THE GENERALLY accepted definition of the term atonement seems to be more limited in concept than the ideas expressed in the typology of the Levitical service. As one studies the usage of the Hebrew words in their context, one is led to the conclusion that there are possibly three ways of using the term atonement.
1. In the sense of sacrificial atonement.
2. In the sense of mediatorial atonement.
3. In the sense of judicial atonement.
Various Theories of the Atonement
Many have been quick to accuse Seventh-day Adventists of being outside the so-called main stream of Christianity in our doctrine of the atonement. However, a brief look at the history of the doctrine soon reveals that the orthodox concept is really only a figment of the imagination. Many ideas have been propounded, ranging from the ridiculous to the impossibly complex.
We might start with G. Aulen's "Christus Victor" concept. He refers to it as the classical idea of redemption. Christ is pictured as the conqueror going on from con quest to conquest. Along side of this and complementary to it we see Christ reigning as king ("Christus Regnans").
Origen began to develop the idea of ransom. He understood it as being paid to Satan. This line of reasoning resulted from his exegetical studies of the text: "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28). Elaboration of this theory came with the work of Gregory of Nyssa (died c. 396) and Rufinus (c. 395).
Gregory propounded the idea of the lack of perception on the part of the devil, so that he was trapped in much the same way, "as with greedy fish, the hook of the Deity might be gulped down along with the bait of the flesh." 1 Rufinus dwells on the metaphor of the bait and the hook: Christ's flesh is the bait, His divinity the hook. Imagination began to run riot and we see Gregory the Great (c. 540-604) varying the metaphor to that of a snare for birds, while Augustine likens the cross to a mousetrap baited with the blood of Christ.
Athanasius' development of atonement theory followed the concept of Christ as the one who took our nature and thus affected a change in us: "He became man that we might be made divine." Tertullian laid the foundation in his terminology of "Satisfaction" and "Merit," for later thinkers. Augustine insisted that it was not a case of being reconciled first and then loved, but rather being loved and then reconciled. The general patristic concept seems to be that Christ was our representative but not our substitute.
With Anselm we come to the so-called "satisfaction theory." The two ideas of "honor" and "satisfaction" find their basis not so much in the theological point of view, as in the feudalism of the time. With the passing of feudal ism the satisfaction theory faded into the background. According to this concept, Christ is thought of as making satisfaction for sin and thus meriting the salvation of His people.
Peter Abelard went further than Anselm, dwelling upon the idea of love and exemplary value of the atonement. Such concern should evoke a response of love in the sinner himself. Abelard, according to Finlayson, "is justly regarded as the father of the Moral Influence Theory of the atonement." 2 In this theory the emphasis is upon suffering love rather than satisfaction. From this follows the development of the concept of self-giving love.
Thomas Aquinas sees love as the motivation that moves God to the work of atonement. Emphasis is placed upon the love and obedience of Christ. Mention is made of the penal consequences of sin, including death itself.
In Martin Luther's concept of the atonement, we see the pattern of voluntary substitution developing. Christ is reckoned by God as a sinner in man's stead.
Calvin, flowering after the Renaissance and at the time of the Reformation, took the legal basis of his era and patterned a penal theory of the atonement. Inviolability of law and the justice of God are starting points for this view point. Man has sinned and must be punished. God is just and sin cannot go unpunished. Christ became for us the true law-keeper and thus fulfilled the just requirements of God.
The example of Christ to His followers comes to the fore in the Socinians. Men such as Jowett and Rashdall held to this view.
Finally we move into the age of so-called "Crisis Theologians." Names such as Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Rudolph Bultmann come to mind. As one reads some of the statements of these writers it would seem at a cursory glance that they are often close to the truth when it comes to their statements about the atoning work of Christ. However, this is only an appearance upon the surface. One must view their statements with a healthy amount of reservation owing to the fact that they hold there is a tension between the historical and the suprahistorical.
The Old Testament, or Hebrew, Concept of the Atonement
The Hebrew word kaphar (verb) has the basic concept of to cover, to overspread. Hence we see the idea developing of the covering or pardoning of sin atonement. In the noun kaphar the village or hamlet is conceived of as covering over its inhabitants with shelter and protection. With kopher (noun) again we notice the village idea along with the further meaning of "pitch" (cf. Gen. 6:14), so called because of the way that it is overspread or overlaid.
A study of the usage of the verbal form kaphar in the Hebrew scriptures reveals some very interesting points, points some theologians today would conceive as being outside the meaning of the present definition of the term atonement. However, the truly Biblical approach is to allow our concepts to be molded by the Bible, and not vice versa.
The Sacrificial Aspect
All through the Old Testament, it is evident that the Jewish mind dwelt frequently upon the idea of sacrifice. We as New Testament Christians dwell upon the "better" sacrifice of Christ.
The work that Christ did on the cross cannot be added to in any way at all it is full and complete. His sacrifice was all sufficient; it did not fall short in the minutest detail. However, Paul said, "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor. 15:14). This would seem to imply that even though Christ's sacrifice was all sufficient, something would be lacking if Christ remained a prisoner of the tomb.
Vincent Taylor comes close to the heart of the question when he enunciates: "It is important at the outset to distinguish two aspects of the doctrine which can be separated in thought, but not without grave loss in practice. These are . . . (a) the saving deed of Christ, and (b) the appropriation of His work by faith, both individual and communal. These two together constitute the Atonement." 3
The atonement on the cross is all that was required, the death on the cross is all it should have been, but now for the Christian the benefits of the atonement must be ministered. Faith alone does not bring the benefits; it lays hold of the grace of Christ and thus appropriates the benefits of Christ's atoning death.
The Mediatorial Aspect
In the typical service the priest did not leave the sacrifice unattended at the door of the tabernacle, but he took from it, and ministered it on behalf of the penitent sinner. Notice the often repeated statement in Leviticus: "and the priest shall make an atonement for them [or him, etc.]."
In the New Testament we see the concept of Christ as mediator exemplified in the book of Hebrews, and also in 1 Timothy 2:5. The Greek word used is mesites. Mesites has the basic meaning of one who stands in between, hence an arbitrator or a mediator. The word mesites occurs in the Septuagint in Job 9:33 and it is a translation of the Hebrew word bayin, which has the basic concept of "between."
The book of Hebrews presents ample evidence that Christ is at work even today on behalf of the sinner. Obviously, the mediatorial aspect does not detract in any way from the sacrificial aspect. In stead the mediatorial aspect is built upon the one hundred per cent sure and certain sacrificial foundation. We are not believers in a deistic God, neither are we believers in a deistic Christ. Christ has not forgotten us now that He has ascended to heaven.
The Judicial Aspect
There are two facets of this aspect that need special attention. The first is what we might term the experiential factor involving the penitent sinner, and the sec ond is what we might call the historical process of the fact of sin. That I sinned on January 1, 1959, will always be a historical fact. That I was forgiven by Christ goes beyond the realm of history to experience I feel the joy and blessing of divine grace in the forgiveness of my sins. No longer do I bear the guilt of this sin as Christ bears it for me. He is the great sin bearer.
Some would see a difficulty in the fact that we as Adventists have the record of sin transferred to the heavenly sanctuary. They say, "How then are you forgiven if the record remains?" It is as simple as this. For example, I buy goods on credit. I receive an invoice and in due time a statement. I meet the statement within the required thirty days by payment in full. The business manager writes across the account, "Paid in full." How ever, because of legal requirements he keeps the record of the debt and the payment for up to possibly seven years. Does his retention of the record place me in the position of a debtor? Not in the least!
Similarly, the record of forgiven sin holds nothing against my forgiveness as a person, for across this debt Christ has written, "Paid in full." The records are kept be cause the historical course of sin has not yet finished. Iniquity still has not been fully eliminated. God's name has not yet been fully vindicated. The records will ultimately vindicate our loving heavenly Father in the eyes of the uni verse, then sin will be seen in its true colors.
Some, after reading Leviticus 16, might still retort that there is no record of actual judgment on the Day of Atonement. Further, they state that we gain our concept of judgment from extra-Biblical Jewish sources. Be this as it may, we ask them to read carefully Leviticus 23:27-30. If the statement "he shall be cut off from among his people" and "the same soul will I destroy" do not reflect the concept of judgment, we find it hard to express the idea of judgment in the realm of language!
What relationship does the judicial aspect of the atonement have to the sacrificial and the mediatorial aspects? In the sacrificial aspect we see salvation provided, whereas in the mediatorial aspect we see men either accepting the grace of Christ or rejecting the plan of salvation. Here, then, is the work of the judicial aspect of the atonement. None are with out excuse for all has been provided for them if they will only accept the atonement provided by Christ. Those who enter with Christ into the sanctuary in the mediatorial aspect are reckoned in the judicial aspect as suitable for translation, whereas those who have failed to accept, the salvation proffered are judged as candidates for annihilation.
The judicial aspect must be superimposed on the latter portion of the mediatorial work if the atonement is to really have any meaning. Mediation still is carried on at the same time as the judicial work and will continue to be right up till the close of probation.
FOOTNOTES
1. Alan Richardson, Creeds in the Making (SCM Press, 1967 reprint of the second edition), pp. 102, 103.
2. R. A. Finlayson, The Story of Theology (Tyndale House Press, 1963), p. 39.
3. Vincent Taylor, The Cross of Christ (Macmillan, 1956), pp. 87, 88.
Further Bibliography
Cross, F. L, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957).
Halverson and Cohen, editors, A Handbook of Christian Theology (Hew York: World Publishing Co., 1972).
K. Runia, I Believe in God (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1967).
Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1957).
