Volume 723 July 2008 Table of Contents Editorial ............................................................................................ 194 Flights from the Atonement ........................................................................... David P. Scaer 195 The Son of God and the Father's Wrath: Atonement and Salvation in Matthew's Gospel Jeffrey A. Gibbs ....................................................................... 211 The Atonement in Mark's Sacramental Theology .............................................................................. Peter J. Scaer 227 The Death of Jesus in the Gospel of John: Atonement for Sin? ................................................................. Charles A. Gieschen 243 .......................................................................... Theological Observer 262 The Present State of the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church Law and Gospel in Pannenberg, Wingren, and Scaer Heaven is Not Our Home? Book Reviews ....................................................................................... 278 Books Received ................................................................................... 286 The Death of Jesus as Atonement for Sin The teaching of Jesus' death as atonement for sin has received renewed attention recently in biblical and theological studies. Some of this attention has been in reaction to the omnipresent mantra of critical scholarship that such teaching was a later creation of the church in order to provide a more suitable interpretation of the death of Jesus. Both the Symposium on Exegetical Theology and the Symposium on the Lutheran Confessions at Fort Wayne, held in January 2008, took up the challenge of engaging this debate. The four articles in this issue were first delivered as papers during these symposia. David Scaer addresses the tendency of Lutherans to see atonement as a doctrine easily separated from- and less important than- justification. He demonstrates the intimate interrelationship and interdependence of these doctrines as well as the current challenges being issued against a proclamation of the atonement that is faithful to the teaching of the Scriptures, especially of Jesus in the Gospels. The remaining three articles each focus on the atonement as proclaimed in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John respectively. Jeffrey Gibbs, author of the recently published Concordia Commentary on Matthew 1-10, explores the variety of texts in whch Matthew proclaims the atonement. In addition to his emphasis on Jesus' substitutionary role as the New Israel, Gibbs gives sigruficant attention to showing how Matthew proclaims the death of Jesus as the eschatological visitation of the Father's divine wrath over all sin. The article by Peter Scaer introduces us to some of the modem debate and then focuses on the teaching of atonement in Mark. Not only does he review the traditional texts proclaiming atonement (especially Mark 10:45), but he also probes how Jesus (and subsequently Mark) use the Lord's Supper and Baptism in order to proclaim Jesus' death as atonement. My article addresses the challenge that the fourth evangelist does not understand Jesus' death as atonement for sin by demonstrating ways in which this Gospel proclaims atonement that are in concert with the more explicit atonement teaching in 1 John. Debate about the atonement in our circles used to center around the legitimacy of proclaiming the atonement also according to the Christus Victor model rather than strictly using the more familiar Anselmic model. Much more is at stake in the current debate. We hope these articles will help readers to ground their teaching of the death of Jesus as atonement for sin in the very Gospels that narrate our Lord's exemplary life lived and laid down in our stead to pay for the world's sin and conquer our foes, death and Satan. Charles A. Gieschen Associate Editor The Death of Jesus in the Gospel of John: Atonement for Sin? Charles A. Gieschen Distaste for the doctrine of atonement for sin through the death of Jesus is not purely a modem phenomenon of critical scholarship; it is as old as the death of Jesus itself. The Apostle Paul tells us that the death of the Son of God by crucifixion was a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor 1:23). The atonement was one of the teachings that Gnostics opposed already in the second and third centuries, as evidenced again in the newly published gnostic Gospel of Judas. April DeConick, a scholar of ancient Gnosticism, makes this relevant observation: So the barbs in the Gospel of Judas are many, all directed at the theology and practices of apostolic Christians . . . . The Sethians who wrote the Gospel of ludas especially found the atonement theology unconscionable. Apostolic Christianity has long defended Jesus' death as a necessary sacrifice made to God the Father for the purpose of atonement, vicariously redeeming humanity from its sins. The Sethian Gnostics found this dochine morally reprehensible-no different from child sacrifice or murder-and thus not an action that could be condoned by God. The Gospel of Judas is fascinating in this respect, building a very sophisticated response to skewer the atonement. And one figure that they use to do this is the cursed Judas Iscariot, the demon who was responsible for Jesus' death.1 The nineteenth and twentieth centuries have witnessed countless attempts by biblical scholars and theologians to argue that later Christians have read atonement theology back into the New Testament texts.* Understanding Jesus' death as atonement, as the argument goes, was neither there from the beginning nor even from the time of the writing of New Testament documents. Like the ancient Gnostics, therefore, some theologians have simply concluded that atonement as it has been taught is cruel and unusual punishment that should no longer be used in the April D. DeConick, The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says (London and New York: Continuum, 2007), 5. * See Stephan Finlan, Problems with the Atonement: The Origins of, and Controversy about, the Atonement Doctrine (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005). Charles A. Gieschen is Professor of Exegetical Theology and Chairman of the Department of Exegetical 7'heology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 244 Concordia Theological Quarterly 72 (2008) proclamation of Jesus' death. Removing atonement from the lustorical and theological equation that led to the crucifixion usually means Jesus' death is to be understood primarily as a faithful martyrd~m.~ Of all the places in the New Testament where the teaching of atonement has been challenged, the Gospel of John is probably where the most doubt has been cast.* Rudolf Bultmann, one of the most influential interpreters of John in the twentieth century, bluntly pronounced the verdict on this Gospel that still holds sway: "the thought of Jesus' death as an atonement for sin has no place in John."5 Both Bultmann and fellow German Ernst Kasemann argued that the death of Jesus is subordinate to other themes in the Gospel of John. Bultmann asserted that John's major message is the coming of God's Son into the world and his sojourn on earth that led him back to heaven. He viewed atonement as "a foreign element" in this Gospel and dismissed allusions to atonement as being from a non-Johannine source, even a later accretion.6 Kasemann understood the central theme to be "the unity of the Son with the Father."7 His claim that John is "naively docetic"8 is much more well-known than his assessment about the death of Jesus as a "mere postscript" in John: "One is tempted to regard it as mere postscript which had to be included because John could not ignore this tradition nor yet could he fit it 3 For example, David Brondos states, "God did not send his Son in order for him to die . . . but to serve as his instrument for establishing the promised reign of shlon~ and justice; his commitment to this task led to his death; see "Why was Jesus Crucified? Theology, History and the Story of Redemption," Scottish Journal of nleology 54 (2001): 499 (emphasis original). Brondos is an ELCA theologian. "e the history of interpretation by Martinus C. de Boer, Jollannirle Perspectives on the Death of Jesus, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 17 (Karnpen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1996), 1942, esp. 20. See also the vast collection of essays in Tlte Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, ed. G. van Belle, Bibliotheca Ephemeridurn Theologicarum Lovaniensiwn 200 (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Uitgeverij Peeters, 2007). 5 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951 and 1955), 29. 6 Rudolf Bultmann, Tl~e Gospel of John, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 54-55; see also de Boer, Johnnine Perspectives on the Death of Je$us, 20-30. Emst Kasemann, T'he Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in Ligltt of Chapter 17 (London: SCM Press, 1968), 24; see also de Boer, Jolmnnine Perspectives on the Death of Jesus, 20-30. 8 Kasemam, nze Testament of Jesus, 26. For an excellent critique of KZsernann's position, see Marie Meye Thompson, The Incarnate Word: Perspectives on Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988). Gieschen: The Death of Jesus in the Gospel of John 245 organically into his work."9 J. T. Forestell, in his book on Johannine soteriology, expresses similar doubts about atonement in John: "The vocabulary of redemption and expiation is completely absent from the gospel [of John]. The remission of sin is mentioned only once (20,23) and the action of Christ against sin only in 1,29."10 Even Craig Koester, a Johannine scholar who sees the death of Jesus as central to this Gospel, stops short of seeing atonement in John: "The imagery is sacrificial, but it is used in a distinctive way to describe the effects of the death of Jesus as the supreme manifestation of the love of God, as something that transforms people from antipathy into faith, thereby effecting reconciliation."" How, then, does the Gospel of John interpret the death of Jesus? More pointedly: Does this Gospel teach atonement for sin or not? This study will argue that the reason that atonement is often not being read from John is because atonement is taught implicitly though allusion. In many cases, this Gospel communicates on different levels to both the uninformed reader and the informed reader.'2 Even if a reader misses the subtleties of atonement in the narrative of John, therefore, he still can read Jesus' death as a sacrificial act of love that brings life. Because of this "under-the-radar" proclamation of atonement, one may be tempted to skip the testimony of the Gospel and rush ahead to the First Epistle of John in order to find very explicit testimony to Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice (e.g., 1 John 2:2; 4:10).13 Even though some may be more than satisfied with a few solid proof-texts from First John to answer the question posed here, this study will argue that a careful reading of the Gospel will yield similar theology that is expressed with more subtlety. Usemann, The Testament of fesus, 7. 10 J. T. Forestell, 771e Word of the Cross: Salvation as Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, Analecta Biblica 57 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical institute, 1974), 60-61. See the response by Max Turner, "Atonement and the Death of Jesus in John-Some Questions to Bultmann and Forestell," Ez~nngelical Quarterly 62 (1990): 99-122. fl Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 200. 12 For example, without knowing much about first-century Judaism, even a modem reader can understand that bread and water are basic elements needed for life; thus, he can understand that Jesus, as the "Bread of Life" and "Living Water" in John, satisfies our spiritual hunger and thirst. The informed reader, however, knows that an important part of the context for these discourses is the firstientury Jewish understanding that Tordl is the "Bread of Life" and "Living Water." For an argument that John was written for a wide audience, see Richard Bauckham, "For Whom Were the Gospels Written?" in The Gospels fir All Christians: Rethinking The Gospel Audiences, ed. Richard Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 9-48. '3 These two texts will be discussed in Part IV below. 246 Concordia Theological Quarterly 72 (2008) The thesis of this study, therefore, is that the Gospel of John interprets the death of Jesus as the key revelatory event in the life of Jesus, because it is especially in the giving of the flesh of the Son as an atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world that one sees the ultimate revelation of the Son of Man who is the visible glory of YHM'H. Rather than seeing the atonement allusions as marginal to the theology of this Gospel, it will be demonstrated in the four sections below that they are central to understanding fully John's presentation of Jesus' death. First, we will examine how Jesus' death is repeatedly interpreted in John as "exaltation" and "glorification." Second, we will look at the theme of Jesus as "lamb of God" in this Gospel. Third, we will probe the Noble Shepherd discourse of John 10 for teaching of vicarious or substitutionary atonement. Finally, we will view the atonement theology found in First John, arguing that the understanding of Jesus' death that is implicit in John's Gospel is stated explicitly in his first epistle. I. Jesus' Death as Exaltation and Glorification Even the casual reader of John will notice that this Gospel speaks of Jesus' death - not his resurrection or ascension - in terms of him "being lifted up" or "being glorified (e.g., esp. John 3:14; 8:28; 12:23; 12:32-34; 13:31-32; and 17:1).14 Since these sayings are most often found on the lips of Jesus, one can conclude that this is the primary language used by Jesus as presented in John for interpreting his own death. Before we examine each of these texts, there are two general observations that are crucial for understanding them: one concerning the source for the verbs "being lifted up" and "being glorified," and the other concerning the use of "the Son of Man" title with these verbs. First, the Greek verbs used in this cluster of texts, i$6o and 6oE&