Substitutionary Atonement and Evolution, Part 1 | The BioLogos Forum

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

“If Jesus didn’t die in order to overcome humanity’s original sin, then why did Jesus die? What is Jesus, the second Adam, attempting to restore with the cross, if not the sin of the first Adam?”

Here’s my two cents:

I believe substitutionary atonement is one of the models of atonement theory that unquestionably belongs in orthodox Christian theology. Paul and other biblical writers clearly and repeatedly represent Jesus’ death as being substitutionary (He died for us and in our place) and as taking our punishment. Alone, the substitutionary model does not describe everything the cross and resurrection accomplished and continues to accomplish, which is why we have other models and metaphors to flesh out the fullness of what the atonement means. (Christus Victor where Christ conquers sin, death, and the power of evil, the representative model, where Christ is the faithful Israelite and succeeds where every other human has failed, the judicial/legal model where our debts are paid or our crimes are acquitted, the ransom/rescue metaphor where we are rescued from the Kingdom of darkness and brought over to the Kingdom of light, etc.)

It seems you are presenting a false choice. I hear you saying, if there was no historical fall or historical Adam, than the whole substitutionary atonement model falls apart. Not necessarily. That is only the case if the only point of the cross is to deal with original sin. “Original sin” is a theological construct that can be understood in a variety of ways, and furthermore, what church is teaching that the point of the cross is to erase Adam’s sin, or put another way, erase humanity’s sinful nature? Clearly, the cross didn’t restore humanity to a state of actual sinlessness, at least not in the present.

I have appreciated reading Scot McKnight and Peter Enns on this subject, particularly their exploration of the “image of God” or Eikons as represented throughout redemptive history, and their understanding of sin as rebellion against God’s rightful rule. For example in The King Jesus Gospel, McKnight traces the history of failed Eikons from Adam and Eve (which you don’t have to understand as the literal genetic father and mother of all humanity, you can take them to be representative of God’s original covenant with humanity) to Abraham, to the people of Israel, to the kings of Israel. The story of redemption is the story of Christ as the faithful image bearer of God, whose death and resurrection make possible the faithful image bearing of the Church, a people brought out of rebellion and into the Kingdom, submitted to Christ’s faithful rule as God’s ultimate Eikon.

What Jesus restored is the possibility for right relationship with God and submission to his rule, not sinlessness. The rebellion that Adam and Eve represent and all humans participate in is treachery and you cannot build a Kingdom of traitors. We all deserve to die for our treason. Not because God is cruel, but because he is the just and rightful ruler of his own world and he cannot tolerate treason and effectively rule the world he created. The cross makes a way for us to belong to God’s people and be faithful subjects of the Messianic King to whom God has granted all authority, because it vicariously puts to death the treason in our hearts.

I don’t think the Cross makes sense outside of a larger eschatological picture that encompasses the mission of God on earth. It was God’s plan from eternity to be united with his creation and to live with his people in a New Creation, no matter what you believe about the origins of those people or how the Old Creation got here. Since the beginning, there has been the promise of the New Creation, which has been breaking into our world with the Incarnation, the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and Pentecost. The goal is not sinlessness (though that will be a beautiful feature of the fully established Kingdom of God on earth) the goal is the undisputed and uncontested reign of God mediated by Christ, his only faithful Eikon.

[Daniel_Carroll]

I see this question raised occasionally, and I believe that the logic behind it is flawed. The way I look at it is that the observation that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” is a fairly obvious empirical observation. In fact, many of the world’s religions are set up to regulate and deal with the fallen nature of humanity. For non-Christian religions (and many Christian varieties), a system of legalism tightly regulates human behavior. Therefore, I don’t think the existence of sin and evil in this world can be logically questioned.

However, theories on the origin and the “why” of sin are a separate issue. Indeed, while Paul probably had a literal Adam and Eve in mind, they are not actually central to his writings. “As in Adam all died …” does not necessarily denote a physical decent any more than does “in Christ all are made alive.” I see that passage more as an illustration of the meaning of the Cross then a laying down of a doctrinal statement on origins.

On the question of “why” there is sin in the world and “why” we are condemned for the actions of a distant ancestor, a literal Adam and Eve poses more questions than it answers. Fortunately, the “why” is not really that important, except to satisfy our curiosity, as the “why” was Job’s downfall.

I like Christy Hemphill’s comment, especially on the idea that multiple theories of atonement are appropriate. I think what she illustrates is that theology is non-linear - it is not necessarily true that A leads to B which leads to C, D, and E. It may not always satisfy our craving for neat logical packages, but we have deeper needs to fulfill.

Other issues he raises illustrate the tensions between God’s sovereignty and free will - how can God’ Son be crucified if He did not will it? Did he “allow” it to happen, or did he “make” it happen? This is a variation on a 2000 year debate.

[Janos_Biro (János Biró)]

I still have not found a plausible explanation: what about those who have died ages before Jesus? And - what about those who have died for him in a geographically distant continents?

[Martin_Mayberry]

The problem I see is you over think what God says! The wages of Sin is death ,sin is wrong and opposed to God and demands death!. if you sin you die, the cross of Christ makes it possible for man and God to get along again! Don’t attempt to over think the issue, just accept what the Bible says!

[jlock (Jim Lock)]

@Janos_Biro Janos, You’ve touched on a very challenging question and my short answer is that I don’t know. Romans does provide a clue in that people who don’t have the law are ‘judged differently.’ However, I’m sure you’ve come across this answer before and obviously found it unsatisfying. There are also indications that God is outside of time and the I believe the Bible shows a trend of increasing inclusiveness. Perhaps there is some part of the Final Judgement that allows those people the opportunity to choose. (Along those lines, I believe Revelation describes people choosing to live outside of the perfected Jerusalem). A critic could point out that such an answer is a bit convoluted and I have no response other than that I’m okay with not knowing. Abraham’s faith was counted as righteousness before he got his answers and the establishment of the covenant. An increasing part of my personal growth is an increasing tendency to accept that I don’t know for sure and that is ok. Sorry I couldn’t give you a more concrete response.

Respectfully,
Jim Lock