Theories of Atonement

[Thomas]

Having made a few posts on the topic of Sacrifice on the Christian board – me getting my thoughts in order as much as anything else – I thought I'd pop in some reflections on the various atonement theologies within the broader Christian tradition.

Basically, atonement theologies rest on themes of ransom, redemption, propitiation, substitution and morality.

Recapitulation Theory: of Irenaeus (c.155-191): that Christ 'sums up' and restores humanity by living through and overcoming the limitation on the human state, undoing the damage of Adam's sin. (My favoured theory.) Based on a close reading of St Paul.

Other theories, which apart from Pater Abelard's, I tend to regard as less favourable as time goes on.

Christus Victor an early patristic theology: a cosmic victory over evil powers.
Ransom Theory another early theory: a ransom paid to Satan to liberate humanity from bondage.
Satisfaction Theory of Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109): that Christ's death 'satisfied' the infinite debt owed to God.
Moral Influence Theory of Peter Abelard (1079-1142): that Christ's death serves to demonstrate divine love, thereby inspiring repentance and moral transformation in believers rather than satisfying legal or cosmic requirements.
Penal Substitution Theory of Reformers like Luther (1483-1546) and Calvin (1509-1564): Christ bore the specific penalty of sin.

There's probably other theories out there.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Having made a few posts on the topic of Sacrifice on the Christian board – me getting my thoughts in order as much as anything else – I thought I'd pop in some reflections on the various atonement theologies within the broader Christian tradition.

Basically, atonement theologies rest on themes of ransom, redemption, propitiation, substitution and morality.

Recapitulation Theory: of Irenaeus (c.155-191): that Christ 'sums up' and restores humanity by living through and overcoming the limitation on the human state, undoing the damage of Adam's sin. (My favoured theory.) Based on a close reading of St Paul.

Other theories, which apart from Pater Abelard's, I tend to regard as less favourable as time goes on.

Christus Victor an early patristic theology: a cosmic victory over evil powers.
Ransom Theory another early theory: a ransom paid to Satan to liberate humanity from bondage.
Satisfaction Theory of Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109): that Christ's death 'satisfied' the infinite debt owed to God.
Moral Influence Theory of Peter Abelard (1079-1142): that Christ's death serves to demonstrate divine love, thereby inspiring repentance and moral transformation in believers rather than satisfying legal or cosmic requirements.
Penal Substitution Theory of Reformers like Luther (1483-1546) and Calvin (1509-1564): Christ bore the specific penalty of sin.

There's probably other theories out there.

I'm not going to get involved in this conversation, but there are two things in the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy) that Christians commonly get confused, and are important to any discussion on this topic.
1. The Passover lamb didn't atone for anything.
2. The passage on sin offerings that begins in Levitcus 4 only applies to unintentional sins.

 

[Thomas]

I'm not going to get involved in this conversation, but there are two things in the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy) that Christians commonly get confused, and are important to any discussion on this topic.
1. The Passover lamb didn't atone for anything.
2. The passage on sin offerings that begins in Levitcus 4 only applies to unintentional sins.

I would not dispute that.

1: As I see it, a specific ritual which conforms to the universal idea of sacrifice, an offering towards deliverance?
2: The Book of Numbers 15
"27 But if one soul shall sin ignorantly, he shall offer a she goat of a year old for his sin. And the priest shall pray for him, because he sinned ignorantly before the Lord: and he shall obtain his pardon, and it shall be forgiven him."

"30 But the soul that committeth any thing through pride, whether he be born in the land or a stranger (because he hath been rebellious against the Lord) shall be cut off from among his people: 31 For he hath contemned the word the Lord, and made void his precept: therefore shall he be destroyed, and shall bear his iniquity."
So there is no sufficient or acceptable sacrifice for wilful sin.

So much so that a man found gathering sticks on the Sabbath (v32), "That they brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole multitude. And they put him into prison, not knowing what they should do with him. And the Lord said to Moses: Let that man die, let all the multitude stone him
without the camp. And when they had brought him out, they stoned him, and he died as the Lord had commanded." (v34-36).

All this fits with Girard's mimetic theory.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So there is no sufficient or acceptable sacrifice for wilful sin.

This is correct. The way the Torah looks to me, willful sin cannot be atoned for. The way we deal with our willful sin is repentance, not sacrifice. It doesn't mean there aren't social consequences--courts of justice can and should deal with these things. But the state of our soul is restored to righteousness by repentance. "The righteous man stumbles seven times and rises up again. Proverbs 24:16

By repentance I don't mean some cheap, easy grace you get by saying the sinner's prayer. I mean going to the one you have wronged and doing all you an to make it right again. Then and only then do we approach God. But his mercy is incredible. "He shall return and grant us compassion; He shall hide our iniquities, and shall cast into the depths of the sea all their sins." Micah 7:19

For You do not wish a sacrifice, or I should give it; You do not desire a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; O God, You will not despise a broken and crushed heart. Psalm 51:18-19

I realize many Christians have a different take on this, that "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." Hebrews 9:22 I wasn't even going to comment further, but I was impressed that you caught on about unintentional versus intentional sin.

I will now leave the discussion to Christians.

 

[DerekhHikmah]

I would not dispute that.

1: As I see it, a specific ritual which conforms to the universal idea of sacrifice, an offering towards deliverance?
2: The Book of Numbers 15
"27 But if one soul shall sin ignorantly, he shall offer a she goat of a year old for his sin. And the priest shall pray for him, because he sinned ignorantly before the Lord: and he shall obtain his pardon, and it shall be forgiven him."

"30 But the soul that committeth any thing through pride, whether he be born in the land or a stranger (because he hath been rebellious against the Lord) shall be cut off from among his people: 31 For he hath contemned the word the Lord, and made void his precept: therefore shall he be destroyed, and shall bear his iniquity."
So there is no sufficient or acceptable sacrifice for wilful sin.

So much so that a man found gathering sticks on the Sabbath (v32), "That they brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole multitude. And they put him into prison, not knowing what they should do with him. And the Lord said to Moses: Let that man die, let all the multitude stone him
without the camp. And when they had brought him out, they stoned him, and he died as the Lord had commanded." (v34-36).

All this fits with Girard's mimetic theory.

Numbers 15 and Leviticus 4 deal with unintentional sins. But as you mention, there was judgment for intentional sins. There were no animal sacrifices prescribed for more serious deliberate sins like murder or adultery, which makes the account of David and Bathsheba very interesting. So for willful sin, I would say this shows the limits of the Levitical sacrificial system, but not the limits of God's mercy. Repentance and atonement are therefore indispensable to one another. Repentance is how one turns around, and the blood provides the basis upon which reconciliation can be grounded.

The Passover lamb was not a sin offering, but its blood preserved the life of the firstborn in each household and was connected with Israel's deliverance from Egypt. Christ's sacrifice likewise has to do with liberation from sin and ultimately from its consequence, death itself. (1 Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews 9:11-15)

Leviticus 16 also deals with the Day of Atonement, when blood was brought into the sanctuary to make atonement for the priesthood and for the whole assembly of Israel once a year. The goat for Azazel then symbolically carried their sins away into the wilderness, outside the camp.

 

[RabbiO]

@IndigoChild5559 -

There is trnsion between Numbers and Leviticus. Read Leviticus 16 describing Yom Kippur. If you have a question after reading, ask away.

 

[TheLightWithin]

So much so that a man found gathering sticks on the Sabbath (v32), "That they brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole multitude. And they put him into prison, not knowing what they should do with him. And the Lord said to Moses: Let that man die, let all the multitude stone him
without the camp. And when they had brought him out, they stoned him, and he died as the Lord had commanded." (v34-36).

Reading the bible as a teen and running across this passage... and others like it ... without context or anything... Why was he gathering sticks? Why was it so wrong he had to have his life ended violently? How does this square with later teachings or declarations within Judaism and Christianity about every life being precious? Methodist bible study teachers are not good theologians and asking heterodox Grandpa was never wise as it would lead to a whole evening of ranting about the prophecies about world coming to an end and not much of a real answer otherwise...

How are we to make sense of such passages? Why is picking up sticks a greater moral outrage than ending his life!??
Would his reason (maybe to keep his family warm?!) not at all relevant? Why is it not in the passage? Are there theories about this?

 

[Thomas]

An long-resigned and much respected member of our little community once posted:

Someone wrote:
"Here's evidence that the Jews continued to sacrifice humans after Abraham."
(He was quoting this text as evidence:
"But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom Yahweh cast out from before the children of Israel." – 2 Kings 16:3)

Bananabrain – a well-informed Jewish exegete – replied:
"you are completely missing the point - as well as being unnecessarily accusatory. throughout the period of the judges through to the destruction of the first Temple, jewish culture was a struggle between the siren voices of bloody, child-sacrificing, sexually immoral canaanite idolatry and the moral compass of the prophetic voice. in other words, we were *total fecking sinners and idolators* and this was why we ended up losing the first Temple and the first jewish commonwealth. what you are failing to notice is that, according to jewish tradition, culture and religion as it has developed into a sustained civilisation, THIS WAS SEEN AS A BAD THING. so the quote you give is from a prophetic book where we are writing down all the terrible things we did in the past - that is *not* the same as saying "jews always performed human sacrifice". it was not a JEWISH thing to do so. it was an IDOLATROUS thing to do so. doing so was what got the prophets, sages and all right thinking people upset, angry and determined to root out. it's a bit like saying that "brahmins and khatris always oppressed the lower castes" - it may have happened, but it was a cause for sadness and reform, not for celebration as part of the normative system. we are not defined by our idolatrous backsliding, but by our rejection of it."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 -

There is trnsion between Numbers and Leviticus. Read Leviticus 16 describing Yom Kippur. If you have a question after reading, ask away.

Thank you. I will read this closer to Yom Kippur.

I'm assuming this is a stressful albeit meaningful time of the year for you. I will be thinking of you during prayers.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There is trnsion between Numbers and Leviticus. Read Leviticus 16 describing Yom Kippur. If you have a question after reading, ask away.

Thank you. I will read this closer to Yom Kippur.

I'm assuming this is a stressful albeit meaningful time of the year for you. You have so much on your shoulders. I will be thinking of you during prayers.

This is an especially big year for me. The choir has been in high gear for weeks, since we sing in every service. There have been a lot of last minute changes to various music scores, and I'm one of only two of us who know how to do that on Sibelius. I am in the process of memorizing the Isaacson Sim Shalom solo for Yom Kippur--I want my focus to be on God, not reading the music. As a member of the Caring Community Committee, I'm busy calling people in order to connect those who have nowhere to go for break fast with those willing to welcome guests--it is so rewarding to see what was my suggestion coming true. On Yom Kippur morning, I'll be honored with the gelila for the first time in my entire life--so exciting!. And Yom Kippur is one of the few times a year that my son attends services, and that just warms my heart. My daughter may even drive up from San Diego!

L'shana tova!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Reading the bible as a teen and running across this passage... and others like it ... without context or anything... Why was he gathering sticks? Why was it so wrong he had to have his life ended violently? How does this square with later teachings or declarations within Judaism and Christianity about every life being precious? Methodist bible study teachers are not good theologians and asking heterodox Grandpa was never wise as it would lead to a whole evening of ranting about the prophecies about world coming to an end and not much of a real answer otherwise...

How are we to make sense of such passages? Why is picking up sticks a greater moral outrage than ending his life!??
Would his reason (maybe to keep his family warm?!) not at all relevant? Why is it not in the passage? Are there theories about this?

This is just me talking--I don't speak for all Jews. I try not to overthink passages like these. I go straight to: What is the message here? What things are being taught by this passage?
1. You must not underestimate the importance of Shabbat.
2. Keeping Shabbat requires PREPARATION. When the sun goes down, you are DONE.
3. While every life matters, there is a difference in how we treat those who are innocent from those who are guilty.
4. Judaism is not designed to be a private spirituality. The Torah was the constitution of the nation of Israel, the blueprint for a better society. That society included courts of justice that investigated those violating the rules, trying them, and carrying out a sentence. Israel was to be a nation governed by law, not the wild west.
5. The entire community was responsible for societal justice, not just the courts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

An long-resigned and much respected member of our little community once posted:

Someone wrote:
"Here's evidence that the Jews continued to sacrifice humans after Abraham."
(He was quoting this text as evidence:
"But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom Yahweh cast out from before the children of Israel." – 2 Kings 16:3)

Bananabrain – a well-informed Jewish exegete – replied:
"you are completely missing the point - as well as being unnecessarily accusatory. throughout the period of the judges through to the destruction of the first Temple, jewish culture was a struggle between the siren voices of bloody, child-sacrificing, sexually immoral canaanite idolatry and the moral compass of the prophetic voice. in other words, we were *total fecking sinners and idolators* and this was why we ended up losing the first Temple and the first jewish commonwealth. what you are failing to notice is that, according to jewish tradition, culture and religion as it has developed into a sustained civilisation, THIS WAS SEEN AS A BAD THING. so the quote you give is from a prophetic book where we are writing down all the terrible things we did in the past - that is *not* the same as saying "jews always performed human sacrifice". it was not a JEWISH thing to do so. it was an IDOLATROUS thing to do so. doing so was what got the prophets, sages and all right thinking people upset, angry and determined to root out. it's a bit like saying that "brahmins and khatris always oppressed the lower castes" - it may have happened, but it was a cause for sadness and reform, not for celebration as part of the normative system. we are not defined by our idolatrous backsliding, but by our rejection of it."

Whoa! I thought this was great!

Yeah, the essence of the Tanakh is the record of the two steps forward, one step back in the journey of the Jewish people out of idolatry and into monotheism. There is a saying (often attributed to Heschel) that “It was easier to take the Jews out of Egypt than to take Egypt out of the Jews.” It was finally during the Babylonian captivity that the desire to return to idolatry was burned out of the Jewish heart forever. IOW, It took a long time with many lapses, but we did finally make it to the monotheism we have today.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I would not dispute that.

1: As I see it, a specific ritual which conforms to the universal idea of sacrifice, an offering towards deliverance?
2: The Book of Numbers 15
"27 But if one soul shall sin ignorantly, he shall offer a she goat of a year old for his sin. And the priest shall pray for him, because he sinned ignorantly before the Lord: and he shall obtain his pardon, and it shall be forgiven him."

"30 But the soul that committeth any thing through pride, whether he be born in the land or a stranger (because he hath been rebellious against the Lord) shall be cut off from among his people: 31 For he hath contemned the word the Lord, and made void his precept: therefore shall he be destroyed, and shall bear his iniquity."
So there is no sufficient or acceptable sacrifice for wilful sin.

So much so that a man found gathering sticks on the Sabbath (v32), "That they brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole multitude. And they put him into prison, not knowing what they should do with him. And the Lord said to Moses: Let that man die, let all the multitude stone him
without the camp. And when they had brought him out, they stoned him, and he died as the Lord had commanded." (v34-36).

All this fits with Girard's mimetic theory.

How is this even remotely connected to the question of whether sin offerings were made for intentional sins?

This is a passage about societal justice. Remember that these laws were the Law of the Land. Where you live, if you break a law, do you not risk the police arresting you, the court trying you, and the judge sentencing you? This is no different.

 

[koinonos]

On some modern beliefs arising of not understanding the nature of God, oneness in God, purpose of the Lord's Coming, the role of the passion of the cross, when it is also united with the idea of faith saving without shunning evils as sins, thus when it is considered that God does not care how a man lives.

"44. THE NATURE OF FAITH THAT IS SEPARATED FROM CHARITY.
In order that it may be seen what the character of faith is when separated from charity, I will present it in its nakedness, in which it is as follows:
God the Father, being angry with mankind, cast them away from Him, and out of justice resolved to take vengeance by their eternal condemnation and He said to the Son, "Go down, fulfill the law, and take upon Thyself the condemnation destined for them, and then perchance I shall be moved to compassion." Wherefore He came down, and fulfilled the law; and suffered Himself to be hanged on the cross, and cruelly put to death. When this was done, He returned to the Father and said, "I have taken upon Myself the condemnation of mankind, therefore now be merciful;" thus interceding for them But He received for answer, "Toward them I cannot; but as I saw Thee upon the cross, and beheld then Thy blood, I have been moved to compassion. Nevertheless I will not pardon them, but I will impute unto them Thy merit, but to none others than those who acknowledge this. This shall be the faith by which they can be saved."

45. Such is that faith in its nakedness. Who that possesses any enlightened reason does not see in it absurdities that are contrary to the Divine essence itself? As for instance that God, who is love itself, and mercy itself, could out of anger and its consequent revengefulness condemn men and accurse them to hell. Or again, that He wills to be moved to mercy by His Son's taking upon Him their condemnation, and by the sight of His suffering upon the cross, and of His blood. Who that possesses any enlightened reason does not see that the Deity could not say to another coequal Deity, "I do not pardon them, but I impute to them Thy merit?" Or, "Now let them live as they please; only let them believe this and they shall be saved." Besides many other absurdities.

46. The reason why these absurdities have not been seen is that they have induced a blind faith, and have thereby shut men's eyes, and stopped up their ears. Shut men's eyes and stop up their ears, that is, contrive that they do not exercise thought from any understanding, and then say whatever you please to persons on whom some idea of eternal life has been imprinted, and they will believe it; even if you should say that God is capable of being angry and of breathing vengeance; that God is capable of inflicting eternal condemnation on any one; that God wills to be moved to mercy through the blood of His Son; that He will impute and attribute this to man as merit and as man's; and that He will save him by his merely thinking so. Or again, that one God could bargain such things with another God of the one essence, and impose them upon Him; and other things of the same kind. But open your eyes and unstop your ears, that is, think about these things from understanding, and you will see their incongruity with the real truth.

47. Shut men's eyes and stop up their ears, and contrive that they do not think from any understanding, and can you not then lead them to believe that God has given all His authority to a man, to be as God upon earth? Can you not lead them to believe that the dead are to be addressed in prayer? that men are to bare the head and bend the knee before images of the dead? and that their lifeless bodies, their bones, and their graves, are holy and are to be venerated? But if you open your eyes and unstop your ears, that is, think about these things from some understanding, will you not behold preposterous absurdities that human reason must abhor?

48. When these things and others like them are received by a man whose understanding has been closed up by his religion, may not the temple in which he performs his worship be compared to a den or cavern underground, where he does not know what the objects are of which he catches sight? And may not his religion be compared to dwelling in a house that has no windows? and the voice of his worship to sound, and not to speech? With such a man an angel of heaven can hold no converse, because the one does not understand the language of the other."

(Doctrine of Faith, Em. Swedenborg)