6) The Nature of Christ's Atonement as Substitutionary Accursedness
The direction I intend to argue in this post is probably already apparent: if Jesus' work on the cross is rightly construed as a substitutionary sacrifice involving him taking upon himself the due penalty for our sins (to be sure, that cannot be taken for granted in today's theological landscape--but I'm convinced it's still correct, based on Rom. 3:21-26; 8:3 and 2 Cor. 5:21 with Is. 53 in the background, though I cannot argue it fully here), then the nature of Jesus' suffering and death should shed light on the nature of final judgment for the impenitent wicked on the Last Day. Specifically, while Jesus' atoning work involved more than his death proper, and accomplished more than cancelling the legal penalty for our sin by taking it upon himself, it did not involve less than those things, and I would argue that those things are indeed central to his atoning work.
Biblical atonement theology is extraordinarily rich and the properly broad categories for interpreting Jesus' work on the cross stretch back not only through the prophets and the Levitical system of sacrifice given in the Pentateuch (which will come into play below), but all the way back to Genesis 3:15. Gen. 3:15, the protoevangelion or first announcement of the gospel, sets the narrative stage of redemption in Christus Victor terms of God's war against the Serpent through the Seed of the woman ("seed" as collectively plural and eschatologically singular). The Serpent's lies led to a curse on the ground and judgment on mankind including forfeiture of eternal life, struggle with the cursed ground in cultivating and nurturing crop life (and thus human life), and struggle (same word again:ʿiṣṣāḇôn--toil, grief) in child-bearing (see the narrative of the rest of Genesis for illustrations of both--a surer exegetical method than reductionist word studies alone).
God had also warned Adam of "death" on "the day" when the forbidden fruit would be eaten, and it will not suffice to say that Adam and Eve were driven from God's presence in Eden with that geo-relational separation itself constituting every sense of death threatened; nor yet is it sufficient to acknowledge that Adam and Eve would, because barred from the Tree of Life, one day return to dust (Gen. 3:19, 22-24), and so would merely begin the "process" of dying that day. Those things are true. But there was actual death that day, in the ordinary, physical sense. It is not reading too much into the text, given the related procedures and themes in the later ceremonial laws and in the prophets, to understand that the animal skins used to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness (for their [re]-investiture as protological royal priests) were taken from sacrificial victims--the first substitute animal sacrifices pointing forward to the shedding of the blood of Christ and the consequent ability for his people to be "clothed" with him (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27). Compare the imagery in Zechariah 3:1-5.
From Genesis 9 and Leviticus 17 we learn that the "life of all "flesh" is emphatically "in the blood," and that it is for this reason that blood, in God's ordained ceremonial system for Israel, makes atonement for the people (Gen. 9:4-5; Lev. 17:11-14). Atonement requires the sacrificial offering of life. Atonement holistically involves more than "forgiveness of sins," but not less, and the author of Hebrews, reflecting on the Levitical system as a whole, comments, "And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness" (Heb. 9:22).
Jesus' atoning work fulfills all the major sacrifices of Israel's day-to-day sacrificial system as well as those of all the special feast days and weeks, so it can be viewed from the manifold perspectives of the involved symbolism of all those offerings and rituals. For example, the whole-burnt or "ascension" offering of Leviticus 1 emphasizes entire dedication unto, and transfiguration (in smoke) unto union and communion with, God whose glory is revealed in the cloud over the tabernacle/temple. Jesus consecrated himself and dedicated his entire life and being to the Father, and returned to glorious heavenly fellowship with the Father by way of the cross, fulfilling the tens (hundreds? thousands?) of thousands of ascension offerings Israelites had offered over the centuries.
In some key atonement texts, the language of either the sin/purification offering of Leviticus 4 (Rom. 8:3--see consistent LXX usage of peri hamartias) or the guilt/trespass offering of Leviticus 5-7 (Is. 53:10) is used to interpret Christ's work. The author of Hebrews focuses on the Day of Atonement ritual (see Leviticus 16), especially the slaughtered sin-offering goat whose blood is taken into the Most Holy Place and sprinkled on the mercy seat, as central to interpreting Christ's work (Heb. 9:6-28). And of course John the Baptist calls Jesus the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29), and Paul tells us to celebrate the Passover in new covenant form (putting away the old "leaven" of malice and wickedness in the church), because "Christ our Passover" has been sacrificed (1 Cor. 5:6-8), clearly interpreting Jesus' death as a fulfilment of the Passover Lamb commanded to be slaughtered and eaten in family households before the Exodus from Egypt, and as a memorial of that redemption every year at the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Ex. 12:1-27; Lev. 23:5-8). The Passover sacrifice, being pre-Levitical, cannot neatly be categorized as a particular type of offering prescribed later in the Law, but it bears the most similarity to the peace/fellowship offering prescribed in Leviticus 3: the animal is slaughtered, its blood is displayed, and its flesh is eaten in covenantal table fellowship, by all parties (not just priests). It clearly also plays a substitutionary role, though: any household that has not slaughtered the lamb and displayed its blood will lose its firstborn son--its "future," its "life"--at the hands of the angel of death.
Jesus surely also fulfilled the grain/tribute offering of Leviticus 2, which did not in itself involve the shedding of any blood. However, the vast majority of the time, the grain offering was not offered on its own, but accompanied other animal sacrifices (usually ascension offerings, peace offerings, and ordination offerings). And the overwhelming emphasis of the prophetic and New Testament interpretation of the sacrificial work of the Messiah, in Levitical terms, is that he would spill his blood as a final sin, guilt, and Passover offering on behalf of his people, thereby bringing about, at minimum, purification (from all our "unintentional" sins short of "high-handed" rebellion), just restoration (we having transgressed against God's revealed holiness in many ways), and deliverance from the slavery of sin, Satan, and fear of the death which rightly threaten us (see, just for starters, 1 Cor 15:56-57; Eph. 1:7; Titus 2:14; Heb. 2:14-15; Heb. 10:18).
If we account for the whole Levitical system as the background supplying categories of atonement, we will realize that Jesus' death is not the entirety of his work of atonement. Otherwise, animals would have simply been killed whenever Israel needed to deal with sin(s), and then life would have gone on as normal. But there was further ritualization: detailed instructions about butchery, symbolic actions with hands and words, combinations of sacrifices, display of blood in particular areas of the tabernacle/temple depending on the type of offering and the station/status of the one offering it and the occasion of the offering, and sometimes the eating of various parts of the sacrifices. As much as something was "paid in full" as soon as Jesus died on the cross (something spoken definitively but proleptically, by Jesus himself, in John 19:30), if Jesus had not later ascended and presented his blood, as it were, in the heavenly Most Holy Place before the Father, cleansing the heavenly temple (cf. Heb. 9:11-14, 23-24 with Lev. 16:15-19 as background), his work of atonement would not be complete.
We should also remember that the acceptability of Christ's sacrificial self-offering for atonement would not be possible if he had not kept himself perfectly pure, as an "unblemished" offering (Heb. 9:14) like that required for an animal sin offering (Lev. 4:32) or the Passover lamb (Ex. 12:5). Therefore his "atoning" work as the ultimate high priest and ultimate sacrifice, in one person, stretches not only beyond the cross itself, but begins the moment he is conceived as a man by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary. From his submission to his parents and his godly growth in wisdom and stature in his youth, to his conquering of the temptations in the wilderness at the beginning of his public earthly ministry, Jesus was entirely without sin (Heb. 4:15).
Nevertheless, this fuller picture of Christ's atoning work still centers on one fundamental reality: the death of Jesus Christ the God-man upon a tree--the shedding of his blood for the remission of sins. His perfect obedience to the Father qualified him as a perfect sacrifice to be slain, and his presentation of his blood in heaven to cleanse the heavenly temple (whether conceived of as only post-resurrection-and-ascension or as in some sense occurring between his death and resurrection--I prefer the former) presupposed him having previously shed that blood. All centers on his death: his self-offering of his life--the life which is in the blood (Gen. 9; Lev. 17).
What became of sacrificial animal victims under the Levitical system? They were certainly not lethally injected or peacefully euthanized the way a chronically ill pet might be today. They were slain by the edge of the knife such that their blood would drain out (a rather intense picture to imagine as a regular part of ancient people's lives), and butchered into parts, some of which were sometimes burned up in fire (the knife/sword and fire together recall the cherubim appearing as flaming swords, guarding the way that leads back to the Tree of Life in Eden--an "ordeal" that either we or a substitute and representative must undergo in order to access it). But (and now I will say it) there are no sacrificial rituals prescribed in Leviticus or anywhere else in the Pentateuch in which an animal is intentionally tortured for a prolonged period, let alone indefinitely, let alone forever--not even the sin or guilt offerings. The shedding of the blood of goats and bulls involved a kind of "violence" and surely inflicted pain on the beasts in the process, but the pain was not the main point--the shedding of blood, i.e. the ending and offering of the lives of the beasts was the point.
Therefore when it comes to Christ's atoning work, fulfilling the Old Testament sacrifices, it is no surprise that he undergoes the very same fate. He dies. His death is the relentlessly central feature of atonement according to the New Testament teaching. To be sure, he is killed, and violently so, becoming a "curse" for us (Gal. 3:13) in order to redeem us from the curse of the Law, evident in that he died by being "hanged on a tree" (Deut. 21:23) for supposed blasphemy (e.g., Jn. 5:18). While this violent death involved immense suffering throughout the course of his entire Passion, it is everywhere considered as suffering unto death. There are few if any passages in the New Testament that speak of Jesus' sacrificial suffering without either explicitly mentioning or clearly implying, based on nearby context, that his suffering led to and included his being finally killed by the Romans (at the Jews' behest). This is why his "blood" is spoken of as providing redemption and atonement in so many places (Rom. 3:25; 5:8-9; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col. 1:20; Heb. 9-10; 1 Pet. 1:2, 19; 1 Jn. 1:7; Rev. 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11; etc.).
What it meant for Jesus to offer his blood as drink (Jn. 6:55) and as the blood of a new covenant (Matt. 26:28; Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:20) was nothing different than what he meant when he said that he, the good shepherd, "...lays down his life for the sheep" (Jn. 10:11, 15, 17; my emphasis), and nothing other than what he meant when he said that, "...the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mk. 10:45).
If the fate of the impenitent wicked were eternal conscious torment, and that had been the fate of believers if they had not repented, their substitute Sacrifice would have had to undergo eternal, conscience torment in their place in order to atonement for them. It is too simplistic to say that that was merely impractical in God's providence and saving economy, because the redeemed would never actually get a chance to meet and communion with Jesus in eternity since he would still be undergoing the suffering due unto them.
Nor will it do to say that the nature of final punishment for the wicked is radically different from the atoning Passion of Christ because of Jesus' infinite value as a divine Person, whose mere suffering and death is equivalent to an eternity of suffering for non-divine human persons. Besides this being a radically speculative theological connection to make, which Scripture does not hint at, it risks coming near implying a kind of Eutychian or otherwise monophysite Christological heresy: yes, Christ's human nature should not be conceived of separately from the Person of the divine Logos (else that would be Nestorianism), and the value of his person and work are indeed, surely, infinite, but everything Jesus does in suffering and dying as an atoning sacrifice for his people is done properly speaking "according to" the human nature. He was made to share in flesh and blood in order to be made like us in every respect, save for sin (Heb. 2:14, 17), so that his high-priestly ministry for us could include the disarming of the devil, through his own death (Heb. 2:14). The NT consistently points, then, to the fact that the substitutionary fate suffered by Jesus in his atoning work is the fate awaiting the finally impenitent wicked, and not something different.
It is even further unwarranted theological speculation to speak about the "infinitude" of the debt of sinners because of every smallest sin against God, due to God's infinity. There may ultimately be something accurate about that idea, but a) while evangelical preachers often speak in this way, the NT almost never, if ever, speaks in this way--the parable of the unmerciful servant (which speaks of a large sum) and the notion of "falling short of the glory of God" in Romans 3:23 (which immediately thereafter focuses on Jesus' blood) come closest; b) the final death of the impenitent wicked is actually infinite in one respect, in that it is eternally irreversible death (and this doesn't challenge the tight connection between Christ's temporary death and the eternal fate of the wicked, because Christ only bears the sins of those for whom he atones until he dies (inclusive of his death), and considered in his own person he surely merited the reward of resurrection life and marriage to his holy bride, the Church (cf. Is. 53:10-12).
There are more passages we could consider with regard to Christ's substitutionary death, and theological questions like the nature of "proportionality" in divine judgment and how that works in either the traditionalist or the conditionalist view of final judgment (there are good questions to be asked of both views here), and how those ideas work together in questions about "equivalentism" versus broader representationalism in Christ's particular atoning work ("so much suffering equals so many atoned for?" etc.; [and for the record, I reject equivalentism]). But the main point for this post, at this point in the series, is that one of the most central elements of the gospel and of the historic Christian faith--the sacrificial death of Christ--especially when viewed as any kind of substitution (and is not the release of Barabbas in the gospel narrative a miniature of substitution?), is much more coherent with an annihilationist view of the fate of the wicked than it is with traditionalism! And we should maintain a radically scriptural and non-speculative view of language and categories around things as weighty and central as the atonement and the nature of final judgment, leaving aside unscriptural, unwarranted applications of notions of "infinities" applied to creatures or their fates.
The gospel is not "Christ suffer(ed?) eternal, conscious torment for our sins according to the Scriptures, would be buried if he were not in Gehenna still, and would be lifted out of Gehenna for us according to the Scriptures if he didn't need to continue experiencing torment there eternally for us."
The gospel is, "...Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and...He was buried, and...He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4, my emphasis). Those Scriptures were the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament, which speak at length about life and death, and about the system of animal sacrifice that pointed forward to the Messiah. Let us allow those Scriptures to instruct us about the meaning and nature of Christ's work, and the life-and-death context of the fallen world which "necessitated" it, given the Father's gracious plan of redemption.
No comments:
Post a Comment