October 8, 2006

Download PDA Sermon File

The Atonement: A Collage of the Kingdom

          I can remember the first time I heard the word, “atonement.”  It sounded so foreign to my young, adolescent ears.  The first thing I imagined was some kind of paint thinner or something a girl used to get nail polish off her fingers and toes.  I was wrong.  It seemed, however, that I was not far off, at least from what I was taught in Sunday school and in “ Big Church .”  Big Church is the name we called the main service, with all the big people.  When I go home to my mom and dad’s church, I still refer to the main service as “ Big Church .”  Old habits die hard, I suppose.  In church I was taught that Jesus died for one reason- to forgive me of my sins so that I could go to heaven.  Period.  That’s it. 

          When I got to college, I found out that there are many more biblical understandings of the atonement- what was accomplished through the power of the cross by the death of Jesus Christ.  This morning I would like to share some of those theories. More than that, however, I would like to see what Saint Paul says about “the cross” in Ephesians 2:11-22.  I would like to propose to you that there are various, multi-faceted effects the atonement has upon humanity which produce a collage of the Kingdom, rather than simply a snapshot.  As the early theologian, Irenaeus wrote nearly 1,900 years ago: “Just as the sound of the harp, composed of many different notes, makes one symphony.  The lover of truth must not be misled by the difference of each sound… For they who hear a melody ought to praise the musician, and admire the raising of some notes, attend to the lowering of others and listen attentively to the careful modulation of chords.”[1]

          In the early Church, one does not find hard and fast theories of the atonement affecting only one aspect of life.  In fact Irenaeus, a second- century bishop from Lyons (modern day France ) saw the life and death of Jesus as effecting all aspects of existence.  There was not one place untouched.  Jesus Christ “recapitulated” humanity from birth to death.  This means that Jesus represented the entire human race in all dimensions.  Jesus redefined not only what it meant to die, but also what it meant to live if one was in Christ Jesus.

          As Christianity grew and became a worldwide movement, it took on the vestiges and cultural conditioning of various places.  It was in the context of the Medieval period that one begins to see theories concerning the Christian faith burgeon. 

          Anselm, a brilliant medieval philosopher and theologian, spent much of his studies to the question of the atonement.  The time period in which he lived (the turn of the first millennium) had quite an impact on how he explained the atonement (as does our period influence how we interpret the significance of the atonement).  Joel Green outlines Anselm’s context in his book, “Rediscovering the Scandal of the Cross.” 

Both honor and satisfaction were of extreme significance in the medieval world of chivalry and feudalism, of knights, lords, and vassals.  It was a society of a carefully managed series of reciprocal obligations.  The lord provided capital and protection; the serf provided honor, loyalty, and tribute.  Honor demanded that a lord do what was proper and act as a lord should act.  For example, it would not be proper for a lord to fail to fulfill his pledge of protection to a vassal.  Those under the lord must fulfill their oaths of loyalty.  If the vassal did not fulfill the requirements of an oath, he must offer something to the offended lord.  It was seen as unbefitting if a lord did not demand redress from a guilty vassal or did not take revenge against another lord who had in some way offended him.[2]

          Anselm’s theory of the atonement, therefore, reflected his historical placement.  The lord and the vassal represented God and humanity, respectively.  Because humanity had offended the honor of God by sinning, His honor needed to be restored.  However, because humanity was the one who brought the shame and disgrace, they could not rightfully restore His honor.  This is where Christ came in for Anselm: because Christ was human, he could stand in place of sinful humanity; because He was divine, he could restore proper honor due to the Lord.  Thus, Christ restored the vassal (humanity) to the lord (God, the Father) through death on the cross.  This, in many ways, remains the foremost understanding of the atonement in the Roman Catholic Church.

          Peter Abelard, who lived around the time period of Anselm, came to a different conclusion regarding the atonement.  Abelard saw Jesus’ life and death as a “demonstration of God’s love that moves sinners to repent and love God.”[3]  This understanding is later referred to as the “Moral Influence Theory.”  The sacrifice of Christ on the cross inspires humanity to live a life according to the way of Jesus, thus bringing us into fellowship with God in a mutual relationship of love.

          Nearly one thousand years later, people are still devising theories as to what the atonement means for humanity.  The most dominant understanding or theory of the atonement within American evangelical churches is a substitution model.  It was explained this way by a group of indigenous pastors in Panama who had been influenced by North American evangelicals: “God would like to be in relationship with humans and dwell together with us forever in heaven, but human sin does not allow this since God is holy and cannot associate with anyone corrupted by sin…God provides a solution.  God the Father sends his Son to earth to suffer the punishment we deserve by dying on the cross… Jesus died in our place…and we can go to heaven.”[4]        

          These models are not necessarily wrong, but each one in itself is short-sided. If one takes each theory as being full or complete, then one has succumbed to the either/or syndrome sometimes found within Christianity.  This syndrome tells us that there is one cause and effect for everything.  Therefore, Jesus’ atonement can only achieve one thing, in one way.  This, however, is antithetical to the spirit of liberty given by God as seen in Scripture. “For Martin Luther the cross was not merely the basis of human salvation; it was the basis of God’s self-revelation.”[5] When a person limits the atonement to one aspect, it truncates the sovereignty, complexity, and freedom of God.  Where the freedom of God is limited, the freedom of the saints becomes smothered.  Where the freedom of the saints is limited, oppression is sure to reign making the Kingdom of God look more like the kingdom of Caesar . 

          The point I am trying to make is this: what Jesus Christ accomplished at the cross cannot be pigeonholed into only one meaning.  What happened at the cross not only redefined the people of God- it redefined all existence and the way in which we coexist with one another.  Let me reiterate that these models and theories, which I mentioned, are viable, but they are not viable separately.  It is when we see all the pictures together as a collage that we are able to get a more full understanding of what was accomplished at the cross.  To get an alternative and often overlooked biblical view of atonement, let’s look at Ephesians 2.

          The apostle Paul is writing to the church in Ephesus , the leading city in Asia Minor (present day Turkey ) and one of the richest in the Roman Empire .  Ephesus was capital of the Roman Empire in the region of Asia Minor and reflected a plurality commonly found in trade centers.  As such it made it a lucrative place for the growth of The Way- a young, fledgling movement centered round the teachings of a convict named Jesus Christ.  The apostle Paul also saw opportunity in the presence of a Jewish synagogue, where he spent three months preaching.  Indeed archaeological evidence points to a Jewish community in Ephesus , as does the pen of the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus. This is an important note for the context of the book of Ephesians; the small church in Ephesus is a mixed-congregation of Jewish and Gentile believers who were in conflict regarding their heritage. 

          The Jewish segment is having a difficult time seeing how these Gentiles (a word which refers to people who are not Jewish) are sharers in the divine covenant.  “Are not we and we alone the recipients of God’s election?  We were given the law, covenants, and the prophets.”  Thus Paul begins Ephesians by sharing the “adoption story” of how God chose Jews and Gentiles to be “in Christ before the foundation of the world.”  When Paul begins the letter to the Ephesians in this manner, it undercuts any cause for undue pride.

          The Gentiles in Ephesus , however, had what they thought also was reason to hold their heritage in high esteem: political pride.  After all, they were part of the most powerful nation the world, the supreme form of representative democracy.  Paul “gently reminds” the Gentiles of their past- “So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called the uncircumcision by those who are called the circumcision…remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2.11-12).

          Marlin Miller, former missionary and New Testament scholar notes that the Jews and Gentiles in the ancient world were “divided by an insurmountable hostility of religious, social, cultural, and political dimensions.”[6]  To put it in a more basic manner, one can say that the Jews and Gentiles were enemies.  Needless to say then, there was tension within the blended congregation of Jewish and Gentile Christians.  As Paul recaps the situation in the church of Ephesus he employs rhetorical tools to set both the Gentiles and Jews up for an “apocalyptic” moment.  I am not referring to this term in the way it has come to be distorted by society today where it is equated with the “end-times”.  I am going back to the meaning utilized in the ancient world: “an unveiling.”[7]  The word epiphany may describe it better or in more colloquial way, an “A-HA” moment.[8]  Paul reminds the Jews and Gentiles of their differences possibly making them think, “Yeah, we really are different aren’t we.  Perhaps we could make the situation easier by splitting into our own congregations.  At least that way we could have more unity in our beliefs and we could relate to each other rather than have disagreements.”  Paul interrupts any of these possibilities with an interjection reminiscent of Romans 8:1, “But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.  For He is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us” (Eph 2.13-14).

          Paul is providing the audience with, what is known in rhetoric as, “an appeal from authority.”  Why should the Jewish and Gentile people, once considered enemies, reconcile? The sacrifice of Jesus Christ throughout his life and his death provide the place for peace.  Even more than that, Jesus Christ is our peace.  This is not some inner, feel-good peace, which makes us satisfied about ourselves.  This is not a sappy, hollow peace limited to the inner emotions of the individual; that is a modern, individualistic notion- not a biblical one.  No, Paul is making a reference back to a Hebraic idea of peace- Shalom.  John Driver, in Community and Commitment, aptly describes shalom this way:

For the Hebrews, peace was not merely the absence of armed conflict.  Rather shalom was assured by the prevalence of conditions which contribute to human well- being in all its dimensions.  Not merely tranquility of spirit or serenity of mind, peace had to do with harmonious relationships between God and His people.  It had to do with social relationships characterized by His people.  It had to do with social relationships characterized by justice… Peace, justice, and salvation are synonymous terms for general well-being created by right social relationships[9] 

          This ground-breaking, existence-altering Peace is none other than Jesus Christ Himself, living His life through the Church of God , the body of Christ.  He is the only One who is able to establish true peace throughout the world and within the Church.  The Church, now, is a new creation.  “He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace.  And might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it (Eph 2.15-16).  Marlin Miller notes quite insightfully, “The community made up of former enemies is itself the message- visible as well as verbal- of God’s intent in creation, as in the cross of Christ.”[10]      Thus one cannot envision the reconciliation of God to his former enemies through the cross without realizing that reconciliation with God is meaningless if God’s people are not reconciled to their enemies.  Jurgen Moltmann, in his monumental book, The Crucified Christ writes, “There is no vertical dimension of faith opposed to a horizontal dimension of political love, for in every sphere of life the powers of the coming new creation are in conflict with the powers of a world structure which leads to death.  In Christ, God and neighbor are a unity, and what God has joined together, man shall not pull apart.”[11] The author of I John lets his readers know that to be in the Light (a reference to Christ), they must love one another.  In the Gospel of John, Jesus says that people will know that we are disciples of Jesus Christ if we have love for one another.  Where there is peace, there is love.  Where there is love, there is peace.  Where there are both, one will find the Community of the Cross, the visible sign that the Church is actually the Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.

          Finally, I would like to draw out one more implication of this Pauline passage to the Ephesians.  I would like to suggest that reconciliation with our enemies through the life and death of Jesus Christ should alter our perception with how we approach the Eucharist.  The Eucharist is the celebration and remembrance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ by taking part in His flesh and blood through communion.  Just as Jesus sought to reconcile enemies of God to the Father, so we, the Body of Christ, are seeking to be a point of reconciliation to each other and God.  When partaking in communion, you and I brothers and sisters are getting a glimpse into the Kingdom of Heaven .  “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).  When we share Christ’s body, the strife of worldly inequality disappears.  The societal structures and power schemes of the world fade away.  For example, in the kingdom of the world, women have often been held in low-esteem and without voice.  In the Kingdom of God women are free, just as the slave is paradoxically free, to tell of God’s reconciling all things unto Himself and how He is presently restoring right relationships with the people of God and their so-called enemies.  It is during communion that we see the world as it is supposed to be- a dual reconciliation of God to his creation and his creation to one another.  Marlin Miller writes concerning the peace made possible by Christ that, “It includes the realization of reconciliation and community unattainable by human efforts and therefore relegated to a utopian future age.  (However) What had been considered utopian had now through the cross become a present reality.”[12] 

          It is my prayer that the Church, here and across the world, be a community of reconciliation.  It is my hope that you and I can invite our enemies to the table of fellowship where the body of Christ is shared without regard to ethnicity, gender, or social status.  So that we may truly be a collage of the Kingdom through which the world will know that God desires reconciliation with all humanity.               

Paul Jones