In a characteristically pithy essay, Robert Jenson has decried the “two paired errors” of traditional atonement theory. On the one hand, the cross is separated “from its future, in the resurrection” and, on the other, from “its past in the canonical history of Israel.” For the apostles, crucifixion is “anything but beneficial” without resurrection, while for Anselm “God and humanity are reconciled when Jesus dies, and the Resurrection tidies up.” Ignoring Israel’s history leaves the impression that “the Creator could just as well have sent his Son to reunite humanity with himself . . . without having done any of the works described in the Old Testament after the first chapter of Genesis.” Abraham, Exodus, exile and return have retained some role in the preaching and liturgical celebration of the cross, but, Jenson points out, “many powerful systems” of theology “make no use of the Old Testament except as witness to Creation and sin and as religious background for Jesus.” [1]
To those complaints I add a third that Jenson mentions but does not develop: Jesus’ death is often isolated from the life that precedes it. As with Jenson, my complaint is not about theologians who deny that Jesus lived the life depicted in the gospels; they have their reward. My complaint is against theologians for whom Jesus’ career has a minimal role in explaining how he achieves salvation. Michael Root has argued that the soteriological task is always “creation of a new version of the story” or “narrative redescription or augmentation,” [2] but the question is always: What story is being redescribed and augmented? My question can be put this way: Do traditional atonement theories work if Jesus had not been a prophet, an itinerant rabbi, healer and exorcist who collected and commissioned disciples, who disputed with and enraged scribes and Pharisees in Galilee and Jerusalem, who ate and drank with sinners and befriended outcasts? Would the gears of traditional atonement theories mesh smoothly if Jesus had remained a sinless carpenter in Nazareth until His arrest, trial, and death?
For some classic theories, the answer appears to be Yes.
Read the rest here .
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from Atonement
Continue reading related articles
Zoom Lens Atonement Theory
Many years ago, I critiqued traditional sacramental theology for overusing the zoom lens. Many debates and many theological formulations focus on the metaphysics of the bread and wine, and ignore other critical features of the Eucharistic event - the gathered church, eating and drinking, the specific type of food and…
Atonement theory?
Since Harnack, theologians have glibly spoken of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo as a form of “atonement theory” or a “model” of atonement. According to Katherine Sonderegger, Harnack told the story of atonement theology in terms of a set of “competing ‘models,' each with schools and eponymous heads”: “Harnack’s nineteenth-century magisterial…
Triune Atonement
In his Atonement: A Guide for the Perplexed , Adam Johnson calls the doctrine of the Trinity the “foundation” of the doctrine of the atonement. The atonement only makes sense in the light of a richly Trinitarian theology proper. Johnson shows how the Trinity is necessary both to explain the…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.