Rob Bell & The Atonement

One of the main questions I have been asked about the book is, What does Rob Bell believe about the atonement? It’s a fair question. The atonement is a really huge doctrine and vital to our faith. In chapter 5 “Dying to Live,” Bell asks numerous questions about how one views and speaks about Christ’s atonement.

Bell questions the relevance of talking about Jesus’ death in sacrificial terms. We, in the 21st century West, do not sacrifice animals, as Bell states,

Just the thought of such practices and rituals is repulsive. So primitive and barbaric. Not to mention unnecessary. It doesn’t even cross our minds to sacrifice animals (p. 62 on NookColor).

We don’t sacrifice animals. Thus, according to Bell, the idea of Christ’s sacrificial death does not make sense to us, and the analogy is irrelevant. However, for the early Christians (most of which come out of Judaism), the analogy of sacrifice is a proper way of explaining the theology of Christ’s death. If the authors were living today, they wouldn’t use sacrificial language.

Bell shares a verse from Hebrews 9 that suggests that Christ’s death is the end of the sacrificial system. But, later, Bell also quotes Colossians 1 which claims that God was reconciling the world through Jesus. So, Bell asks,

So when Jesus died on the cross,

Was it the end of the sacrificial system

or was it the reconciling of all things (p. 64 on NookColor)?

Rob Bell points out that the New Testament also talks about Jesus’ death paying the price to free guilty sinners, and also that Jesus’ death wins the battle over death, and Ephesians states that we have redemption through Christ’s blood. Thus, he summarizes this tension with a question,

Is the cross about the end of the sacrificial system

or a broken relationship that’s been reconciled

or a guilty defendant who’s been set free

or a battle that’s been won

or the redeeming of something that was lost?

Which is it?

Which perspective is the right one? Which metaphor is correct? Which explanation is true?

The answer, of course, is yes (p. 64 on NC).

Bell gathers metaphors in the New Testament about Christ’s atonement and states that all are proper ways of explaining what happened on the cross. This is not a problem but simply,

What the first Christians did was look around them and put the Jesus story in their own language their listeners would understand (p. 65 on NC).

I’ve heard multiple criticisms of Love Wins that suggest that Rob Bell does not believe in the theology of the atonement. Now, my question to those critics would be, Which one? Which theology of the atonement?

There are three main views of the atonement — substitutionary atonement (i.e., Jesus took your place on the cross), the moral exemplar view (i.e., Christ’s death was a moral example for us), and Christus Victor (i.e., Christ’s death won victory over sin and death). Generally, evangelicals have adopted the first; mainliners, the second; and the Eastern Orthodox, the third (I know others have adopted these views, but, for sake of the argument, let’s draw these generalizations). So, which one does Rob Bell believe?

It appears Bell would lean towards the third one - Christus Victor - which is becoming an increasingly more popular view amongst evangelicals (e.g., N.T. Wright, Greg Boyd), when he says,

For the first thousand years or so of church history, the metaphor of victory in battle, Jesus conquering death, was the central, dominate understanding of the cross. And then at other times and in other places, other explanations have been more heavily emphasized (p. 65 on NC).

However, he also continues,

To elevate one over the others, to insist that there’s a “correct” or “right” one, is to miss the brilliant creative work these first Christians were doing when they used these images and metaphors (p. 65 on NC).

For Rob Bell, the theology of the atonement is multi-faceted. All of the tension in the New Testament around the work of Christ’s death is brilliant, creative, and beneficial. I imagine that when evangelicals state that Bell denies the theology of the atonement they are saying, “He denies my theology of the atonement, the way I look at the atonement of Christ.” In one sense, I would say, yes, that’s true. Bell doesn’t believe in your theology of the atonement. He believes all three (or more) are beneficial to understanding what happened on Good Friday, and not just beneficial but necessary.

Would Bell deny substitutionary atonement as a necessary way to look at the atonement? It doesn’t appear so. Would he reject the idea that it’s the only way to look at it? Most certainly, yes.

I don’t bring this up to say that I agree with Rob Bell on everything he says. In fact, I don’t, but I would like to point out that it’s just not as easy to say, “Well, he denies the substitutionary atonement of Christ,” and then write him off. It’s just not…that…easy. I would like to say it is. I would like to say that there is no tension in Scripture about the atonement, but there is, and Bell does well to point it out to his readers.