On first reading the ending of the Apostles’ Creed it can seem like the last few clauses have almost nothing to do with one another. We all have that one kitchen drawer where all the random, loose odds and ends wind up. Is that what we have at the end of the Creed? Is this the Creed’s “junk drawer?” What does “the holy catholic church” and “the forgiveness of sins” and “the resurrection of the body” have to do with one another?

The truth is that all these final clauses are tightly related, but it can be hard for us to see the relation between them. This week we began to talk about the relationship between “the forgiveness of sins” and “the resurrection of the body.” For many modern western Christians these two “doctrines” seem to be only tangentially related primarily because of our stunted view of the atonement (the salvific work of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection).

Many of us will have grown up understanding the atoning work of Jesus only through the lens of what is called “penal substitution.” This is that “court room scene” most of us have heard. God the Father is the judge on the bench, Satan is the prosecuting attorney, and we are the defendants being prosecuted. Jesus, our defense attorney, is the one who defends us and makes us innocent because he takes the death sentence for us.

But while the New Testament does use judicial/legal language to describe Jesus’ atoning work, it is not the only—or even primary—way it describes it. Scripture gives us many different metaphors for understanding Christ’s saving work on our behalf.

The problem comes when our only way of conceiving of the atonement is through the judicial/legal metaphors. As the saying goes: to the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Our concept of the atonement is severely stunted and narrow.

In my view, this has caused untold damage to believers. In this teaching I try to explain some of those issues. The only goal of this week’s teaching is to clear the ground of the debris that we’ve been given when it comes to Jesus’ death and resurrection, in hopes that we can reconstruct a fully-orbed doctrine of the atonement.

I drew two diagrams in class to show the difference between expiation and propitiation. Both words are used to translate the Greek word “hilasterion” which is about the removal of sins. Both words suggest that a barrier exists for the overcoming of sin, but the difference is in what that barrier is and where it exists.

Diagram 1: Expiation

“Expiation” means that the barrier that sin causes lies outside God. The barrier is not in him but in us. So the word entails God’s action in removing sin.

Diagram 2: Propitiation

“Propitiation” means that the barrier lies within God himself, so it entails God’s action in satisfying the divine wrath.

Further resources:

* Scot McKnight, A Community Called Atonement

* This book is a great introduction to the different models of the atonement found in Scripture.

* Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion

* My discussion of expiation vs. propitiation was heavily reliant upon Rutledge’s brilliant treatment.

* N.T. Wright, “Jesus and the People of God”

* I played a snippet of this lecture in class. You can find the whole lecture at the link above.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cameroncombs.substack.com