christ into these discussions in a manner that simultaneously presents the Gospel and relates powerfully to culture. This is reason enough for embarking on the project.
The key to doing this successfully is the synthetic nature of the doctrine. First, we must break the doctrine into its constituent parts, asking how the cultural trend or artefact in question relates to any and all of them. Does it contain an implicit or explicit understanding of God? How does it develop the plight or sin of humankind? Does it contain a vision of heaven, or of life as it was meant to be? Does it offer some way of understanding how our sin is overcome? Such questions begin our theological interaction with culture. Once we have answered the questions, we have the opportunity to bring them into the theological discussion, honouring and critiquing and expanding as need be. From there, we can fill out a theory of the atonement around culture’s (modified) contribution. This last step is the most exciting of all, for ultimately, it is the vantage point from which we can meaningfully speak the death and resurrection of Christ back into precisely those cultural discussions from which we started, offering constructive and culture-building/affirming insight in a mode designed to speak to culture in its own categories and with its own values redeemed as much as this is possible.
Returning to the idea of shame, assume for the moment that while it is a pervasive theme in Scripture, it is thinly developed. We have the opportunity, therefore, to learn from culture, both from scholarly (psychological, sociological and philosophical studies) and popular sources (movies and TV shows). We need not take this testimony to the nature and effects of shame as definitively authoritative, but we can and should listen carefully and attentively, allowing what Scripture does say about shame to inform our listening. The result of such interaction will be a cultural vision chastened and qualified by Scripture, or a biblical vision enriched by culture. But shame has its meaning and place within the prior reality of divine honour and glory, for all things have their meaning and purpose in relation to the divine character and will. Filling out this aspect of the character of God, we are well on our way towards developing an account of the atonement as the work of the God who in himself is and has honour and glory, but in Christ makes our shame his own, that he might restore us in glory and honour. With this fuller understanding of shame by locating it within the shape of the Gospel, we have the constructive and life-giving side of the vision, the part that culture has a much harder time grasping. With our vision of Christ as the one who bears shame in order to share honour and glory, we have a vocation, vision and message that will not only communicate to those suffering from shame, but can also deeply shape how we interact (in thought, word and deed) with the shame around and in us.
The atonement is too big of a reality to relegate exclusively to theological discourse. It is the decisive reality for all creative beings, and it is our joy and privilege to honour it as such. But to do so, we must have a sufficiently rich understanding of the doctrine, and a care for the world around us that is deep and genuine enough both to listen to it carefully, and to find ways to communicate the work of Jesus Christ and its implications back to that world in ways that it can understand. But to be clear – this is not mere ‘translation’ or ‘contextualization’ of metaphors or anything of the like. Rather, it is a delving into the reality of both culture and atonement, to explore the many ways in which Christ has taken upon himself the plight of his creation, so as to reconcile all things to the Father in himself. This is no mere translation or application – this is an act of rejoicing in and worshipping God for what he has in fact done in Jesus Christ.
Christ’s atonement is the lifeblood of the Church. It is the definitive re-creative act of God to bring his creation to its fulfilment. But it is an act that cannot be transcended, for while it is the means by which God accomplishes his purposes, it is simultaneously the end for which he acted. The life and work of Christ, in other words, is precisely the way that God brings us into the life and work of Christ. We cannot ignore, transcend or move beyond the life and work of Christ for it is our destiny, and perfection as those made in his image.
That being the case, the Church needs a vision for the doctrine of the atonement sufficiently expansive to fund ongoing study and preaching. It needs a doctrine that creates the conceptual, theological, historical and biblical room for an ongoing explorative and formative task. There is plenty of room for contemporary questions and concerns within such a vision, as well as levels at which binding and final claims can and should be made. But just as important as these is the sense of space, adventure and an ongoing task and responsibility, as the Church continues to inhabit, in thought, word and deed, the reality by which and into which it has been saved. My hope is that this book has offered precisely this, a vision of Christ’s atoning work that invites us to:
Consider where and what is the strength of thy salvation, occupy thyself in meditating thereon, delight thyself in the contemplation thereof; put away thy daintiness, force thyself, give thy mind thereto; taste of the goodness of thy Redeemer, kindle within thyself the love of the Saviour.11
Notes
1In context, the 2 Corinthians passage has a much more anthropological focus than does Colossians. Though Barth prefers 2 Corinthians 5:19 (along with Jn 3:16) to sum up the doctrine of the atonement, I prefer the Colossians passage for its similar content and more expansive vision (CD IV/1, 70–8).
2Marshall, Aspects, 98–137. The same holds true within the sphere of human ethics. Cf. Radzik, Making Amends, 80.
3The risk it is most susceptible to is that of missing emphases and priorities. Proper attention to the foundation of Christ’s work within the doctrine of God on the one hand, and to the biblical witness on the other, should go a great distance towards minimizing this risk.
4I have refrained from employing the threefold office of Christ as a framework for exploring the diversity of Christ’s work for the limitations I perceive in this approach. Cf. Adam Johnson, ‘The Servant Lord: A Word of Caution Regarding the Munus Triplex in Karl Barth’s Theology and the Church Today’, Scottish Journal of Theology 65, no. 2 (2012). Robert Sherman, on the other hand, takes the opposite approach. Sherman, King, Priest and Prophet. I much prefer a recapitulatory approach to the Old Testament, such as one finds in Irenaeus, which can appropriate the insights of the munus triplex, without being limited thereby.
5John Behr, ‘The Paschal Foundation of Christian Theology’, St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 45, no. 2 (2001): 120.
6I sought to give a brief example of this kind of work with the thought of René Girard in: Johnson, God’s Being, 158–63.
7What I am proposing fits firmly in line with a theology of retrieval, as outlined in: John B. Webster, ‘Theologies of Retrieval’, in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, edited by John B. Webster, Kathryn Tanner and Iain Torrance (New York: Oxford, 2007).
8Cf. C. S. Lewis’ argument for reading old books in: Lewis, C. S. preface to On the Incarnatio by Athanasius. Translated by John Behr (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011).
9The dialogue, as I understand it, does not presuppose or support natural theology. Scripture remains the sole authority for the proclamation and teaching of the Church. Culture can contribute to our understanding in many ways, or awaken us to the realities in Scripture which we overlook, but should never be authoritative in the way that the Bible is.
10Much to the pleasure of Baker and Green, I am sure. Baker and Green, Recovering, 153–70.
11Anselm, ‘The Devotions of Saint Anselm’, 105.