Understanding atonement is as important as it is vexed. The history of Christianity exhibits numerous flash points, including contemporary discussion in North America. While many factors shape the current debate, one crucial element has been a growing recognition of definitional reductionism with respect to sacrifice and atonement. A flattened and partial grasp of these crucial concepts, however arrived at, quickly comes unstuck when applied to biblical texts. Brad Vaughn, theologian in residence with Global Training Network, steps into the fray with a clear purpose: to understand the cross of Christ in context. Vaughn has three subsidiary aims: (1) to promote Christian unity by resisting theological factionalism; (2) to uncover how biblical authors harmonize atonement metaphors; and (3) to contextualize the Bible’s teaching on atonement for diverse cultures (pp. 1–2). Vaughn eschews theological syncretism—the attempt to silence parts of the Bible to preserve a theological subculture (p. 6). Instead, setting systematic categories aside, he privileges an inductive approach to discern what atonement does and does not mean based on a contextual reading of the primary texts. Nevertheless, Vaughn is cognizant of the fraught nature of this task, poignantly surmising, “I will lose friends” (p. 1).
The Cross in Context has three main sections. Part 1 explores atonement in its biblical and cultural contexts. In the opening chapter, Vaughn suggests that many books start at the wrong place: reconciling atonement theories whose validity is simply assumed (p. 11). Yet, he cautions, “Theology is not equivalent to biblical truth” (p. 14); rather, theological abstractions are highly contextual, indelibly shaped by historical situatedness and subculture. Accordingly, the following four chapters investigate atonement in the Old Testament to construct a broader framework for interpreting Christ’s ministry. The result is a helpful distillation of concepts and scholarship for an audience who may well be unfamiliar with them. Throughout, common oversimplifications are challenged; for example, the absence of God’s anger in atoning for ritual impurity indicates that appeasing divine wrath is not intrinsic to atonement (pp. 69–70). Vaughn identifies three core impediments to a right relationship with God that atonement removes—impurity, debt, and burden (pp. 70, 101). In part 2, four interpretative questions apply insights generated in part 1 to Jesus: What does Christ purify? (pp. 105–22); Who bears the burden of sin? (pp. 123–38); Does God want recompense or retribution? (pp. 139–57); and Does the Father punish the Son? (pp. 158–77). Part 3 provides responses to anticipated questions and objections as well as supplying further analysis of key passages. A central theme in the book is summed up in the title of Appendix B: “Affirming Penal Substitution but Not Its Logic” (p. 217). Vaughn takes issue, not with the category per se, but with the assumptions which underlie simplistic notions of penal substitution along with universalizing tendencies which promote the metaphor to the exclusion of others. Instead, building on recent work on atonement (e.g., James A. Greenberg, A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus: The Meaning and Purpose of Kipper Revisited, BBRSup 23 [University Park: Eisenbrauns, 2019]), Vaughn demands a more careful articulation.
Vaughn’s deconstructive endeavor is well executed. He rightly exposes various unexplored assumptions, conflations, and misinterpretations that obscure contemporary debate. Moreover, a real strength of this volume is its ability to bring back to the table aspects of atonement that often remain underacknowledged. For instance, drawing on extensive experience in East Asia, Vaughn addresses the relationship between atonement and honor/shame (pp. 87–101). This kind of input is invaluable for definitions of atonement which rarely move beyond legal conceptualizations. Thus, Vaughn makes a compelling case for a richer and more multifaceted understanding. His conclusion is spot on: “If we want a robust view of the atonement, we must embrace nuance, not merely tolerate it…. It requires humility to temporarily set aside our atonement theories and embrace the messiness of the biblical text” (p. 209).
However, the plausibility of Vaughn’s constructive effort is weakened by conceptual slippage. His use of “impurity” illustrates this. While, as noted above, Vaughn acknowledges that impurity does not provoke God’s ire (p. 70), he later suggests that impure people need protection from the divine anger that would otherwise fall on them (p. 74). Failing to distinguish carefully between “ritual” and “moral” impurity (or equivalent descriptors) leads to problems elsewhere. Vaughn claims the rite of Leviticus 14:19–20 atones for sin (p. 97) even though the context is the purification of major ritual impurity. He also avers that sacrifice is obligated to remove the debt of pollution (p. 148) even though most ritual impurity is ameliorated without sacrifice (i.e., by washing and/or waiting), and the impurity generated by grievous immoral acts like idolatry had no sacrificial remedy. Other themes and proposed connections similarly require more careful articulation for his proposal to be compelling.
The Cross in Context indicates the kind of work required to construct a robust doctrine of Christ’s atonement which remains faithful to the conceptual landscape of the biblical texts. It is not an easy task. While I do not agree with all the conclusions he proposes, I hope that the generous spirit Vaughn calls for and models can set the benchmark for a more sensible discussion.
