¶1This episode is brought to you by the University of St. Andrews and its online Bible and the Contemporary World program. Designed for flexible part-time study, it enables students to engage major contemporary issues, including politics, ethics, inequality, trauma, climate change, and the arts through biblical and theological reflection. With short focused teaching, interactive discussion, and strong academic support, it fits around work and other commitments. To find out more, search St.
¶2Andrews Bible and the Contemporary World online. What is the atonement? And does it simply refer to what Jesus did on the cross? Or might it include his resurrection and ascension, too? I'm John Nelson, and today on Unbelievable, I'm joined by two biblical scholars to help us wrestle with the doctrine of the atonement.
¶3Joining me in the studio is a familiar face, Dr. Jonathan Rowlands. He's a lecturer at St. Mellitus College. Johnny is the author of Befriending Scripture, which looks at a theology of reading, and is currently writing a book on Hebrews, thinking through questions of atonement.
¶4And joining us online is David Moffitt, Professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews. David is the author of several books on the atonement, including most recently Rethinking the Atonement: New Perspectives on Jesus' Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. Gentlemen, it's a real honor to have you both on the show. Welcome to Unbelievable.
¶5>> Thanks for having me. >> I'd I'd like us to start, David, with that word atonement. Uh it's often said that we should think about atonement as a kind of at-one-ment, uh a reconciliation, a bringing together of God and humanity. Where does that word actually come from? Can you give us some sort of background on what atonement means?
¶6>> Right. So, the word actually existed before uh Tyndale picked it up and used it in his translation of the Bible. But it largely was became a significant feature of English theological conversation through the work of Tyndale. Tyndale in the early 16th century translated the Greek New Testament into English. And there were a couple of points where he came across Paul using language of reconciliation in Greek.
¶7And he translated that language from Greek to English with this language at one meant. Which really does mean reconcile to bring two aggrieved parties back together, you know, in some sort of peaceful or or friendly relationship. Um, now an interesting thing happened because these were texts like Romans 5:11 or 2 Corinthians 5:18 through 20. In Romans 5:11 in both these cases Paul talks about Jesus' death providing at one meant or reconciliation. Um, well then he later turned his attention to translating the Hebrew Bible into English.
¶8And as he did that, he ran across this language in the the Hebrew Bible that refers to an act as part of sacrifice which the word sort probably means something like purifies or cleans. And he translated that word in English as at one meant again. And that created an interesting or at least it helped him develop an interesting theological connection between something happening in Jewish sacrifice and Jesus' death creating this idea of reconciliation between God and God's people. Um, so that that's the basic place where we get it. But that move that Tyndale made when he picked this word up translating the um Old Testament or Hebrew Bible scriptures, um potentially created some conceptual confusion that we we might want to discuss later.
¶9But that's a basic very basic background of of how this language becomes such a major feature of English theological discourse. >> Mhm. It's interesting to see that that word atonement has sort of such a specific function for Tyndale, whereas I suppose the way that many people would use atonement today is just to refer to what Jesus did on the cross. And I suppose in in modern theology, we tend to think about lots of different theories of the atonement. And Johnny, I was wondering if you could just, you know, flesh out a few of those theories.
¶10What are the the sort of dominant ways that Christians have come to see what Jesus' atonement was doing? >> Yeah, that's a good question. I think in my experience of the church, I think the most dominant one has been one that theologians would call penal substitutionary atonement. So if we break that down, um penal refers to paying a penalty. Um so if you, you know, break the speed limit, you get a penalty in the post.
¶11You you have to go and pay that. Substitution, we're in the middle of the World Cup as we're recording this. Think about, you know, one player leaving the pitch, another player going onto the pitch. There is a substitution of people there. People taking the place of someone else.
¶12And then atonement as we've talked about refers to this um this big picture atonement thing. So penal substitutionary atonement is the idea that we owe God a penalty or a debt for our sin. Um normally that debt is understood as death, right? Because God is the one who has given us life and in rejecting him, we have rejected the source of our existence. And so we we death.
¶13And so penal substitutionary atonement is the idea that Jesus substituted himself for us on the cross. So the idea that on the cross, Jesus took the death, the punishment that we are supposed to have paid to God, and took that in our place. And so that's I think one of if not the most common model of atonement I hear. >> Mhm. >> Um certainly in what we might call the Western church for want of a better phrase.
¶14Um I imagine if you know, if you went to most churches in the UK and you picked kind of 10 people who were there at random, they would probably give you some variation of that. >> Mhm. >> Um so I think that's probably the most dominant one. >> And is that the idea that you know, we have in lots of hymns and worship songs that Jesus died in my place? >> Yes.
¶15>> element of this. >> Yeah, so I Easter just gone, I was given a leaflet kind of explaining what Easter was. >> Mhm. >> And in the leaflet it said um Jesus says that he died for you. Um I'm not entirely sure where that is from because I'm not I can't think of a place where Jesus explicitly says that, but anyway, Jesus says he died for you, and then it says this means instead of.
¶16The word for in this context means instead of. It's very kind of explicit in this little leaflet. And so this is the idea that you know, Jesus in the cross dies the death that we should have died. >> Mhm. >> Um and like I say, this is um probably the most common way of thinking of atonement that I hear in churches on a Sunday.
¶17Um and I think at its best, it has a real clear emphasis on God's justice. >> Mhm. >> The idea that there are wrong has been committed. Um and God cannot abide injustice, and so something has to be done to put that right. We can't do it ourselves, and so God sends his son to do it for us and instead of us.
¶18>> I suppose there are a couple of um a couple of key issues that are often raised in relation to penal substitutionary atonement. Um one is the idea that this I this notion of atonement isn't really found in the Bible. I've heard it being attributed to Anselm in the 11th century, so millennia millennium after the scriptures are written, or maybe the reformers. Um so there's a kind of issue here of, you know, do we actually find that idea of penal substitutionary atonement? Maybe we can start with that issue before we get into uh some some other ones.
¶19What do you think? Do you think there is a a biblical foundation to this idea? >> Potentially. Um I don't think it's very commonly in scripture, if it is in scripture. So I think Isaiah 53, if we're interpreting that as a later if we you know, through the lens of the creeds, if we're interpreting that as a as a reference to Christ, then I think Isaiah 53 probably makes sense to interpret it in terms of penal substitutionary atonement.
¶20Um there is another point in 2 Peter 2:4, I think it is, where it talks about um Christ bearing our sin. Hm. And again, I think it's it's plausible to interpret it in that way. Um Other than that, I think it's not a natural reading of a lot of scripture. Um it's certainly at the very least not the only way that scripture wants to frame atonement.
¶21I mean, I'm sure we're going to go on and talk about Hebrews, but Hebrews has a is in my opinion, you know, very much not a penal substitutionary atonement >> Hm. >> um view of what Jesus has done for us. Um I would also say the same about Paul as well, but again, maybe we can we can talk about that. Um but this is this has been an ongoing debate. I mean, like you say, you know, um the extent to which the church fathers had a view of penal substitutionary atonement is kind of up for debate.
¶22Um in the 20th century, I mean, more recently in the 21st century, a lot of theologians have started to push back against this a little bit. So Um, Chalke, more recently Andrew Wilson has written an important book called Lamb of the Free, which I don't agree with all of, but he he says that, you know, there is no penal substitutionary atonement in scripture at all. He's very kind of clear on this. >> Wow. >> Um, and has ruffled quite a lot of feathers, as you can probably imagine.
¶23Um, so I think there is potentially some sense in which penal substitutionary atonement is scriptural and biblical. Um, but I think one of the things that um, the church is not always great at is holding multiple models of atonement together simultaneously. >> Mhm. >> The sense that all, you know, multiple theories of atonement or models of atonement can be true simultaneously, right? Atonement is kaleidoscopic, it's not this is it, right?
¶24There are there are multiple ways in which all these things can be true, and that is kind of what we would expect, right? I mean, if we're talking about the act of an infinite God, then I think we would expect that no one sort of finite, creaturely, human understanding of that could ever capture the totality of it. And I so I think that makes sense of why there are multiple voices in scripture to begin with. >> Mhm. David, I'd love to bring you in here.
¶25Um, what do you think about the sort of the biblical foundations of penal substitutionary atonement? >> Yeah, um, personally, I do think there's a biblical foundation for this, and I do think it's Isaiah 53. Um, this would be a point where again, I would disagree with Rillera in his his uh, his recent book. Um, although there's a lot of great stuff in that book. Um, I think the problem that I have with with penal substitution as a model, well, I'm I'm not a big fan of what Anselm does with this idea, because Anselm brings in an idea of satisfaction.
¶26And he's dealing here with the notion that a feudal lord uh, needs to have to be honored by by those uh, whom he rules. And if you dishonor that feudal lord, there's some sort of lack now, uh, an injustice that has to be to be filled by punishment, and that punishment then satisfies the feudal lord. That I'm I'm not so sure about. I don't see that as a key way in which God interacts through scripture. But the idea that there is the idea of the servant figure in Isaiah 53 who bears the sins of many and endures death because of that looks to me like it's penal.
¶27It is some kind of, you know, by his stripes we are healed. And substitutionary. Now, I don't think that implies everything Anselm was arguing. But it's there. Where where I would suggest that this point that that Johnny was making about multiple models really comes into play in our conversation is that many in sort of post-reformation, even before the reformation a bit, medieval Catholic tradition had assumed that the kind of thing you see in Isaiah 53 is what happens in Jewish sacrifice.
¶28And that's where I would suggest that that's not at all what's going on in Jewish sacrifice. So, for what it's worth, I talk a good bit about sacrifice in the work that I'm doing and link this to atonement. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, Tyndale made that link when he used the language of atonement to translate this particular verb in Jewish sacrifice. Um but I I talk about Jewish sacrifice in a particular way that does not involve penal substitution, and lots of people then assume that I deny penal substitution, which I'm thinking about it more as that's just a different model. And what's more, a lot of atonement theory today assumes that the only thing that really matters for the atonement is the crucifixion.
¶29Uh Jesus dying on the cross. I'm arguing that in fact, if we use sacrifice as a model, then we see that there's a lot more that happens than just killing something. And if if we apply that to Jesus, then we have ways of thinking about the um atoning work of Jesus that moves beyond the crucifixion. So, none of that from my perspective is denying penal substitution, but what it's saying is that's not, you know, the whole thing. And it's not all and and atonement is not all about the cross, and it's also not something that aligns with ideas of sacrifice.
¶30Um Allow me to make one more qualification here, and and then I'll I'll be quiet for a bit. Um I think it's the case that uh today when we talk about the atonement, what people largely tend to mean uh and Johnny, I think, was just spot-on that it tends to be a notion of penal substitution is the only thing or the primary thing that we think about. But the other thing that that I think most people tend to think about today is it's a way of talking about all that Jesus does to save us. So, Jesus' entire salvific work is the atonement, and it's all bound up with a single event, which is the crucifixion. Uh and, you know, and then so whatever whatever Jesus does or happens to Jesus after the crucifixion is not salvific.
¶31It's not making atonement for us, because that all happened on the cross. And that's largely viewed as the the total of his sacrifice. >> Mhm. I'm really excited to get into your idea that the atonement actually involves the resurrection and ascension as well. But maybe just sticking with uh penal substitution for a moment.
¶32You know, insofar as this does have so- uh some kind of biblical foundation, I think a lot of people have a kind of moral problem with it. Um on a on a sort of few different levels. I suppose one is that how does it make sense that sort of someone commits a crime and then another person uh dies in in the place of that person. That seems sort of fundamentally unjust. I think um when I was reading C.S.
¶33Lewis's Mere Christianity, he actually takes issue with this and says, you know, the the model of paying off debts makes much more sense because if I have debts to pay, someone else has the money, they can they can pay my debts. But this idea that you can sort of step in um in my place doesn't really make moral sense. And then I suppose there's this wider moral um issue that some have sort of chara- uh characterized penal substitution as God is very angry. God needs blood and therefore he essentially beats up his own son on the cross. That's sometimes how it's been characterized.
¶34Um maybe maybe Johnny we can start with you. You know, how would you sort of deal with some of those moral issues and then I'd like to come back to David. >> Yeah, I think a lot of the confusion comes around this word atonement. Um I mean, I think you know, Da- David mentioned the issue of of Jewish sacrifice. I think a lot of the sacrifices in Leviticus for example, um are actually nothing to do with forgiveness of sin.
¶35>> Mhm. >> And when we when we when we think about atonement, we often implicitly think, you know, atonement equals forgiveness of sin. >> Mhm. >> But a lot of them have nothing to do with that. I mean, you know, you have regulations on what to do if your house gets a disease.
¶36Which, you know, has never happened to my house, but um how how do you atone for your house when >> it has a disease? I mean, in Leviticus 16, which we may talk about later, the temple is atoned for. You know, I mean, this this sounds crazy to kind of like a, you know, many modern Christians that the high priest atones for the temple. Because it's nothing to do with sin. There is there is no sin issue in that.
¶37It's to do with, as David mentioned earlier, it's to do with purity and purification and cleansing the temple from impurity. So, I think one one of the things that I think the church, um, would be really well served by is reclaiming a sense of atonement as being like restoration rather than most fundamentally being about forgiveness of sin. >> Okay. >> It it's it's to do with kind of being restored to how things ought to be. So, in that Leviticus 16, in the Yom Kippur ritual, when the temple is atoned for, it's kind of taken back to its default state.
¶38>> Mhm. >> It's cleansed of its impurity. And at no point is that a sin issue, right? It's not The temple hasn't sinned. It's just, you know, bricks, right?
¶39It's just It's just a building. It's not sin. There's no kind of moral agency there. And so, I think that might be helpful. Um, I think that might be a helpful thing to to be aware of that it's not always, when we talk about atonement, to do with just forgiveness of sin.
¶40I think it's part of it, but it's not It's a It's a much broader thing than just forgiveness of sin. Um, on the kind of, you know, God is a cosmic child abuser thing, um, yes, I think that is often something that has been leveled against this model of atonement. Um, I I think it's it's a difficult one for me to square, personally. Like I I I do find it kind of instinctively uncomfortable, the idea that, um, you know, that worship song which is and on on the cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied. I I find that just kind of instinctively a bit morally naughty.
¶41Um, whether or not that makes it any more or less true, I I don't think is necessarily um instructive. Um but yes, I can certainly see why people have do have issues with it. Um I think David mentioned Anselm earlier and some of the ways in which um his model of penal substitution penal substitutionary atonement plays out and some of the problems with that. >> Mhm. Mhm.
¶42>> I think often when people have criticisms of penal substitution penal substitutionary atonement, it's not in the model of atonement itself, but in some of the things it leads to. And so we've talked a little bit about Andrew Wilson's recent book. One of the things that he's very critical of is the American justice system. Um I mean his book is called Lamb of the Free, which you know, there is a a clue in there as to some of the bigger pictures that he has in mind. And so I think it's it's not necessarily the model of atonement itself that is problematic, but some of the implications that >> Mhm.
¶43>> when it's done badly, >> Yeah. >> I think become problematic. The you know, the sort of sense of guilt and shame that it can introduce into some lives of some believers when it's not done well, I think is a problem. But to say that something is implemented badly doesn't mean that that the thing itself is a problem. >> Do you Do you think this is maybe one reason why we need a sort of multi-model approach of the atonement?
¶44Because what we're dealing with here to some extent is metaphor. So there's a profound sense in which there is a substitution, but as with all metaphors, they are they are tensive. There is a sense in which they're true, but there's also another sense in which they're not true. If I say Johnny uh looks like a lion, you know, because you're wearing a brown corduroy shirt. >> need a haircut.
¶45>> There's a certain sense in which that's true, but also there are many senses in which you definitely don't look like a lion. So is that part of the reason why we need this multi-model approach? >> Yeah, I think so. And I mean, you know, this is this is one of the age-old problems of theology is how do you say anything about God? >> Mhm.
¶46>> Because, you know, God is God and we are not. And so, even to say anything really basic that God is good, well, what does that mean? I mean, God isn't good in the same way that we are good. Right? And so, this this has been a long-standing problem in theology whether you can say anything about God, whether you just have to say what God is not, or whether you can speak about God by analogy.
¶47All of that is, you know, is a long-standing debate. I mean, it's And And peop- people very understandably, I think, get um slightly nervous when you talk about metaphor in the Bible. And I understand that. Um but, there is a lot of metaphor in the Bible. To say that we are adopted sons and daughters of God is a metaphor.
¶48Right? God doesn't go down to his local sort of civic center or town hall and fill out paperwork and adopt us into his family, right? It's That's That's not literally true. It is true, but it's not literally true. You know, Jesus is not um the lamb of God, the good shepherd, and the door for the sheep, right?
¶49He's not, you know, he's not literally like a quadruped with wool, right? Th- These are metaphors, but it it there is it it can very easily feel as though you're taking scripture less seriously if you take it less literally. And often, the inverse is true. Often, you take it more seriously. Often, it's it's your you're reading it in a way that is more appropriate to its context and its nature by reading these things as metaphor.
¶50Um and so, yes, I think all of this has to be taken into account that th- these models of atonement are just models that the church has come up with to help understand what God has done. And so, by definition, they are all going to be incomplete. They all need to complement each other. And I mean, I get slightly nervous when anyone tries to reduce the gospel down to just one of these things. >> Mhm.
¶51Because we automatically lose loads of stuff. >> Right. Um and I would be, you know, as much as I really value David's work, if David were to say that this is the gospel and the other stuff is not the gospel, that would be equally problematic and this is one of my issues with really Harris' book. Um that there doesn't seem to be much space for other models of atonement in his work. It's just this is the truth.
¶52And all of these things need to sit alongside each other and to coalesce and to and to overlap. >> David, is there anything you'd like to add or respond to there? >> Well, I mean, I I think we we have to look and take very seriously the these questions that arise in terms of our understanding of um how God can be good and these things be true. Uh so I I don't want in any way to diminish that as a valid concern. Um I do think it's worth noting that um people who have worshipped and followed this God have for millennia debated this question.
¶53It's not a new question. Whether it was around atonement or something else. I mean, why do good people suffer? Uh things like this. Cuz the word for this is theodicy, right?
¶54How do we try to justify the ways of God? Um it's not new and it's there in the Bible itself in say the book of Job for example, where um where we have a human dealing with this God who is so other in many respects. Having said all that, um I do think that it is important to take seriously uh certain contexts with which within which say Isaiah 53 um occurs and is read and then was later thought about, especially in early Christianity. Um Isaiah 53 seems to be in a context in which the people have persistently violated God's covenant. And God had said, "If you persistently violate the covenant, I will send you into exile." And when you go into exile, which the people ended up going into exile, there's no way that you can offer God sacrifice.
¶55There's no way that you can be in this relationship where you have a means whereby you're receiving purification and forgiveness and maintaining a relationship with this God. Um and when that covenant is broken like that, um you're just on the outs. You're like the Gentiles. You cannot just go and the temple itself was destroyed. So, all kinds of things are fundamentally, profoundly broken.
¶56And it's into that that God sends the servant. And the servant is handed over to death. It's almost as if death and these evil forces are the ones who are actually the ones acting on the servant. And in the process of that, the servant redeems the people. They could not get themselves out of the situation that they had gotten into.
¶57The servant comes and gets them out of the situation. And the the story of the servant doesn't end with his suffering and death. It says that he will be greatly and highly exalted. Um and that, I think, is is a way of thinking about, just one way, again, not to say it's the only way, but one way of thinking about there are um there are things going on which God is doing, and as the New Testament would say, through his son, who then takes on this role of the servant. That are enabling the redemption of rebellious and fallen humanity who could not on their own uh simply reach up and um you know, make friends with God.
¶58So, so there's something that I think is important going on. What I would still then want to stress is that it's as Johnny was saying, it's not the only thing. And uh in many respects, I think you could actually view it as only the initiating thing. Um this gets us into big questions about whether or not we can think about a narrative or a story that's involved with atonement. Um redemption, if we go back to the people of Israel, when they were redeemed from Egypt, that was not their full salvation.
¶59That was not the end of the story. It was only the beginning of the story. They actually have to go into their promised land. And that story continues on um and this is something the New Testament is picking up on. So, I think there are ways then of looking at what's going on with the servant and seeing uh his death and his suffering are doing very particular work of redeeming, of making ground for a relationship with God, even restoring covenant relationship.
¶60But sacrifice is something different. It's It's working in a different part of the story and doing something other. And that I think helps us to begin expanding our scope as we talk about the atonement or the what Jesus does to save us. >> Maybe you've seen Christopher Nolan's epic movie The Odyssey, his adaptation of the famous Homeric myth. Maybe you've seen on social media all the debate of whether it was a faithful adaptation, whether it's really getting into the historical world of Homer.
¶61But if you want to get through all the rhetoric, see through all the winging and all the agitation, and actually understand the ancient world, try getting into the minds of the authors. See the world through ancient eyes, then join us at History's Last Stand, a sister podcast to the Ask Anything podcast. >> David, your book has a provocative thesis that Jesus' atoning work wasn't completed on the cross alone. Can you explain what you mean by that? >> Oh, right.
¶62Um Yeah, so that is definitely what I'm arguing. Um in our last session, we talked very briefly about William Tyndale and the way that he used this language of atonement both with reference to Jesus' death, as Paul talks about it on a few points, but then also with reference to Jewish sacrifice when he translated like the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament. Um what what I'm trying to do is interrogate that. And uh let me just begin by saying I think I think we need to be working with two different ways of talking about this language of atonement. One is the way that we just actually tend to use the word um in common discourse today, which is something like all of the work that Jesus does to save people.
¶63But, the other is, and here I'm just simply uh picking up on on Tyndale's choice. I We we could interrogate that and question it, but if we just take it as given because it has been um the way that we've tended to talk about these sacrificial matters for several centuries now, um we can think about atonement as a very particular thing that happens within the process of sacrifice. And it's really there in the sacrifice piece that I'm trying to think hard about how the Old Testament presents Jewish sacrifice as a way of um imagining or trying to imagine the kinds of assumptions that ancient people had when they thought about or talked about sacrifice, especially ancient Jews. Uh now, you might be wondering why that would matter. I I mean, let me just give a quick illustration.
¶64Um I think most of us today, when we imagine sacrifice, we just know that you take an animal and you put it bound on an altar and then you slaughter kill the animal. And in fact, we use the language of sacrifice often to mean the act of slaughtering the animal there on the altar. Well, I'm going to suggest that an ancient person would just know that you never kill any animals on the altar. Just full stop. Um now, this uh I mean, I can say this, if if anyone wants to go test this, please go read especially the first seven chapters of Leviticus and ask yourself the question, where is the animal being slaughtered?
¶65The altar in Leviticus is the outer altar has a fire that's burning on it perpetually. Um you have to when you sacrifice an animal, you have to um butcher you slaughter the animal, collect its blood in a bowl, you butcher the animal, you salt and wash parts of the animal, and then you put parts of the animal on the fire, which is on the altar. Now, I mean, just if you try to imagine, don't don't think too hard about it, doing all of that to a living animal that's been bound and placed on the fire, it it simply makes no sense at all. Now, that's that's a way then of saying that how how my early followers of Jesus have been thinking about sacrifice. The earliest followers of Jesus were Jewish.
¶66They uh had some of them, especially in Jerusalem, they they frequented the temple. In the book of Acts, we find the earliest followers of Jesus going to the temple even after the crucifixion uh to worship at the temple, which means that they're participating in one way or another in the sacrifices. They would not think of sacrifice as a single event that was simply about slaughtering an animal. For them, sacrifice was a larger process. And it involved giving a gift to God.
¶67And the way that the gift is conveyed into the presence of God is primarily by a priest taking the blood and the flesh to the altar. And the the flesh was burnt on the altar, and the smoke rose into God's presence as a pleasing odor. This is a refrain through parts of Leviticus. And in some cases, especially for uh sin offerings that made atonement, the blood could be taken into the tabernacle or into the temple in Jerusalem and there offered to God. So, now, when we look at this language of atonement.
¶68That language occurs with that transferral and especially the use of blood uh in God's presence. It does not happen when the animal is killed. It happens when the blood goes to the altar or into God's house and when when the parts of the animal are burned. That's what makes atonement. And that, if we think in this sacrificial way about this idea of atonement, not this broad way about all of that Jesus does to save us, I would suggest provides a way for us to think about Jewish sacrifice focusing our attention on Jesus returning into the presence of his father to offer his father his blood and flesh as a high priest in the heavenly holy of holies.
¶69All of that aligns with the process that we get in Leviticus to describe Jewish sacrifice. And if that's right, then there is work that Jesus is doing. Let's call it atonement because it's a sacrificial work that happens now that Jesus is before the father. It is not limited just to his death anymore than just slaughtering an animal did that work. You had to take the animal into God's presence for that work to be done.
¶70And that's what I'm trying to do by complicating this notion of atonement and thinking through a process and the the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. >> So, just to summarize, so new first-century Jew is going to be thinking if they see that on that understanding of sacrifice is not just the the killing of the animal but the taking of the blood into the presence of God. >> Yes. >> They're not going to see Jesus' death as just the complete sacrifice any more than they would see the the killing of the animal as the complete sacrifice. >> Precisely.
¶71>> this resurrection and ascension. So, Jesus is now in the presence of God presenting his blood to the father. Is is that how this is working? >> Yeah, basically. And here I think we do have to take metaphor seriously.
¶72Um Jesus is presenting his living self. It is himself that he offers as a sacrifice to the father. It is uh his risen blood and flesh. Whatever constitutes this reality. It is him as a risen Jewish human being who is presenting to the Father himself as a sacrifice.
¶73And um I would just add here that I think for a lot of us as moderns to go back to these ideas of assumptions that we hold, like we just know you kill animals on an altar. That's just that's just false. I mean, full stop. That that's it's not even a question of interpretation. Uh when you look at the text, it becomes clear.
¶74But we often don't see it because our assumptions are telling us, "Oh yeah, you're putting the animal on the altar and killing it." Well, we also just tend to somehow know that when the Father sends the Son away, he is sending him as a sacrifice. But there's a problem with this. You don't give God a sacrifice by taking it away from him. You give God a sacrifice by bringing it into his presence. So this is yet another way in which um a notion of the cross as the sum total of Jesus' offering of himself to God does not make sense in the New Testament's own language.
¶75Because the New Testament consistently links the death of Jesus with the Father sending the Son away. Paul says this very clearly in Galatians 4, for example, or in Romans uh 8:3, um that he sent the Son away um uh on account of sin to destroy sin um in his flesh. There there's something else that's going on there when God sends the Son away. And it's salvific. If we want to use our big category of atonement, it's atoning.
¶76But it's not sacrifice. What goes on with sacrifice is what happens when you bring a gift into God's presence. When God is pleased with the gift and accepts the gift, then there are benefits that come to the offerer. Uh and these benefits are all about purification and forgiveness, and that allows for ultimately a reconciliation between God and and the offerer. But it But it happens not when you kill the animal, but rather when God accepts the gift given to him.
¶77And I would suggest that that the way in which Jesus presents his gift of the sacrifice of himself is precisely when he returns to the Father and says, as Hebrews 2 has him quoting Isaiah 8, "Here I am Mhm. And the children that God has given me. I am presenting myself to you, and this is what's really pleasing to you. This is what you really wanted was restoration with a human being, and the eternal son is now that human being." This is why high priesthood and uh heavenly tabernacle uh and um uh language of heavenly intercession is invoked in a book like Hebrews with reference to the ascended son, not with reference to the sent away and crucified son per se. >> That is really interesting.
¶78Uh Johnny, you're writing a book at the moment on Hebrews, and I know that David's interpretation has been very influential. >> Yeah. >> Um what do you make of this this theory that the atonement is not just what happens on the cross, it's also Jesus going to the presence of God, which is his resurrection and his ascension as well? >> Yeah, I So I would agree with most of what what David has said, maybe with a couple of of slight tweaks, although it may just be that I've I've misunderstood um a couple of bits there, but um I think what one of the things that's really important to notice about Leviticus, And Leviticus is is key to understanding Hebrews. If you don't understand Leviticus, you don't understand Hebrews.
¶79And this is a problem because no one in the church seems to understand either of those books. Because they're both hard work, right? Um one of the key things with the sacrifices in Leviticus, as David has said, is atonement. You know, however we're understanding that word, atonement only happens when you take the blood of the creature into the presence of God. Only happens at that point.
¶80So, if you you know, let's imagine you're performing a sacrifice with a bull. If you get the bull and you kill the bull and you do nothing else, you have not affected atonement. Right? This is This is This is really central. Like we we can't make sense of anything else that we're talking about until we understand this, right?
¶81So, um I mean, David has a has a phrase in his in his um atonement and the logic of resurrection book where it's it's not the killing of the creature that affects atonement. It is the ritual manipulation of the blood that affects atonement. And this is This is really central. The reason why the blood is so important, and Leviticus again is really clear on this, is not because it's to do with the death of the creature, but because it's the life of the creature. So So, Leviticus 17, um "The life of the flesh is in the blood.
¶82And I have given it to you for making atonement on the altar." Right? And this is This is why Jewish people don't eat certain kinds of meat, right? Because it's to do with the blood that that flows through. I mean, there is there is a huge debate in Judaism at the moment as to whether Jews can eat lab-grown pork. And the chief rabbi has just released a statement saying it's fine because no blood has flown through the pork.
¶83So, it's fine. It's kosher, right? Anyway. Um So, the life of the creature is in the blood. So, what's being offered in the sacrifice isn't the death, it isn't the killing, it's the creature's whole life.
¶84Hmm. This is This is This is really important. This is, you know, um and again, it's really clear in Leviticus. It just says it in Leviticus 17:10-11. >> Is that also why Hebrews is emphatic that Jesus didn't sin?
¶85Because it's his entire life, his whole ministry that's being offered to God. >> Yes. And so, this is one of the one of the points where I would I would maybe just want to um ask a question of clarification about something David said in in a in a second. Um Hebrews basically says that Jesus is a high priest and that Jesus effects atonement in a way that is kind of analogous to what's going on in Leviticus. >> Mhm.
¶86>> So, it's some something like a Yom Kippur ritual, something like this this day of atonement ritual that is described in Leviticus 16. >> Mhm. >> Hebrews never explicitly identifies it as a Yom Kippur ritual, but there are kind of references to the blood of bulls and goats in Hebrews 9, which seems to be a reference to Yom Kippur. And so, what seems to be happening is that um Jesus is entering into the presence of the Father and offering his own blood, which yes, is shed on the cross. But what that blood contains isn't his death.
¶87It's the totality of his life, including his death. >> Wow. >> So, right from the moment of, I don't know, conception or birth, all the way up to and including his death. Um one of the points where I would I would would want to ask what David thinks about this is I think David said something like what's being offered is his resurrection life. I think what Hebrews is saying is that what Jesus offers is the totality of his perfectly faithful human earthly life.
¶88>> Mhm. >> So, everything up to and including his death, but not after that, if that makes sense. So, I'd be intrigued to see what David makes of that. Um >> Yeah. >> And then we can maybe talk about the resurrection and why it's important that all of this is post-resurrection as well, cuz this is another kind of fascinating bit about Hebrews.
¶89But I'd love to know what what David thinks about them. >> So, um one it's a it's a really good question, interesting question. Uh I don't when I talk about resurrection life, I don't intend to exclude. I I'm trying to talk about the way in which the resurrection um makes the incarnation a now and forever reality. So that that's not just one moment of incarnation or one point in the incarnation, but rather the eternal son because of the resurrection is now and forevermore the incarnate eternal son.
¶90Uh and it's it's his his own blood and flesh that he offers, which I presume he's able I mean, actually don't presume, I argue this for whatever I might be wrong, but this is what I argue that he's able to ascend into the presence of the holy and perfect father with holy and perfect human flesh and blood precisely because his resurrection is not just his corpse being, you know, resuscitated, but is the eschatological, that is the end times transformation of humanity that God has always promised to give to his people so that humanity becomes fit to enter into the presence of a holy God. We've talked a bit about Isaiah, right? In Isaiah chapter 6, when Isaiah walks into the temple as a priest and sees God, he thinks, "Well, it's game over for me. Like I'm just destroyed." And God sends an angel to purify him with a coal, and he's not destroyed. He's sent on a mission.
¶91That is I think a kind of parable or or a a a foreshadowing of the kind of purification to human mortality that happens when God reconstitutes creation uh such that it is no longer subject to death and decay. And I'm arguing that Jesus has crossed that that line into that reality where his his created human body uh which was like us in every way Hebrews says, yet without sin. >> Mhm. >> Um suffered, died, was subject to death and yet was transformed when he was raised up and became the first one to be this new creation. So, in that sense, um and Johnny, feel free to push back.
¶92Uh I I I'm very happy to include the In fact, I say something like this in the when I give the thesis of that first book, Atonement and the Logic Resur- and Resurrection, I talk about the full sweep of the incarnation. A lot of people who read my book seem to miss that, although it is my statement of the thesis of the whole book. Uh but the full sweep of the incarnation. And that means that um I I also I think I say this. I know I say this in print, but I think it's in that first book already.
¶93Maybe later. Um there's no no reason we can't retrospectively look back at the crucifixion and see it as part of the process of the sacrifice of the son. But it it would just be a category mistake uh to assume that simply the event of slaughter equals sacrifice because of this whole idea of bringing it into the presence of God. Now, then I could summarize that and perhaps again, Johnny, feel free to push back, but maybe you'd be happy with this. I I don't know.
¶94But I I I think you can say that you can talk about Jesus' death as a sacrificial death >> Mhm. >> without assuming that the death is the sacrifice. >> Mhm. >> Because what he offers is himself, the one who died and rose and is now present before the Father. That's the sacrifice, but it includes this whole process that has uh at its point of um initiation an act of slaughter.
¶95>> Mhm. >> I I don't know if that Johnny, feel free if you think I'm dodging >> No, no, no, I think I think that's really helpful and I think all of this shows why the resurrection is important. I mean um one of the things we haven't really talked about so far is this idea that Jesus is a high priest. >> Mhm. >> Yeah.
¶96>> And um Hebrews does some interesting theological gymnastics to come to that conclusion because you know, in Leviticus you are you are a priest or a high priest only if you are born to certain parents, if you are born into one of the the 12 tribes of of Israel, the the tribe of Levi, right? Um Hebrews says, well, Jesus wasn't. Right? Jesus was born into the tribe of Judah. So, what What do we do with this?
¶97And he goes in this kind of slightly um round the houses way of of identifying Jesus as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. >> Mhm. >> And everyone's first question when they read that is, who? >> Really old guy in Genesis. >> Yeah, yeah, cuz he appears, you know, briefly in Genesis and then in Psalm 110, but the Psalm 110 thing is a reference back to Genesis, so it's it's, you know, he's kind of this obscure figure.
¶98What seems to be happening there is because um one of the things you'll notice when you read the Old Testament is that it's very important who people's parents are. >> Mhm. >> Um people's genealogies are really important and this carries on into the New Testament as well. I mean, Matthew and Luke both place great importance on Jesus's genealogy in in various different ways. But Melchizedek has no genealogy.
¶99>> Mhm. >> And he he doesn't die. And so, there seems to be by the time we get to the first century, by the time we get to the the writing of the book of Hebrews, this belief amongst some Jewish people that Melchizedek was immortal. >> Mhm. >> That he has this kind of eternal life.
¶100And this, for the author of Hebrews, gives a way to connect Jesus and Melchizedek. >> Yeah. >> Because well, after Jesus' resurrection, he is immortal. Jesus has the life of someone who has gone through death and survived. >> Yes.
¶101>> But he could still be a Melchizedek figure. >> Yes. And crucially, his immortal resurrection life is the thing that qualifies him to be a high priest. In in in the order of Melchizedek. >> So, that's why the resurrection and ascension is so important.
¶102>> Yes. And and so therefore, it can only be after the resurrection >> Mhm. >> that Jesus does this atoning work, because he does it as a high priest. >> I see. >> Right?
¶103And so, if we're going if we can map Leviticus onto Hebrews and everything that Hebrews says about Jesus, well, if in Leviticus you get the bull and you kill the bull and then you don't do anything else, there's no atonement. >> Yeah. >> For Hebrews, if Jesus dies on the cross and then nothing happens, there is no atonement for sin. >> Mhm. >> It is only after he's resurrected and ascended into heaven and presents this, to use David's phrase, resurrection life >> Mhm.
¶104>> to to God the Father that atonement is effected. And so, you know, to go back to the the whole question of the show, is it just Jesus' death on the cross or is it the ascension and the resurrection? Yes. All of the above, right? If you >> Yeah.
¶105Yeah. >> If you stop, I mean, even if you stop at resurrection, >> Yeah. >> there is no atonement according to Hebrews. It's only after he ascends into back into heaven and presents this life to the Father that atonement is is made. >> I I can imagine some people viewing this and saying, I mean, there's that familiar phrase, the finished work of Christ on the cross.
¶106And, you know, they might point to a passages like I think John 19 where Jesus says, "It is finished." Whereas this seems to say that actually it wasn't finished on the cross. Um and I suppose that I I I also wonder whether I'd like to see how you'd respond to that, but I also wonder, you know, what do you do with the language of that early Christian confession, you know, in a place like 1 Corinthians 15 where it says that Christ died for our sins? The the emphasis seems to be put on the death of Jesus. Um do you see this kind of more extended sequence of atonement elsewhere in the New Testament or is this just a discussion between scholars of the book of Hebrews? What do you make of that, David?
¶107>> Uh no, it's it's definitely elsewhere and let's let's begin by picking up 1 Corinthians 15 because uh Paul actually says in 15:17, "If Christ is not raised, you are still in your sins." >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> I've often wondered what that meant. Yeah. >> Well, I mean uh yeah, and now what I'm about to say is is far from the only way to interpret that verse, but what if we allow that Paul has actually a larger set of categories that he can draw on which doesn't limit everything just to the crucifixion.
¶108Well, then 15:17 is seems to be a a tell that Paul knows you need the resurrection for forgiveness of sins as well. >> Yeah. >> I was like, "Well, how does that work?" Okay, well, there's some other places where Paul gives us a little bit more. Romans 8:34 is a is a classic one, right? Who is there to condemn?
¶109It's Christ Jesus who died. But more, was raised, is at the right hand of God, and is even interceding for us. Therefore, nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. 8:35 through 39, right? Well, what happens if Jesus is not at the right hand interceding?
¶110Mhm. Well, presumably the whole thing collapses and there is something that could separate you from the love of God. So, what kind of salvation is that? >> Can you just clarify there what you mean by interceding? Is this Is this Jesus um sort of talking to God the Father?
¶111Is this Jesus presenting himself or presenting his his his blood, his life to the Father? What What exactly is meant by that term? >> Yeah, so um I take it to be a priestly uh idea. Um the language is tricky, but the notion that you have an individual in God's presence who is interceding must involve some kind of um pleading or asking or talking. Uh you get a set a different image that seems to say the same thing in 1 John chapter 2 where Jesus is the advocate with the Father.
¶112Um this idea that he is advocating for us. Um you get the same idea in in Hebrews 7:25 that um he is able to save completely those who come to God through him because he always lives to intercede for them. That language is the same as Paul's in Romans 8:34. I think there's some kind of priestly idea underlying this. Takes a lot of argument.
¶113And we don't have time to go into the weeds, but that that's the short version. I think Paul is presenting Jesus as a high priest, not unlike Hebrews actually, >> Mhm. >> in the presence of the Father. Psalm 110 is being echoed here. He's at the right hand and he is actively interceding.
¶114And and it's for us. And if he weren't doing that act of intercession, then there's something incomplete in salvation. And it's right there. Like either we say, "Well, Paul thinks of Jesus' intercession is just some sort of nice add-on that, you know, like hooray. How you Yeah." Um I've heard it almost like he's cheerleading.
¶115But see, that's focused on us. Whereas interceding seems to be focused on the Father. Um and if you know, if Paul says that he's at the right hand interceding and then says nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, there would seem to be some necessity for the intercession. And it's exactly the necessity which raises which challenges the idea um to take your second point, that even Paul like Paul just thinks that the death is all that matters. So, and then, you know, you've also got Romans 10:9-10, right?
¶116If you believe in your if if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that he died for your sins, you will be saved. That's not what he says. He says, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." So, the resurrection is way more important for Paul uh than I think we sometimes see, perhaps because we've been sort of fixated on on the cross. And the cross is hugely important as well. I'm not trying to pit one against the other.
¶117I'm simply trying to say you need it all for salvation. The cross in that sense is not sufficient or enough for salvation. You must have the risen and ascended Christ, and you must have him interceding for us. >> It's it's all the way from the incarnation to the ascension. I like to think of it as this sort of sweeping motion of of rescue.
¶118>> Well, yeah. And in Hebrews 9:28 and 10:37, it's not even just the ascension and um intercession, it's his return. >> Yeah. >> Because Hebrews 9:28 says he will he will appear a second time to those who are waiting for them for him for their salvation. >> Mhm.
¶119Well, this is this has been really fascinating. I want to sort of tease out some of the theological implications of this more broadly and and the practical implications of this. A quick word from our sponsor, the University of St. Andrews. Their online Bible and the contemporary world program offers flexible postgraduate study for people who want to explore how theology and biblical studies connect with the issues shaping contemporary life.
¶120Students benefit from interactive online learning, detailed feedback, a clear weekly structure, and a global learning community with optional opportunities to connect in person in St. Andrews. The program welcomes students from a wide range of backgrounds including professionals, career changes, and curious thinkers. Search St. Andrews Bible and the contemporary world online to learn more.
¶121David, I I wonder what are some of the the key takeaways of this idea that the atonement is not just about what happened on the cross, but also involves the incarnation, the resurrection, the ascension. What are some big takeaways for you for how Christians think about the atonement, but also Christian life more broadly? Yeah, it's much in every way. Um Uh you know, I I I I think the the first thing um is that it actually allows us to take certain parts of the Old Testament um sort of at face value as it were. Um I I hesitate to say more seriously cuz I I think that would be too too loaded, but we can take Levitical sacrifice at face value and recognize that in fact just it's informative for how we think about Jesus and not just how we think about Jesus is informative for Levitical sacrifice.
¶122Both of these things must be true. But um but if if we just raise a kind of historical question, did the earliest followers of Jesus, you know, have a kind of fully formed theology of atonement fall from heaven into their minds? Uh or were they thinking about the only scripture that they had, which they believed was the voice of God to God's people, namely what we call the Old Testament, and reading it, and then thinking about, well, this must be who Jesus is. Uh now, theologically with the outpouring of the the spirit, the Pentecost event, there's got to be I mean, certainly the Johannine Jesus says there's going to be new revelation, things you'll remember and understand after the spirit comes. I'm not trying to deny that.
¶123But I'm trying to say that we can actually go back and read uh say Leviticus, and actually allow it to help us think about what's going on with Jesus without simply forcing onto Leviticus categories that don't quite fit. To go all the way back to our very first session together, um penal substitution ideas are not there in Jewish sacrifice. That's not a problem. We can let Leviticus be Leviticus, and it might actually help us read parts of the New Testament better. So that that would be one thing I would say right off the bat.
¶124But the other thing I would say is that if if we understand that Jesus is presently before the Father at his right hand interceding for us. And if we think about that in terms of Levitical sacrifice, and what it was doing, what was Levitical atonement or sacrificial atonement doing within the covenant relationship? It was providing a way to um heal certain problems or breaches that arose within that relationship. So, if I sin, well, there is a means for dealing with that sin, and it was giving God a certain kind of sacrifice. And so long as I'm truly repentant, the offering of that sacrifice would bring atonement, purification, and forgiveness.
¶125Part of what I would say uh is then happening with the ongoing intercession of Christ is that we still have a means of repairing the relationship when we mess up. So, I don't want to speak for anyone listening, but I still happen to sin from time to time. I still mess up. And uh you know, it's not like I think, "Oh, well, it's game over because that was all." Or I think, "Well, it was all taken care of in the past, so who cares?" And here I'm just going to jump quickly to 1 John uh because the author of 1 John says, it you know, that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. Uh and the blood of Jesus the righteous one purifies us from all unrighteousness.
¶126Purification, forgiveness, confession, sin, this is sacrifice. This is Levitical sacrificial stuff. But he says this like not not like you confess once and then it's done and dusted, you never have to do it again, but rather because of the reality of ongoing sin. Now, how do I know that? Because in chapter 2 verses 1 and 2, he says, "My little children, I write these things that I was just talking about.
¶127Confess your sin, and Jesus will forgive you your sin, so that you don't sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, and he is our atoning sacrifice. >> Mhm. >> Look at the focus. It's not Jesus did died in the past and so you don't have to worry about your sin.
¶128And it's not like confessing the sin is just good for you as a like good for the soul. >> Yeah. >> It's that you confess your sin because you have someone who can deal with it. And that someone who can deal with it is the advocate Jesus who is the sacrifice before the Father right now. >> Mhm.
¶129>> Um you know, that that's another case where I think we see these logics in play and they suggest that when we dare I say recover uh certain ways of thinking about relationship with God and sacrifice and Jesus, we see that this really isn't ongoing relationship. >> Mhm. >> Uh right now that does require us to go to our Lord and say, I am sorry. I sinned with the confidence that he can intercede for us and there's a means for maintaining the relationship. Not unlike, but much better than, Hebrews would argue, what was going on in the old covenant.
¶130>> I I'd like to discuss what this means then for the assurance of someone's salvation. >> Mhm. >> Um because I I suppose if someone stays in sin and they don't go to they don't go back to Jesus, does that mean that they might lose their salvation? Johnny, I wonder if you have any thoughts on this. I know it's a big question.
¶131>> Yeah, thank you for coming to me with that question. Yeah, it's a it's a big one and there is um there is a really tricky passage at this in Hebrews 6 where it they kind of it addresses this and it talks about, you know, once you have fallen away, you can't then go back to Christ cuz it would be like recrucifying Christ essentially, um which is always a tricky passage to to preach on and to teach. Um, my reading of Hebrews is that, um, there is that assurance there. The language of Hebrews is that this has been done once for all. >> Mhm.
¶132>> And so, I think in Hebrews 6, the author of Hebrews is talking about a hypothetical. Like, this this isn't possible in theory because this has been done once for all. Right? And so, as as David said towards the end there, um, Hebrews wants to say that everything that Jesus has done is like, but better than what happens in Leviticus. >> Mhm.
¶133>> Um, because every component part of Jesus's sacrifice, sacrifice in that broad sense of that ongoing process, is better than the Levitical counterpart. So, just on a basic, very mundane level, Jesus's life is more valuable than a bull. >> Mhm. >> Right? Because it is the life of of ultimate human obedience to God.
¶134Um, I mean, this is one of the fascinating things about Hebrews is that Hebrews never talks about faith in Christ. It only ever talks about faith in God, and often it's Christ's faith in God the Father. And it's this life of perfect faithfulness that is offered to the Father. And so, the thing being offered is better. The location where it's offered is better because it's not in the heavenly temple.
¶135It's in Sorry, it's not on the earthly temple, it's in the heavenly temple. It's in the very presence of God. And the high priest performing the ritual is better because the Levitical high priests pass away and die. I mean, you know, Hebrews just makes that very basic point. They are mortals.
¶136They will pass away and die at some point. They will have to be replaced, but Jesus is a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek in the way that we talked about. And so, the way I read Hebrews is it talks about it kind of entertains this possibility of losing the effect of that sacrifice, but I think in practice, my reading of Hebrews is that I don't think he thinks that's possible. >> Mhm. The once this is done, it is done.
¶137Whether you like it or not, kind of thing. >> Yeah. David, what do you make of that? >> Yeah, I I am I read Hebrews a bit differently on this point. I I I think Hebrews is um is serious in this warning.
¶138But um you know, I I think here I would want to say from a more theological and indeed even pastoral point of view, Hebrews is not the only uh text in the New Testament. There are other passages and uh I think Paul, for example, uh this Romans 8:34-39 passage that um we talked about in the last session, um Paul seems to say that because of the ongoing intercession of the one who died and rose and is at the right hand, nothing can separate us from the love of God. Um I think you know, I think Paul takes how we live very, very seriously. Sometimes that can be kind of diminished a bit uh when we read Paul and think, well, if nothing can separate you, then who cares how you live? I I think there are there are good theological ways to address that question, but ultimately in a text like Romans at the end of Romans 8, Paul seems to be putting everything on the work of Jesus.
¶139That is what brings assurance and security. And I think Hebrews doesn't quite view it that way in that Hebrews I think thinks you can separate yourself ultimately if you choose to walk away from this community. And I think this is where he takes the story of Esau, which he refers to in 12:18, uh and the story of Israel at Kadesh Barnea, uh who refused to obey God and end up missing the inheritance. He takes that as um as a pretty serious warning. Now, this is the only I I assume that this is the only writing in the New Testament we have from this author.
¶140Um he whoever wrote Hebrews uh was intended I think to be preached as a sermon. I I would hate to extrapolate, you know, an entire theology for this person based on this sermon. But I think Hebrews on its own terms uh is is a bit more um is a bit harsher in terms of that warning. But Hebrews is not the only text in the New Testament and Paul in Romans 8, uh 1 John in 1 John 1:7 through 2:2, um and even Hebrews itself with the idea of Jesus perpetually interceding on behalf of his people are continually holding out this idea that this is being this is work that is done for you. >> Mhm.
¶141>> So, it's not you earning your salvation. It is Jesus who is doing it for you. Avail yourself of the opportunity to return to God. Uh in some way this is a bit far afield, but in some way, you know, Luke's parable of the pro that what we call the prodigal son, when the he goes away, he he disgraces his family, he disgraces himself, he squanders his inheritance from his father. He as much as says to his father, "I wish you were dead." >> Mhm.
¶142>> And then he realizes, "I made a huge mistake." And he goes back to his father. And his father is waiting for him and comes running out and embraces him. I feel like that's uh the general idea that Jesus' perpetual intercession provides for us in our relationship with God. That there is a means there and it's Jesus and he desires us to come back. Uh And and that is that is a a means that is always there for us because the risen Jesus always lives to intercede for us.
¶143>> Mhm. Johnny, I want to I want to talk also about the Eucharist or Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper. It has many names and many different theologies that attach to it. I suppose the I suppose the most basic view would be that this is just a memorial. We are just sort of remembering Jesus' death, but on the other hand, you have the view that this is actually some kind of sacrifice.
¶144That it's a participation in what's going on in the heavenly realms. And when I sort of encountered David's thesis, I I thought, "Oh gosh, this actually sounds like a lot more like a Catholic view of what's happening in the Eucharist, that Jesus is sort of always interceding and sort of presenting his blood his life to God." I wonder, you know, does this have any bearing on how we might view the Lord's Supper today? >> Yeah, I'm sure it does. I mean, I think it's it's not insignificant that it it is Jesus' body and blood that we're talking about because as as David really helpfully explained earlier, they are the kind of the key material components of sacrifice, right? And so I think there is a sense in which if as Leviticus 17 says really clearly, the life of the creature is in the blood, then what's happening, in my opinion, when you partake of the Eucharist, when you drink this blood, is that you are participating in Jesus' life.
¶145But crucially again, not just his death. The whole thing, the whole sweep of that incarnate resurrection life is the thing that you are participating in, right? And that has all sorts of I think really important pastoral implications for the life of discipleship today. I mean, one of it so you I mean, you you very kindly mentioned that I have this this book coming out next year, um which is called The Cross Enough, If The Cross Is Not Enough, just to give a kind of slight spoiler warning for what the book is going to argue. Um But in in that I I kind of tried to tease out some of the implications of of all of this stuff that we've been talking about for for the Christian life.
¶146And one of the things I argue is if what Jesus argues is the perfect life of human faithfulness, then Jesus' human life shows us something about what human flourishing looks like. And actually, that leads to all sorts of really surprising things. Right? Because well, it doesn't look like getting married and having kids. Cuz Jesus didn't do that as far as we know.
¶147It doesn't look like wealth and luxury. And one of the places I go to in the book, and we can I mean, this is maybe to kind of touch on some slightly controversial works of scholarship at the minute, but um David Tooms and some other people have done some really important work on Jesus as a victim of sexual abuse. Um and specifically in the moment of crucifixion. Um when the crucifixion is depicted in in art, it's often, you know, he's often kind of clothed in some sense, but we know that is not what would have happened at the crucifixion. He would have been kind of displayed publicly completely naked.
¶148Um and people like David Tooms argue, I think really convincingly, that this is a form of sexualized violence. It is a form of sexual abuse. I mean, we know that the whole point of crucifixion was to make a public display of its victims, right? And so, if we're if we're talking about a Messiah who is who lives the perfect human life, and yet is in some way a victim of sexual abuse, I mean, that is huge. Right?
¶149That is huge in all sorts of ways. It doesn't It's not to glorify the violence. But what it is to do is to say that none of that abuse or violence downgrades or diminishes the quality of Jesus' life. >> Yeah. >> Because it is it It is precisely that life that is offered to the Father.
¶150And so I think And this is to, you know, we're now a world away from the Eucharist, but um I think there is something really important there about um the life of survivors of abuse and um the value and worth of their life. >> Mhm. >> And something about Jesus participating in that as well. >> Mhm. Yeah.
¶151>> Um Yeah, I mean, like I say, we've we've gone a way away off from Eucharist, so I can >> And that that can be teased out in many different directions because obviously people have often spoken about um the disabled God on the cross as well. And, you know, how I mean, there might be debates about whether you classify Jesus as disabled um or a non-able-bodied person on the cross, but >> Yeah. >> whether he's, you know, temporarily impaired. But that doesn't seem to take away from his his perfect value >> Yeah, yeah. >> in that moment when his body is broken.
¶152>> But from everything we know about the gospel accounts of of the resurrection and the post-resurrection appearances, when Christ is serving as high priest in heaven offering atonement for our sins, he's doing so with a wounded body. >> Mhm. >> Right? Cuz those those wounds are there after the resurrection. >> Yeah.
¶153>> And this is, you know, as David said, this is the perfect culmination of humanity. And it is deeply wounded. >> Yeah. >> And I think there are there are all sorts of really important things that we can draw out from that in terms of how we respond to victims of violence and abuse in all sorts of different ways that Christ shows us in his post-resurrection body that whilst those things are horrific, they do not downgrade or devalue the worth of the human that suffers them. >> Yeah.
¶154David, you have a program at St. Andrews uh called the Bible in the contemporary world. I wonder, you know, have you thought about the implications of your your thesis for sort of yeah, this this contemporary moment and thinking about humanity in this moment? >> Yeah, um so I mean, this program allows students to explore a number of different things that might actually pique their own interests. Uh it's not just a set um series of modules that everyone has to take.
¶155There are some of the that, but then you're allowed to branch off and do other things. Um and there's some really interesting I I actually myself have not yet done one of those. But as I think about some of the ways that this work can can be has the potential to at least engage in conversation with contemporary realities. I mean, one of the things that I think it must begin to do is challenge the ease with which we use the concept of sacrifice to uh sanctify or make holy um political violence and political power. Um you know, that sacrifice like this Levitical this isn't even just Levitical.
¶156This is ancient sacrifice. It is always given to a god. It is never just a giving up. >> Mhm. >> Uh that that's very much a focus on humanity, right?
¶157To think about giving something up. That's not an ancient view of sacrifice. You do give up, but it's always a giving to. And and for um Levitical uh biblical sacrifice, that giving to is always a giving to the god who has created all things. So, that I think has profound implications for the ease with which we vest political authorities with um holiness almost when we talk about sacrificing for the nation or something like that.
¶158>> Yeah. >> Um this this these are not biblical ideas of sacrifice. Whatever we do with them, right? And you know, they're they're just this is not what's going on um when we talk about biblical ideas of sacrifice. So >> Mhm.
¶159This is a final question I want to put to both of you because some people would say, "Look, I've got my relationship with God, my relationship with Christ. I actually don't need a kind of doctrinal map. I don't need a theory of the atonement. You know, what's important is the atonement and people experience the effects of that atonement without knowing anything about theology. Um so I suppose not only is it sort of pitched for kind of a theology program, but why do we need a theory of atonement?
¶160I'll put it to you first, David. And then we'll come come to Johnny. >> Yeah, well, um I mean, in one sense, um I can say, "Well, yes." I mean, my belief in Jesus um is a belief that I hope has enough humility to say that he's the one who saves me and if I don't know exactly how that works, that doesn't change the reality of what he does, has done, and is doing. >> Mhm. >> Having said that, if if you don't have um a well-thought-through idea this, then I mean, I think one of the things is you open yourself up to be um sort of I mean, this image is in the New Testament blown around by whatever happens to be the trend or discussion at the moment.
¶161And you know, and it can it can become difficult to sort out. Why should I think about um the the the truly valuable um thing that a soldier has done, say to to help other people live in peace and safety. Um why should I question whether or not that's a sacrifice? Uh you have you don't really have the tools to think critically about the way in which someone might uh because I'm not trying to say always, but might co-opt these ideas and begin to use them to curry their own power and and to to get people simply to accept and um valorize things that perhaps as a Christian we ought not to accept and valorize. Um the those would be some of the reasons that among many others um that that I think these things actually do matter and some some good hard thinking about it um is essential uh as we as we try to be faithful um in our walk with each other in churches and in our walk with our savior.
¶162>> Mhm. Jonny, is there anything you'd like to add to that? >> Uh loads, yeah. Um I think one of the first things I would say is that everyone has a theory of atonement. >> Yeah.
¶163>> Um I think the key thing is as David says whether it's a a well thought out theory of atonement. And so um you know, making sure that your theology is as is as thorough and well thought out as possible is always a good thing. I think you know, it's interesting you talked about kind of the relationship between the sorry, did I cut you off between like you know, relationship and sacrifice? >> Mhm. >> And it's interesting cuz one of the things that we haven't talked about is why Leviticus has all these sacrifices anyway.
¶164>> Mhm. >> Um and I'm aware that we're we're running a bit short on time, so I'll try and do this as briefly as possible, but um the the issue in Leviticus is impurity fundamentally. It's not sin, it's impurity. Impurity is contagious and it's caused by death, fundamentally. It's caused by corpses, which is obviously a symbol of death.
¶165Something called lepra, which is not leprosy. There are no lepers in the Bible, despite how it's translated. This is like a flaky skin condition that makes you look like a corpse, hence it's a symbol of death. And then the other main cause of impurity is loss of bodily fluids. So, loss of blood, loss of semen, bodily fluids.
¶166All that symbolizes a loss of life for reasons that we've talked about. And this is important because the God of Israel is Yahweh, whose very name comes from the verb to to be or to exist, right? And so, if impurity is death, and God is life, those two things can't exist. And so, the whole point of these ritual sacrifices in Leviticus is to get rid of impurity, so that God, who is life, can live and dwell and be with his people. Right?
¶167That's the point of all of this. Matthew Thiessen has got a really great book on this called Jesus and the forces of death, and he has this great line where he says that all of these sacrifices um are for the purpose of maintaining Israel's relationship with God, right? And so, all of this matters because it shows that even in Leviticus, when it just seems like stuff is getting slaughtered arbitrarily, the overriding impulse of God is to be with his people. This is This is why this matters. This is why this is important, because it reveals something about the same God who sent his son to go and perform this sacrifice in heaven for us, right?
¶168It's all the same God. The same impulse is there. The same love for his people is there. The same desire to be with his people is there. And so, it It's not a It's not an either/or.
¶169It's not, you know, as I occasionally hear preached, you know, that Judaism is about works and doing stuff, and then Jesus comes and upends all of that, and it's about grace and do what you want. It's not that at all, right? All of this is about this quote-unquote relationship with God. And so, that's why well, that's one of the many reasons why all of this is important. >> I think that's a good place to end.
¶170Johnny, David, thank you so much for joining me for this discussion. It's been great to have you on. Well, Johnny and David, I think you've given us a real incentive to go back to our books and not only to experience the atonement, but also to think about it. Thank you so much for joining us on the show. I'd really recommend viewers to check out David Moffitt's book Rethinking the Atonement: New Perspectives on Jesus' Death, Resurrection, and Ascension.
¶171And the book that Johnny mentioned earlier is coming out next year with Hodder. So, and that was called Johnny? >> The Cross Is Not Enough. >> The Cross Is Not Enough. So, do check those out.
¶172Thank you so much for joining me on Unbelievable.