Atonement

God's Means of Effecting Man's Reconciliation

Chris Woodall

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781498207973
• eBook ISBN: 9781498207966
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

Theologians are constantly accused of only speaking in theories, positing arguments to be considered by the mind with little bearing on the practicalities of life. This view is both blinkered and generally unjust, but it is also the case that some fit that description without perhaps realizing it. Chris Woodall argues that doctrine is not only a compelling tool but also a critical one, without which we would struggle to understand God's purpose or our place in it. The atonement is not a subject that lends itself easily to being considered from a merely philosophical perspective. After all, how could you possibly present the atonement as being necessary, real, and beneficial without that presentation impinging on its practical application? In this book, Woodall seeks to treat the subject matter as a valid hermeneutic by which our understanding of the whole of Scripture may be greatly enhanced. Thus, the concept of the atonement must be seen as both a continuous thread in the Bible and a key to unlocking some of its secrets.

1

The Necessity of the Atonement

Although the necessity of the atonement is not the crux of the matter before us—that accolade belongs wholly and unreservedly to its reality—why the atonement became necessary is vital to our, albeit limited, understanding. Otherwise, the death of Jesus was simply a gross miscarriage of justice, not unlike so many others before and since. The biblical evidence and the testimony of millions of Christians over the past couple of millennia are such that it was clearly much more than that. The atonement was, in fact, the unfolding of a divinely initiated plan of redemption for humanity and beyond.

Here, it becomes necessary for us to grasp something of the difference between plan and purpose, for they are not synonymous terms. Perhaps it would help if we thought of purpose as destination and regarded the plan as the designated journey to be taken toward that destination. Thus, God’s purpose for creation is his pre-determined arrival point for us. This is fixed and beyond being disturbed, changed, or otherwise affected. His plan, on the other hand, is merely his preferred choice of the means by which we should come to that unalterable objective. To suggest or imply that God’s original plan was thwarted, however, is to misapply our finite understanding to matters of an ultimately incomprehensible nature. What we may say with some degree of certainty is that the entrance of sin into man’s domain necessitated a course of action that would not have been otherwise required had Adam not rendered it so.

But it is equally important that we recognize this not so much in that the atonement was as good an idea as any to resolve an awkward problem. Nor was God systematically working through a whole catalogue of potential solutions until he stumbled across one that actually worked or seemed to be the pick of the crop. The atonement effected by the substitutionary sacrifice of God’s Son could not have been attained in any other way. Thus, not only was the atonement itself necessary, but the means chosen to bring it about was exclusively so.

In this section, we shall begin by looking at man—in its generic sense—as the pinnacle of God’s creation and in a state of original righteousness, as created. We will then turn our attention to the fall of Adam and the effects that had upon, not only himself, but also in relation to his race and his environment. It is in many ways a tragic story, but it must readily be conceded that the darkness of such tragedy makes the glory of the atonement necessitated by it shine all the more brightly, as we shall see in due course.

Man—The Pinnacle of God’s Creation

The subject of anthropology is one that naturally lends itself to being considered from a biblical perspective. Although humanity has often been viewed from an entirely philosophical vantage point, the scriptural data referring to human nature ideally must be acknowledged as taking place within the larger framework of man’s role in creation. Of course, any dogma is ultimately dependent upon and governed by the particular bias of those who propose such a conviction. In this respect, biblical anthropology makes no claim to be any different, for the fundamental catalyst of Christian doctrine is its dogged determination to hold firmly to the authority of the Bible in matters of faith. Thus, the unveiling of the mysteries of creation—and, for that matter, restoration—are not, in the final analysis, subject to the enquiring mind so much as to the believing heart. The key is not a scientific approach, but a faithful attitude.

The Creation of Mankind

Although it is true that creation accounts are not unique to Scripture, it must also be pointed out that concepts with a mutual theme need not necessarily be produced from a kindred source. Many of the ancient peoples believed in a pre-existent divine being who brought about the creation of the cosmos by a verbal command. That man is regarded as the pinnacle of such an effect and that he bears in some measure the reflected personality of his Master is similarly widespread. When we isolate the Genesis representation from other contemporary narratives, however, many of them share comparatively little else in common. One apparent exception is that of the Babylonian Chronicles. Such is the similarity between the two that a number of learned scholars have seen them as the potential source for their Hebrew counterpart, though more recent discoveries have demonstrated this idea to be totally without foundation.

The Atrakhasis Epic, again from early Babylonian literature, shares some features with the Genesis account concerning the origin of man, his stewardship role over the created order, and the destruction of all but one family by universal deluge. However, the differences between the two are, again, far more significant than their apparent similarities. Atrakhasis is devoid of any specific moral instruction, it presents man as having been designed for toil from the onset, it distances itself from the idea of a distinct act of creating womanhood, makes no mention of either Eden or the fall, and generally seems to suggest that man is but a plaything in the hands of an impersonal deity.

In an age where there is an almost unprecedented desire for—or, at least, the capacity to acquire—knowledge, a longing for enlightenment, and a yearning for some modicum of stability and permanence, only to find that quest impeded by the inherent falseness of human nature, disillusionment, change, and decay, it is good to remind ourselves that the Bible presents man as created in the image of God. (It goes without saying that our concept of that image is often conditioned by our perception of God.) Without this assurance, any enquiry into the destiny and purpose of humanity appears to be futile in the extreme. This imago Dei consists primarily in the fact that man was created with the original intention of reflecting the personality and spirituality of God in the earth. As such, he had the capability to become active in deliberate spiritual, intellectual, and moral pursuits. He was also in a position to represent the glory of God’s communicable attributes. Flawless intellect, equitable probity, and an as yet untarnished relationship with his Maker set man aside as clearly unique from all other creatures.

The late David Watson beautifully and concisely alludes to this distinctiveness of man in contrast to the rest of the created order. He speaks of man’s exclusive creation in the image of God in terms of him:

. . . [having] at least five characteristics which are not shared by the rest of the animal creation. Man can reason, with the powers of reflection; choose, as a free agent; love, consciously preferring one before another; and, above all, worship God and know God; and he is personally responsible to his Creator. He is meant to live in complete dependence upon God. Indeed, the whole point of the Genesis 1 account of creation is that man is seen, not as the ape, but as the apex of creation . . . Further, God has made man with a large spiritual appetite, which cannot be satisfied with anything less than himself.15

It is also perhaps worthy of mention that the tonal content of God’s deliberation to create man differs considerably from that of the rest of creation. Where previously the mere word of command was both sufficient and appropriate to effect the bringing into being of water, sky, stars, and living creatures, the dignity afforded one created in his image required divine consultation (Gen 1:26). Many commentators have alluded to this verse in support of the argument for the doctrine of the Trinity, and rightly so. It is not just the “Let us . . .” but also “in our image.” Of course, it could be reasoned that this would have been necessarily redundant elsewhere, because of nothing else is it said to have been created in God’s image. But neither is there the same intimation of consultation. The Father decided and spoke the word, which effected the desired objective. It may well have been that the spoken command was but the enacting of a decision already agreed upon in the predetermined counsel of the Godhead. But surely that was true of the creation of man; it could hardly have been a whim on the spur of the eternal moment: “Do you know what would be a good idea now, guys, and I’m surprised we didn’t think of it before?” No, there is honor attached to the creation of man, reinforced by the idea of him being the subject of divine counsel.

It is clear from the biblical revelation, then, that man is the zenith of God’s creation. In the Genesis account, the Hebrew verb bara (that is, “to create”) is employed. On the six occasions where we find this, three of them relate to man as created in the image of God, the climax to all that had preceded this momentous act. Although there is an acknowledged difficulty in being able to comprehend the very idea of One who is essentially Spirit being represented in such a tangible form, I am particularly indebted to the literary expertise of Alec Motyer for his clarifying matters thus:

At all events, the emphasis in the creative act rests on the novelty that now for the first time the divine image is seen in the creature. The words used, image (selem) and likeness (demuth), have an undoubted reference to outward form, (eg 1 Sam 6:5; 2 Kgs 16:10), and we must not resist the implication that while God is Spirit (Isa 21:3) and outward appearance does not belong to his essence, yet there is an outward appearance which is suitable to the glory of God, (eg Num 12:8), and in this likeness man was created. This affords a basis for the dig...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgment
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: The Necessity of the Atonement
• Chapter 2: The Reality of the Atonement
• Chapter 3: The Benefits of the Atonement
• Conclusion
• Bibliography