The present position may be illustrated from a work representing the more liberal Anglican theology. Bishop Lyttelton in Lux Mundi[31] stated that the death of Christ is propitiatory towards God because it expressed His perfect obedience, it manifested God’s righteous wrath against sin, and in virtue of Christ’s human nature involved man’s recognition of the righteousness of God’s condemnation of sin; also because in some mysterious way death has a propitiatory value; and finally because Christ is the representative of the human race. Towards man, the death of Christ has atoning efficacy because it delivers from sin, bestows the divine gift of life and conveys the assurance of pardon. The benefits of the atonement are appropriated by “the acceptance of God’s forgiveness in Christ, our self-identification with Christ’s atoning attitude, and then working out, by the power of the life bestowed upon us, all the (moral and spiritual) consequence of forgiveness.”
At present the belief in an objective atonement is still widely held; whether in the form of penal theories—the old forensic view that the death of Christ atones by paying the penalty of man’s sin—or in the form of governmental theories; that the Passion fulfilled a necessity of divine government by expressing and vindicating God’s righteousness. But there is also a widespread inclination to minimize, ignore or deny the objective aspect of the atonement, the effect of the death of Christ on God’s attitude towards men; and to follow the moral theories in emphasizing the subjective aspect of the atonement, the influence of the Passion on man. There is a tendency to eclectic views embracing the more attractive features of the various theories; and attempts are made to adapt, interpret and qualify the imagery and language of older formulae, in order so to speak, to issue them afresh in new editions, compatible with modern natural science, psychology and historical criticism. Such attempts are necessary in a time of transition, but they involve a measure of obscurity and ambiguity.
Bibliography.—Atonement: H. Bushnell, Vicarious Sacrifice (1871); J. McLeod Campbell, Nature of the Atonement (1869); T.J. Crawford, Doctrine of the Holy Spirit respecting the Atonement (1871); R.W. Dale, Atonement (1875); J. Denney, Death of Christ, Atonement and the Modern Mind (1903); A. Lyttelton, Lux Mundi, pp. 201 ff. (Atonement), (1889); R. Moberly, Atonement and Personality; A. Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre van der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung (1870-1874); G.B. Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation (1905).
Day of Atonement: articles in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, and in the Encyclopaedia Biblica.
(W. H. Be.)
[1] Cf. Exodus xii. 15, &c.; Josh. vii. 24 (Achan); Jer. li. 62 (Babylon).
[2] 2 Sam. xii. 13, 14 (David); Isaiah xl. 2 (Jerusalem): in such cases, however, the context implies repentance.
[3] Ezek. xviii., Micah vi.
[4] Lev. iv. 2, “sin unwittingly,” bishegagā, c. 450 B.C., &c.