Sacrifice and Suffering

In a comment to this post Marcus wondered if John Paul meant to be promulgating a new understanding of the Atonement to replace the “traditional” satisfaction theory.

Though I don’t believe the Roman Catholic Church has ever definitively pronounced one Atonement theory to be the correct one (certainly nothing comparable to the dogmatic definitions of Christ’s two natures or the relations of the Persons of the Trinity), certain passages in the Catechism of the Catholic Church seem to indicate that the notion of “satisfaction” is still considered a crucial element in any adequate understanding of the Atonement.

For instance:

615 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”. Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.

and:

616 It is love “to the end”that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life. Now “the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.” No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

I suspect that what the Pope is doing in the passage I quoted is drawing attention to the light the Atonement sheds on the problem of human suffering, rather than offering a new theory. For instance, in his book Responsibility and Atonement, philosopher Richard Swinburne suggests that even if the good of the universe outweighs the evil, it would still be a very good thing for a loving God to enter into solidarity with his creatures by sharing their lot in life, including (especially) their sufferings and disappointments. This is a supererogatory act of divine love, not something God is obliged to do (since, by hypothesis, the good of the world outweighs the evil). It’s important to remember, though, that this is in addition to the atoning work acheived by Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection.

I think it’s tempting for moderns to see the problem of evil and suffering as greater problems than that of human sin. We tend to think that God needs to justify himself to us, but that we, on the other hand, don’t need atonement for our sins. After all, we’re the victims here! There seem to have been a host of new theologies that understand Christ’s work primarily in terms of God entering into solidarity with our suffering (or perhaps just the suffering of certain oppressed groups). While this is certainly an important aspect of what Christians believe God accomplishes, I think we lose a big part of the picture if we leave out our need for forgiveness and atonement.

The passages from the Catechism quoted above affirm that it is precisely our disobedience that Christ undoes through his obedience. Christ’s sacrifice isn’t just his death, but his entire life as a continuous self-offering to the Father. This is the “true worship” that we fallen humans are unable to offer, which Christ offers on our behalf. Or, as Luther was fond of saying, there is a “happy exchange” whereby we take on Christ’s righteousness, and he takes on our sins.

Here’s how Reformed theologian B. A. Gerrish puts it:

Jesus’ offering to God was his life of perfect obedience, an obedience which remained firm in the face of death. Even the death of Christ derives its significance from being an act of obedience. In St. Bernard’s familiar adage, “Not his death, but his willing acceptance of death was pleasing to God.” It is remarkable how prominent is the idea of Jesus’ obedience alike in the New Testament and in the Reformers. He was “obedient unto death,” says Paul (Phil. 2: 8). And again: “By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom. 5: 19). Hebrews associates Christ’s obedience with his sacrifice, making use of the 40th Psalm (Heb. 10: 4-10). Again, in both the Reformers Christ’s gift to us, his part in the “happy exchange,” is always his obedience or righteousness. According to Luther, it was with his eternal righteousness that Christ endowed his bride (that is, the sinful soul). According to Calvin, Christ reconciles us to God “by the whole course of his obedience.” The purpose of the Incarnation was precisely that he might pay the debt of obedience; and even his death is significant only because it was a sacrifice offered willingly. The “victory” of Christ, we might add, was that he allowed nothing to turn him from his purpose to make this perfect offering to God. The crucial engagements in the conflict are represented in the Gospels by the temptation-story, the decision of Jesus to set his face stedfastly towards Jerusalem, the agony in the garden, and, finally, the cross. The victory of obedience was complete when he cried out “Father, forgive them” (the obedience of love) and “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (the obedience of faith). And upon this victory the resurrection set the seal.