The Parable of the Talents – A View from the Other Side

Theological Journal – March 24 (Lent 2020)

Torrance Tuesday – Atonement

“One day a student called Harold Estes came into my rooms in the Dormitory to discuss an essay he had written on the atonement. He was a very gentle kindly person. It is he had spoke of the death of Christ simply as a demonstration of the love of God. He had been expounding something like what was known as a ‘moral influence theory’ of the atonement favoured by liberal thinkers but theological quite inadequate, as H. R. Mackintosh had shown us in Edinburgh. To help Harold I showed him a reproduction which I had of Grünewald’s famous painting of the Crucifixion, at Colmar, which is incredibly starkly vivid. I also showed him some of the enlargements of the painting, reproduced in a book I had with me, which focused on the fearfully lacerated flesh of Jesus which he suffered from the flagellation with thorns inflicted on him by the soldiers, deep wounds now blackened by the sun. Harold shrank back in horror at what he saw. I said to him: ‘Harold, you have written about that as a picture of the love of God. It is certainly a picture of the fearful sin and hatred of mankind, but if you can tell me WHY Jesus was crucified, WHY he endured such unbelievable pain and anguish, then you will be able to say something of the real meaning of the atonement, and about why the crucifixion of Jesus was and is indeed a revelation of the love of God – Christ was crucified like that FOR our sakes, to save us from sin and judgment. The meaning of the atoning death of Christ is expressed in that word FOR – Jesus died for you and for me, and for all people. It is only in the light of that FOR that the death of Jesus is a picture of the love of God. And what a wonderful picture it is of the infinite love of God who so loved us that ‘he did not spare his only Son but freely delivered him up for us all, that we might be saved.’” (Cited in Alister E. McGrath, T. F. Torrance: An Intellectual Biography, T&T Clark, 1999, 54-55)

It is sometimes said that the theology of the New Testament can be derived from the prepositions it uses for our relation to God. Torrance picks up on that in relating this incident by focusing on the preposition “for” as the heart of the atonement. That “for” of Jesus’ atoning, reconciling work, according to Torrance, contains the secret of God’s love for us.

“For” offers a reason or explanation for something. Torrance offers one example in his quote. The so-called moral influence theory of the atonement. In this view Jesus lived and died to leave “for” us an example to inspire and motivate us to live like he did as God desires. And that true enough, but not enough.

But Torrance prods his student (and us) to go deeper. “For” our sins is another popular answer. We needed forgiveness having fallen into arrears with God. A debt we could not satisfy ourselves. So God in Christ did it “for” us, in our stead. This is called the satisfaction or substitutionary view of atonement Again, gloriously true. But is it true enough?

Another answers Jesus died “for” us to satisfy God’s wounded justice or honor. In paying our debt for us Jesus also sets right, assauges, placates, or satisfies God’s rightful anger at his wounded honor. Until his justice is satisfied we cannot be forgiven or reconciled to him. This is called the penal substituti0onary view. It has fallen into bad odor recently, and for good reasons (which I’ll not rehearse here). I’ll only register my view that as stated above is not true and, therefore, hardly true enough to get what Torrance has in mind.

These are the main views though there are others and various versions of the three already stated. What else can we say about the “for” Torrance is after? The “for” that demonstrates God’s love for most profoundly?

To ask it differently, what is it about the Christ’s atoning life and death that explains but without explaining or offering reasons external to God that motivate or jump start his love for us into action? That moves him to spare not even his only Son but freely deliver him up for us all, that we might be saved?

Here we reach the level of understanding Torrance pushes for. Here, beyond doing something external for us or satisfying some need of his own, God does freely, unbidden, unconditionally, sacrificially not only for us but in us and to us to set us right and make us right, both reclaiming us and restoring us to his glorious purpose for us. The explanation that does not, indeed cannot, explain such ungodlike (in terms of standard expectations of deity) behavior and lack of appropriate decorum. And that explanation of the unexplainable is well captured by the God the Father figure in William Young’s powerful novel The Shack who repeatedly tells Mack that

And all other of his human creatures. There’s no “because” in such love, else it is not the love Torrance is getting at. This love has no explanation, no “for,” beyond itself, though in exercising this love God does do many things for us. That’s why scripture finally says “’for’ God is love” (1 Jn.4:8). Which explains nothing . . . and everything at the same time!