Pitch Perfect, Part 1
Untangling Atonement From Its Pagan Roots
The basic conception for the Bible doctrine of atonement is the assumption that God and man are ideally one in life and interests, so far as man’s true life and interest may be conceived… Hence, it is everywhere assumed that God and man should be in all respects in harmonious relations, “at-one.” Such is the ideal picture of Adam and Eve in Eden. Such is the assumption in the parable of the Prodigal Son; man ought to be at home with God, at peace in the Father’s house. — William Owen Carver
I remember, as a teen in a family still in the process of coming out of a cultish upbringing with all of its Very Important and Grave Judgments, being quite possessed with the notion that God had chosen specific words vital to the safe-keeping of “true doctrine.” And that it behooved true believers to diligently defend these “self-evident” teachings.
With that sense of self-importance the young muster when they believe they are on to something bigger than themselves (in moderation not a bad thing), I asked my dad for his hallowed Christian Book Distributors catalog and bought a Bible. Not just any Bible, but a “proper” a one, one that faithfully featured the word, and many others like it. Naturally, I thought, Bibles that failed to dignify themselves with this word were suspect, maybe even of the enemy.
In hindsight, it is likely that in being enamored with the prospect that here was a ten-dollar term few understood, I had become an evangelical edge-Lord (an edge to what end, I have no idea) guilty of doctrinal appropriation. It felt grand to accept the burden of such a significant issue.
The word was propitiation.
At the time, of course, I did not realize the danger in making the study of anything a study in dogmatic theology.
Vitriolic discourse on topics like Salvation, Heaven/Hell, and the Word of God reinforce a tendency to treat Christianity as a curated collection of doctrines. Doctrines that, like the children of aggressively possessive parents, are lived through only vicariously.
As William Owen Carver notes, how God and man were reconciled, what constitutes new life, where we go after we die, and in what manner we characterize Scripture as divinely inspired have occupied “so central a place in Christian dogmatics that the very terms have come to have a theological rather than a practical atmosphere. It is by no means easy for the student, or even for the seeker after the saving relation with God, to pass beyond the accumulated interpretation of the Atonement and learn of atonement.”
It came as a surprise to me, then, when after a few years of travel, exploration and an opening-up of perspective, I found that God had not chosen propitiation (which stems from a Latin word) at all.
The Real Generation Gap
The modern reader has three barriers when it comes to understanding the Bible.*
1 History. We are unfamiliar with the historical events surrounding the text, including forces that influenced the time period yet are not explicitly mentioned.
2 Culture. We are unfamiliar with the customs and manners of the characters in the text and the region they inhabited.
3 Language. We are unfamiliar with the original languages the text is translated from, as well as idiomatic forms, metaphors, rhetorical devices, literary genres, etc.
Concerning the latter, it is fascinating how much our interpretative mood shifts once we know that, say, the book of Revelation, though written in Greek, is an example of Hebrew apocalyptic literature and thus favours parallelisms over chronology. Or that some of the parables Jesus told are fine examples of 1st-century satire.
Take a language as formidably ancient as Chinese. Here, one quickly encounters vocabulary that has no easy direct translation. Even in the case of everyday words like 关系 guānxì and 不好意思 bù hǎoyìsi, the English relationship and sorry just don’t have nearly the same expressive force or contextual nuance as the originals.
This is because language is so inextricably tied to culture. Outside of that culture, the ability to fully grasp the intended meaning is no trivial matter. Thus, in the art of translating, one is forced to choose words that pass as “close enough.” The danger here, of course, is that your translation, in the ears of cultural outsiders, runs the risk of being pre-loaded with unexpected semantic baggage, baggage foreign to its “native” definition. Naturally, this poses significant potential for misunderstanding.
I believe this is the case with the word atonement.
Hebrew to Greek
Thanks in large part to the explosive empire-building of Alexander the Great, it eventually became necessary for the Hebrew Scriptures to be translated into the language of the day, Koine Greek.
According to the legend found in the Letter of Aristeas, 72 Israelite scholars, six from each tribe, were chosen for this task by Ptolemy II of Egypt at the behest of his chief librarian. Whatever its true origins, this Greek translation became know as the Septuagint, literally “Translation of the Seventy,” and it is this version that is quoted extensively in the New Testament by both the gospel writers and Paul, by the Apostolic Fathers and later by patriarchs of the Greek Church.
So, when the author of the book of Hebrews sought to communicate the word translated atonement — kaphar —from Hebrew to Greek, it is more than likely he did so in accordance with the Septuagint, which had already been translated. There, he would have encountered the Greek hilaskomai, a word that carried two semantic flavours:
- Expiation, a cleansing, purging or removal.
- Propitiation, an appeasement, placation, pacification, or soothing.
As previously discussed, translation is a somewhat risky endeavour, since hilaskomai comes from a completely different cultural background than Hebrew. Not only were the Greeks polytheistic (having a variety of gods) but the gods they worshipped — or, perhaps more accurately, endured— were often capricious, vengeful and needing conciliation on a regular basis. Some pagan cultures even went so far as to practice child sacrifice.
The student wonders: in light of hilaskomai then, how might the atonement of YHWH be characterized?
The Angry Sky-Father
Jordan Evans, in Not Godforsaken touches on a possible connection to a particular doctrine that rose to prominence during the Reformation. In a popular theory known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), God is on the judicial warpath, out for blood and vengeance against sinners and their sin. However, God so loved the world that the Son steps in as a mediator or defense attorney of sorts to save us, drinking to the dregs the cup of his Father’s righteous wrath.
By taking the beating we deserved, being nailed to the cross, and enduring God’s human-directed retribution (not to mention abandonment), the blood-drunk deity’s sense of holiness and justice is satisfied in what amounts to a divine display of child sacrifice. Now everything is okay again — humanity can be reconciled to God (provided they believe in what the Son accomplished for them), and man may go to heaven when he dies.
Not only is PSA’s conception of Christ’s atoning work fraught with contradictions, it happens to be, as Fr. Stephen Freeman notes, less than a thousand years old — a “johnny-come-lately” in the history of Christian interpretation— and completely alien to the entire Eastern stream of Christendom.
Perhaps, like me, you believe that this doctrinal gulf warrants a conversation.
What Is the Real Problem?
PROTESTANT: Mankind’s biggest problem is the guilt that results from our violating the law which results in God’s wrath needing to be meted out against guilt-ridden sinners.
ORTHODOX: The biggest problem is our alienation from God who is Life, by way of our captivity to death and the devil.
PROTESTANT: The driving force behind penal substitutionary atonement is the justice of God. It is the soteriological framework of a courtroom.
ORTHODOX: As a controlling metaphor this is inadequate.
PROTESTANT: Why?
ORTHODOX: Because not everything in life is solved in a courtroom. The great problem with Protestant teaching is its thorough-going reductionism. In the Bible and in the writing of the fathers, salvation is a much grander accomplishment — its facets are as numerous as a cut diamond. Jesus’ mission is the dramatic and comprehensive deliverance of humanity from all its enemies — sin, guilt, condemnation, disease, the devil and his demons, the world, and ultimately death.
What Is the Real Solution?
PROTESTANT: The solution is Jesus being punished on our behalf in order to pay the penalty we richly deserve.
ORTHODOX: The solution is Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and his descent into Hades, the realm of Death. There, the gates of Hell are shattered, and a third-day Resurrection achieved whereby captive mankind is set free from Death and, in Triumph, joined with Christ, the Life of the World, to resume the orderly symphony of Creation.
PROTESTANT: I think I see. In much of our Protestant teaching and practice, salvation is, in a very real sense, deliverance from God.
ORTHODOX: A diminished gospel produces a diminished Christianity.
Shadow Puppets
What’s more, none of the Old Testament types shadowing Christ’s atoning sacrifice allude to the PSA narrative. No one familiar with Hebrew culture would come to the conclusion that on the Day of Atonement, YHWH’s fury against the nation of Israel was poured out on the sacrificial animal. The Passover Lamb was not sacrificed by an enraged priest, nor did Abraham raise the knife over his son on Moriah in fury. The latter is worth special attention as it is the only shadow-type involving a father, and, note, he does not harm nor abandon the son, but raises him up alive. Even when the earth was flooded in Noah’s day, the text does not mention anger, only regret and grief.†
Back to the Future
So, from a teaching perspective, where should we start in our quest for a proper articulation of atonement? Surely Carver’s description at the beginning of this article is something all can agree is the ultimate point. Yet, in order to properly invest ourselves into the idea, we might go back and see exactly where it originated. Given the intense controversy surrounding it, perhaps our 21st-century churches could stand to rethink atonement from scratch.
* That said, I would still take a relatively uneducated, Spirit-filled teacher over an uninspired doctor of history, culture and language any day (especially Sunday).
† And, according to a possible interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19, those flooded souls were not abandoned, but removed for a later time and purpose.
Thank you for reading! Comment below and let us know what you think of this story.
N E X T → Pitch Perfect, Part 2
Imago Dei ← P R E V I O U S
Visit www.covenant.cards for collectible cards that explore the toughest biblical questions.
