Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
In t r o d u c t i o n : A t o n e m e n t a s
A T h em e of T h e o l o g y T o d a y
214
NORBERT HOFFMANN
215
I. F o r m s o f A t o n e m e n t i n S a l v a t i o n - H i s t o r y :
S in T r a n s f o r m e d in t o th e P a s s io n of t h e S o n
216
NORBERT HOFFMANN
a . f o u n d a t io n : p u r if ic a t io n
FROM SIN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
217
I.
The Formal Structure: Atonement as
Correlative Event between Yahweh and the Sinner
a. C o v e n a n t as H o rizo n O verarch in g the Events
W ith the h ard clarity o f its legal requirem ents, the O ld
T estam ent m akes us existentially aw are o f the possible space
for the event o f red em p tio n th at is opened up fundam entally
and absolutely: it is the space o f personal interrelation betw een
Y ahw eh and the sinner. T h e O ld T estam en t once and for all
show s liberation fro m sin to be a dram atic event that occurs
w ithin the interplay o f divine and hu m an freedom . T h e idea o f
covenant, central to the O ld T estam en t, structures radically the
redem ption as an interpersonal occurrence betw een partners.
In this event there are three com p o n en ts w hich are peculiarly
intertw ined and w hich especially claim o u r attention.
b. T h e T h ree S tructural Elem ents
Yahweh as sovereign subject o f the action
T he pertinen t literature never tires o f em phasizing the O ld
T estam en ts testim o n y that Y ahw eh is the sovereign subject
o f the action w hereby sins are forgiven: he cannot first be
persuaded to reconciliation from the outside, and he can never
becom e the object o f h u m an efforts at aton em en t (penance,
cultic sacrifices); rather, Y ahw eh has from the o utset, and
from his in nerm o st being, assum ed an attitu d e disposed to
being reconciled. A nd w h o could seriously contest this? B ut
having said as m uch, w e have only affirm ed the first h a lf o f
w hat is obvious from the totality o f O ld T estam en t evidence.
The sinner: N ot an object o f redemption
T he w hole picture o f reconciliation in the O ld T estam ent
equally contains, as its m ost peculiar elem ent and w ith the
218
NORBERT HOFFMANN
219
220
NORBERT HOFFMANN
aw ay from the sinful deed and the attitude o f sin; sin itselfin
its com plex totality, w hich em braces all sins consequences
and effects m ust be born e aw ay ; sin m ust itself be effaced.
B ut sin is born e aw ay , precisely, by first being b o rn e ,
w hich is to say by being su ffered .16 In tim e, m oreo v er, as
the religious consciousness o f Israel u n d erg o es continual
clarification, and as the concept o f G od and the cult is m ore and
m ore purified, the precise object o f this bearin g becom es
increasingly clear to the faith-experience o f the atoning Jew s.
This object is n o t the traces w hich sin leaves in the w o rld , nor
the individual and social ills caused by sin, n o r the so-called
pu n itiv e consequences o f sin in them selves: distress, toil,
pain, in brief, a shru n k en existence. T h e object that m ust be
borne is w h at is expressed and concretized in the things ju st
enum erated: nam ely, the breach o f the covenant, the disrupted
relationship to G od, the w ra th o f Y ahw eh. W hat is b o rn e
is n o t really the sy m p to m b u t the theological core o f sin, w hich is
to say Y ah w eh s disappearance, his absence fro m the life o f the
sinner. T he effacing o f sin , h o w ev er, occurs only w h en the
distance o f Y ahw eh is b o rn e as a suffering.
b. T he Essence o f B earing :
T he L over E xperiences Sin as Suffering
N o t everyone is capable o f bearing evil as suffering, insofar
as evil m eans sin and hence the farness o f G od. T h e specific
m eaning o f b earing , in the O ld T estam ent, is qualified by
love. H e w h o is capable o f b earin g sin in such a w ay that it is
abolished is (note the dialectic!) one w h o , form ally considered,
is no longer a sinner, one w h o has already tu rn ed aw ay from
his crooked p ath and has h u m b le d h im self and b o w ed d ow n
before Y ahw eh. O n ly he is capable o f suffering sin as the
farness o f Y ahw eh w ho has first tu rn ed aw ay fro m sin, has
returned to the covenant o f Y ahw eh and has becom e a ju st and
loving m a n .17
221
222
NORBERT HOFFMANN
223
224
NORBERT HOFFMANN
b . f u l f il l m e n t :
THE NEW TESTAMENTS MESSAGE OF REDEMPTION
225
226
NORBERT HOFFMANN
II. T h e T h e o l o g ic a l P r o b l e m : A t o n e m e n t
A s t h e Q u e s t i o n i n g o f G o d s V e r y G o d h o o d
A. INTERPRETATIONS WHICH NEUTRALIZE
THE THEME OF ATONEMENT
227
i. The Fathers
Already patristic theology is strikingly m arked by a hesitation
to follow thro u g h w ith its chosen central m o tif o f the exchange
o f co n ditions betw een G od and m an in C h rist as radically as
this is dem anded by the N ew T estam en t .22 It lim its Jesus
vicarious representation o f the sinner to the S aviors assum ing
o f the consequences and p u n ish m en t due to sin .23
2 . Saint Anselm
B ut w hat in the Fathers im presses us as an unconscious
draw ing o f the line24 reappears in A nselm s classical th eo ry o f
satisfaction as a conscious and indispensable elem ent : if the
reparation Jesus accom plishes is to be effective, he m ust not
com e in to contact w ith the sin o f o th e rs . H e is n o t a bearer
o f sin 25 itself. H is death does n o t stand in any internal con
nection w ith o u r sin: he is n o t o u r sin as borne by h im for us
before the Father, o u r sin as reversed into the suffering o f the
Son; rather, he is som ething th at rem ains external to sin ,26 a
co u nterw eig h t o f superior value 27 that stands over against
our sin and that, because o f its objective w o rth , surpasses in
density on the one side o f the scales o f divine justice th e w eight
o f sin on the o th er side.28 As o u r representative, Jesus pays the
ransom m oney for o u r sins; b u t he does n o t suffer o u r sins
vicariously: his sufferings are n o t, for A nselm , ex p iato ry .29
N eith er for K. R ahner can the pro nobis o f the cross have
the character o f vicarious a to n e m e n t.30 C onsistent w ith his
theology o f death, R ahner ascribes a redem ptive significance
to Jesus death n o t so m uch because it is the event o f the
cross b u t rather because it is the intensest form o f death as
such, insofar as in this death the apex o f h u m an im po ten ce is
united w ith absolute tru st in the F ath er .31
B y contrast to these interpretatio n s, the view w e are here
unfolding w o u ld have liberation fro m sin occur w h en sin is
228
NORBERT HOFFMANN
3 . A Christology o f Solidarity
We can especially clarify the im p o rt o f o u r prop o sed inter
pretation if w e com pare it w ith those proposals w hich w e m ay
subsum e u n d er the m odel o f a so-called C h risto lo g y o f
solidarity .32 T hese are n o t based on the idea o f su b stitu tion
b ut on the concept o f so lid a rity u n d e rsto o d in a very
particular w ay. A ccording to this concept, it w o u ld appear
that Jesus m akes h im self solidary w ith sinners n o t insofar as
they are sinners, b u t insofar as they are social outcasts. A nd
then, quite consistently, w e arrive at the cross n o t really o ut o f
theological b u t rather o u t o f social reasons. T h e cross is n o t the
locus w here the dram a unfolds b etw een G od and a Jesus w ho
w ould be representing sinners as such; the cross is no event
betw een Father and Son b u t rather w hat develops as the
consequence o f Jesu spraxis o f liberation: it is the resu lt o f
the conflict betw een those in p o w er and Jesus as one w ho
is solidary w ith the oppressed and the despised. Jesus does
indeed die because o f sin , b u t n o t for the forgiveness o f
sin .33 F rom G o d s stan d p o in t the cross does n o t m ean the
actual accomplishment o f forgiveness; in the cross, rather, G o d s
eternal w illingness to be reconciled sim ply attains to its de
finitive revelation. T h e cross, still according to this view , is not
an atoning sacrifice in and th ro u g h w hich forgiveness occurs
229
2 30
NORBERT HOFFMANN
23 I
232
NORBERT HOFFMANN
233
234
NORBERT HOFFMANN
precisely for this reason, Jesus life leads to the cross. M oreover,
this im plies (and this is the logical consequence o f a staurology
o f atonem ent) that the cross as explanation m eans the in
explicableness o f G od. T he cross has as presup p o sitio n a G od
w h o is an im possibility for the P lato n ic sensibility, a G od
before w h o m the pious pagans, b o th ancient and m odern,
trem ble, a G od w h o loves th e w o rld in a d o w n rig h t forbidden
m anner: w hich is to say, a G od w h o w ants to be loved by the
w orld, and so ardently th at the refusal o f this love constitutes
the very core o f sin, and sin is the pain o f G o d and its
overcom ing is the ab an d o n m en t o f his o n ly-beloved Son to
the forces o f darkness.
Because it proceeds fro m G o d s loving in terio rity as Father,
the atonem en t w ro u g h t b y the C rucified does indeed call G od
into question: is a G od still G o d w hen his relationship to the
w o rld reaches its h ig h p o in t in crucified aton em en t by his Son?
Is he still G o d w h en he, thus, is so in v o lv ed in the w o rld s
destiny as F ath er th at this in v o lv em en t is in the end no thing
other than his o n ly-beloved Son, surrendered to the cross?
M ust n o t the cross as ato n em en t negate G od as God? As
atonem ent by the S on and dism aying engagem ent o f the
F ather in the w o rld , is n o t the cross inexorably im plan ted as
the self-abolition o f G o d ?
235
III. H o w
t h e T r in i t y M a k e s A t o n e m e n t P o s s ib le :
G o d a s F a th e r w it h in t h e T r in ity
A. THE CROSS AS ATONEMENT, THE TRINITY,
AND THE PRO -STRUCTURE41 OF BEING
236
NORBERT HOFFMANN
237
238
NORBERT HOFFMANN
239
as the personified and ineffable culm ination and seal o f the
abundance p ro p er to G o d s in terio r B eing, the H oly Spirit is
at the sam e tim e the expo n en t o f the m ost absolute divine
freedom .45 B u t tog eth er w ith this he reveals h im self as the
transcendental g round for the possibility o f extending, beyond
the realm o f the purely divine, that intra-divine m o v em ent
w hereby the Father passes over to the S o n .46 G od must not
go beyond him self, b u t he can go beyond him self. G od
is free to allow som ething else to be: the creation ;47 he
can do it precisely by virtue o f th at p o w er-b ey o n d -all-p o w er
o f the divine B eing w hich w e have sh o w n culm inates super
abundantly in the H oly Spirit. T h e w o rld can have its p roper
place only w ith in the difference betw een Father and Son w hich
the H oly Spirit b o th keeps open and bridges o v e r .48 T he
im m anent self-distinction o f G od, w hich is ro o ted in the
p ro -co n stitu tio n o f the divine B eing, posits that absolute,
infinite distance w ith in w hich are included and encom passed
all possible distances that m ay em erge w ithin the finite w o rld .49
W ith this First D istinction that springs forth from B eing as
Being, relatio n is already posited as at all being a possible
form o f B eing.
b. T h e W orld as a C reatio n in C h rist :
T h e M aking o f Sons in the S on
It is only then that, in fact, revelation attests to the w o rld as
being a creation in C h rist . T his tru th is o f inestim able
significance for u n derstanding the divine behavior to w a rd the
w orld. It m eans that, if anything created exists, it is because
G od is F ath er and w ants to extend his fatherhood beyond
the internal realm o f the T rinity: because he w ants to be
F ather to all m en in C h rist . H ence, creation is the w orld
as presupposition for filiation by grace . G od w ants to assign
to m an a place n o t sim ply an yw here w ith in B eing, b ut
w ithin the intra-trin itarian locus o f his Son. T his, in turn,
means that from the very o utset m an and the w o rld rest w ithin
the space o f in tra-trin itarian affection; all the love G od m ay
240
NORBERT HOFFMANN
241
242
NORBERT HOFFMANN
243
244
NORBERT HOFFMANN
245
246
NORBERT HOFFMANN
him self is identical w ith his task 62 som ething w hich cannot
be asserted o f any o th er h u m an being. A nd the specific task o f
his m ission is to bear aw ay the guilt o f the w o rld (Jn 1:29),63
in o ther w ords, to be atonement.
T his o u g h t to im ply that the atoning for the w o rld s guilt by
Jesus relates to the eternal sonship o f the Logos in a w ay sim ilar
to h o w his missio ad extra relates to h is processio interna. Ju st as
th e processio is continued in the missio, so too the generation o f
the Logos is continued in the ato n em en t o f the cross. This
w ould be the fo rm w hich the ad extra p ro lo n g atio n o f the
eternal processio assum es w hen it enters a w o rld o f sin. T here
fore, w e o u g h t to be able to say th at C h rist (atonem ent
becom e person) is the m anner in w hich eternal sonship exists
in a sinful w o rld , o r that the cross is the sin-conditioned
m odality o f the econom ic T rin ity as expressive o f the gener
ation o f the Logos w ith in the im m an en t T rin ity . If w e see the
tem poral m ission as being one w ith the eternal procession, and
if, w ith St. T h o m as, w e understan d m ission as a new
presence o f the divine Person w ith an orien tatio n to a m ission,
then w e w o u ld in fact have to consider ato n e m e n t as the
m ode, p roper to the L ogos, o f being sent into the w o rld s
situation o f sin. T h e cross, m oreo v er, w o u ld sim ilarly be
u nderstood as the w ay the eternal Logos is S on w ithin a
w orld fallen victim to sin: the cross w o u ld consequently be the
counterstroke, against the w o rld s sinful resistance, resulting
from that intra-divine p ro -ev en t in w hich the filial I o f
the L ogos is constituted as such. If w e are attentive to the
m eaning o f those scriptural passages according to w hich the
sonship o f Jesu s em pties o u t to becom e that o f the C h rist ,
and if w e inquire as to the deep reasons for such an exaltation,
the N ew T estam en t unequivocally answ ers by p o in tin g to the
cross, u ndersto o d as an atoning e v e n t.64 T his answ er can be
explained in the light o f the concept o f aton em en t w hich w e
w orked o ut at the beginning o f this inquiry. A ccording to this
concept, the essential content o f aton em en t w o u ld have to be
the reversal o f sin in to its o pposite (the suffering form assum ed
by the S ons love).
247
248
NORBERT HOFFMANN
249
1. The Question
N o t long ago the attem pt was m ade to expose the significance
o f the idea o f representation as being a universal theological
categ o ry ,66 and in particular to dem o n strate that the funda
m ental m ystery o f the T rin ity precisely as basis for the
econom y o f salvation could be m o re easily penetrated at its
deepest if it could be u n d ersto o d as the prim al realization o f
representatio n .67
T his concern naturally evokes the fear that such a trans
position from the soteriological to the trinitarian level m ight
do violence to the in teg rity o f language by o verextending
artificially b o th the w o rd and the concept o f rep resen tatio n .
The objection becom es m ore precise in the follow ing questions:
is it n o t a part o f representation , in the soteriological sense,
that the vicarious representative does som eth in g in the
place o f h im w h o m he represents w hich the oth er could not
accom plish? C an any analogy be found in the interio r life o f
the T rin ity that corresponds to the elem ent osubstitution, so
necessary and constitutive in every fo rm o f representation?68
Because it goes to the very heart o f o u r subject, this objection
doubtless elicits reflections w hich w ill be useful in clarifying
a to n em en t even fu rth er as a theological problem ; in partic
ular, they w ill help us give an answ er to the question: to
w hat extent does the pro o f the im m an en t T rin ity becom e
transfigured in the atoning C hrist at the level o f the econom y
o f salvation?
250
NORBERT HOFFMANN
251
252
NORBERT HOFFMANN
253
for one anoth er that is so radical that the one person becom es
the locus o f the other. A nd w e have sh o w n th at such a
concept is w ell-suited to disclose the strict correspondence
betw een the trinitarian and the christological p ro -event,
since Jesus to o becom es the C h rist by step p in g o v er in
atonem ent to the side o f the sinner. W e w ill n o w , therefore,
turn o u r attention to how this stepping in is accom plished in
each case, since this will bring to light the structural differences
betw een the trinitarian and the christological event.
b. T h e D ivergences
In com parison w ith the directness o f the Father-S on rela
tionship w ith in the T rin ity , the relationship in stitu ted in the
cross is variously m ediated th ro u g h C hrist. Factually existing
historical m an has his locus as son only in C h rist the crucified.
T he position as son, m ediated by the cross, has its presup
position n o t only in the fact that creatureliness as such already
im plies filial relationship (since the creature is by definition a
receiver o f life) b u t also in a w h o lly new m anner, em erging
now for the first tim e, o f being a created person over against
being a divine person. T h e transcendental possibility for this
over-against m ay already be found posited in G od him self,
quite sim ply as the creatibility o f finite spirit. Form ally, such a
bipolar relationship is inim ically to rn up as the abyss o f sin by
the creatures freedom . W ith sin, the face-to-face w ith G od
becom es fractured as a negation: sin posits n o t only the other
but his negation as well. U nlike m an as such, the sinner is not
the o th er because he is creature; he is the o th er w h o denies G od
and sets him self against G od. In this w ay sin creates a place
w hich, properly speaking, is im possible (a place w here G od
is n o t). T he sinner finds no place for h im self w ith in the infinite
realm o f that positivity w hich has been opened up by the
distance betw een Father and Son; his p ro p er place is evil
nothingness , to use a phrase o f R om ano G uardini. Such
a th ing possesses a describable locus only inso far as the
254
NORBERT HOFFMANN
255
256
NORBERT HOFFMANN
257
258
NORBERT HOFFMANN
259
IV . C o n c l u d i n g O v e r v ie w
26o
NORBERT HOFFMANN
261
2 62
NORBERT HOFFMANN
NOTES
These pages present a shortened and somewhat more clarified version o f the
basic soteriological concepts of N. Hoffmanns essay Siihne: Zur Theologie der
Stellvertretung (Einsiedeln, 1981), quoted henceforth as Siihne.
1 Cf. H. J. Lauter, Brauchen wir ein Siihnopfer?, in Anzeiger fur die
katholische Geistlichkeit 89 (1980): 75ff. Other literature ibid., p. 77, note 1.
2 Pius XII, Haurietis aquas: Encyclical on the Devotion to the Most Sacred Heart
ofJesus. AAS 48 (1956): 320.
3 Ibid., our emphasis. Cf. ibid., p. 321.
4 Cf. the critical review o f the position, among others, o f H. Kessler,
H. Kiing, Ch. Duquoc, E. Schillebeeckx, K. Rahner, and R. Schwager, in
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theodramatik, vol. 3, Die Handlung (Einsiedeln,
1980), pp. 24891, quoted henceforth as TD 3.
5 Cf. for instance P. Fiedler, Siinde und Vergebung im Christentum, in
Concilium 10 (1974): 568-71, here p. 569.
6 See, for instance, H. Schiirmann, Jesu ureigenes Todesverstandnis:
Bemerkungen zur impliziten Soteriologie Jesu, in J. Zmijewski and E.
Nellessen, eds., Begegnung mit dem Wort: Festschrift fur Heinrich Zimmermann
(Bonn, 1980), pp. 273-309.
7 Transcendental here refers to the ascent from the event o f the cross to
the internal basis in the being of God that makes it possible.
8 Cf. Siihne, p. 15, notes 15-17.
9 For example, Probleme der Christologie von heute, in K. Rahner,
Schriften zur Theologie, 8th ed. (Einsiedeln, 1967), vol. 1, pp. 169-222, here
pp. I76ff.
10 Cf. Siihne, pp. 39b
11 TD 3, pp. 21 of.
12 Ibid., pp. 295b
13 Ibid., p. 211.
14 Quoted in L. Kaufmann, LeidenschaftLeidenPassion, in Orientierung
45 (1981): 6iffi, here p. 61.
15 Cf. on this TD 3, p. 320.
16 Cf. Siihne, pp. 26ffi; TD 3, p. 222.
17 Here we already encounter the themes ofcommercium and representation,
which will later be treated in detail.
18 Cf. H. Gross, Das Hohelied der Liebe Gottes: Zur Theologie von
Hosea 11, in H. Rossmann and J. Ratzinger, eds., Mysterium der Gnade:
Festschrift fur Johann Auer (Regensburg, 1975), pp. 83-91, here p. 87. Cf. on
this the quote from F. Kerstiens, infra, p. 265, note 77.
263
264
NORBERT HOFFMANN
19 TD 3, p. 295.
20 Ibid., p. 210.
21 Cf. ibid., pp. 292ff., that contains the essence o f A. Feuillet, L Agonie de
Gethsemani: Enquetes exegetiques et theologiques (Paris, 1977).
22 TD 3, p. 226; cf. ibid., p. 293.
23 Ibid., pp. 232ff.
24 Ibid., pp. 230-34.
25 Ibid., p. 240.
26 Cf. K. Rahner, Erlosung, in Sacramentum Mundi: Theologisches Lexikon
fur die Praxis (Freiburg-Basel-Vienna, 1967), vol. 1, col. 1159-76, here n69f.;
H. U. von Balthasar, Crucifixus etiam pro nobis, in IKaZ 9 (1980): 26-35,
here p. 33.
27 F. Hammer, Genugtuung und Heil: Absicht, Sinn und Grenzen der
Erldsungslehre Anselms von Canterbury (Vienna, 1967), quoted in TD 3, p. 240,
note 15.
28 TD 3, p. 240.
29 Ibid.
30 Cf. ibid., p. 253.
31 K.-H. Weger, Karl Rahner: Eine Einfuhrung in sein theologisches Denken,
Herderbiicherei 680 (Freiburg-Basel-Vienna, 1978), p. 147.
32 Cf. TD 3, pp. 245ff.
33 Ch. Duquoc, Christologie (Paris, 1972), vol. 2, quoted in TD 3, p. 250.
34 Cf. TD 3, pp. 276ff.
35 R. Schwager, Brauchen wir einen Sundenbock? Gewalt und Erlosung in den
biblischen Schriften (Munich, 1978), p. 211.
36 H. U. von Balthasar, Die neue Theorie von Jesus als dem Siindenbock ,
in IKaZ 9 (1980-): i84f., here p. 185.
37 Ibid., p. 184.
38 Cf. TD 3, p. 290.
39 Cf. TD 3, p. 295: According to this theory, do not men have the
initiative in the redemptive process, while . . . Gods action o f forgiveness . . .
falls short of its goal? See also ibid., p. 311.
40 H. Kiing, Christ sein, 4th ed. (Munich, 1974), p. 325.
41 Pro-structure: In what follows the Latin prefix pro (as in pro nobis) will
be used where the German original uses the Greek equivalent vnep or hyper,
not in the sense of above, over, or beyond (governing the accusative)
but in the sense of for, for the sake o f, and in the place o f (calling for the
genitive). Expressions such as pro-structure and pro-existence are short
hand, both in the original and in this translation, for the authors fundamental
idea that the very being o f God, already in himself, is other-oriented, selfsurrendering, radically altruistic, a quality summarized by the Latin phrase esse
ad. Tr.
42 Kl. Hemmerle, Glaubenwie geht das? Wege zur Mitte des Evangeliums,
4th ed. (Freiburg-Vienna-Basel, 1978), pp. i88f.
43 Ibid., p. 189.
44 TD 3, p. 303. Cf. ibid., p. 304.
45 Cf. N. Hoffmann, Stellvertretung, Grundgestalt und Mitte des
265
266
NORBERT HOFFMANN
burdened, in Mysterium Salutis: Grundriss heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik (EinsiedelnZiirich-Cologne, 1967), vol. 2, p. 235. Cf. H.-J. Lauter, op. cit., p. 129,
note 26.
79 H. U. von Balthasar, Theodramatik (Einsiedeln, 1978), vol. 2, pt. 2,
p. 98.
80 Cf. H. Kiing, Christ sein, pp. 300, 299, 105, 465f., 413, 416.