THE FACT AND THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT IN HISTORY
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, He was buried and was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures". (1 Cor. 15:3-4). The death of Christ was central to the thinking of the New Testament writers about God, men and life itself, It was to the cross that they turned to, to experience the power of God, to have forgiveness of sins and to have newness of life and to know and see the glory of God. These writers expected those who named the name of Christ to have fellowship with them in the same liberating, joyful experience of forgiveness of sins and eternal life (1 John 1:3). Jesus had prayed for 'them also which shall believe in me' through the word they have been given and to share with all around them, 'that they too might behold my glory' (John 17:2O~24). We don't have to look far to see the evidence of the fulfilment of such a promise. It is apparent when we read how the death of Christ was understood and preached by the Fathers and Theologians of the later church. When we give our close attention to the direction the New Testament writers are pointing, we are convinced with full assurance that the power and guilt of our past human sin has been blotted out, and that the future we need no longer 'fear'. He holds us in the palm of His hands, God will remain with us, whatever the problems and difficulties in our lives, He will bring peace 'We know that it covers everything and guarantees everything in which we are vitally interested' says Denney 'that it deposes of the past, creates the future, and is a security for immortal life and glory'. If we are only seeking to understand the theology of the cross as an academic study we will fail to grasp the significance of the New Testament message. The early theologians referred to the event of the cross, as the 'fact' of the cross. It was from this that they regarded all further reflection as the 'theory' of the cross. For these men the question became of the strictest importance; if we receive so much by simply repeatedly listening to the New Testament witness, is further theory really necessary? In their day, the whole meaning of the cross had been explained as the 'scheme of salvation' a plan worked out in eternity by the Godhead, and it was so, simply that it could be easily understood by all human beings. When the time came it was put into operation and carried out to the strictest detail (Gal. 4:4).
It is surely true that the cross of Christ is a mysterious act surpassing all Those who fought for orthodoxy, often at the cost of great suffering felt that the very existence of the church was at stake unless they succeeded in rooting out false teaching. However when it came to defining what Christ had come to do, especially through His death, there was no such concern, and no orthodox definition. The confession 'Christ died for our sins' according to the Scriptures opened up such an ample area for the imagination and thought to work with the help of the Holy Spirit, given an orthodox view of Christology, one would find it hard to go astray. In searching out the meaning of Christ's work different paths could be pursued. Down through the ages as thoughts on the atonement developed, I must add here that nothing added or taken away but clarified first by the church fathers and then by the theologians in order to help the church to understand just what Christ has done for us. It is essential that light is thrown on this in order that we might be able to teach and preach the cross with more understanding as the Holy Spirit gives guidance. The New Testament writers never separated the birth, life, death, resurrection and accession of Jesus Christ but saw them as one great redeeming act of the grace of God. The apostle Paul viewed each of these great events in Jesus' life as to be seen and understood in the light of each other. 'The Passion of Christ does not begin in history at all, but on the mysterious border-line between time and eternity. It begins with the 'self-emptying' with the 'coming' of Christ. The incarnation should be regarded from the view of suffering. The cross was on the cradle. There He entered human life and His divine glory was veiled in 'flesh'. P T Forsyth is right in asking us to see Jesus' earthly life as dominated by a 'premundane valition' that took Him finally to the cross. One overwhelming purpose brought Him amongst us, and was the driving impulse in all that He did. The apostle John gave the details of Jesus' life in the light of His whole movement from God back to God. For instance His laying aside His garments to wash the disciples feet is taken as a sign of His laying aside His glory and coming to save us, His stopping as a sign of His entry into human life (John 13). In the light of this we are justified in interpreting His other loving actions. His laying His hands on children and on the dead and the unclean, His stopping to take by the hand the epileptic boy who had fallen as moved by the same imperative. They are signs that He, the Son of God, as well as the Son of Man "the title He used constantly of Himself" to identify with us, as He entered into our weakness, sickness, sordidness and death in which we are involved in order to communicate to us His strength, cleansing and new life. The incarnation is to be seen in the light of the atonement, and the atonement in the light of incarnation. If the word of God assumed fallen flesh in the incarnation then we can view the atonement, as the reconciliation of this particular man with God, and as the redemption of His flesh. Within this one incarnate life we see the atonement already accomplished. We see in this very act of atonement that Christ the God-man completes the act of reconciliation and fulfils the very will of His Father. The incarnate Lord Jesus is a miracle of response to grace - a man in perfect obedience to the grace of God, in this way we have a salvation achieved by Christ as man, and by Christ as God.
In Jesus Christ, God's grace produced a lifelong sinlessness, a lifelong obedience to Gods will that bound Him to the purpose for which He had come into the world. His obedience was not simply obedience in death, but obedience unto death (Phil. 2:8). His sinless obedience was evident throughout His life. He kept the moral law, the Ten Commandments. He Himself was 'undefiled' (Heb. 7:26) by the vanity and sordidness of what He had entered in order to bring salvation. He was revolutionary where tradition was evil. He was conservative where tradition was health. He maintained freedom always to go His own way; but in relation to God His obedience took the form of self-sacrifice to the Father's will in everything,. He refused to be independent in any thought or decision. He did nothing, said nothing, and willed nothing apart from God. He was absolutely loyal in dependence. He was absolutely without any self-reservation and nursing of separateness of self. He was the exposition, by willing reflection of another. Jesus sinlessness was the work of God's grace, and was made real by intense agonising effort. His sinlessness was not a condition of His being as man, but by the human act of His life. Jesus was the sinless Son of God, and yet temptation was very real. Jesus had to deny self and He learned obedience through the things, which He suffered. 'Disregarding His own feelings' said Calvin 'He subjected and yielded, Himself wholly to His Father's will.' Such subjection was achieved only 'through a stupendous act of energy or victorious moral goodness' Jesus in His obedience not only knew that His Father had sent Him to fulfil His will by the great act of salvation as P. T. Forsyth says "He obeyed the necessity of an actual historic and spiritual situation. There was a Divine must which Israel's history was set to serve and failed". Jesus came to be the true Israel and to fulfil Israel's history. Jesus knew that He was the 'Promised One', the one who was the true prophetical Messiah. In the garden His total obedience was seen in practical action 'not my will by thine be done' (Luke 22:42b). The death that had been designed by God as a sacrifice for sin was going to be fulfilled by the only Son of God in total obedience. His life could have no value apart from His death. He obedience in life led up to His obedience in death. All the way through life and death it was His obedience that was atoning. Through the ages men have tried to separate His 'active' obedience from His 'passive' obedience by evaluating the role of each in effecting the atonement. Theologians have tried to select texts, which depict Jesus moving to the cross, taking the initiative 'I lay down my life, that I may take it again' (John 10:17). Or in a passive move in His suffering and death.