Atonement in Tillich and Pannenberg

  I offer this post out of a discussion on facebook, asking me to share a thumbnail of the views of Tillich (Systematic Theology, Volume II, 165-168, 173-76) and Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume II, 423, 419-20, 423, 421-29; Jesus: God and Man, 245-274) on the Atonement. Here is my attempt.

  Tillich begins his discussion of the significance of the cross with an examination of the meaning of the symbol “salvation.” It expresses the universal significance of Jesus as the Christ, as he subjected himself to human estrangement and gained victory over it. Estrangement is separation from one’s own destiny in the Kingdom of God. Salvation is a form of healing, reuniting that which is estranged, giving a center to what is split, overcoming the split between and humanity, humanity from its world, and the internal split that individuals experience between their reality and their destiny. If such healing is possible only by an encounter with Christ, such healing is possible for only a relatively few people, which he calls an absurd and demonic idea. In some ways, all persons participate in the new life available through Christ. Yet, if he is savior, what does salvation mean? It means he is the criterion of every healing and saving process. 

  Tillich next discusses what he thinks are basic principles of any doctrine of the atonement. As I read him, stating the principles was sufficient. The first principle is the God is the origin of the atoning process. The second principle is that he does think one can posit a conflict between the reconciling love of God and retributive justice. Justice is allowing the consequences of estrangement to work themselves out in human life. Such justice is the working out of love working out all that resists love. The third principle is that the divine removal of guilt and punishment does not mean overlooking the actual estrangement that human beings experience. In the human world, one who forgives is also guilty. Mutuality in forgiveness is part of what it means to live in human community. The fourth principle is acknowledgment of the participation of God in human estrangement and its consequences. God participates in human suffering, and for those who participate in what God is doing in the world, transforms human suffering. The fifth principle is that in the cross the participation of God in human suffering is manifest. The sixth principle is that by participating in Christ, human beings participate in the suffering of God. He rejects the term “substitution.” God participates in estrangement, but divine suffering is a substitute for the suffering of the creature. Yet, this suffering of God is the power that overcomes creaturely self-destruction by participation and transformation. 

  Pannenberg has a discussion of the meaning of the vicarious death of Jesus on the cross. As he sees it, the death of Jesus on the cross, in the light of the resurrection, is the punishment suffered in our place for the blasphemous existence of humanity. For him, the “fate” of Jesus involves a discussion of both his death and his resurrection. He begins by considering that some events do not have an immediately clear or unavoidable meaning. The resurrection had such a clear interpretation, given the Jewish apocalyptic background of the event. The cross was less so. He will apply this thought later by saying that the fact that some ideas are in the earliest forms of Christianity does not guarantee their truth. Thus, the earliest interpretation of the cross may have been that of the rejection and murder of a prophet. It was “for us,” an “expiation,” but not a sacrifice. Isaiah 53 would have presented the universal significance of the cross as a death “for many.” The notion of an expiatory sacrifice is one we can find in Romans 3:25 and in the Letter to the Hebrews. Paul understood the cross as the end of the Law. Of all of these ideas, the image of the just man suffering vicariously for his people is most easily accessible for us today. He does not think that the self-understanding of Jesus of his rejection by Jewish leaders that leads to his death will be a helpful road down which to travel. The understanding of the death of Jesus as a substitution is one we find in the Lord’s Supper tradition and in the statement of Jesus in Luke 22:27, “But I am among you as one who serves,” to which Mark 10:45 adds, “and give his life a ransom for many.” The connection he wants to make for us is that every act of service has its vicarious character by recognizing a need in the person served that apart from this service that person would have to satisfy for oneself. Later, Pannenberg will add that giving one’s life to save others or society represents a special case.to sacrifice one’s life is to offer up one’s whole existence, as others would lose their lives without the sacrifice. As he continues, if we are to think of “substitution,” we must start with the disclosure in the resurrection that Jewish leaders were wrong in their judgment of Jesus, and reveal themselves as the blasphemers of God. Further, if the cross is to have universal significance, one would need to draw the conclusion that humanity as a whole lives in a state of blasphemy against God. He directs us to Paul.

14 For the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. 15 And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them. (II Corinthians 5:14-15)

The Law will save neither Jews nor Gentiles, which now opens the way for Gentiles to receiving the blessing of the God of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets. The abolition of the Law was the necessary pre-condition of such an offer. Paul is makes this step by directing us to the universal significance of Adam and the domination of sin and death in the human race. Now, in the sense that he died as a blasphemer, he died the death all have incurred. In this sense, he died for us, for our sins. Individual death is taken into the community of the dying of Jesus so that individuals have a hope beyond death, the hope of the coming resurrection to the life that has already appeared in him. He will want us to consider that Israelite views of act and consequence, as well as their notion of solidarity of individuals with the community, are the background for such a notion. Later, he will also specify that we need to develop an account of the basic anthropological situation of humanity in relation to sin and death if such notions are to continue to have relevance. In his death, Jesus bore the consequence of separation from God, the punishment for sin, in the place of Israel and humanity. The Jewish rejection of Jesus is not a special case, but symbolic of humanity. Of course, this means that Jesus did not die for his own sins. His death overcomes the Godforsakenness of death for humanity. No longer must anyone die alone and without hope, for in community with Jesus the hope for one’s own future participation in the new life that has already appeared in Jesus and whose content is community with God has been established. As he sees it, then, the variety to which he points may lead us to think that we may adopt any understanding of the death of Jesus that we fancy. Of course, he is not going to want to move this direction. He thinks that he has provided a way for theology to reflect upon the power of sacrifice, expiation, substitution, and representation that can be powerful today. My point here would be that it is important for pastors and teachers today to reflect seriously on how they will explain the power of the cross today.