Here is another Study response for Relay – this time on the Atonement.

If the cross is where God punishes his innocent son instead of me is it an act of cosmic child abuse?

Defining the above question

This question is a common challenge levelled at the Christian belief in the atonement. To examine this objection then we first need to define the atonement itself. The word atonement is a contraction of at-one-ment, to unite two other things. This is very much at the core of understanding the atonement, it is the method by which the Christian is brought together with God; it is the answer to the question, how can a holy God have any part with sinful man.

Important questions must be answered for any serious discussion on the atonement to occur:

What is atoned for?

The sin of fallen man, deserving punishment, being under a penalty that must necessarily be paid if God is to be just.

Who is atoned for?

Fallen humanity, any that accepts the atonement, by faith, comes under its power and status.

Who is the one that atones?

Christ, the one whose death at the cross, paid the penalty for sinful man.

What did the atonement achieve?

That any person, by faith in Jesus Christ through his atoning death might not be subject to the penalty of sin but live in harmony with God.

Why was it necessary?

For God to be just the penalty for sin must be met, a perfect sacrifice was needed to atone for the sin of humanity that no man could bear or pray the price for.

With this in mind we are able to start assessing this question of whether Jesus death on the cross is an act of cosmic child abuse. First we must deal with the ‘If’ at the start of the statement. The cross is where Jesus takes the punishment of the wrath of God in place of a fallen humanity; there is no other action of any other person existent and no other part of the life of Christ by which atonement may occur. Secondly the use of the word ‘me’, to be clear whilst this question is personal, with its application to self the actuality of the atonement is necessarily greater in that the atonement envelops the sinfulness of the whole of humanity (1 John 2:2). Having dealt with those two ideas in the question we are able to move further in an analysis.

What is atonement?

A further understanding of the atonement would be gained through looking at when and where the bible mentions atonement (taken from the NIV), these together will provide a clearer picture of the atonement as a whole. In the NIV there are 98 direct uses of the word atonement in the Old Testament (OT) and yet only four in the new, the OT context is then likely of importance.

Put the atonement cover on the Ark of the Covenant law in the Most Holy Place – Exodus 26:34

The atonement cover of the Ark of the Covenant is the first use of the word atonement in the bible. The atonement cover refers to the lid of the chest containing the stone tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed that was contained in the most holy place in God’s sanctuary in the centre of his people. The atonement cover had two cherubim wings outstretched and God’s presence was manifest, in the most holy place, on the atonement cover between them.  If atonement is to be united with God then this would come forth logically from the place where God manifests his presence, thus atonement is the place where God meets his people.

The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven. – Leviticus 5:10

Sacrifices of atonement were common in Levitical law; the priests are to sacrifice animals to atone for the various sins of the people in order to bring about forgiveness. Something had to die, blood had to be spilled, symbolic of the cost that was paid for the sin, the penalty incurred. In numbers Aaron has to make atonement to appease the wrath of the lord.

The sacrifice of atonement culminates in a yearly ‘day of atonement’ in which the high priest makes atonement for the sins of all God’s chosen people.

Aaron is to offer the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household. Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting. He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat. Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the Lord and sacrifice it for a sin offering. But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat – Leviticus 16:6-10

On this day the high priest is to wear his sacred garments and sacrifice first a bull for his own household, sprinkling its blood on the atonement cover of the ark. Then there are two goats, note that when the lords goat is the one that is slaughtered as a sacrifice and the sin is transferred to the second goat which is sent away. Through this, symbolically, the sin of God’s people is taken away and his punishment is taken, quite specifically by the lord himself, it is his goat that is slaughtered.

So what insight are we given from these views? We take from the OT that it is necessary that something has to be sacrificed for sin, thus it has a cost, or a penalty that must be paid. It is necessary for that sacrifice to be made for the whole of God’s people to bring about forgiveness for the sin of all of them. We also see that on the day of atonement it is God’s own sacrifice that is given the penalty, he himself who takes the sacrifice.

So what of the four verses from the New Testament? Well two refer respectively to the day of atonement (Acts 27:9) and to the atonement cover (Hebrews 9:5), the others then are here quoted:

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished – Romans 3:25

For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people – Hebrews 2:17

What we see in Christ is the fulfilment of what was a symbolic act in the OT. We see Christ as the sacrifice of atonement, by whose blood forgiveness is bought (propitiated) and by whose death sin would be cast away (expiated). And that it would be God himself, coming in Christ, made in every way human who could be the great high priest, worthy to make the sacrifice once and for all for the sins of God’s people. This forgiveness that is bought is to be received by faith, by God’s chosen people. Using this information we can finally answer the question.

A bad response

Child abuse is defined as the physical or emotional maltreatment of a young person. This is important as at the age at which Christ went to the cross he was in his early thirties, he would be regarded as in control of his mental faculties and of an age at which he could make informed decisions. Thus Jesus made the choice in his own free will to go to the cross and received the punishment we deserved thus diffusing the wrath of God against humanity.

Why is this a bad response? Whilst not wrong its entirety it falls down for two reasons, first that if a person is choosing to be abused, even of their own free will that still merits abuse; but even without that this answer very much sees Jesus as a third party in the propitiation of our sins and very much misses the reality of the triune God. To extract Jesus from the trinity and make him separate would be to either remove his deity, or class ourselves as polytheists; under which accusations of ‘cosmic child abuse’ would be nigh on impossible to refute.

A good response

The God of Christianity needs to be understood in no uncertain terms as a triune God were God to send his own son to the cross as a being fully separate to himself then abuse could be mandated. However is the Lord of heaven himself comes to earth himself in humility as man and through his death, takes himself the penalty that his people deserve then not only does any idea of abuse very quickly disappear but  we are given the most incredible picture of grace the world has ever or will ever see. That God not only bears our just punishment thus propitiating us but also removes our sins and purifying us but that he does so out of Love for his chosen people – beyond any comparison.

By this God was able to both maintain his righteousness by showing perfect justice but also show his love in incredible mercy and grace to his people. We are loved and held close by a father who desires our good and is not only powerful enough but also loving enough to carry that out. What other hope do a sinful people have? we simply can’t self-propitiate, nor could we stand before God without his intervention to justify us through Christ. This view doesn’t allow for any idea of ‘cosmic child abuse’ but instead leads us to praise the name of the one who brought us life by the death of Christ on the cross.

Our right response

Oh that the atonement may ever occupy the highest place in our theology and in our hearts that we could not help but praise in the words of Robert Lowry:

What can wash away my sin?

Nothing but the blood of Jesus;

What can make me whole again?

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Nothing can for sin atone,

Nothing but the blood of Jesus;

Naught of good that I have done,

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Oh! precious is the flow

That makes me white as snow;

No other fount I know,

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.