I’ve been writing a bit for Crosswalk. It’s fun, though the comments at times can be a bit discouraging. I was recently assigned a piece in which I was tasked with explaining the concept of atonement.
Atonement is one of those things which is a bit difficult to write about without getting into much controversy. I tried to stay out of the debate on particular atonement but didn’t necessarily shy away from penal substitutionary atonement. I thought the best way to explain the atonement was to do it story form. Here’s a sample to whet your appetite:
In Genesis 3 we find something the first couple does not have. And the serpent magnifies it. He shines a spotlight on the thing which they do not yet have. They do not yet know the difference between good and evil. And the serpent uses this lack to convince them that their Father is ripping them off. The serpent suggests how they can get what they lack.
In this moment the goodness of God is questioned. “Every good and perfect gift comes from the Father”, and the serpent questions this. He convinces Eve, and later Adam, that there is something good which has not been given to them. “God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. This is his not so subtle way of saying, “If you want something you’ve got to take it yourself”. The serpent wedged his cloven hoof into the heart of man and woman, dug in a little, and created a void in their heart. Then he said, “I’ll tell you how to fill it”.
—
Photo source: here
