When we as evangelicals speak of the essence of the atonement most of us think of the cross. J.I. Packer says regarding the essence of the atonement…
“How then did the cross actually redeem us, through Jesus’ death? By reconciling us to God, ending the alienation and estrangement that were previously there, linking God and us together in new harmony, replacing enmity between us with friendship and peace, by means of the putting away of our sins”¹
Wait a minute what’s missing here? Resurrection. If anything is the essence of the atonement it’s the resurrection. The cross did not reconcile us to God without the empty tomb. The blood placed on the mercy-seat in the OT meant nothing without Gods presence. Two things (heaven and earth) are not made one if we show up and He doesn’t. We are no where near at-one-ment with God without the resurrection and ascension. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:13-17
13 “…if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”
I would argue as Paul is that there is really no atonement unless Christ is raised. Any idea of union with God through propitiation alone is not complete. Penal Substitutionary Atonement doesn’t save us all by its lonesome. Its like saying I’ve won the lotto but lost my ticket. I might have won the lotto but with no ticket I will never experience the purpose of winning the Lotto. Any talk of atonement without resurrection is as silly as telling people that you won the lotto but lost your ticket. The first question I have for anyone trying to arrive at union (atonement) with God through the cross alone is really? How are you going to get there? You have a nice story but where’s the money? Consider the Heidelberg Catechism
Q: “How does Christ’s resurrection benefit us?”
A:“First, by his resurrection he has overcome death, so that he might make us share in the righteousness he won for us by his death. Second, by his power we too are already now resurrected to a new life. Third, Christ’s resurrection is a guarantee of our glorious resurrection.”
If we want to talk about any kind of reconciliation, union or oneness with God we must remember the ticket. The resurrection without it all we have is a good story with a sad ending. Any talk of the benefits of atonement in the NT presuppose resurrection and this is the danger of systematic theology concerning atonement talk. It seems to divide things up with proof texts that should not be used to divided anything. Of course I am not anti cross theology I believe that the atonement includes the cross but I am just careful anymore to separate atonement conversation from resurrection so that I might avoid it becoming some kind of side dish.
(I think my ticket metaphor is week in the sense that one cannot experince the resurrection life unless one first goes through the way of the cross. In this sense the cross is a ticket so to speak because without it there is no newness of life)
¹ Packer, J.I. & Dever, Mark. In My place Condemned He Stood. crossway, 2007
I wonder if you’ve oversimplified or misunderstood Christ’s vicarious atonement by focusing solely on the propitiatory aspect. It has been my understanding that Christ’s atoning death accomplishes at least two things: propitiation and expiation. The former satisfies God’s justice and the latter removes the sin.
You’re correct in saying that propitiation alone isn’t sufficient; however, this applies to focusing only on expiation, too. Both are essential to understanding and teaching Christ’s atonement. Propitiation and expiation are like the two pedals of a bicycle. Both are essential for moving forward in any direction.
Now, I’ve always thought that Christ’s resurrection demonstrated a host of things: his victory over sin, death, the grave, and most importantly, God’s acceptance or approval of his sacrifice. If the Son’s sacrifice hadn’t pleased the Father, then he would still be in the grave.
Matthew I appreciate your comments. I agree with you… I have oversimplified and that doesn’t help. But my point was that so many popular evangelical reformed folk J.I. Packer, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, etc… Seem to center the Gospel on propitiation when Im not sure it is wise to divide the atonement up to the point that propitiation is more important than expiation. Union with Christ does not end at acceptance it might begin there but thank God it doesn’t end there. When I read reformed books on atonement it is common to only see PSA without Christus Victor. PSA does not make us at one with God. The Gospel is not PSA. So I really appreciate your “two pedals of a bicycle” analogy, its refreshing. Thats what I blog for! Its this kind of interaction that makes us better theologians.
For the sake of disclosure, I haven’t read anything by J.I. Packer, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, et al., which means that my following statements might sound like I’m apologizing for those men. That is not the case. I wonder if their “emphasis” on the propitiatory aspect of the atonement has to do with responding to its explicit rejection by some in Evangelicalism. For example, Steve Chalke and Brian McLaren come to mind, and to a certain extent, Greg Boyd does, too. I’ve read some of Boyd’s articles on his ReKnew website, and I find him to be reacting against PSA rather than assessing it.
In my personal study on the atonement, I’ve come to the preliminary conclusion that PSA includes Christus Victor. In other words, I think the latter is an aspect of the former. Christ secures his greatest victory over his enemies by his death or by “losing” so to speak. It’s like a chess master sacrificing his queen in order to check mate his enemy in 2-3 subsequent moves.