The Unclear

Reflections (this was added after I published the article)

Strengths

• Focuses on a minimal definition of atonement
• Short & brief

Weaknesses

• “Unclear” is not the right way to phrase the problem. I am pointing out a contradiction rather than an unclear implication.
• I did not specify my approach to the Bible. If I took the NT as historical, I’d have to assume that Christ approved Paul’s message. Thus, I could not say Paul was wrong, and I’d be forced to reconcile. However, this could have been fixed if I phrased the problem as a contradiction since that defeats the assumption
• I did not do enough exegetical work. Only one snippet is used from Romans and one quote from an encyclopedic entry. My interpretation of Romans is not convincing, and I did not directly confirm it with scholars.
• A much more convincing and straightforward argument could’ve been made using original sin rather than peace and grace, and it would have achieved the same purpose

In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful and the Most Compassionate,

Here is yet another polemical article. I can already hear your thoughts:

• “He’ll be preaching to the choir, that boy!”
• “Oh, here he goes on another ramble where he boasts about the beauty of Islam in contrast to the messy Christianity, which you make it so from your writing by the way!!”
• “No no no, he just wants to be cool and publish articles! If he was sincere, he’d have just written an email or a message and kept the whole matter to himself.”

I do not blame you for these thoughts. Polemics has rarely produced good fruit, and I do not expect this to be the rare exception.

So, let me be clear. For this article,I’m primarily writing to close Christian friends of mine. In this case, I hope to demonstrate that atonement isn’t clear, and why that is a problem. My secondary audience is anyone who wants to peer in, either because they’d like to see how honest discourse (hopefully) takes place, or if they’re wondering about this exact point. My reason for including both audiences rather than only the primary is that it forces me to clarify my thoughts from scratch. No prior discussion will be assumed, but the prior discussion has taken place. It’s a great way to reflect.

The Unclear

I’ve talked to a decent number of Christians and one thing that has astonished me is that no Christian seems able to explain atonement concisely. Having tried to explain it myself, I believe this is the case due to two things: unclear language and unclear implications. While both cause discrepancy, however, it’s the only the latter which causes a serious problem.

Unclear Language

I suppose it’s not surprising that there is such a varied understanding since on this point the Bible is heavy with metaphorical language. What’s quite interesting is that Christians themselves don’t seem to fully appreciate this. The tradition, to my limited reading, has heavily focused on understanding it technically¹, whereas the Bible seems to beg a mystical understanding. For instance, take this passage from Romans:

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition [NRSVue], 2021, Romans 8:1–4).

I could’ve gone further, but this should suffice. Now note several key points. According to the English rendering of Paul:

1. People can be “in Christ”, for there is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” The meaning of this must be unclear since at least in English, no one is ever “in someone” unless that someone is Christ (or Mary). Even from the Trinitarian point of view, no one would describe themselves as “in God.” There is the motto “In God We Trust”, but that’s merely another way to say “we trust God.” “In the name of God,” is also a way of saying “I’m doing this for the sake of God alone,” which is not the meaning Paul is conveying. So, if the only valid use of this syntax is “in Christ” (or Mary), then the meaning of the sentence cannot be derived without an explicit definition, which to my knowledge is not provided.
2. If people being in Christ was not enough, the law is also in Christ!
3. “God has done what the law […] could not do” means that the law is an actor. It can do certain things and it cannot do other kinds of things. Are you following?
4. God has a Son! A father, rather than a mother, has begotten a son? The son is of a different species than its father? Does the father have genetics? Clearly, the author did not intend “son” to be taken literally. Yet according to the common interpretation, it also cannot be taken metaphorically, since he is the only Son. Is that clear to you?
5. Sin was condemned in the flesh. Condemned to death? Condemned to something else? If either of the two, then is sin also an actor that has a state of being and does things? If not, then is it simply disapproved of? Why should it need to be disapproved of in the flesh?

Unclear Implication

Even given all the metaphors, we can surely arrive at some core as to what atonement is. Perhaps so. The greatest common denominator I could find is the following: Christ died so Christians² can become right with God.

Doughberry (2003) called this “a new relationship with God” (p. 837), which is in agreement with Paul’s thinking since he stated that Christ was “raised for our justification” (NRSVue, 2021, Rom 4:25). He continued:

Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand (NRSVue, 2021, Rom 5:1–2).

So, clearly, the old relationship did not have access to this peace and grace. There we run into the problem. If it can be established there was peace and grace, then either Paul is wrong or our interpretation of him is incorrect. In either case, the implication of the cross will be left unclear.

Peace and Grace in the Old Testament

Before I begin, I’d like to reiterate again that I’ve never read the entire Old Testament. So my analysis will be fairly minimal, and it’s mostly inspired by the work of Leslie et al. (2007). Feel free to stab me where I’m weakest.

Now, let me ask you this: should there be a reason to deny the statements of prophets regarding God? If not, and it is true that peace and grace were only obtained through Christ, then why did David say “As the LORD lives, who has redeemed my life out of every adversity[…]” (NRSVue, 2021, 2 Sam. 4:9; 1 Kings 1:29)? Is it not out of grace that he was redeemed?

Furthermore, was not the exodus fulfilled based on God’s love (NRSVue, 2021, Deut. 7:8)? Didn’t the Jews have to believe in the mercy of God for them to pray, as they did in Deut. 21:8? What about the beautiful Psalms such as Psalm 130?³

Out of the depths I cry to you, O LORD. Lord, hear my voice! Let your ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications! If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with you, so that you may be revered. (NRSVue, 2021, Ps. 130:1–4)

Or the longest psalm, that is Psalm 118:

O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his steadfast love endures forever! (NRSVue, 2021, Ps. 118:1–2)

Prior to the crucifixion, the Jews were not just obeying the law. They were praising the lawgiver! Praising Him for His love and mercy. Praying to Him for guidance and forgiveness. How could there be prayer if peace and grace were unexpected? Clearly the Jews expected grace in return, otherwise they would not have prayed.

More could be extracted, but I hope you get the point. So, we’ve established there was peace and grace prior to the crucifixion (if not, then I’d like to know what the criteria for it should be). Does that mean we ought to have “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (NRSVue, 2021, Rom. 5:1), as Paul said? Or should we emulate the Psalms and have peace with God directly, and violate even the most minimal definition of atonement?

Atonement, as C.S. Lewis put it (1960), is the “central Christian belief” (p. 57). Now, we’ve debunked the possibility that our definition could be correct. This means one of two things:

Proving the former will be quite tricky given how explicit Romans and Hebrews are. In addition, if he did not say that there was no access to peace and grace prior to Christ’s death, then that makes Christ’s death redundant since there was peace and grace both before and after his death. So I personally lean towards the second point, but obviously, that has been my choice since I embraced Islam, so the choice does not weigh on me the same way it would on a Christian.

I’d like to counter one last objection. Why can’t we say God knows best and leave it there? Is it not true that we are only finite meek beings? Yes, that is true. God does know best, and we certainly could never understand everything He does.

However, given that atonement is a central tenant of Christianity, if we must say God knows best, then how different are the Christian and the non-Christian in regards to this belief? Really, the only difference is that one has a word without meaning, while the other has no word and no meaning. And what utility do words have if they’re without meaning?

The second point is this: did not Christ critique the Pharisees for breaking the law for the sake of tradition? Did he not then deliver a concise argument on why they’re breaking God’s commandment? The basic premise of this story is that we should use our intellect to find the truth. Faced with this, if Paul is in fact breaking the models set by God in the Psalms by praising God through Christ rather than directly to Him, then is he not breaking God’s commandment? Shouldn’t the Christians then keep away from Paul’s teachings? In addition, if Paul made a historical blunder, then should we trust his analysis of the old Jewish laws and salvation (for he rests that claim on his analysis)?

Gratitude

First, I’d like to thank the particular Christians who know themselves but whom I shall not name. They’ve given time that many could not afford to give, and they’ve listened whereas many would’ve rather not. I hope to send them this article with humbleness. I expect to learn a lot and I look forward to their critiques.

Second, while I’ve never been a student myself, I’ve immensely benefited from Zaytuna College and continue to do so. Their staff, as well as their graduates, have been a source of inspiration to me, as they’ve taught me etiquette to learning and scholarship that I’ve not seen anywhere else. So I would greatly appreciate your donation even if it’s as little as a dollar. Jazakallahu Khairan (may God reward you)!

Bibliography

Dougherty, K. F. (2003). Atonement. In New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 836–838). Gale. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3407700897/GVRL?u=txshrpub100321&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=0517f103

Leslie, D. D., Flusser, D., Reines, A. J., Scholem, G., & Graetz, M. J. (2007). Redemption. In M. Berenbaum, & F. Skolnik (Ed.), Encyclopedia Judaica (2nd ed., Vol. 17, pp. 151–155). Gale. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX2587516544/GVRL?u=txshrpub100321&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=20db5cbd

Lewis, C. S. (1960). Mere Christianity. Macmillan Publishing. (Original work published 1952)⁴

Wolf, W. J. (2005). Atonement: Christian concepts. In L. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 594–598). Macmillan Reference USA. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3424500240/GVRL?u=txshrpub100321&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=58ce5281

[1]: I derive this interpretation based on how theories of atonement were categorized (Dougherty, 2003, p. 596). For example, the Classical theories focus on how the devil captured humanity and was defeated by Christ. More remarkable are the Anselmian theories, which try to quantify sin and satisfaction by stating them to be either finite or infinite. The analogies often provided today also lean towards a technical understanding, such as the “police-court” (Lewis, 1960, p. 59) analogy where a judge prescribes a just punishment, only for it to be received by an innocent, rather than the criminal themselves. This isn’t to say Christians have never declared atonement to be ultimately mystical. However, in my experience, I’ve rarely seen someone who purely goes by a mystical interpretation.

[2]: Some may object and say rather than “Christians,” this should say mankind. Perhaps, but this definition plays it safe by neither excluding nor including mankind.

[3]: As a side note, I cannot wait to get to the Psalms. From what I’ve seen, they carry a very similar tone to the Quran, in that there’s always praise to God, but of course, I love them because of their message more than anything else.

[4]: I would like to have featured C.S. Lewis in this article, but I, unfortunately, was not able to fit him in. That said, he has certainly helped me understand atonement more. Maybe another time, inshallah.

Originally published at https://amrojjeh.substack.com on March 18, 2023.