Author: Mark Naylor DTh (missiology)

The Atonement Metaphor Evaluation Tool introduced here has been developed from the course “Contextualized Communication of the Cross” which I have taught since 2012.

It is not uncommon to hear gospel presentations that are either incomplete (e.g., “Jesus died to bring us to God”), inconsistent (e.g., “Jesus took our punishment so that we could be adopted as God’s children”), incomprehensible (such as my initial attempt to present the gospel in a Sindhi setting[i]), or even misleading (such as reducing Jesus’ suffering and death to an example we are to follow). This post introduces the Atonement Metaphor Evaluation Tool which can be used to  assess metaphors for completeness, internal consistency, and biblical integrity, as well as for resonance[ii] with the intended audience.

The tool uses a technical and rational approach to ensure that we do not confuse our listeners with inadequate presentations of the gospel. At the same time, I want to emphasize that explanations of the cross are not the heart of the gospel – Jesus is. Eternal life is relational (Jn 17:3). If we are “in Christ” (relationship) we have a heavenly father (relationship). This is important because the point of telling the story of the cross is not primarily to understand how Jesus saves us. The cross is not just a transaction, an accomplishment, getting something done, a gift, or a benefit for us. The story of the cross is told to lead people to faith and a commitment to Jesus, not just so we can appreciate what he did for us, receive the benefits and then get on with our lives.  Faith in response to the gospel is analogous to a wedding ceremony. A wedding is not about signing a certificate to make the relationship official. Getting married is about giving yourself totally to someone else in a covenantal bond. The mechanism of the wedding ceremony is an important part of the process , but comparatively minor; the relationship is everything.

The goal of atonement metaphors is not to understand how the cross “works.” Rather the point is to recognize and express the hope of the cross which leads to commitment to Jesus. A focus on an intellectual, theoretical mechanism for the cross can be deadening – like a bride absorbed with the details of the wedding rather than the significance of the relationship. The purpose of a gospel presentation is to provide a vision of the cross that leads people into relationship with the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Nonetheless, the importance of the gospel invitation compels us to provide a clear, comprehensible, and resonating explanation of the meaning of the cross.

Integrating Text and Context for Gospel Communication

Any presentation of the gospel that introduces people to the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection requires the interaction of two primary factors. First, the message needs to be shaped so that it does not come across as an irrelevant or strange idea to the intended audience and instead resonates with them using familiar language and concepts. Everything they hear is processed through cultural filters which includes their values, needs, concerns, and interests. The goal for the evangelist is to discover contextually sensitive metaphors of the cross that make sense in light of the way the people relate to each other and to the ultimate purposes of life. We see this contextual sensitivity in the New Testament through the variety of explanations and images from everyday life that are used to describe the impact and meaning of the cross. Baker and Green[iii] identify 5 categories of biblical metaphors borrowed from the public life of the ancient Mediterranean world that illustrate this principle:

Paul’s reference to an altar with the inscription “To an Unknown God” in his speech in Athens (Acts 17:23) is an example of such contextual sensitivity. Paul uses an image of a judge (court of law language) to call people to repentance and faith claiming that the basis for Jesus’ authority to judge is grounded in his resurrection from the dead (17:31). The art of creating receptor-sensitive resonating metaphors has been discussed in previous posts[iv].

The second primary factor is integrity with God’s word. An appropriate metaphor will truthfully communicate the meaning of the cross in a manner that faithfully represents biblical teaching.

An atonement metaphor is a lens through which we adequately describe God’s acts of resolving sin and of bringing humans back to a life-giving relationship with God. It is only as we are reoriented to God through the cross that our relationship with self, others, and the world can find true fulfillment and purpose.

“Atonement” used as an Evaluation Tool

The tool used to evaluate the appropriateness of an atonement metaphor and as a guide for the development of such metaphors is derived from the definition of “atonement:”

In Christian thought, the act by which God and man are brought together in personal relationship. The term is derived from Anglo-Saxon words meaning “making at one,” hence “at-one-ment.” It presupposes a separation or alienation that needs to be overcome if human beings are to know God and have fellowship with him. As a term expressing relationship, atonement is tied closely to such terms as reconciliation and forgiveness.[v]

From this definition, atonement can be summarized to include five distinct aspects: atonement is “an act /which removes /the cause /of separation /resulting in restoration.” This becomes an evaluation tool by which metaphors can be gauged for consistency and coherence. For example in a “deliverance” metaphor:

• “Act” refers to the divine action that achieves atonement (e.g., deliverance)
• “Removes” describes what the “act” accomplishes (e.g., raised from spiritual death),
• “Cause” refers to what caused the “separation” (e.g., sin),
• “Separation” refers to the problem that requires correcting (e.g., spiritual death),
• “Restoration” is the result of the atoning “act” (e.g., alive in Christ)

By considering the five distinct aspects of this “deliverance” metaphor, the communicator of the gospel can ensure that there is consistency between the aspects in order to provide a coherent presentation. Each aspect can then be evaluated to see if it maintains integrity with God’s word and resonance with the intended audience.

To aid in the evaluation or construction of atonement metaphors, an Atonement Metaphor Evaluation Chart has been prepared which focuses on both primary factors: resonance with the audience, and integrity with God’s word. In addition, it provides an important logical assessment to determine if the metaphor used to describe the “act” is consistent with the explanations for “separation” and “restoration.”

The content of the metaphor is considered using the five aspects of the Atonement Evaluation Tool within five columns: “an act /which removes /the cause /of separation /resulting in restoration.” The following questions are asked:

• Column 1: What is the divine act that achieves atonement?
• Column 2: How is the removal of the cause of separation explained?
• Column 3: What is the cause of the separation?
• Column 4: How is separation itself described?
• Column 5: What does restoration look like?

The appropriateness of the metaphor is considered by referencing the rows. In each of the five columns the metaphor is evaluated to determine if it

• Maintains integrity with God’s word,
• Resonates with the intended audience, and
• Fits together and logically makes sense.

The chart guides us through a step-by-step evaluation of atonement metaphors so that we can avoid dissonance, that is, a lack of logical connection due to mixed metaphors. For example, if the “Restoration” is that God adopts us as children and the “separation” is that we are estranged from God, it would then be inconsistent to suggest as the “act” that Jesus died to pay our penalty. There is cognitive dissonance because “Restoration” and “separation” depend on a relational metaphor, while the “act” is forensic. In order to maintain metaphorical consistency, the “act” requires a relational metaphor (e.g., as our true and faithful “older brother,” Jesus brings us back into relationship with the Father). Alternately, “Restoration” and “separation” could be adjusted with a forensic image (e.g., we are guilty and deserve punishment – “separation” – but Jesus pays our debt so that we can go free – “restoration”).

Each section of the chart can be evaluated  to determine the appropriateness of each aspect of the atonement metaphor as it relates to biblical integrity (first row), resonance (second row), and logical consistency (third row).

Example: Romans 3:23-25 ESV

An exegesis of Romans 3:23-25 from the English Standard Version demonstrates how the gospel message is shaped for the 1^st century Jewish context, using images and language that have significance for that audience (which the ESV seeks to represent through its choice of English terms).

“…for all have sinned (cause of separation is that we done wrong, described as both immoral actions [Rom 1] and turning away from God [Rom 3:10-18]) and fall short of the glory of God (separation described as being unworthy and unholy), and are justified (restoration described as being made right with God) … through … Christ Jesus, whom God put forward (act of atonement) as a propitiation (restoration described as wrath removed) by his blood (act of atonement is the shedding of blood which refers to his death), to be received by faith.”

In the Atonement rubric this is represented as

• Act(1) – God offers (“puts forward”) Jesus
• Act(2) – Jesus’ blood (= sacrifice / death)
• Removes – the wrath of God from those sinners (“propitiation”)
• Cause – sin (immoral actions [Rom 1] and rebellion [Rom 3:10-18])
• Separation – falling short of the glory of God (= unworthy, unholy)
• Restoration – made right with God (“justified”)

It is unlikely that the language of the ESV (justified, propitiation, blood) would be understood by, let alone resonate with, the average English speaker; explanation and paraphrasing would be needed. Nonetheless, the terminology in the original language had a history and conveyed images that would have been understood and appreciated by the readers. Without explaining “how,” Paul declares that Jesus’ sacrifice (blood) removes “sin” so that the wrath of God is no longer directed towards those who have faith in Jesus, and so they are made right with God. While the immediate reference may be to a sacrificial metaphor[vi] (Jesus’ blood removes sin and thus saves from God’s wrath), a penal substitution metaphor could also be used to explain the gospel message in the verse for an audience that has a strong legal presence (like in individualistic Western contexts).

Rearranging the rubric

Even though the order of the rubric, “an act /which removes /the cause /of separation /resulting in restoration” gives a logical progression, it can be re-ordered for easier understanding. For example, the above rubric can be used to describe the atonement as described in the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15):

The “act” of atonement is when the father embraces the son. This is a figure of the cross when the father takes (“removes”) all the shame, guilt and fear from the son and places it upon himself. The “cause” of separation is the son believing that he can discover life apart from the father and the “separation” is the son leaving and abusing all the father had done for him and given to him.  The “separation” is the rejection of his identity as son and the pursuit of other identities and significance.  The embrace “restores” the relationship.

While the above rubric begins with atonement – focusing on what Jesus did – communicating the meaning of the atonement is clearer if we rearrange the rubric beginning not with Jesus’ action, but with the sinners’ situation and experience.  This can be represented in a different order with questions for easier application:

Instead of phrasing the Atonement rubric as the “act /which removes /the cause /of separation /resulting in restoration,” the description is given as

• What’s wrong? (Separation described) 
• What did you do / experience? (Cause of the separation)
• What did Jesus do? (Act of atonement)
• How does Jesus make this right? (What was removed/corrected)
• Who are you now? = Restoration (What is the new state/status of the sinner)

The Prodigal Son rephrased:

1. What’s wrong? Identify the pain, distress, brokenness of the person (eg. the prodigal living with the pigs, separated from his father).
2. What did you do / experience that resulted in this distress? Identify what sin (that which is opposed to God’s good plan) created the situation (eg. the prodigal looks for a life beyond the father’s control and desires)
3. What did Jesus do (atonement)? Relate Jesus’ work of atonement in terms of his reaching towards us (eg. The Father embraces the son, the arms spread on the cross in forgiving love, perhaps even the true older brother who comes after the lost son).
4. How does Jesus make things right? Like the father, Jesus sees the distress and pain. He doesn’t run from the sin and rebellion; he embraces it with the son and restores the son to the Father who makes things right (eg. The Father takes on the shame, guilt and loss to welcome the son home).
5. Who are you now? What is your identity in Christ? Describe what the difference us for the teen because of the atonement (eg. The Father gives the signet ring – you are my son; new clothes – you are no longer impoverished but rich; new shoes – no longer shamed. No longer the prodigal but the son).

In this description note that the atonement metaphor is used with logical consistency. That is, the act of redemption in the embrace is commensurate with the description of the estrangement. The solution for the sin is appropriately addressed.

Here are two more contextualized examples of atonement that illustrate the adjusted rubric.

Peace child

A summary of Don Richardson’s Peace Child metaphor contextualized for a Papua New Guinea tribe can be found in CCI post 88: The significance of Metaphor in Communicating the Cross of Christ.

In Don Richardson’s first attempts at telling the gospel, the message was incomprehensible to his audience. In fact, according to their value system, Judas was understood to be the hero. By using their tradition of the “peace child” as a gospel analogy, Richardson identifies Jesus as a significant and respected part of their culture that also appropriately represents the gospel.

Using the adjusted Atonement rubric:

1. What’s wrong? (Separation described) The tribe is at war with or estranged from God.
2. What did you do / experience? (Cause of the separation) Due to an offense against God by their ancestors in the past, the separation occurred. Furthermore, humanity rejected and killed the offered peace child.
3. What did Jesus do? (Act of atonement) Jesus is the divine peace child sent by God (but rejected and killed). However, God resurrected him to show his determination and desire for reconciliation.
4. How does Jesus make this right? (What was removed/corrected) Jesus remains the peace child who offers peace with God.
5. Who are you now? (What is the new state/status of the sinner) Restoration with God has been achieved so the tribe is accepted by God as his people.

The theme of this metaphor is reconciliation (cf. The Prodigal Son) and is internally consistent. Rather than an individual orientation calling for personal repentance, the focus is communal. “Sin” is not focused on specific moral actions, but on being estranged from God due to some failure or rebellion in the past. This failure is compounded by the rejection of God’s peace child. The estrangement is removed by embracing the resurrected peace child (Jesus) as God’s representative with whom they identify and to whom they conform their lives.

3. My Epiphany[vii]

A summary of my epiphany concerning the gospel contextualized for a people group in a Pakistan context can be found in CCI post No. 85: Shaping the Gospel Message so that it Resonates.

My initial communication of the cross used a Penal Substitution metaphor which did not make sense as good news to the listeners because it presented God as less gracious and less willing to forgive than God as portrayed in Islam with the titles “All Merciful and All Gracious.”

Using the adjusted Atonement rubric:

1. What’s wrong? (Separation described) we are condemned by God as judge requiring punishment.
2. What did you do / experience? (Cause of the separation) We rebelled and sinned against God’s law. 
3. What did Jesus do? (Act of atonement) Jesus took our punishment to appease God as Judge.
4. How does Jesus make this right? (What was removed/corrected) Because Jesus took our punishment on himself, we are no longer condemned.
5. Who are you now? (What is the new state/status of the sinner) Because God no longer condemns us, he views us as sinless and can show us his favor.

However, after realizing that this metaphor of the judge was inadequate and did not communicate a resonating message of the gospel as good news, I chose the image of the New Adam in Romans 5.

Using the adjusted Atonement rubric:

1. What’s wrong? (Separation described) We are estranged from God resulting in death.  
2. What did you do / experience? (Cause of the separation) We became disobedient through our father Adam’s sin. 
3. What did Jesus do? (Act of atonement) Jesus (1) identifies with us in the incarnation – second Adam, (2) identifies with us in our shame and death -the cross, and (3) his obedience and resulting resurrection opens the way to God for all who are “in Christ.”
4. How does Jesus make this right? (What was removed/corrected) He accepted in obedience to the father the consequences of our choices / disobedience and so entered into our separation from the father.  Through his resurrection we enter into eternal life.
5. Who are you now? (What is the new state/status of the sinner) Jesus brings us into relationship with God as Father through the resurrection as we gain our new identity of being “in Christ.”

Rather than judicial, the new metaphor is relational with the dual themes of restoration and reconciliation. Restoration of the status that God intends for humanity as images of him, and reconciliation to him as our Heavenly Father. This strongly resonates with Sindhis who welcome the vision of God as Father who loves them and desires their best.

___________

[i] See CCI post No. 85: Shaping the Gospel Message so that it Resonates.

[ii] Resonance refers to the way the hearers perceive and respond to the relevance of a message. Resonance goes beyond comprehension to describe the impact of the message upon the faith (worldview, values and beliefs) of the reader or listener.

[iii] Baker, Mark D. and Green, Joel B. 2011. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts, 2^nd Edition. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. P. 41.

[iv] See CCI post No. 85: Shaping the Gospel Message so that it Resonates, 87: Making the Gospel Understandable and 88: The significance of Metaphor in Communicating the Cross of Christ.

[v] Lyon, R. W., & Toon, P. 1988. “Atonement” in Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 231). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

[vi] After a lengthy analysis of the use of the Paul’s term for “propitiation,” Leon Morris concludes that “the balance of probability is strongly in the direction of seeing in ιλαστηριον in Romans 3 a general reference to the removal of the wrath of God, rather than a specific reference either to the mercy-seat, or to the Day of Atonement ceremonies” (The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, Third Edition, 1965. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. P. 198).