The Atonement and The New Covenant

To banish the Atonement from the creative centre of Christianity is in the long run so to attenuate Christ as to dismiss Him from Christianity, and condemn Him to be outgrown.
Forsyth, The Cruciality of the Cross

If we study the history of religion with the question, “What does forgiveness mean here and how is it obtained?” we find that the law which governs this question is the following: that the more a religion rises from a sacrificial system into “more spiritual” regions, the easier forgiveness becomes, or as a rule the very idea of it disappears altogether behind mystical ideas or those of a philosophy of identity.

If this does not happen then a rigid moralism, impressive enough in its way, is developed (Zarathustra, the Stoics), in which the thought of righteousness leaves no room for forgiveness at all. Thus either we find forgiveness connected with a (more or less primitive) sacrificial cult, or we find religion without sacrifice and without forgiveness. Brunner, The Mediator

An enlightened Judaism can preach a gospel of forgiveness, but our Christian religion has primarily to do with the terms of forgiveness; not with God’s readiness to forgive, but with His way of redemption; not with his willingness but with His will; and with His will not merely as His aim, but as His deed; not as intended, but as achieved. The feeble gospel preaches “God is ready to forgive”; the mighty gospel preaches “God has redeemed.”
Forsyth, Cruciality of the Cross

The atonement is a central fact of the Christian faith. It is true that “he who understands the cross aright—this is the opinion of the Reformers—understands the Bible, he understands Jesus Christ.” 1 However, there are conflicting opinions concerning the significance of the cross.

The doctrine of the atonement, unlike some other doctrines settled in council formulations, has never been settled, nor has it been in controversy, as have issues like the person of Christ. There has not been one theory of the atonement that has prevailed universally over other theories. There are only theories: some have prevailed and waned only to receive new emphasis at a later time.

All theologians within the Christian tradition agree that Christ died for our sins, as Paul states. Just how he died for, and how he redeems man becomes the central problem of the atonement. Perhaps the easiest way to approach the theories of the atonement is chronological.

Classical Theory

One of the theories held in the early period of the church was the classical or ransom theory. Simply stated, the ransom theory is based on the notion that Christ’s death constituted a ransom paid to Satan, in order to cancel the just claims which he had on man.

Origen is usually given credit for this theory. “He is the first Christian theologian to teach clearly that the death of Christ is a ransom paid to the devil in exchange for the souls of men, forfeited by sin; that the devil over-reached himself in the transaction owing to the perfect purity of the soul of Christ which it was torture for him to try and retain; while Christ, both for Himself and for all who will follow Him, triumphed over the devil and death.”

Although there were other theories existing, the classical view won many influential men to its support. Not all expressed it with sophistication. Gregory of Nyssa used grotesque language in advocating the theory.

He wrote: “The Deity was hidden under the veil of our nature that so, as with ravenous fish, the hook of the Deity might be gulped down along with the bait of flesh; and thus, life being introduced into the house of death, and light shining in darkness, that which is diametrically opposed to life and light might vanish; for it is not in the nature of darkness to remain when light is present, or of death to exist when life is active.”

Gregory did recognize that his theory involved deception, but he sought to justify it. He concluded that “the enemy effected his deception for the ruin of our nature but God by His device not only conferred benefit on the lost, but on him, too, who had brought the ruin.”

The classical theory generally held sway in some form or other until the time of Anselm and Abelard. It was in Anselm, however, that a new theory came into being that would win out over its opponents.

However, in modern times the classical theory has been revived and transformed somewhat by Gustaf Aulen. Aulen seeks to show that this theory underlies the theology of Luther in the Reformation and is the only adequate view for the understanding of the Scriptures.

Says Aulen concerning Luther:”His frequent use of the idea of the deception of the devil is closely connected with an important element in his theory, the thought of the Hidden God (Deus absconditus) , Luther returns to this theme in a number of places, and the term varies somewhat in meaning.

But one side of his meaning is that the Revealed God (Deus revelatus) meets us in the world as a Hidden God; God was present, hidden, in the despised man Christ, in his lowliness, and in his self-devotion to suffering and to death. This is the idea that underlies the image of the devil’s deception. In Him the mightiest of all powers was present hidden : but the “enemies” did not understand this fact when they assailed Him. Hence the language about the devil’s deception is the expression of a very deep thought of Luther”.

The classical theory died out for many reasons. Of primary importance is the appearance of Anselm’s succinct work on the atonement, Cur Deus Homo?, which took the doctrine seriously. A second factor in the demise of the classical theory was its incompleteness.

While the term is used in the Scriptures, there are many other terms that deal with the meaning of the death of Christ, and these are basically ignored in the classical theory. Last, the theory did not commend itself to wide acceptance because of its crudeness, its implied duplicity, its tacit admission that perhaps the devil had some rightful hold on man. Better things were ahead for the doctrine of the atonement. To these we now turn.

Anselm and the Concept of Honor

The theory of Anselm has had a number of labels, such as the “commercial theory,” “the satisfaction theory,” “the Latin theory.” Anselm’s work, Cur Deus Homo?–Why God Became Man–appeared in the twelfth century. Anselm placed great emphasis on the absolute necessity of the atonement.

The need for the atonement, according to Anselm, is the nature of God. Man’s sin was in not giving to God the honor due him by his very nature. Dishonoring God is sin. Withholding honor to God puts man in debt to him. Because God is infinite, his honor takes on infinite proportions, and sin against God becomes infinite in consequence.

Anselm wrote : “This is the debt which man and angel owe to God, and no one who pays this debt commits sin . . . and this is the sole and complete debt of honor which we owe to God. . . . He who does not render this honor which is due to God, robs God of his own and dishonors him; and this is sin.”

Since it was “right” for man to repay God the honor he took from him in the act of disobedience, God, as the righteous judge of the universe, must demand satisfaction. Otherwise, he would be acting contrary to his nature. Thus, according to Anselm, since the offense was against an infinite being, the satisfaction must be infinite. But it is impossible for man who is finite to make infinite satisfaction.

Anselm concluded: “For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay; and man will not do it, because he cannot. Therefore, in order that the God-man may perform this, it is necessary that the same being should be perfect God and perfect man, in order to make this atonement.”

In mercy God sent Christ, who being both sinless and infinite could make an infinite satisfaction through his suffering and death on man’s behalf. Since Christ was not under obligation to die, because of his sinlessness, he did more than was required of him, thus acquiring extra merit or favor in God’s sight. Not needing merit, it is given to man whereby man’s sins are remitted.

A summary of Anselm’s thought does not do justice to the simplicity and the masterful handling of a theological discourse. In review of Anselm’s work, the following reservations must be offered. The theory seems to be dominated by Anselm’s contemporary feudal life, where the relation of the king and subject was overdrawn. This influence is seen in Anselm as well as the customs of Germanic law and the penitential system that had grown up in Western theology.

More serious is the motivation of the theory. The atonement must have as its basis God’s holy love, not his honor, for the New Testament does not begin with anything else than God’s love. Another problem relates to the concepts of satisfaction and merit. If Christ made full satisfaction for the past sins of man, what happens when new trespasses come? When Anselm speaks then of the “merit” he goes beyond the requirement of his theory of satisfaction.

Anselm’s theory of merit is alien to the New Testament idea of atonement.
Other questions may be raised which are serious. For example, why must God insist on full satisfaction of his honor when Jesus commanded his disciples to forgive seventy times seven? It may be rightfully argued in rebuttal to this question that we should forgive because we are sinners, whereas God is not under the same condition. But the question still persists, especially when we think of God in terms of love rather than honor.

A contemporary of Anselm, Peter Abelard (1079-1142), raised critical questions about Anselm’s theory as well as set forth his own view. In criticism, Abelard asks how God could be pleased with the death of his Son “when God ought to have been the more angered against man, inasmuch as men acted more criminally by crucifying his Son than they ever did by transgressing his first command in paradise through the tasting of a single apple.”

Abelard proceeds to ask, “If that sin of Adam was so great that it could be expiated only by the death of Christ, what expiation will avail for that act of murder committed against Christ, and for the many great crimes committed against him or his followers? How did the death of his innocent Son so please God the Father that through it he should be reconciled to us?”

To top off his criticism, Abelard said: “Indeed, how cruel and wicked it seems that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything, or that it should in any way please him that an innocent man should be slain-still less that God should consider the death of his Son so agreeable that by it he should be reconciled to the whole world!”

These are serious questions that Abelard raised. While they pose serious questions to Anselm’s theory, they can be answered adequately in another theological context. Having dealt with his criticisms, let us turn to the theory of Abelard.

Peter Abelard and Example Theory

We have seen that Abelard rejected the views held by those before him as well as those of his contemporary. Abelard began with the fact of God’s love and grace. In his commentary on Romans, he wrote : “Through this unique act of grace manifested to us–in that his Son has taken upon himself our nature and preserved therein teaching us by word and example even unto death–he has more fully bound us to himself by love; with the result that our hearts should be enkindled by such a gift of divine grace, and true charity should not now shrink from enduring anything for him.”

Abelard continued his exposition of this theme in declaring that Christ’s appearance now wins man his freedom from slavery and man now acts “out of love rather than fear.” Abelard believed that the separation between man and God was solely in man.

God was desirous for men to return to him, and Christ simply reveals this continuing love on God’s part. Abelard points to Abraham and Cornelius as examples of men who had faith and were accepted by God apart from baptism. God’s love is expressed in its fullest by the words of Jesus: “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” ( John 15 :13 ) .

What is the meaning of Christ’s death for man? Abelard answered: “In two ways He is said to have died for our faults; first, because ours were the faults on account of which He died and we committed the sin of which He bore the punishment; secondly, that by dying He might take our sins, that is, the punishment of sins, introducing us into Paradise at the price of His own death, and by the exhibition of such grace, because as He says, “no one has greater love” (John 15:13), might draw our minds away from the will to sin and incline them to the fullest love of Himself.”

The simplicity of Abelard’s theory is disarming. God wishes to forgive. Nothing stands in the way of man’s receiving that forgiveness other than man himself. No atonement is necessary. God’s love has been expressed in Christ and not attained by Christ’s death. Christ has come to give man the assurance that God yet cares.

How does Abelard fare in the hands of his critics? Bernard of Clairvaux assailed Abelard, contending that Christ is nothing more than a teacher in Abelard’s theory. He drew a parallel between Adam and Christ and argued that the example of Adam made one a sinner. He further charged that Abelard was teaching a salvation by devotion, not by regeneration.

All examples of humility and devotion are useless apart from the act of redemption. For Bernard the real issue was instruction or restoration. Actually Bernard insisted on both, but he rejected an example theory for the meaning of Christ’s death.

Other critics have hit upon its one-sidedness with reference to the biblical data. It appears naive concerning the nature of man and his corruption in sin. If Abelard’s theory were true, there would be no atonement in the true meaning of the word; all that remains is what has always been true–God’s love to man. In this case, Abelard’s question of Anselm returns home. Could God be pleased even in this death?

John Calvin and the Penal Theory

John Calvin regarded the obedience of Christ as the proper beginning point in the discussion of the atonement. He was obedient even unto death (Phi 2:8) . Without obedience, his life and death would have been meaningless.

Because Jesus Christ was the Son of God and without sin, he came obediently to redeem man. How does he redeem in his death? Calvin said, “Our acquittal is in this–that the guilt which made us liable to punishment was transferred to the head of the Son of God” (cf. Isa 53:12)

Calvin proceeded to draw a parallel between the death of Christ and the sacrifices in the Old Testament. Jesus Christ became the “propitiatory victim for sin . . . on which the guilt and penalty being in a manner laid, ceases to be imputed to us.”

In this is found the “penal” idea; namely, that Christ took the penalty due to man.

Bearing the penalty of sin is not the whole story. Calvin stressed the role of the resurrection of Christ which is the completion of salvation. It is “not by his death, but by his resurrection, that we are said to be begotten again to a living hope.”

Because the resurrection is a reality, the risen Christ has promised the Comforter to abide in the believer, enabling the “faithful followers not only to live well but also to die happily.”

Calvin dealt with one of the problems often associated with the idea of expiation or propitiation. Propitiation often implies a sacrifice to secure the favor of God. Calvin described the death of Christ as a propitiatory death. How is this related to God’s mercy? Calvin declared that “such modes of expression are accommodated to our capacity, that we may the better understand how miserable and calamitous our condition is without Christ.”

The love of God is the motivation for the atonement, but God cannot love sin–he must deal with it. This is the wrath of God spoken about in the Bible. Calvin wrote: “Therefore, in order that all ground of offense may be removed, and he may completely reconcile us to himself, he, by means of the expiation set forth in the death of Christ, abolishes all the evil that is in us, so that we, formerly impure and unclean, now appear in his sight just and holy.”

The theory of Calvin has had widespread influence. It has been accepted far beyond the boundaries of the Reformed churches. Even those opposed to Reformed theology in many ways accept the penal theory of the death of Christ.

How does Calvin pass with the critics? The central criticism remains that of Abelard in his criticism of Anselm–the problem of substitution. God seems just in requiring that sin be punished, but justice seems neglected when an innocent person is punished to make atonement for the sinner.

It may be granted that substitution is possible in certain areas such as debt payment, serving one’s country, and so on. But the question is raised, can there be substitution for the penalty imposed because of sin?

Supporters of the view say that Jesus Christ is different at this point: He can be what no one could be–our substitute for sin’s penalty.

A secondary criticism is that much support for the theory is based on the Old Testament sacrificial system rather than on the words of Jesus concerning his own view of his death. A thorough-going view of the atonement must begin with the New Testament and assimilate Old Testament data only as the New Testament warrants it.

Another problem, in common with almost all the other views, is the Trinitarian “illusion.” The statements of the New Testament speak of God’s sending his Son to save man, creating the illusion of an innocent third party. While the Incarnation and redemptive act are attributed to the Son, the illusion must be offset by the frank statement that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2Co 5:19) .

It is God who loves, God who comes, God who takes our sin to himself, God who forgives. There is no act of injustice, although the “illusion of discourse” seems to imply it.
In conclusion, we need to ask whether the concept of penalty is adequate in explaining the death of Christ.

It has been time-honored in the history of Protestant thought since the Reformation. Is there a better, more comprehensive method of dealing with the meaning of Christ’s life and death? We hope to set forth such a proposal in the latter part of this chapter.

Socinus and the “No Atonement” Theory

Faustus Socinus ( 1539-1604) was an Italian émigré who settled in Poland. Socinus was a rationalist in theology along with a strong appeal to the Scriptures. In the Racovian Catechism, which was drawn up in 1605, the viewpoint of Socinus was set forth. Its reference to the atonement is significant in its criticism of other views rather than for any profundity in the development of a positive view.

In opposition to the other views of the atonement, Socinus protested that if God had forgiven in the old covenant without satisfaction, how much more would he forgive in the covenant of grace. He asked: “Why should God have willed to kill His innocent Son by a cruel and execrable death, when there was no need of satisfaction?

In this way, both the generosity of the Son perishes, and, instead of a most benign and munificent God, with supreme impiety and unspeakable sacrilege, we concoct for ourselves a God who is base and sordid.”

Socinus regarded it to be “false, erroneous, and exceedingly pernicious” to believe that Christ died to pay the debt of man’s sins. He charged that satisfaction and forgiveness are opposites. If satisfaction is made for wrong, then one cannot speak of forgiveness. Socinus concluded that God forgives men freely; thus satisfaction is rejected.

What is the meaning of Christ’s life and death? Jesus Christ, a being blessed by God, is the Teacher of men. He has appeared to show men the way of faith and obedience. Faith is the way “by which we both embrace with our soul the promises of Christ, and henceforth seek, to the best of our ability, to keep His precepts.”

Actual obedience on the part of the follower is stressed. Faith and obedience make redemption a matter of human achievement, but it is coupled with forgiveness when man has failed. Jesus Christ is transformed from the “way-maker” into a “way-show-er.”
In an evaluation of Socinus, one might say that he failed to rise above his basic criticisms of others but with the additional involvements of taking the good news out of the gospel.

Socinus stringently criticized the problem of an innocent death in other theories, but he offered no better explanation of Christ’s innocent death than to say that he demonstrated his love for man by dying the most ignominious death. Just how his death is an expression of God’s love is not said. Even if it could be shown to be an expression of Christ’s love, it would still make God a tyrant again–a thing Socinus wanted to avoid.

With the exception of its regard for Jesus Christ, Socinianism is a return to the level of Judaism. The gospel that God has done something unique in Jesus Christ is lost. The questions that Socinus raised were meaningful, but his answers were more reactionary than constructive. If we are to understand the New Testament, we must go beyond Socinus.

Thus far we have endeavored to set forth the “types” of atonement that have had significant influence in the development of doctrine. Many variations have been made. It is true also that the terms used to describe the theories are not consistent from author to author. It is still an open question as to whether the atonement has been adequately treated in the history of Christian thought. We now turn to an attempt to do better justice to the data of the New Testament.

Canon Mozley has wisely said that if the atonement is to mean anything to the individual, one must “do justice to three things–to the meaning of the Bible, to the meaning of the moral consciousness, and to the meaning of Christian religious experience.” Not all interpretations of the cross will fit Mozley’s canons of adequacy. In fact, it seems that the prevailing views of the atonement have been influenced by the culture of the times over against the first canon, the meaning of the Bible. The classic view of the atonement seems unduly influenced at the point of deception.

The Anselmic view is structured on the lines of an outdated feudal system. Abelard ignores certain emphases in the Bible, even though he adheres to the Bible for certain of his ideas. The penal theory of Calvin and others seems to be molded by legal ideas that go beyond the legal implications of the New Testament. The starting point of each theory is inadequate in itself. The concepts of satisfaction, example, penalty, and so on are only part of the complete picture. They are, at best, branches on the tree, and the trunk is a wholly different thing.

The life and death of Jesus Christ require an adequate explanation insofar as one is capable of making it. Although we may acknowledge that the death of Christ involves mystery beyond full comprehension, we are yet compelled to go as far as we can in understanding it.

Presupposition of the Atonement

The only adequate presupposition for the life and death of Christ is holy love. The atonement is not a matter of love only; it is holy love. Love alone can be misconstrued, and God becomes a doting old grandfather who will overlook and forgive anything without requiring a new creation on the part of the believer.

In this case, God wants his creature’s love at the price of overlooking his sin. Holy love does not overlook the seriousness of sin, as Anselm was so concerned to emphasize. Holy love thus requires moral regeneration. Holy love is that which purifies and purges from the believer that which is contrary to the nature of God.

These concepts are expressed in Joh 3:16. The motive of the Incarnation–hence atonement– is love. To be merely loving, God could have declared that sin is forgiven. But to be holy in his love, God dealt with the sinfulness of man, thus getting to the root of the problem-the transformation of the self. Forsyth declared, “Even a loving God is really God, not because He loves, but because He has the power to subdue all things to the holiness of His love . . . even sin itself to His love in redeeming grace.”

Holy love is necessarily set against other presuppositions. The atonement cannot be viewed as a “deflection of God’s anger.” There is no warranty for suggesting that God be divided up whereby a wrathful Father is opposed to a loving Son.

Parallel to this is the idea that the atonement secures God’s grace for sinful man. If there is any one truth evident it is that the atonement is a result of God’s grace. It is falsely assumed that the sacrificial system of the Old Testament began with the idea of appeasing an angry God. Instead, the theory behind the system is that God instituted it so that man could have an entree into his presence.

One of the difficulties of the appeasement idea or propitiation concept is explaining how another can be substituted in punishment. Even if it be argued that in human law or feudal law someone can substitute for another, there is yet the corollary question of explaining why I must yet die if Christ died for me.

Why does not his death erase the possibility of my death? If death be spoken of in terms of spiritual alienation rather than the physical event, then why must physical substitution be insisted upon for the sinner?

If satisfaction is the key presupposition, as it was with Anselm, then the problem comes as stated by Mozley. “If . . . God’s honor is the consideration, it is not obvious why repentance should not be accepted as a satisfaction to that honor.”

If the God-man makes the full satisfaction, then there is no room for forgiveness on the part of God the Father. It seems to boil down to the fact that there is no forgiveness; instead, man is given a reward because of the Son who justly earned all that is given.

On the other hand, the biblical data of the atonement seems to set forth something more far-reaching than merely an example, as in Abelard. There is so much more in the New Testament that relates to the idea of sacrifice than moral example. The New Testament is given over to recounting the death of Christ in such a way that it seems to be central to the entire twenty-seven books.

Although the mind of modern man rebels against the idea of atonement, it is the essential story. “The essence of the Gospel consists in this, that here is a real event, a sign of the real gulf between God and man and a sign of the real movement of God, an event which shows up both the seriousness of our position and the unspeakable wonder of the Divine Love.”

The atonement is a serious judgment against such low concepts concerning God that “God will forgive, that is his business.”

Methodology

The assumption seems to be made by many writers that it is impossible to build a coherent view of the atonement from one presupposition. Some writers oppose the atonement ideas as understood in the Pauline epistles to that of the Gospels and Hebrews. Others analyze the various phraseologies in the New Testament without an attempt at synthesis.

The theories developed around a single motif have often been inadequate to the diversity of scriptural data.
A procedure of study for many has been that as set forth by Leon Morris in his book The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Morris treats the Hebrew terminology in the Old Testament, then the Septuagint equivalents, rabbinical concepts, and then finally the usage in the New Testament.

A proper method of study must begin with the New Testament. It is true that the New Testament is a continuum of the Old Testament, but with a difference. This difference involves the freedom of interpretation of Old Testament passages by New Testament writers.

Two examples will illustrate this fact.

In the case of messianic expectations, we see the difference between the fulfillment and the prophetic hope. The hope was largely political and when the Messiah was crucified, even the disciples lamented, “We had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel” (Luk 24:21) .

He did redeem Israel in an unexpected and different way from the Old Testament hopes. The other example is that drawn from Jeremiah. In this work we are told that a difference shall prevail. Jeremiah declares that the new covenant will be “not like the covenant which I made with their fathers” (Jer 31:31-33 ff ) .

We are to expect, therefore, both continuity and discontinuity between the two Testaments. We must not interpret the New Testament by the Old or any other non-Christian document. Rather, we must let the New Testament speak first and let its judgment fall where it will on Old Testament concepts of sacrifice and atonement.

The Central Motif

Is there a single motif that is adequate to explain the diverse terminology concerning the meaning of the death of Christ? We propose that the life and death of Jesus must be seen in terms of the fulfillment and establishment of the new covenant. This concept is adopted because it is the most extensive word of Jesus concerning his own understanding of his death.

The fulfilled new covenant is expressed most poignantly in the Last Supper.

The Lord’s Supper is the institution enjoined upon the church whereby it remembers the content and significance of his death. It seems safe to say that his death can be understood from the perspective of his institution concerning the meaning of both the supper and his death.

The account of the Last Supper and its declared meaning is given in all three Synoptics, first Corinthians, and is implied in John’s Gospel. In each case, Jesus declared concerning the cup, “This is my blood of the covenant” (Mar 14:24, Mat 26:28; Luk 22:20; 1Co 11:25 ) . In the Synoptics this is connected with the fact that remission of sin is involved in the pouring out of the blood of the covenant. Inasmuch as the account has due emphasis in relation to his death, it must not be ignored.

The primacy of the covenant about to be established has its beginning in the words of Jesus. It is confirmed in other areas of the New Testament. “Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises” (Heb 8:6-7) .

We are also told that Jesus is the “surety of a better covenant” Heb 7:22). The death of Jesus was, therefore, a death involving the establishment of the new covenant. Not only was the covenant prophesied by both Jeremiah and Ezekiel, but the terms are interpreted to us in the New Testament.

The particular role of Jesus’ death is important. He poured out his life to ratify the covenant which was foretold. The “cutting” or making of a covenant in the Old Testament was made with the death of an animal (Jer 34:18). In this the blood of the covenant was an important feature.

In this regard, the Passover ritual is perhaps important. In the original Passover, there is no mention of atonement. For this reason, it is significant that Jesus died during a Passover week rather than the Day of Atonement. The Passover display of the blood on the door lintel could well refer to the renewal of the covenant. When the blood was displayed, the covenant was brought to mind, and the angel of death passed over (Exo 12:13 ).

In the same manner that the Old Testament covenant was established and renewed from time to time, so the new covenant was established by a more sure promise. Instead of the death of an animal, the death of God’s Son is the means for its establishment. It is in this precise form that the new covenant is better than the old.

Luther, in explaining the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, places these words as though Jesus spoke them :
Behold, O sinful and condemned man, out of the pure and unmerited love with which I love you, and by the will of the Father of mercies . . . , apart from any merit or desire of yours, I promise you in these words the forgiveness of all your sins and life everlasting. And that you may be absolutely certain of this irrevocable promise of mine, I shall give my body and pour out my blood, confirming this promise by my very death, and leaving you my body and blood as a sign and memorial of this same promise.

The new covenant idea can incorporate the meaning of the various terminologies in the New Testament under its heading.

The passages speaking of blood can be understood as the establishment of the covenant.

The passages relating to justification present the believer’s standing in the covenant. The passages speaking in terms of redemption set forth the power of the new covenant by the Spirit.

The passages speaking of reconciliation declare the meaning of the new covenant to alienated mankind.

First, consider the place of the blood, the establishment of the covenant. Traditionally, the blood of Christ has had an important place in the idea of atoning for sin. First John speaks of “the blood of Jesus his Son” cleansing us from all sin (1Jo 1:7) .

The question has been raised concerning how the blood cleanses.

There is no rational reason why the blood of animals or that of the human body of Christ should cleanse. Some have declared that the blood atones “simply because it is God’s appointment or ordinance.

There is more significance and meaning in the word “blood” if it is seen as ratifying or establishing the covenant of God. The terms of 1 John 1:7 are written in a covenantal relationship. Each statement begins with an “if.” We have the same thought expressed in a different context in Heb 10:29.

The blood is the blood of the covenant and is declared to be the means whereby we are sanctified or set apart unto God in a covenantal relationship. The blood of the covenant thereby speaks of forgiveness of sin, which is cleansing itself. In considering the other passages of the New Testament, it is not difficult to see them in the light of ratifying the covenant.

Apart from the Last Supper accounts in the Synoptics, which it must be recalled is our starting point of the new covenant, the first significant mention of the blood of Christ is in John 6.

The only realistic understanding of the passage is in reference to the Lord’s Supper. At no time was there any hint of cannibalism in the life of Jesus (Joh 6:52-53). By the same token, Joh 6:63 tells us that the words are spirit. They were meant to be understood as an analogy.

To what are they analogous? Again, an answer is the Last Supper, where he spoke of the covenant of his death and life. By receiving the elements, that is, flesh and blood, we are accepting the covenant that God made with us.

In Rom 3:25 if hilasterion (in KJV, propitiation) be understood as mercy seat, or the place where God shows mercy, then the blood is really the blood of the covenant whereby we know we have obtained mercy. If not, the question remains, how does blood expiate the guilt of the sinful?

In Rom 5:9, we are justified by his blood. It should be observed that there is a close relation between justification by faith and the concept of blood as related to the new covenant.

DAY 44-WASHING OF FEET AND JESUS LAST SUPPER-PASSOVER FEAST

Justification means that one is accepted in the presence of God. We are accepted through Christ by faith, and even that when we are not sinless. The cleansing of the blood of Christ holds the same analogy.

The blood of Christ does not perfect us but rather speaks of the new covenant whereby God accepts us in repentance and faith and thereby gives us his Spirit that continues to work in us and sanctify us. The new covenant only points to our ultimate transformation, just as justification points to our ultimate sanctification.

In Eph 1:7, we are told of redemption through his blood. But it is within a context of the Son and our blessings through him before the foundation of the world. God chose us from eternity (v. 4), but the fact is only revealed in time through his blood, which is the covenant of our redemption and the guarantee of the forgiveness of sin ( 1: 7 ) . The basis for the redemption and the covenant is also given-“the riches of his grace.”

The seeming intent of Eph 2:13 is to contrast the Gentiles without a covenantal relationship to God with the fact that the blood of Christ now makes them members of the covenantal community.

In Colossians the blood of Christ can be associated with a covenantal relationship also ( Col 1:20-23) . We are reconciled by the blood of the cross, “provided [we] continue in the faith, . . . not shifting from the hope of the gospel which [we] heard.” This suggests a covenant which God has made and man affirms it by faith or rejects it by unacceptance.

In 1Pe 1:2 a similar situation prevails. Obedience and sprinkling of blood are connected just in the same way a covenant is issued. The sacrifice of Christ was destined before the foundation of the world (1Pe 1:19-24 ) .

In this context, confidence in God is expressed because Christ was raised from the dead. The purifying of our souls is that related to obedience to the truth. In this case the truth would be the acceptance of the covenant based on Christ’s death.

In Rev 1:5, the question is again to be asked, “How are we washed from our sins in his blood?” (KJV ) . The Revised Standard Version translates the amended text as “freed,” which agrees with a covenant of forgiveness as we have set it forth.

The blood of Christ receives the longest treatment in Hebrews (chapters 9, 10, and 13 ) . Christ is the mediator of the new covenant (Heb_9:15), which is established by his blood (Heb 9:14) .

The new covenant was only possible because of Christ’s death, just as the first covenant was not ratified without blood. As under the law every thing was set apart, regarded as holy before God, with blood, so the shedding of the blood of Christ is the means by which the believer is set apart, regarded as accepted in God’s presence, and thereby receives the forgiveness of sin.

In Hebrews 10: 14-18 the final offering of Christ is again associated with the establishment of the covenant. In Heb 13:20 the blood is emphatically connected with the covenant. The writer declares, “The God of Peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant.”

Thus, we have observed the more significant passages on the blood of Christ and have seen that they can be understood from the standpoint of referring to a ratification of the covenant.

Second, justification : the believer’s standing in the covenant. In relation to any idea of the atonement in the New Testament, one must consider the usage of the word “justification.”

The most pertinent passages are in Romans. Abraham is said to have been justified by believing Rom 4:3 . By asking certain questions concerning his justification, one must conclude that Abraham was justified when he was the passive recipient of the covenant of God (Gen 15:6-17 ) . Abraham was not made perfect, or sinless, but was reckoned as such because of obedience in the covenantal relationship of faith.

In Rom 4:5 , we are told that God justifies the ungodly. Abraham is the father of the faithful (Rom 4:16), and we are reckoned as righteous also (Rom 4:24 ) . The same analogy, under which Abraham was accepted because of the covenant, holds for us also.

The fact that we are given acceptance before God while we are yet ungodly demands explanation. God offers the new covenant and we accept it by faith. (Throughout our lives we are always involved in sin of one degree or another. ) The evidence and surety of the covenant and its guarantee to us are the death and resurrection of Christ. Had it been merely the death of Christ alone, we could not have any assurance and hope.

The resurrection distinguished the death of Christ from being merely the death of a good man. It sets forth the seal of the covenant’s validity as well as the fact that he is the Son of God.

Third, redemption: the power of the new covenant by the Spirit. A great emphasis is often placed on the Old Testament and papyri usage, but we will not impose either these or etymological usages on the New Testament use. Thayer defines Apolutrosis in the New Testament as “deliverance effected through the death of Christ from the retributive wrath of a holy God and the merited penalty of sin.

This is the very thing expressed in the new covenant. In it God has promised to put away our sins and grant forgiveness. What is this but the removal of the wrath of God? Such is the declaration to us in the death of Christ.

In some instances the idea of redemption is linked with the concept of blood, thus making possible a tighter link in this theory. Such is the connection in some manuscripts for Eph 1:7 and Col 1:14. In Heb 9:15 , redemption is linked with the establishment of the new covenant. In Heb 9:12, an eternal redemption is said to be the result, because he entered the holy place taking his own blood.

A related term of redemption is ekagorazo, which occurs twice m relation to redemption proper. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Gal 3:13) . We are not told how we are redeemed from the curse of the law but there is a basis for understanding that we are no longer under its control because we are under a new covenant, the old having passed away.

In Gal 4:4-5) we are told that Christ redeemed us from the law. We receive “adoption as sons” because we are “children of Abraham” (Gal 3:29) , and thereby heirs of the covenant of faith (Gal 3:24-25) .

Another passage relating to redemption certainly lends itself to a covenantal understanding. Tit 2:13-14 speaks of the great “God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.”

What does “redeem” mean? The word lutroo means to loose or redeem, liberate by payment or ransom. We are redeemed only at the present in a forensic sense, and we are purified only in an ultimate sense. In the atonement of the new covenant we are liberated from our iniquities at the price of the Son of God who makes the covenant with his life. We are purified as God’s Spirit continues to work in our heart.

A similar word, lutron, occurs twice in the four Gospels. Jesus said that the Son of man came to “give his life as a ransom for many” (Mat 20:28, Mar 10:45) . We are not told how this ransom price is to be received. We could argue that it is to be interpreted from the standpoint of the covenant and the price involved is the tremendous death of Jesus which established the new covenant.

Another similar word is antilutron, which occurs in 1Ti 2:5-6. Concerning “the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time” (RSV ) . The word antilutron is translated ransom, or as Thayer defines it, “What is given in exchange for another as the price of his redemption.” It does not seem adequate to isolate the word antilutron from what follows in the context.

If we consider the passage from the standpoint of the new covenant, the passage makes good sense. Christ is the one mediator, and also the mediator of the new covenant. The testimony of the new covenant, as well as the guarantee, comes at the point of his death and resurrection.

Yet to be considered are two related words, hilasmos and hilasterion. The first occurs in 1Jo 2:2 and 1Jo_4:10; the second in Rom 3:25. There is debate about the translation of hilasterion, whether it should be translated “propitiation” or “mercy seat.”33 The more significant debate concerns whether either word should be translated expiation or propitiation. One of the key issues is whether or not God should be accorded wrath.

The argument centers around the atonement. In line with our explanation of the atonement, the argument is misplaced. The real question of wrath does not come at the atonement but at the judgment. The new covenant is established and sets forth God’s love for man. If the new covenant is rejected, then the wrath of God appears. If the Son of God is spurned and the blood of the covenant is profaned, then appears the wrath of God (Heb 10:29 ) .

The basic meaning behind expiation or propitiation is that atonement has been made in some way or the other. Greek lexicons do not help in making a distinction between expiation and propitiation, for Arndt and Gingrich define hilasmos as”expiation, propitiation.

The point of the passage is that of dealing with our sins. Christ is the atonement and the atoner. Our sins are put away from us. Is this not what the new covenant means? God has remembered our sins no more. They are forgiven upon entry into the new covenant. The same meaning holds true for 1Jo 4:10. God has forgiven our sins; this is shown by the death of Christ as a sign of the new covenant.

Fourth, reconciliation: the meaning of the new covenant. Morris declares, “The chief difficulty to be solved in the New Testament use of reconcile, reconciliation, etc., is whether, in the process of reconciliation, God can be said to be reconciled to man, or whether the process is one in which man only is reconciled.

There is no problem in seeing that man has alienated himself from God. Sin has produced a chasm that must be bridged for man. In laying down a new covenant the way is opened for man. This is an obvious truth of Eph 2:16 ” reconcile us both to God,” of Col 1:21-22 , “you . . . he has now reconciled;” and 2Co 5:19 “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.”

There is, however, no reference to the fact that God is reconciled. Yet, such is implied in some sense of the word. God has not and does not tolerate the sin of man. He has reconciled himself in some sense by virtue of his willingness to put away the sin of man.

Our view does not take a light view of sin: instead it is so serious that only God can put away sin and receive man. In this case we have the same analogy of the new covenant to the old covenant. God made a covenant with Abraham before the law of sacrifice was instituted.

Abraham was accepted because of his faith in God’s covenant. With the making of a covenant there was shedding of blood of animals (Gen 15:8-18) for its establishment. We do not read that Abraham won God’s favor through sacrifice. Abraham was accepted, forgiven, and received in God’s presence, and the covenant was the sign to Abraham that all of this was true.

In the new covenant we have the same story. God made a covenant in the person of his Son; man is to be received, his sins forgiven on the basis of the covenant which is established by the shedding of blood. We who were alienated, who were enemies, children of sin, are promised forgiveness, newness of life through the regeneration of God’s Spirit, who is the promise of the covenant–all on the condition of receiving the new covenant.

Implications of the New Covenant

Having dealt with the new covenant in relationship to the various terminologies, it is now germane to turn to the treatment of the new covenant in relation to other aspects of the role of Christ.

First, the death of Christ as the establishment of the new covenant fulfills the eternal purpose of God.

Relating to the promise of God from eternity. The matter of redemption is something that took place from eternity. We were chosen in him before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4); and the life and death of Christ is the manifestation in time and space of the grace of God to us.

The introduction to Titus speaks of the eternal life that God promised “ages ago” ( Tit 1:2 ) . The ability to lay down his life and receive it again comes only from the transcendent Father (Joh 10:17-18) .

But he came for the purpose of laying down his life. The words, “It is finished!” (John 19:30), indicate a consummation of purpose. Paul spoke of himself as a preacher of the mystery that is revealed only now in Christ (Eph 3:3-6). In due time “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman” (Gal 4:4).

God did not spare his own Son but delivered him up for us (Rom 8:32). Jesus described his life in terms of being sent to suffer many (Luk 17:25) . The Son came to seek and to save the lost (Luk 19:10) . This was his purpose before the Incarnation. From his youth he was aware of being about his Father’s business (Luk 2:49) . Part of his work was to destroy the works of the devil ( 1Jo 3:8 ) . This he does by the gift of the Spirit who renews and directs our lives and gives us grace to overcome.

In his classic passage in Philippians, Paul speaks of the fact that Christ humbled himself, forsaking the glory of heaven to bring redemption to earth (Phi 2:6-11) . In the Son dwells all the fullness of deity who came to reconcile all things to himself (Col 1:15-20).

These and many other sources could be used to show that the life and death of Christ was a work of God, planned from eternity. In viewing the death of Christ from the standpoint of establishing the new covenant, we do justice to the exactness of God’s treatment with his people in all dispensations : law and grace.

Relating to the first and second man: The biblical point of view toward sin is that something quite radical took place in Adam. Paul speaks of all dying in Adam, and all being made alive in Christ ( 1Co 15:21-22 ) . Although a covenant is not described in the first chapters of Genesis, the same elements are there.

The permissiveness concerning Adam’s behavior, as expressed in Gen 2:16, may be contrasted to the “you shall not eat” in Gen 2:17. These two verses imply terms of obedience and rebellion. If we may presume a reference to covenant relations, we may also conclude that the covenant relation was broken by sin. Covenants that were made later were broken.

The people of God occasionally reaffirmed their covenant relationship but then turned aside into sin. It was because of the failure of the previous covenants that a new one was prophesied. The old covenant was helpless in making men righteous. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set the believer free from the old covenant (Rom 8:2-4).

In establishing a new covenant, Jesus did it in a unique fashion. As the second Adam, he was without sin (Heb 2:17, Heb 4:15), and thereby able to help the weak. Through Christ and the fruit of his covenant, there is a restoration of relationship and personality. Through Christ’s Spirit, man is “renewed in knowledge” (Col 3:10) and “true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:24 ), all of this being the result of the indwelling of the Spirit through the new covenant relationship. He worked in a fashion that was not evident under the old covenant.

The apostolic preaching proclaimed that “forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses” (Act 13:27-39).

Relating to the covenant with Abraham.–The covenant with Abraham was prophetic of the new covenant in which all the nations would be blessed. Paul wrote to the Gentile Christians, “Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise” (Gal 4:28) .

Abraham believed God, and he was accepted by God because of it. Salvation has not changed in essence. In the new covenant, salvation is, like Abraham’s, by faith. The guarantee is now sure because of Christ’s death and resurrection, but the means of acceptance is still the same.

This is the understanding of Hebrews when the author writes, “The Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, `This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,’ then he adds, `I will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more.’ Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin” (Heb. 10:15-18 ) .

The true sons of Abraham are those who have faith (Rom 4:13-17) . The intent of Jesus was to fulfil, not destroy (Mat 5:17) . As such, the promised covenant finds its fulfillment in him and in him alone.

Relating to Christian privilege: The Scriptures describe the Christian’s privileges in terms of the elements promised in the coming covenant, or the established covenant in Christ. We are with Paul “ministers of a new covenant” (2Co 3:6 , and are given “the Spirit as a guarantee” (2Co 5:5 ) , which is the promise of the prophets concerning the coming covenant; God indwells the believer, likewise a promise of the Father (2Co 6:16 ) in setting forth the new covenant. Victory over sin, Satan, and death are only possible through the benefits of the covenant-the Spirit of God.

Second, the new covenant fulfills cosmic significance. It was the merit of the classical view of the atonement to set forth the victory of Christ over the powers of evil and darkness. After the atonement, the world was no longer in the hands of darkness and Satan but under the rule of Christ.

The emphasis was placed on deliverance from the power of evil.

Crude terminology centering around deception was often used to express how the flesh of Christ hid the fishhook of his divinity. The new covenant gives fuller meaning to the cosmic significance of the death of Christ than the classical view. After the new covenant was established, deliverance from sin is made possible through the Spirit that indwells the believer.

The believer did not have this in the Old Testament. In potentiality, the New Testament believer is victorious over all the temptations and harassments of Satan. Although the disciple yet faces the temptations of life, and sometimes succumbs to them, he has the power of the Spirit of God within him to overcome life and death. The same power that raised Christ will raise us up also (1Co 6:14 ) .

With the new covenant “the ruler of this world” is cast out (Joh 12:30-33) . The witness of Hebrews is that through death, the establishment of the covenant, Christ destroys him who has the power of death, and delivers all those who through fear of death were “subject to lifelong bondage” (Heb 2:14-16 ) .

All of these benefits of victory, we repeat, are a result of the promise connected with the new covenant. The Spirit promised in the new covenant relationship enables the victory.

Third, the new covenant concept does not have some of the problems and questions that other views possessed. A common objection and problem of the so-called objective views of the atonement is in reference to the implications of Christ’s death.

If we are redeemed by Christ’s death, why do Christians yet die? Certainly if Christ’s death is redemptive, one can justly argue that total redemption has not been achieved. At best it only relates to a way of escape from spiritual death. Why is man’s physical nature yet subject to death? There is no answer to this issue in the traditional views of the atonement.

The new covenant is not beset by this question, for the death of Christ is the guarantee of the Christian’s victory through death. The covenant is related specifically to the forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of God’s Spirit. These are the guarantee of the covenant rather than physical deliverance.

An objection raised against the satisfaction theory of the atonement is, how could sin be forgiven before the cross? Certainly the death of Christ assumes great importance. If there is salvation in no other name than that of Jesus, how could there be forgiveness even by Jesus before his death? For our view there is no problem. God forgave before the cross as well as after the cross. Forgiveness was based upon repentance and faith in God. It still is!

The proclamation of the kingdom was in no way different in essence from that of the prophets. The proclamation is repent, and forgiveness shall follow (Luk 24:47). The new covenant of promise has greater implications for the repentant since the time of Christ.

He has a greater surety (Heb 7:22) in the new covenant because God, in the person of the Son, has given a better guarantee of his mercy than the Old Testament saints knew.
An overlooked area in the traditional theories is to explain how the old covenant was fulfilled and the new started. Generally, little attention is paid to the establishment of it.

It is assumed. But the fact that the New Testament (new covenant) is so named is important. Hebrews has much to say about the inadequacy of the old and the establishment of the new covenant with the death of Christ.

Another serious question concerning some of the theories, such as Anselm, Calvin, as well as the classical is, Why cannot God simply forgive as man is commanded to do. This poses no problem for the view of the new covenant. In it one sees the fact that God declares his forgiveness.

Christ suffered for our sins because man could not and would not accept the fact that God forgives. Who can forgive sin but God? Nothing stands in the way of forgiveness except unbelief on man’s part. Socinus raised the right questions but gave the wrong answers. He wondered why God could not forgive without satisfaction. In his view the death of Christ was unnecessary.

The new covenant speaks of God’s forgiveness without satisfaction or honor being restored. God has not suffered in honor. In his forgiving attitude toward man he has not suffered nor increased his personal glory, ‘The Son’s death is not meaningless, as in Socinian thought, but the means whereby God establishes the new covenant with man. His was a meaningful death.

The difficulty with the Socinian theory is that the atonement amounts to nothing and salvation is by achievement of a high moral code given by Christ. For him religion meant “correct thinking and correct behavior.”37 But in the new covenant, salvation is by sheer grace. We are granted forgiveness. The covenant with the benefit of the Spirit is all of grace in Christ.

The question of Abelard is a real serious question for the penal and satisfaction theories. He asked, How can the death of the innocent Son so have pleased God the Father that through it He is reconciled to us who have so sinned that on this account the innocent Lord was killed?”

Abelard’s question is based on the “Trinitarian illusion” mentioned above. The question is not of significance to the new covenant view because it is God in the Son who has already reconciled himself to man and shows this in establishing a new covenant.

We would now return to the standard of Mozley, in summing up, in that the atonement must do justice to the meaning of the Bible, moral consciousness, and the meaning of Christian religious experience.. It is apparent that the new covenant can carry the freight of the total terminology of the New Testament.

The new covenant does establish the doctrine in line with the moral consciousness of the New Testament, and it is true to the doctrine of Christian religious experience, for it speaks of the Spirit of God bearing witness within our hearts that it is so.