Edgework

In his classic work, Christus Victor, Gustaf Aulén argues that atonement theories did not emerge until well into the second century A.D. when Irenaeus began to “theologize” about the work of Christ. But even then, “His strength lies in the fact that he did not, like Apologists and the Alexandrians, work along some philosophical line of approach to Christianity, but devoted himself altogether to the simple exposition of the central ideas of the Christian faith itself” (17).

This leads us to the remarkable conclusion that even while the church was spreading rapidly for at least a century, Christ followers did not carry with them an atonement theory to present to potential converts; all they had was the Jesus story to tell. Given this observation, some modern apologists are recommending that the way forward might be to leap-frog back over all the theories to get back to basically telling the Jesus story.

In his book, A More Christlike God; A More Beautiful Gospel, Brad Jersak states: “‘The gospel,’ as told in the four Gospels, is the story of Jesus’ life, his death and his resurrection. The gospel is not an atonement theory, or four spiritual laws, or five steps or any doctrine of man. It is the good news about what Christ actually did in history to initiate the restoration of all things” (228). He goes on to say: “We err when we overlook the gospel story, expounding theories ‘about’ the gospel in its place” (229).

So that is why Jersak intentionally marginalizes standard atonement theories when speaking about the gospel. To him,

The gospel is what actually happened in space and time: God sent Jesus into the world to announce the news of peace, to turn us from wickedness and save us (from ourselves); Jesus was crucified (and sometimes, ‘You killed him”); God raised him from the dead; Jesus is Lord and Saviour; he is making all things new; now turn to this Jesus, entrust your life to him, and he will make you new too (230).

Instead of getting involved in “atonement wars,” Jersak suggests we do better to mine the depths of metaphors Jesus himself used that shed light on what his mission was all about. For example, Jesus sees himself as “seeking and finding the lost,” a metaphor that ‘unwraths’ atonement. Or as the “great physician” – thereby proclaiming that sin is not guilt to be punished or debt to be paid, but a disease of the soul that needs healing. Another metaphor is that of “atoning sacrifice,” an obvious reference to the Jewish Day of Atonement involving two goats, one offered as a gift to God as a sign of covenant renewal, the other bearing away the sins of the people. Then again Jesus is the “Passover Lamb,” not punished for people’s sins but eaten as a hospitality meal. Jesus is a “redeemer” in the vein of redemption in the year of Jubilee. Jesus gave his life as a “ransom for many,” not paying off Satan but giving himself over to death. “The early church called this victory raid ‘the harrowing of hades’ and celebrated Christ’s posthumous saving work on ‘Holy Saturday'” (247).

Similarly, Jersak notes that Paul uses a variety of metaphors when telling the Jesus story in varied contexts. These include victory, justification, substitution, redemption, all of which were unpacked by the early church without the use of any atonement theories. As Jersak sees it, the early church understood that “He (God) unwrathed us! He freed us from sin’s slavery and unwrapped us from death. How? By wrathing Jesus in our place? No! By becoming one of us and, as Jesus, overcoming wrath by his great mercy” (263).

Another contemporary theologian bypassing atonement theories and leaning toward telling the story is Ted Grimsrud. In his book, Instead of Atonement; the Bible’s Salvation Story and Our hope for Wholeness, he makes the case that the Jesus story is really a continuation of the story begun in the Old Testament. That is to say that Jesus did not really start a new story but lived his story in a way that was consistent with God’s story that comes to us through the law and the prophets.

Grimsrud makes a convincing case that both the law and the sacrifices prescribed in the Old Testament were not means to salvation but a response to the gracious gift of salvation offered by God.

In a nutshell, all of these sources, in general terms, portray salvation as a simple act of God’s mercy. All of these sources assume a God who does not first need to be persuaded by human acts in order to make whatever provisions are necessary for salvation to occur. All of these sources present salvation as being free from the logic of retribution (28).

According to Grimsrud’s telling of the story, by the time of the kings and prophets this primary perspective had largely been lost; both the keeping of the law and making appropriate sacrifices had become instruments to obtain God’s favor and bestow salvation.

In challenging the distortions of law and sacrifice, the prophets reiterate the meaning of salvation. They re-emphasize that salvation is God’s liberating gift, and that following Torah and offering sacrifices are responses to God’s gift, not means to try to gain it (52).

Contrary to the views expressed by many, Grimsrud says,

Jesus’ message actually places him squarely within the mainstream of the Old Testament salvation story. For Jesus, salvation is a gift. Obedience follows as a response to the gift…Jesus’ death reveals the logic of retribution to be the tool of evil, not the god-ordained rule of the universe (230-231).

From my perspective, Jersak and Grimsrud represent a welcome new perspective concerning atonement; a perspective that was already there before the many theories emerged. It is a perspective that allowed the church to flourish for more than a century without atonement theories to disagree about. Somehow that sounds right!