Truth Magazine

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

The intellectual climate in which we live is one which tends toward extremes. On the one hand there are the complete skeptics who admit nothing but the “natural,” who affirm that there is nothing beyond the world that we can perceive with our five senses. Consequently, no “supernatural” events can take place–events like the miracles attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. On the other hand, there are those who are ready and eager to believe anything and everything, who affirm the miraculous and supernatural in every event and in every circumstance. The presence of these two opposite forces in society has made it difficult for the convicted Bible believer to offer a rational defense for the miracles recorded therein. The total skepticism of the one group influences some to discredit even the possibility of God and His presence in the world. The easy-believeism of the other group influences some to discredit the miracles of the Bible because of the rank phoniness and deliberate deceptions of modern-day “faith-healers” and their clan. Thus, the problem is two-fold: the Christian must establish a “believability” for Bible miracles to break the stronghold of the skeptic while at the same time distinguishing the Bible miracles from the bogus claims of misdirected people today.

It is unlikely, however, that our problems are unique; it would seem that both types appeared in the environs of first century Palestine where Jesus walked, both those who would believe anything and those who will believe nothing. The question then and the question now is still: Jesus’ miracles – are the accounts trustworthy? It is this question we propose to deal with in this article.

The Gospel Miracles

The gospels contain narratives of about 35 different times when Jesus is said to have performed feats that appeared miraculous to those who witnessed them. In addition to these, there are several passages which quite clearly affirm that Jesus was in fact performing a miracle. More than half of these narratives deal with the healing Jesus did. In other cases we are told that he cast demons out of distressed victims. Three times we are told that he raised people from the dead. The remaining incidents speak of his power over things: feeding multitudes with little food, walking on water, changing water into wine and catching enormous amounts of fish.

Modem Objections to Miracles

At the very least, these narratives testify to the tremendous impression which Jesus’ ministry had upon those who witnessed it. Even if these stories were legends we would still be interested in finding out just what it was about Him that compelled people to tell such stories about Him. One thing must be faced, however, from the beginning: there is no use in trying to separate some kind of “non-miraculous” Jesus from the story. His deeds are an integral part of His story – it is impossible to remove them from His life – they are there. Why then do skeptics try to remove them?

First, it is commonly argued that somehow “science” has ruled out the possibility of the miraculous. This is a formidable objection in the minds of many if for no other reason than the fact that “science” is held is such high esteem today. When 20th century man witnesses men on the moon, the advent of atomic energy and the tremendous strides in medicine, he reasons, perhaps, that science has “explained away” the supposed “superstitions” of prior ages. But as one looks more closely at this “argument from science” he realizes that it is nothing more than the statement of a presupposition-the affirmation of prejudice. And this “prejudice” takes the form that “in a purely natural, material universe nothing can happen that cannot be explained through natural cause.” But, quite obviously, this is merely an assumption about the universe that cannot be proven. It is an assumption which is no more valid (and, in fact, less valid) than the assumption that the universe is not wholly “natural and material.” Surely, we must realize that the honest truth-seeker will have an open-mind about the question and will sincerely examine the evidence for both possibilities.

Secondly, it is argued that there is actually no reliable historical evidence for the miraculous. Miracle-believers are told that their “miracles” must comply with a rigid set of rules in order to establish the fact of their occurrence. The evidence for miracles, they argue, must be extremely strong and it must be something that cannot be explained by non-miraculous fact since (to the skeptic) it “is more likely that the witnesses got it wrong than that a miracle actually happened.” It is easy to see that a skeptic who is determined to remain an unbeliever can do so even when the evidence for miracles actually complies with his rigid criteria; he will simply “explain away” the miraculous from the circumstances to fit his pre-conceived notions.

The Resurrection

In the final analysis it is not very productive to argue about this or that matter and how it “could have been pulled off;” the central miracle of the Gospels (and the whole Bible for that matter) is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It is upon this one grand miracle that the whole of revealed religion depends. Thus it is reasonable to center our investigation upon this one event as a “test case” for the trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts about Jesus. By an analysis of the testimony of the evangelists it should be possible for us to establish whether or not the accounts of the resurrection are trustworthy, i.e., reliable historical records of what happened. But we need to keep in mind one important fact: what we are establishing is a reasonable platform for faith, not “absolute proof.” There is an element of faith in all knowledge and no less an element when we are talking about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. We can point out the facts, we can affirm the reasonableness of faith, but we cannot compel people to believe; this is a decision that they must make for themselves on the basis of the evidence.

The criteria for determining the validity of testimony may be fairly said to rest upon three categories: (1) the honesty and integrity of the witnesses involved; (2) the ability of the witnesses to know the facts of a situation; (3) the agreement of the witnesses. And how do the witnesses of the resurrection square up to these categories?

1. Honesty and Integrity. When one actually reads the individual accounts of the resurrection (and this is a major problem, it seems, with so many; most unbelievers have never read the accounts for themselves, he is impressed by the straight-forward simplicity of the accounts. It is, in fact, impossible to attribute to these men and women ulterior motives for believing and proclaiming a risen Lord. The fame, wealth and reputations that the world accounts as valuable were left behind when these dedicated believers surrendered to Jesus as Master. These were hounded and persecuted men and women all of their lives; who could think that these humble, dedicated ones would knowingly believe and propagate a false account? And neither were these believers “fanatics” who believed what they wanted to believe. When the accounts are read, one realizes that of all people, the disciples were the most shocked and surprised by the resurrection. The tough-minded Thomas refused to believe in the risen Christ without “hard” evidence (John 20:24-28) and his example serves as a key to the essential integrity of these witnesses to the resurrection.

2. Ability to Know the Facts. One of the requisites to sound testimony is the ability of a witness to know the facts. If the disciples were somehow handicapped in this regard, if, for instance, they did not know Jesus well enough to identify him, or that none of them had been in the environs of Jerusalem within the alleged forty days after his death and burial, or if any other difficulty presented itself such that the witnesses could not possibly have seen and heard what they claimed, then we should seriously doubt their testimony. But, as any fair-minded reader must admit, none of these things are the case. John declared that the apostles had preached only what they “(had) heard, that they (had) seen with (their) eyes, that which (they had) looked at and (their) hands (had) touched” (1 John 1:1). Peter argued that he and the others had not “followed cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet. 1:16) and, when he preached to Cornelius, he pointed to pre-selected witnesses who had eaten and drunk with Jesus after His resurrection (Acts 10:40,41). The disciples indeed knew Jesus – and no one could possibly maintain, when the evidence is examined, that they could have been misled or deceived. This was their Lord!

3. Agreement of Testimony. Unbelievers, yesterday and today, have pointed to alleged “jars and clashes” in the resurrection accounts, affirming that this is “proof” that the disciples were probably confused and mistaken about the risen Lord. And while it must be admitted there are differences as to detail in the accounts (that is, different writers emphasizing different facts to the exclusion of others), there are no “contradictions” to be found. In fact, would it not be highly suspicious for the four gospel writers to have recorded exactly the same facts and details without any variety of emphasis or design? The truth is that the four gospel accounts that we have of the resurrection are just what one might expect from four different writers, each with his own purposes in mind: accurate details, without contradiction, and yet with the personal perspective of each writer kept intact. (The Christian, of course, realizes that these men were guided by the Spirit, Jn. 16:13, who guaranteed the accuracy of their records.)

Concluding Remarks

It should be apparent by now that the question of the reliability and trustworthiness of the gospel accounts regarding Jesus’ miracles is not really a question of evidence. To any fair-minded reader, the evidence is not merely “ample,” it is, in fact, overwhelming! There is nothing to suggest in the accounts that we have that there has been any sort of elaborate ruse or deliberate trickery foisted upon us. There is no hint of deceit or charlatantry. The facts of the matter are set forth very simply and, we might add, very ‘humbly be a group of devout, dedicated disciples of the risen Jesus. If people persist in unbelief it is not because there is not enough evidence to believe. It is not a problem of evidence, but of the will. There is no “reason” for honest men and women to disbelieve; it is a matter of their conscious choice to ignore and/or reject the evidence that points to faith. It is thus crucial at this point to ask the reader, “Believest thou what thou readest?” If the answer is yes, we bid you to obey the gospel of the risen Lord who died for you (Acts 2:38); if the answer is no, we beg you to consider your stubborn will and the consequences of rejecting God in this life (Acts 17:31).

Truth Magazine, XX:22, pp. 1-2
May 27, 1976

By Dennis C. Abernathy

We are certainly hearing a lot about unity in the religious circles today. In this article we want to look at unity as it is in Christ, by simply pointing our minds to the Word of God.

First of all, man can be united with God, but it is in Christ. This is termed reconciliation. “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself . . . . be ye reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:19-20). God is our Father (2 Cor. 6:16-18). The church is the family or the household o# God (Eph. 2:19). Christians, of course, being God’s family, have an inheritance from their Father (Rom. 8:16-18; 1 Pet. 1:3-5). God has demonstrated His great love for His children. “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jno. 3:1-2). In consequense of this great love for us and the hope which we entertain in our hearts, we purify ourselves, “even as he is pure” (1 Jno. 3:3, 2 Cor. 7:1).

In order to be united with God, one must be united with Christ. This takes place in our initial obedience to the gospel, baptism being the culminating step. It is in the likeness of His death, burial, and resurrection. (Rom. 6:1-11). Keep in mind, dear reader, that it is sin that has separated man from God in the first place (Isa. 59:1-2). Consequently, there must be a new life –a putting off of the old man and a putting on of the new man. “Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4; see also Col. 2:12). This baptism puts one into Christ. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” (Rom. 6:3; see also Gal. 3:27).

All of this talk about an individual’s accepting Christ and at that instant he is born again (all of this taking place before baptism) is simply the doctrines and commandments of men and not God’s will at all! We must obey God fully in order to be free from our sins. Partial obedience will not do! There is no freedom from sin without first there being obedience to that form of doctrine which has been delivered that we might be made righteous before God. “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye become the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17-18). I want you to notice, and forever mark it down, that they became free from their sin when they obeyed from the heart. Did they obey just anything? Certainly not. What did they obey? That form of doctrine which was delivered you. Is this not true today? Must not we obey God’s revealed will with all of our hearts? Surely we must, if we would be free from our sins.

What have we said? Sin separates from God. Therefore the sin must be remitted (the barrier removed) before one can be united with God and this takes place in baptism (Acts 2:38).

Unity with God is achieved in Christ, and unity with Christ is achieved in His one body, the church. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body. . .” (1 Cor. 12:13). “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling” (Eph. 4:4). Simply stated, it is impossible to be united with God, in Christ, and not be in His church.

Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23). “And he is the head of the body, the church . . .” (Col. 1:18). We are reconciled in the body, the church. “And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby” (Eph. 2:16). (Note here that reconciliation is said to be in Christ and in one body, the church. Hence to be in Christ is to be in the church). We are baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13; Acts 2:41,47). We have already shown that we are baptized into Christ. Therefore, to enter into Christ is the same as entering into the church, the one body.

People talk about being saved and not being in any church. That idea certainly did not originate in the mind of God, therefore it is not in His Word. Ephesians 5:23 states that Christ is the Saviour of the Body. The body is the church (Col. 1:18). If that means anything it means that those who are saved are in the church, and that those who are not in the church are not saved. This is what Acts 2:47 teaches. “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved (or, were being saved).”

The church was purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Then people are bold and brazen enough to say that the church is not essential to one’s being saved. No, dear reader, our Lord did not shed his blood for a worthless institution or for a vain cause.

Are you united with God? If you are you are in Christ and His church. You got there by obedience to the blessed gospel of Christ, through which God’s mighty power to save you and me is exerted.

We hear so much today about “Just accept Christ.” While I know we must accept Him and His terms of pardon, maybe we need to put a little more stress upon the fact that it is God who must accept us. We must be accepted of God or reconciled to Him, and not God to man (2 Cor. 5:19).

In conclusion, one must obey the Lord in order to be saved. That implies more than faith only or even more than faith and repentance. It means obedience to all of God’s plan which results in unity with God. “And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 6:46).

Truth Magazine, XX:21, pp. 13-14
May 20, 1976

By O.C. Birdwell

This study of The Rejected Christ shall be limited to the following: (1) The fact of the rejection of Christ by the Jews, (2) Reasons for such rejection, (3) Reasons for His rejection today by both Jew and Gentile, and (4) What it means to accept Jesus Christ. Either one of these sub-topics could be discussed at length and, on just one, more than our available space be used. Consequently, we shall deal with all just briefly, but as pointedly as possible.

Christ Rejected by the Jews

This rejection came as no surprise to those acquainted with prophecy. Isaiah had said, “He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not” (Isa. 53:3). The eunuch was reading from this chapter of Isaiah when Philip began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus (Acts 8:35). In view of this usage, one must conclude that the rejection statement in the same context refers also to Jesus. One might also go back to Isaiah 6:9-10 and find a prophecy that points to Christ’s rejection. The prophet speaks of some people who would have a “fat” heart, “heavy” ears, and “shut” eyes. If one were careless, it might be reasoned that such rejection was forced and impossible to avoid. Especially is this so in view of the statement of fulfilment of the prophecy in John 12:39. There we read, “He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their hearts; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them.” One must remember, however, that often a thing is spoken of as being done by the Lord when he permits it to be done. Matthew records Jesus saying, “Their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed . . .” (Matt. 13:15). Notice that Jesus said “they” closed their eyes. Here are people who received not the love of the truth and were sent a “working of error” (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

The reality of the clear-cut rejection by the Jews is set forth in John 1:11 where it is stated, “He came unto his own and they that were his own received him not.” The footnote in the ASV for the first “his own” in this passage says, “Gr. his own things.” The verse means that he came unto his own creation and even they of his own people rejected him. This brings us to an obvious question that demands an answer.

Why Did the Jews Reject Jesus?

Was there a good reason? Was he just another false Christ? Was he an imposter? If so, they were right. If not, they made the most serious and far reaching mistake that could ever be made. Let it here be clearly shown that when we discuss the rejection by the Jews we do not infer that all Jews rejected him. We are discussing the Jewish nation, the rulers, the people as a whole or body. Many individuals did accept him. The apostles were Jews. All the earliest disciples were Jews. About three thousand Jews were baptized in one day (Acts 2:41). The number multiplied among the Jews (Acts 6:1). But the masses did reject him, along with their rulers. Yet, this rejection could not have been because of a lack of evidence. Even from his birth there was evidence of prophetic fulfilment. At his baptism a voice out of the heavens said, “This is my beloved Son” (Matt. 3:17). He, being manifest in the fulness of God’s power, performed mighty signs and miracles among the people. His miracles were not a farce. The blind were made to see, the lame were made to walk, and the dead were raised. In the presence of this and other evidence of deity, why the rejection?

(1) The rulers had a tradition of resisting the Holy Spirit. Stephen said “ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). He goes on to show that their fathers had killed the prophets who had showed the coming of the “Righteous One” and they were now His betrayers and murderers. They were following in the footsteps of their ungodly forefathers. (2) Jesus was rejected because of the Jew’s desire for an earthly king who would lead people in carnal battle as had David. Jesus did not qualify. He claimed no army. He used no force. He made no plans for a carnal kingdom. He wanted the gospel preached to all nations (Matt. 28:18-20). All people could be in his kingdom. This type kingdom the Jews did not want and would not accept. (3) His lowly birth and humble life caused proud Jews to reject him. He was born in Bethlehem, laid in a manger, and grew up in lowly Nazareth. To many, he was just “the carpenter’s son.” (4) His unorthodox ways caused consternation to the Jewish rulers. He associated with and ate with publicans and sinners (Luke 15). The self-righteous Scribes and Pharisees would have nothing to do with such action. Yet, Christ’s mission was to seek the lost and get the sinner to repent-an action which was the last interest of the Jewish leaders. (5) He was also rejected because of Jewish envy. They were angered at his teaching and jealous of his following. It is said of Pilate, “For he knew that for envy they had delivered him up (Matt. 27:18). (6) He was rejected because of his crucifixion. Paul said, “We preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:23,24). The cross was too lowly a death for their king. They would not see him as the risen Lord and ascended king. They did not see him as the “lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

Of the rejection of Jesus by Jerusalem, one writer has said, “His humility was an offence to their worldliness and pride; His holy character was a rebuke to their sin; His spiritual teaching was a rebuke to their formality; and His life of benevolence was a rebuke to their selfishness and haughtiness” (The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 17, p. 56).

Christ’s Rejection Today

The apostle John tells us that Jesus discussed the “bread of life,” and records that he said “he that eateth this bread shall live forever” (Jo. 6:58). The response by many was “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” (v. 60). They murmured, causing Jesus to ask, “Doth this cause you to stumble?” (v. 61). A few verses later, John says, “upon this many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him” (v. 66). These disciples rejected Jesus because of alleged hard sayings. Yet, actually, the sayings were not hard at all. They were viewed as difficult and caused stumbling because of a prejudiced hearing. That these people heard him with no intention of understanding and obeying is clearly shown (see v. 64).

This Biblical account, along with several others that might be cited, shows why some people have rejected Christ. It is quite obvious from these accounts that there are few completely new reasons for his rejection today. Most all may be heaped together under one heading called “unbelief.” While unbelief may come in different forms, any form of it will keep one out of heaven. Even Christians are warned, “lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:12). Disciples today can turn back and walk no more with him. Believers may become unbelievers. People may be hindered in developing faith. Consider a few of the many such hindrances. (1) Much current educational influence is atheistic and leads to a rejection of Christ. A constant flow of opposition to Christ and His New Testament standard comes through public educational institutions, television programs, social movements, and, yes, even many religious seminaries. The government occasionally gets into the act. (2) Unreasonable interest in material things causes a rejection of Christ. Someone once said that Henry Ford caused more atheists than Ingersoll, Paine, and all other such infidels together. The point was that Ford, by making the automobile available to the ordinary man, motivated practical atheism. Some sort of profession of faith in Christ might be made by such people but actually and practically Jesus is replaced with pleasure and material things. Many “Christians” will readily replace the Sunday evening assembly with a trip to the lake. (3) Christ is rejected because too many see, not the religion of Christ, but a substitute that in no sense resembles the true thing. The New Testament is rejected and the truth of the gospel is not preached by many. Preachers often preach church creeds, human judgment, and the social gospel in general. Such preachers have already rejected Christ and, therefore, cannot lead others to accept Him. (4) As was the case in Jesus’ day, some reject Him because of a determined will not to believe. They are carnally minded and will not change. No evidence is good enough.

What It Means To Accept Christ

When many went back and walked no more with Jesus, he turned to the twelve and asked, “Would ye also go away? (Jo. 6:67). Peter answered, “Lord to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” (v. 68). The apostle answered well and his statement still stands true today. Some, however, turn from His words to their own feeling or unto a supposed outward manifestation, or some sort of alleged revelation apart from the New Testament. For years our religious friends have talked about accepting Christ as one’s personal savior. Some brethren now talk about having a personal relationship with the Lord. Such terminology may easily be interpreted to mean that one may have a direct relationship with Jesus apart from, or in addition to, hearing and obeying His teaching. If such a relationship can exist it is unknown to this writer. Accepting Christ does not involve this kind of relationship. It is personal only in that each person must believe and obey. John said, “And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him; . . . (1 Jo. 2:3,4). Evidence of knowing him and accepting him is not a unique feeling or a direct manifestation, but it is keeping his commandments. Fellowship with him comes by walking in the light (1 Jo. 1:7). What is involved in accepting Christ cannot be put in any plainer language than this.

Truth Magazine, XX:21, pp. 11-13
May 20, 1976

By Daniel H. King

The doctrine regarding the atonement accomplished by Christ in His suffering and death has been the subject of fierce debate down through the centuries since the “deposit of the faith” came into its final form. During apostolic times the controversy was nonexistent. The various descriptive analogues and illustrative figures gave the first generation of Christians no difficulty whatever. They were at work evangelizing the world. There was little time for pondering the thousandfold implications of the multi-faceted doctrine. With the growth of the church in power and numbers, however, scholars appeared on the scene who thirsted for the knowledge of the infinite. They had time for theorizing and imaginative natures adept at speculatory thinking. Thus, history tells us that it has been the same with the atonement as with almost every other theological motif or concept, the less that was said about it in the Bible, the greater the tendency to speculate about what little was revealed. Often there was an unscrupulous “harping” upon a single area that had been obsessively focused upon-it was stressed while other important principles and passages were neglected or even denied. This has been the story of the atonement doctrine throughout the ages. At the outset, . genuine biblical principles have usually been taken and stressed (and quite often mutilated in the process) to the exclusion of others that are just as “genuine” and just as “biblical.” What usually has resulted is a completely unbiblical doctrine. The various histories of “Christian Doctrine” attest to this old pattern again and again. And, if histories are forthcoming in years ahead, then the story of the present-day folly will be told in objective terms that will betray both its unbiblical character and its subjective motivation. Our purpose in this study is to look at the doctrine of the atonement as it is presented in the Bible as well as pointing out historical and contemporary perversions of the concept.

At-One-Ment?

Our English word “atonement” is derived from the phrase “at one.” The significance is therefore quite clear. It obviously describes a process by which two alienated parties are brought together into an harmonious relationship (in this case God and man), or the resultant unitive state. Another term describing such a state or process is “reconciliation.” Moreover, in the modern usage of the word, “atonement” has taken on the more restricted meaning of the process by which the hindrances to reconciliation are removed, rather than the end achieved by their removal. Thus, when we talk about the biblical doctrine of the atonement, our intention is to make allusion to the process by which the obstacles to reconciliation between man and God were removed.

The Bible as a whole assumes the need for some “atoning action” on the part of man (but in every case devised by and thus acceptable to God), if he is to be right with God. It is accepted as a fact beyond dispute that man is estranged from God, and is himself entirely to blame for this estrangement (Isa. 59:1,2; Rom. 3:23; 5:10; 8:7; Eph. 2:12; 4:18; Col. 2:12). His disobedience to the will of God-i.e. his sin-has alienated him from God, and this alienation must first be remedied if right relationships are to be restored. The barrier raised by man’s past sins must be removed (Gal. 6:7; Rom. 1:18; 6:23; Eph. 2:1). One purpose of the elaborate sacrificial system of Old Testament religion was to provide such an “atonement” for human sin. In the ritual for the consecration of priests, it is required: “Every day you shall offer a bull as a sin offering for atonement” (Ex. 29:36). Similarly, the priests must make sacrifice for the sins of all the people that they may be forgiven (Lev. 4:20). In the ritual of the Day of Atonement the first of two goats is slain, but the second “shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement” (Lev. 16:9,10). This live goat is driven out into the wilderness, laden with the sins of the people. It is also possible to offer money for the temple “to make atonement for yourselves” (Ex. 30:16), as well as incense (Num. 16:47), or prayer (Ex. 32:30). In the New Testament, though, atonement is related to none of these things (except as they acted as shadows and types of the reality and anti-type). It is related entirely to Jesus Christ and His coming to earth, and especially with His death upon the cross. Much of the language of Old Testament immolationism and sacerdotalism were used to describe his death because He was both priest and sacrifice to end all Old Testament priests and sacrifices (Heb. 8:1,2; 9:11-28). In addition, the New Testament declares that in Christ and His death is all that man needs in order to find his sins forgiven (Eph. 1:7) and his life reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10); in Him is that which can cancel out the ill effects of sin (1 Jn. 2:2), release man from the burden of his guilt (Heb. 10:22), and grant him peace with God (Eph. 2:16-18). Man can rejoice in God because of the reconciliation (Rom. 5:11), having free access to God through Jesus Christ (Eph. 3:11,12). The “at-one-ment” has been accomplished.

Atonement Terminology

The word “atonement” itself appears many times in the Old Testament and translates the Hebrew word kopher (Dan. 9:24; Lev. 8:15; Ezek. 45:15). Kopher means “to cover, hide” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 497). On the other hand, the word appears only once in the King James Version of the New Testament (Rom. 5:11). In this case it is translating the Greek noun katallage, which is elsewhere translated “reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18,19). In the more modern translations the term “atonement” has been consistently replaced by “reconciliation” and does not appear at all. Be that as it may, the concept is present at many junctures in scripture and might even be called the central doctrine of the New Testament. As V.C. Grounds has said, “The atonement is the center of gravity in Christian life and thought because it is the center of gravity in the New Testament, as a mere census of references immediately demonstrates. According to apostolic preaching and doctrine, the significance of Jesus Christ does not lie supremely in his person or ministry or teaching: it lies supremely in his death upon the cross … it is the event of Christ’s death interpreted not as a martyrdom, brought to pass by a miscarriage of justice, but the offering of a redemptive sacrifice ephapax (Heb. 10:1-4) (V.C. Grounds, “Atonement,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 71).

The terminology used by the apostles and prophets to describe what Jesus did upon the cross is essentially that of the Old Testament sacrificial system, but with a note of finality. Christ’s death is called by New Testament writers a “sacrifice to God” (Eph. 5:2) and a “sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 10:12). He is therefore personally described as the “Lamb of God” (Jn. 1:29,36), and the “Lamb slain before the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8; 5:6,12), while his suitability to be offered as a sacrifice is referred to by Peter with the words “Lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19). Christ is said to have been offered on the cross as the “propitiation,” i.e. to conciliate and appease the just indignation of the righteous God at human sin (1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10; Rom. 3:25). The “New Theology” which tries to explain away these biblical ideas is operating from a priori premises and making undue concessions to modern conceptions of the character of deity. The god of modern theology may not demand a “propitiation” for human sin, but the God of the Bible did! And, not only did he demand it, but he offered it in Jesus Christ.

The New Testament writers also allude to the atonement in Christ as a “ransom”: “The Son of man came not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45); “Christ Jesus . . . gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:5,6). In the past some considered the death of Christ as a payment offered to Satan to secure for man freedom from bondage to him. But how could the death of Christ at the same time be a sacrifice offered to God (‘Eph. 5:2) and a ransom offered to the Devil? The Bible nowhere tells us that Satan was ever paid anything. In life Christ offered no conciliations to the Devil (Matt. 4:10), much less in his death. Instead, in death Christ gained victory over death and the Devil (Heb. 2:14,15). He owed the Devil nothing and paid him his due. All was owed to God. Hence, we are “redeemed” through Christ’s atonement (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14) and it can be truly said that we are “bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23). We were redeemed and purchased out of subservience to Moses’ Law (Gal. 3:13; 4:5), from a vain manner of life (1 Pet. 1:18), and from all iniquity (Tit. 2:14). And, even these kindred concepts of “ransom” and “redemption” are ideas whose roots lie deep in the Jewish sacrificial system (Ex. 30:12; Num. 3:44-51). We do not mean to intimate, however, that the sacrificial system is the complete background for the New Testament ideas. Other Old Testament events and actions are also germane and the terms applied by Jesus and his apostles are supercharged with these historical reflections as well. For instance, Israel was redeemed from Egyptian slavery (Ex. 6:6; 15:13) and later from Babylonian captivity (Is. 43:1; 44:22; 48:20; 52:9; 63:9). These ideas are almost certainly persistent in the thought of the early evangelists as well.

History of the Atonement Doctrine

Different theories of the atonement have held sway at various intervals in the history of “Christian thought.” Although not held by everyone during the period stated, the influence of each theory was certainly sufficient for us to label it “in vogue” for that era.

(1) The Ransom or Bargain Theory. The first recorded suggestion of this theory occurs in the writings of Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202). Simply stated, this is a theory which includes a transaction between God and the Devil. As we earlier suggested it is a take-off from Mk. 10:45. The Devil, under this scheme, is found in possession of man, and his rights as possessor cannot be ignored, however he came by them. Therefore God consents to pay a price, the death of His own $on, for the release of man. But in accepting this price the devil is deceived. He loses his power over man, and he is not competent to hold in his power the holy Son of God. Although certain details varied between the early theologians, this view stood for nearly nine hundred years as the ordinary exposition of the fact of the atonement. We have already demonstrated its unsoundness.

(2) The Satisfaction Theory of Anselm. This view was first successfully expostulated by Anselm of Canterbury (A.D. 1033-1109). In this view, man is seen owing God complete obedience; when he fails to render this, he sinfully robs the sovereign of the honor which he is due; because sin is an infinite affront to the divine glory which cannot be remitted simply by the exercise of mercy, God must vindicate himself in keeping with the demands of his own holy nature; hence an adequate satisfaction must be offered. But an infinite affront necessitates an infinite satisfaction, and the satisfaction must be offered by the disobedient race. So Christ is sent, thus satisfying the justice of God. As can be immediately seen, this view is essentially biblical and little can be found to discredit it. However, there are other ideas which must be represented in order to take into consideration all of the Bible picture of the atonement. Most of these have already been mentioned while others will be pointed out under other headings.

(3) The Penal Theory of the Reformation. In the thought of Martin Luther (1483-1546) and other Reformers it is from the point of view of legal justice that the atonement is stated. The death of Christ is the legal penalty for sin, and there is no trace of the alternative, “either punishment or satisfaction.” The law demands punishment and that punishment must be endured by someone. The Bible says of the atonement, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). Luther, in. turn, reflected, “When the merciful Father saw that we were oppressed by the law, and were held under the curse, and that nothing could free us from it, He sent His son into the world, and cast upon Him all the sins of all men, and said to Him: `Be thou Peter that denier, that adulterer, that sinner who ate the apple in Paradise, that robber upon the cross; in a word be thou the person of all men,’ who hast wrought the sins of all men; consider Thou therefore how thou mayest pay and mayest make satisfaction for them’. Then cometh the law and saith: `I find that sinner taking upon Him the sin of all men and I see no sin beside, save in Him, therefore let Him die upon the cross.’ And so it attacks Him and slays Him. This being done the whole world is purged of all sin and expiation is made; therefore also it is free from death and from all ills” (Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, printed 1535). Again, we find Luther’s thoughts to be innately biblical, but not exclusively so.

(4) The Rectoral or Governmental Theory. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) is usually credited with the first clear expression of this theory. Grotius gave up completely both the conception of God as a judge ad ministering absolute, inviolable justice (which is the basis for the Penal theory), and the conception of God as creditor, the offended party claiming compensation for injury wrought (necessary to the Satisfaction view). He regarded punishment as the function of the state. Thus God, in his administration of punishment, is not regarded as absolute Lord, or as offended party, but rather as the Head of his government. Therefore, in the atonement God acted in such a way as to properly operate his government. He could have relaxed his law and simply remitted sin, but that would have caused no fear in wrong-doers. Punishment was therefore necessary, for a deterrent purpose, and it rested with God to impose it. The problem of government thus created was solved by the vicarious punishment of Christ. We see nothing very biblical about this view.

(5) The Moral Theory. The first proponent of a Moral theory (of which there have been many) appears to have been Peter Abelard (1079-1142). Abelard reduced the cross to a tragic martyrdom. He pictured it as a heartrending spectacle which exhibited the great love of God for man and draws man to obedience as the result of this wonderful act of selfless love. Certainly there is a sense in which the death of Christ should arouse in us a desire to love the God who loved us so, and in this sense it is biblical (Jn. 12:32). On the other hand, there is not much to commend any of the theories that fall into the “moral” category. The death of Christ was far more than merely a martyrdom-as we have shown.

In many modern circles this theory has been revived by neo-orthodox theologians. Each seems to be a “new” view, but in reality is only a return to the basic idea that Christ dies as an example instead of as a sacrifice, ransom, or satisfaction. For instance, Friedrich Schleirmacher (1768-1834) suggested that Christ “redeemed” his people by arousing within them a God-consciousness which is a counterpart of his own. More recently, however, the atonement has moved into the subjective realm and back out again, having no objective significance at all for a time. The return to objectivity has been related to the decline and fall of existentialism. We can view this as one of the few healthy trends in modern theology.

Truth Magazine, XX:21, pp. 8-11
May 20, 1976