In my ministry with Mission ONE, I am working on a multi-year project called the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project.
Here’s the big idea: There is a social, horizontal dimension to the gospel of Christ because there is a social, horizontal dimension to the atonement of Christ (Eph 2:13–17).
Hindustan Bible Institute & College(HBI) has invited me and researcher Kristin Caynor to introduce the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project through HBI’s monthly webinar series. You are invited to join us!
Date: Friday, October 8, 2021
Time: 8:30 a.m. USA Eastern Time / 6:00 p.m. Indian Standard Time (Time Zone Converter)
Platform: Zoom video conference
Title:“Ephesians 2 Gospel Project: Does the Atonement Speak to Collective Identity Conflict?”
Format: a) 20-minute presentation by Werner Mischke, b) 20-minute presentation by researcher Kristin Caynor, c) 10-minute response by HBI scholar, d) Questions and discussion
My presentation will introduce the project. I’ll discuss the social/horizontal aspect of the reconciling work of the cross in Eph. 2:11–22. Kristin Caynor’s presentation focuses on how Early Church fathers interpreted Eph. 2:11–22.
We have two goals for the HBI webinar: 1) Describe in brief the research we have done so far in the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project, and 2) invite the HBI scholar community into the learning journey with us. We want the resources that are developed to be by and for the global church.
I have found these books super-helpful in understanding sin and human nature.
I’ve got questions about sin. I’ve been reading about sin. I’m in two books currently:
Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology,by Mark E. Biddle (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005). I bought this book in 2016. I have underlines, markings, and notes on nearly every page. I’m reading it again. (Unfortunately, the book is now out of print.)
The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, by Philip Zimbardo (New York: Random House, 2007). This book is a recent purchase. I am engaging for the first time with one of America’s most famous and widely published psychologists.
Here’s why I am reading about sin: I believe that a limited understanding of the scope of sin has a profoundly undesirable result: It limits our understanding of the scope of the gospel. This, in turn, limits what sins and evils we address by the gospel of Christ—in our own lives, families, communities, nations.
Reductionism about sin leads to reductionism about the gospel.
Our view of sin is crucial
Our understanding of sin and how the Bible describes sin is part of many important beliefs. For example, our understanding of sin helps shape how Christians think about:
Human nature: The theological concepts of original glory, depravity, and original sin fit into this category. The Bible offers us a narrative that can be interpreted in various ways; how does theology shape a view of humanity and humanity’s sin?
The origin of sin: What does the Bible say about the supernatural origin of sin? What about “the demonic”? How does “the demonic” influence humans to perform evil in our world? What is “the Lucifer effect”? What do we make of human responsibility in light of this?
The essence of sin: Is sin atomistic—located first of all in the individual? Or is sin systemic—located first of all in the family-and-social system into which the individual is born? This debate is sometimes referred to as nature versus nurture.
The result of sin: According to the Bible, is humanity’s guilt before God the primary, objective result of sin—or is sin-and-shame equally primary and objective?
The scope of sin: Does sin consist first of all in human pride and willful rebellion against God? What about the witness of Scripture showing that sin can be involuntary or unintentional? What about not living up to our glorious potential as humans—is this sinful? What of sin as silence or inactivity—the passivity of sin?
God’s judgment of sin: Does the witness of Scripture show that God judges or critiques the sin of individuals (and no more)—or does God also judge or critique human social systems— families, cities, tribes, nations, empires? What about churches? Relatedly, does God’s view of sin change from the Old to the New Testament?
The atonement for sin: How does our understanding of sin influence our view of the atonement of Christ—and vice versa? Through his saving death and resurrection, Jesus Christ offers to cleanse persons from their sin, thus reconciling individuals to God. In what ways does Scripture show that the cross and resurrection of Christ offers reconciliation in other dimensions—in ways that transcend the redemption of individuals?
Does the gospel address more than individual sin? Does the gospel offer hope for systemic sin?
If sin is first and finally about individuals, then the gospel is first and finally about individuals. But if the witness of Scripture shows that the gospel addresses more than individual sin, if the witness of Scripture shows that the gospel also addresses the social, systemic nature of sin, what then?
My next series of posts will explore these issues, exploring some of the questions above. I will be referencing plenty of Scripture, the two authors above (Mark Biddle, PhD and Philip Zimbardo, PhD), as well as several other experts and their writings.
I will be making the case for a more systemic, more nuanced, more biblically-comprehensive understanding of sin than what some Christians are accustomed to. And along with that—an expanded hope in the gospel.
Please join me in the coming weeks—in thinking more broadly about sin—and the gospel.
This is my second post in a series on how the gospel of Christ offers a cure to the pathologies of racism and tribalism. My first post in the series, “All Gentiles are born ‘strangers and aliens’”, is here. A small part of this second post is adapted from my forthcoming article in Missio Dei Journal: “An Honor-Bearing Gospel for Shame-Fueled Crises.”
In Ephesians 2:16 we read that the cross is “killing the hostility.” What does this mean?
13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. –Ephesians 2:13–16 ESV
Four verses on what Christ’s atonement accomplishes
In Ephesians 2:13–16 Paul proclaims a stunning truth: The cross kills hostility (Eph 2:16). The default hostility between Jew and Gentile is plain in these verses. Somehow the atonement of Christ makes it possible to resolve this conflict.
Once far off, now brought near
Verse 13. The phrase “But now in Christ Jesus, you who were once far off …” (Eph 2:13) is like saying, You Gentiles were distant from God’s people.You and your people were so very different from my people. This distance between us made us natural enemies. But now, in King Jesus, “you have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13).
The crucifixion of Jesus did something world-altering in the social realm. Being “in Christ” is not merely an individual, vertical, largely internal and invisible, spiritual reality. Being “in Christ” is also about who we are (plural) right now, right here. It is likewise a spiritual reality that is social, horizontal, external, public, and visible. This happens “by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13).”
Timothy Tennent writes: “The New Testament celebrates a salvific transformation that has both vertical and horizontal dimensions. Personal salvation in the New Testament is inextricably linked to becoming a part of the new humanity of Ephesians 2:15.”1
The gospel has a social dimension because the atonement has a social dimension.
The gospel truth: The atonement transforms both the individual-vertical and social-horizontal arenas of human life.
The crucified-and-risen Christ is our peace
Verse 14. When Paul writes, “For he himself is our peace,” it is understood that without Christ, conflict prevails. Hostility between peoples is humanity’s default. The phrase “who has made us both one” is not referring to two persons in conflict. It refers to two groups, Jews and Gentiles, in conflict. Paul is saying I belong to the Jews (collectively); and you (collectively) are the Gentiles. (See the post on HonorShame.com, “In Christ as a Communal Ethic,” which offers a fuller explanation.)
This making “us both one” is only possible because Christ has “broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility.” Paul is saying that when Christ’s body was crucified, something was broken “in his flesh.” That something is “the wall of hostility.” Somehow the atonement of Jesus the Christ breaks down walls of conflict between Jew and Gentile peoples “in Christ.”
But God is doing more than offering reconciliation to Jews and Gentiles. God’s purpose is “to unite all things in him” (Eph 1:10), and “to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20). Any conflict between peoples, any racial hostility, can be resolved in the Christ who is “our peace”—people together giving their allegiance to King Jesus.
The gospel truth: The atonement breaks down walls of hostility between peoples.
Abolishing values that fuel tribalism and segregation
Verse 15. “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace” (Eph 2:15). What does this have to do with atonement? We find clarification in Colossians 2:14: “by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” Christ “abolishing the law of commandments” (Eph 2:15) overlaps with Christ “canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” by “nailing it to the cross” (Col 2:14).
The law in the Old Testament was not only the moral law of God. The law also consisted of regulations that were more cultural in nature (such as food guidelines), and contributed to the “wall of hostility” between the Jews and the non-Jews (Gentiles). Mark Roberts writes, “The death of Christ has supplanted the law, and therefore all people can belong to God through faith because of his grace in Christ.”2 Cultural differences that are the basis for division, conflict, and hostility are subsumed in the crucifixion and resurrection of the man Jesus the Christ.
The gospel truth: The atonement nails to the cross cultural regulations or values that are the basis for tribal or racial separation.
The “one new man”—who is this?
More on verse 15. “that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace.” Who is this “one new man”? What is this new way of being human?
This is the kingdom-of-God program of identity formation. In Ephesians 2:19, God is democratizing honor for believers—insider status is available to all who give their allegiance to the Christ. This “one new man” (Eph 2:15), this new way of being human, relativizes every other form of social capital. Even racial identity is somehow absorbed into Christ. Roberts writes:
Recall that the recipients of the letter were… Gentiles “by birth” (literally “in flesh,” en sarki). These Gentiles did not become Jewish when they received God’s grace through Christ. Rather, Christ made them into something different from ordinary Gentiles and Jews. The early Christian writing known as the Epistle to Diognetus expresses this same point when it calls Christians a new race, “neither Jewish nor Gentile.”3
The Epistle to Diognetus calls Christians a new race, neither Jewish nor Gentile. This is an arresting thought. It informs how we think about the phrase “one new man” (Eph 2:15), hena kainon anthropon in the Greek. The phrase is also translated “one new humanity” (NIV), and “one new people” (NLT). Believers from Jewish backgrounds as well as Gentile backgrounds, believers from every social class together, gain not merely the ultimate insider status—“members of the household of God” (Eph 2:19); Christ-followers also gain a new core identity.
Could it be—the influence of Jesus Christ on who we are is so fundamental, it’s almost like gaining a new racial identity?
McNall captures the essence of this new identity. “This transformation [by the reconciling cross of Christ] is seen … in the tearing down of ethnic and cultural boundaries (‘the dividing wall of hostility’ [2:14]). This demolition results in a new community comprised of a new people who do not look like they belong together. Only Jesus and his spirit can account for this strange lot.”4
The gospel truth: The atonement creates a new way of being human—a new identity in Christ that’s like “a third race.”
That strange phrase—“killing the hostility”
Verse 16. “and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility” (Eph 2:16). Somehow, the brutal violence of the crucifixion of Jesus the Christ kills the hostility between “us both.” Paul is getting personal again when he says “us both” (Eph 2:14, 16). He himself is part of a collective identity (Jewish) needing reconciliation in Christ “to God in one body”—with another collective identity (Gentile).
These two groups are separated and segregated. Although they live in the same city, they are not in the same neighborhood. They generally do not live together, play together, or worship together. They do not intermarry. They have different physical features, There are hundreds of years of hostility between them. Their politics and cultures compete, sometimes violently. They are suspicious of each other.
But Paul says when persons and peoples give allegiance to Jesus the Christ—the One who was brutally crucified, the One who then rose from the dead and was exalted as king of kings—something glorious happens. The atonement of Christ is “killing the hostility.” This verse is in the active, present-tense voice as though the Christ-event, which happened two thousand years ago, is impacting humanity into our present days and forward into the future.
Reconciliation between peoples in conflict is not merely a dream. Reconciliation is embodied in the man Jesus Christ and his body crucified and risen again. Peace is possible. Paul boldly imagines a new humanity, “one new man” (Eph 2:15), a “third race,” embodied in Christ. The core identity of this body is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither red or yellow, black or brown or white. It is not that cultural distinctions are obliterated. It is that Jesus the Christ is so glorious and so magnified in our social relations that the walls of separation and hostility dissolve. Paul envisions this as the new normal.
The gospel truth: The atonement kills hostility between peoples.
Toward a social imagination based on Ephesians 2
What are we being called to believe? That the cross kills all hostility in the here-and-now? No, we are not called to magical thinking. I recommend three “steps of belief.”
The cross kills hostility—step 1: The social hostility between Jewish and Gentile peoples (although in some cases commanded by the Old Testament) was in some measure conquered by the violence of the cross. Peace is possible—now—through the “new humanity” (Eph 2:15). Traditionally at odds with one another, Jews and Gentiles really can worship in unity through their common faith in Jesus the Christ, despite cultural and racial differences.
The cross kills hostility—step 2: This biblical truth extends to any and all peoples in conflict, since the plan of God “for the fullness of time” is to “unite all things in him” (Eph 1:10), to “reconcile to himself all things . . . making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20). We see that this applies globally for all families, peoples, and nations. It is a sure hope for the future—an eschatological hope.
The cross kills hostility—step 3: In the third step, we dream. This dream stage is a call for Christians to develop a social imagination that is informed by Ephesians 2. It is a vision that, as Timothy Gombis says, “includes and celebrates racial, ethnic and gender differences . . . [whereby] no singular gender, ethnicity or race is any closer to God than any other. We are all one in Christ and are now free to explore the gifts that each group brings to the kingdom party.”5 This step combines the “now” of step 1 with the “whole-world hope” of step 2. Could it be that the pathologies of racism and tribalism may in some measure be cured by the atonement of Christ “killing the hostility”?
ACTION POINTS
Evaluate your view of the atonement. Have you ever considered Ephesians 2:13–16 as part of a comprehensive view of the doctrine of the atonement? Might Ephesians 2:13–16 be just as important as, for example, Romans 3:23–25? Why do you think this Ephesians passage is under-represented in the literature about the atonement? For example, in this best-selling Systematic Theology, an extensive chapter (Ch. 27) is devoted to the doctrine of the atonement. Not one mention is given to Ephesians 2:13–16. In fact, not one time is Eph 2:13–16 cited in the entire volume. This is the case, despite the density of truths concerning “the blood” (Eph 2:13) of Christ, “the cross” of Christ, the emphasis on “his flesh” (Eph 2:14), as well reconciliation and the act of “killing” (Eph 2:16). Is this evidence of a theological blind spot that ignores group identity issues? Does this hint at why the evangelical church struggles with how to address racism and tribalism?
Teach and preach the gospel based on the atonement truths in Ephesians 2:13–16. Develop a gospel message that calls people to give their allegiance to Christ based primarily on these verses.
This blog post is an excerpt from chapter 3.5 of my book, The Global Gospel, pages 242–244. This constitutes a summary I wrote (admittedly, an exceedingly brief summary) of Jackson Wu’s Saving God’s Face.[1] This excerpt is from Section 3 of The Global Gospel, in which I examine how various honor-shame dynamics overlap and intersect with verses about the atonement of Christ and salvation.
Atonement and the “concept of face”
One may rightly ask: Where does the atonement—the finished work of Christ on the cross, followed by his resurrection—intersect with the concept of face? It is found in the curious phrase, “saving God’s face.” I am indebted to Jackson Wu for the contours of this argument (especially points 4 and 5), which is put forward below.
God’s glory is ultimate.All creation is for the display of his glory (Ps 19:1). The honor and glory of God is both the genesis and final reality of the universe. “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Rom 11:36).
God’s sorrow in humanity’s sin. The world God made was good, but Adam and Eve were tempted by the dark devious destroyer and sinned (Gen 1–3). Thus, the world was cursed under Adam’s sin, and God was sorrowful (Gen 6:7). Sin is not only the violation of God’s laws. It is ultimately the dishonoring of God’s Person (Rom 1:21–26; 2:23). Sin is falling short of an ethical standard, but much more than that, sin is falling short of the glory and honor of God (Rom 3:23).
God’s promise through God’s family to bless all peoples. God promised Abraham, “I will bless you and make your name great” (Gen 12:2) and “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:3). This constitutes God’s plan—to reverse the curse of sin and restore his blessing on all humanity through Abraham’s offspring. “Abraham ‘believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’” (Gal 3:6) apart from the righteous works of the law.
God’s Son makes good on God’s promise for all peoples.Jesus Christ is the offspring of Abraham (Gal 3:16). He died on the cross to redeem us from our sins (Gal 3:13). Moreover, Jesus Christ became “a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith” (Gal 3:13–14). This opened the “door of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27) so that all peoples—all tribes and tongues and nations—could receive the honor of joining God’s family-on-mission and experience eternal life.
God’s “face” saved for God’s glory in all creation.In John 12, Jesus was praying to the Father. His soul was filled with fathomless sorrow about enduring the coming events—arrest, mocking, flogging and torture, humiliating crucifixion to bear the sins of the world, separation and rejection from the Father: “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again” (John 12:27–28).
When Jesus prays, “Father, glorify your name,” he is essentially saying, Father, vindicate your honor! Save your “face”!
Why would the death and resurrection of Christ vindicate God’s honor? Because it is the only way that God’s promise to Abraham to bless all the families of the earth could have come true. God’s credibility hinged on a means for all peoples to be blessed and redeemed. Yes, God gave the law to Moses and his people; yes, the law revealed God’s righteousness and holiness; but the law was lifeless in that it was totally unable to save (Rom 8:2–3).
There was only one way that God’s plan to bless all families—to reverse the curse among all peoples—could be guaranteed: through a heart-captivating faith that individuals and peoples everywhere would place in the name, honor, and finished work of Jesus Christ, a faith that transcends culture.
With regard to ethnicity this faith needed to be neutral, accessible to and affirming of all peoples. But with regard to ethics, this faith needed to be superior; that is, it needed to have the ability to truly transform people from the inside out, conforming them to the righteousness of the Son of God. Therefore, this faith would be a fulfillment of the covenant promise God gave to his people through Abraham (Gen 12:1–3), but the faith would be untethered from the works of the law specific to Jewish ethnicity and culture, such as circumcision. Apostle Paul made this clear:
That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (Rom 4:16). (Emphasis mine.)
Jackson Wu explains:
Christ’s atonement centrally concerns the honor of God and the shame of man. Salvation preserves God’s honor and takes away human shame. God keeps his promises made in the OT, foremost to Abraham. Jesus’ death therefore vindicates God’s name. Therefore, God’s people will not be put to shame. Christ perfectly honored the Father, who then reckons worthy of honor all who, by faith, are united to Christ. … Jesus is a substitute in that he pays the honor-debt and the life-debt owed by sinful creatures.[2]
Consider this: Thousands of peoples in our world have “saving face” as a vital social dynamic in their culture. How valuable would it be to share with them a gospel framework using the honor-shame language and concept of “face”?
1. Jackson Wu: Saving God’s Face: A Chinese Contextualization of Salvation through Honor and Shame. EMS Dissertation Series (Pasadena, CA: William Carey International University Press, 2012). 2. Ibid., p. 219.
I received a question from a pastor in Oregon who is participating in our webinar curriculum, “Journey of Discovery in Honor, Shame, and the Gospel.” His question:
Can you address why/how those under 30 in the United States are so strong on shame?
This is a huge question and whole books could be written on the subject. Here are just a few thoughts and a few resources…
1) Smartphones and social media
Check out these articles—all of which have several references to the intense anxieties of inclusion and exclusion (honor-shame dynamics).
Smartphones and social media have created a never-ending strain of peer pressure on young people and young adults. (Of course, this experience is not limited to an age group; I have observed social media-related anxiety among middle-age adults, myself included.) There is constant anxiety about inclusion and exclusion. The possibility of shame seems inescapable. According to Brené Brown, shame can be defined as “the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love and belonging … the fear of disconnection.” Peer pressure and the fear of exclusion/shame has always been a part of adolescence. But social media and the smartphone expands this fear of shame into a dynamic that’s 24/7—it never turns off.
2) The diminished status of the law in Western culture
Our society has developed a high level of cynicism about the law. At one time, civil law in Europe and North America was viewed as an extension of the righteous law of God. But the modern world has seen that law and rules are sometimes agents of oppression. For example, in World War 2, in Germany, the Holocaust was perpetrated on millions of innocent men, women, and children by Germans who were ‘just following the rules.’ … Racism and segregation in America was codified into housing and zoning laws, and lending policy (see Rothstein: The Color of Law). … The criminal justice system in America has been critiqued as one of injustice toward minorities. The privileged status of the law has been diminished in the West, and I believe this shift has contributed to the rise of shame dynamics, especially among teens and young adults. (Note to pastors: An overview of the changing views of law and justice in Western history is contained in Atonement, Law and Justice by Adonis Vidu.)
3) Sexual defilement and moral relational pollution
I believe there is a synergy of defilement-related shame in Western culture. (See Alan Mann: Atonement for a ‘Sinless’ Society). Mann says that in the post-Christian West, “sin” is passé—an old way of thinking that doesn’t make sense to modern people. Any yet (Mann contends), everyone still understands the reality of “moral relational pollution,” which would include…
persistent occurrence of sexual abuse across all levels of social status
dramatic growth of the problem of pornography—now available via any smartphone
breakdown of the stable two-parent family, and all the relational brokenness connected to this
Conclusion: Could it be that these dark social dynamics have created a perfect storm of defilement and shame—especially observable among young people and young adults? Could it be we need to teach and preach the gospel in ways that transcend the “legal-framework-gospel”? The Bible is full of stories, principles, and truths (we are exploring these in our webinar curriculum) that speak to the problems of defilement, sin, and shame.
I’ve just redesigned my blog. I wanted a new look, and also wanted it to be easier for readers using tablets and smartphones. Hope you like the new design. The banner photo comes from our trip to Spain in May; it was taken on a country road between Malaga and Ronda. Loved the ancient arches from the Roman Empire—and the symbolism of a modern road that leads you toward the ancient. ♦ This post originally appeared at Gospel-Life.net.It has been slightly modified. —Werner
I had just preached a sermon on how God covers our shame and restores our honor based on the Prodigal Son story. Afterward, a smiling elderly Christian woman came to me and shared how the sermon had blessed her. Wonderful!
But I was especially startled when she said. “You know, when I was a little girl, something happened to me, and I’ve never been able to get rid of it. Until today.”
It seems she knew she was forgiven of her sins, but because of the sins of another against her, she had felt defiled—literally for decades.
In May I had the privilege of speaking at an international Baptist church in Spain. My sermon was “Jesus Makes Us Clean.” At the end of the service, an individual was crying. Like me, she had grown up with a mentally-ill father. For years, she and her sister had been deeply embarrassed and ashamed. They felt defiled.
She was involuntarily stained by the effects of a sinful fallen humanity by a father who involuntarily suffered from schizophrenia.
Is relational pollution getting worse and worse? Maybe it’s just always been this way.
What is sin to a post-Christendom world?
In our postmodern secular world many people no longer believe in the reality of sin. Alan Mann writes in his book, Atonement for a Sinless Society, that “geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists increasingly … allow us to live in the confidence that we do no wrong.”[1]
And as for the death of Christ, “To twenty-first-century sensibilities, the crucifixion of Jesus [is] nothing more than a primitive, barbaric, pointless death.”[2]
Part of Mann’s thesis is that the best way for secular peoples to come to terms with sin is to be presented with this: Sin is relational defilement, uncleanness, pollution.
Consider the relational defilement that most secular peoples readily acknowledge: poverty of all kinds … racism and bigotry … sexual trafficking … an epidemic of addictions … the persistence of slavery … institutional greed and corruption … violent nationalism … honor-killings … bloody culture clashes.
What does it all add up to? A dirty, traumatized, defiled, relationally polluted world!
In this world of sin, I am unclean. Isaiah observed: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips and dwell among a people of unclean lips …” (Isa. 6:5).
Sin is personal—for I am an agent of sin having fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).
Andsin is social—for I am also a victim of the sins of others. I’m defiled by living in a world-nation-community-family of fallen humanity. Am I “playing the victim card”? No. I’m describing the complexity of the effects of sin. When it comes to sin, we are all both agents and victims.
Is Christ’s death sufficient to cleanse us from being both agents and victims of sin?
The Psalmist David reveals this agent-and-victim duality about sin: “When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions” (Ps. 65:3).
On the one hand, I am the victim of the sins of others (“iniquities prevail against me”). On the other hand, we are all responsible agents of sin (“our transgressions”). But David’s song to God contains good news concerning his sinfulness both as an agent and victim of sin: “You atone for our transgressions” (Ps. 65:3). There is an atonement-remedy for both!
The writer of Hebrews said of the death and atonement of Christ: “So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order that he might sanctify the people through his own blood” (Heb. 13:12). In his death, Jesus became unclean—he “suffered outside the gate.” Why? “…in order that he might sanctify the people”—in order to cleanse the people. Through His death, Jesus became unclean in order to make believers cleanforever.
“When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions” (Ps. 65:3). When Jesus made “purification for sins” (Heb. 1:3), He made provision to cleanse us from sins committed byus—and from sins committed against us.
Hallelujah, what a gospel! Hallelujah, what a Savior!
1. Mann, Alan (2015-12-18). Atonement for a Sinless Society: Second Edition (Kindle Location 121–122). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
This blog post is an excerpt from chapter 3.5 of my book, 
The Psalmist David reveals this agent-and-victim duality about sin: “When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions” (Ps. 65:3).