The Problem

There are many things I understand about Christianity and a few (sometimes key) things I don’t. Atonement is one of the things I cannot make sense of. Why does Jesus’ death make it OK that I have sinned and will sin again? Can we really speak of justice when another person receives punishment for what I did?

For many people, this absurd notion is grounds for writing off Christianity as irrational, even inhumane. But despite this obvious problem, Christianity makes much more sense of life than any other explanation I have come across. I want a solution.

The world is so bitter-sweet and our behaviour at times so beautiful and then again so ugly that we cry out for an explanation of this frustrating paradox and tension which plays out within us. Philosophers and psychoanalysts deconstruct us to explain it, but it your average person just ignores the puzzle of why we can’t just all get along and have heaven on earth.

I want to see the logic of God’s ways even if they are as paradoxical as modern physics or human nature. I cannot see that “mystery” replaces an explanation of such key elements of faith as we are unable to articulate nor that this is the excuse was employed by apostles. Paul explained things to his audience and we should be doing the same.

A World in Rebellion

The Bible paints a picture in which this struggle between good and evil forces matters beyond the grave. It speaks of a perfect God who made a good world of which humans were to be good stewards. The humans however, rebelled resulting in a curse of Man and the very land resulting the suffering and decay we see around us.

Our dilemma is that our world needs fixing but that we aren’t able to do it ourselves even with technology and democracy. The reason, according to the Bible, is that we are the problem and we need fixing. The heart of Man’s problem is Man’s heart. And, so the Creator God has also to be the Saviour God. For Him we are not disposable items and it matters vitally how we are constituted and whether we are against The Good and self-destruct or turn to Him and begin the process of salvation.

What is God’s Solution?

But how can God accomplish this? How can He “put us to rights” and how can He do this in reality and not in some imaginary sphere where we close our eyes and believe “I am saved” and, thinking good thoughts, with fluttering hearts, continue slogging through a wrecked world, much the same sinners we were before? Is this the Christian message, a wishy-washy intangible hope that we are somehow “rescued” in God’s eyes but not in anyone else’s including our own?

Let’s look at a common way of understanding God’s solution: the Guilt-Resolution Model.

The Guilt-Resolution Model

For many Christians the Problem of Evil is still acute because, in common understanding, the Bible does not focus on the solution to the consequences of our rebellion (Evil) but on resolving guilt which arises from it. They maintain that our rebellion has more than just negative worldly consequences of harming people and planet: we stand guilty before God of rejecting the Good and chasing after unworthy goals. This model says that this guilt is far more important than the harm we do because the guilt will be punished in eternal Hell whilst the harm is temporary!

The “saving” message therefore becomes that guilt can be dealt with by believing in Jesus. God sent His son to become a man and live among us mainly to atone (pay) for the sins (failings) of those who would believe in him. In this model, Jesus does not solve the problem of Evil, but provides refuge and flight from the guilt (and the fires of Hell) into a pleasurable heaven. By this view, God does not offer a new shape of the world but a neat escape. By this view, evil is not the problem, guilt is and Jesus solved it.

Atonement

But how does God deal with our guilt? Well, he sacrifices His son on a cross and His wrath is appeased. We can stand before him fearlessly now because of the atoning death of Jesus on the cross. Atonement is the doctrine that Jesus blood cancels our debt (guilt) before God again, with the proviso that we believe in Him (Jesus). Atonement does not say that Jesus death paid for all sins, but only for the sins of those who repent and believe. This is known as Limited Atonement and emphasizes that a personal response is required in order to benefit from this gift (grace).

Because one person (Jesus) does this for others it is called Substitutionary Atonement: Jesus’ death was a substitute for the punishment we deserve. Atonement is between God and individuals and does not make reparation for the consequences and hurt our sins cause others. It is not a resolution of the actual problem but a resolution of the guilt problem before God.

The Coherence of Atonement

I am now going to ask the obvious question which may raise many a pious eyebrow: What sense does that make? Why does God forgive me because Jesus died? Is that in any way just and rational? Can Atonement make sense for us today and what sense would it have made to Jesus followers? How did they understand and explain it and how can we?

Christian’s speak of Christ’s blood washing them clean of sins. This may have been obvious to first century Jews who grew up with temple sacrifice but even then I wonder if the metaphor is not poorly chosen: then, as now, blood does not wash out stains, it causes them! Some speak of blood “covering sins” or of God’s wrath being appeased (propitiation) but this too is misleading because it makes God out to be a blood-thirsty avenger who does not care whose blood is spilled as long as some is spilled. Is the atonement simply appeasement?

This idea of atonement is, it seems, far removed from the type of atonement or resolution we apply in daily relationships. Let as look at how we deal with injustice in our world.

The Worldly Judicial Model

All civilisations have recognised that laws are critical to society. Some of them also recognised that justice is the underlying principle but most have realised that law and punishment are inextricable because punishment deters repeated offence. Whilst repentance can be feigned, punishment, in theory prevents. Because there is no guarantee of real repentance (we can’t read people’s hearts) we need judicial systems charged with executing justice through deliberation and punishment. Enter law courts and prisons.

Law-Courts

Law-courts care little for reconciliation. Legislation demands punishment and reparation (financial penalties) for crimes committed and may consider remorse in softening the punishment.

The financial penalty may be even paid by a third party but the punishment (e.g. imprisonment) is for the guilty party alone to endure. Because money can be transferred and because the court does not care who pays the reparation, the situation of third party payment is acceptable even if the guilty party displays no remorse.

The court does not demand reconciliation between parties but punishment and monetary reparation on the part of the guilty. Our courts therefore enforce an inferior class of justice whereby real reconciliation is not achieved but wrongs are dealt with via revenge. Legal systems are basically revenge mechanisms.

Prisons

Prisons care somewhat about remorse because their official goal is to prevent repeat offences. The ultimate efficient guarantee of this is of course the death penalty. However, by making life extremely unpleasant for inmates such institutions seek to deter offenders from repeating their crimes. They hope to force repentance and turn inmates from bad lives to good and their success rates are understandably low (you can’t force repentance). Most inmates come out worse than they went in although Christian counselling can reverse that ratio but that’s another story…

Comparing Models

We are now in a position to compare the two models and see which best solves the problem of evil, guilt, wrong doing. Which solution resolves the problem i.e. provides reconciliation?

A Stolen Donkey

Consider the following typical case of transgression:

My neighbour has lots of donkeys. I have none but need a donkey. I sneak over to his place in the night and steal it. He finds me out and is enraged. We have a problem. I want the donkey, so does he. He is angry at me, I am in the wrong. How can this situation be resolved? Let us look at how various models deal with this issue.

Resolving the Stolen Donkey

In the Biblical Guilt-Resolution model the guilt is solved by Jesus dying on the cross and me believing in Him. This apparently solves the problem of guilt before God but does nothing to resolve the situation with my neighbour. I can basically keep the donkey, avoid hell, and stand righteous before God.

In the Worldly Judicial Model I could avoid the judicial system by apologising and returning the donkey perhaps even earning forgiveness. But if I stick to my guns my neighbour will take revenge by means of the law. This will end up with me losing the donkey (reparation) and being hauled off to prison causing my neighbour to close the deal and forget about me. I could even pay him for the donkey avoiding punishment and repentance which is basically what large corporations do when they exploit weaker countries. However, my neighbour might take the law into his own hands, giving me a good thrashing, taking the donkey back by force and avoiding costly legal fees.

Basically, each model solves only part of the problem. In the Guilt-Resolution model I maintain my standing with God yet have an unhappy and wronged neighbour. In the Worldly Judicial Model I may, at best, satisfy my neighbour but not consider the affront to God. I may even deceive my neighbour in feigning remorse to achieve forgiveness a deed which will most likely plague my conscience and certainly do our relationship no good.

Is there a model out there which gets the best of both worlds: righteously dealing with guilt before God and rationally resolving the real problems? And, is such a model biblical?

Substitutionary Atonement – How Can Jesus Pay for Our Sins? Part II