Dr. Margaret Turek

“As if anticipating a too-narrow interpretation of the words “our” and “us” in these New Testament texts and the enveloping commentary, the Catechism immediately adds: “At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes no one: ‘So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish’ (Mt 18:14). He affirms that he came ‘to give his life as a ransom for many’; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us (Mt 20:28; cf. Rom 5:18–19).”35 With unmistakable consistency, from paragraph no. 50 through no. 618 and beyond, the Catechism interprets the biblical testimony as refraining from placing restrictions on God’s love for sinners. Instead, it avows the universal scope of “the Father’s plan of divine salvation” in sending his Son as atonement for the sins of all, for the sake of all, for love of all.”Turek, Margaret. Atonement: Soundings in Biblical, Trinitarian, and Spiritual Theology (pp. 128-129). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

“Since the patrogenetic structure of the process of redemption is a major theme of this book, we will pause briefly to showcase the emphasis that the Catechism places on the Father’s “universal redeeming love”. In the section entitled “Jesus Died Crucified”, the Catechism develops a line of instruction that leaves no doubt as to the nonrestrictive scope of the Father’s redeeming love for human beings: “By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: ‘In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins’ (1 Jn 4:10). God ‘shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us’ (Rom 5:8).”34 As if anticipating a too-narrow interpretation of the words “our” and “us” in these New Testament texts and the enveloping commentary, the Catechism immediately adds: “At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes no one: ‘So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish’ (Mt 18:14). He affirms that he came ‘to give his life as a ransom for many’; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us (Mt 20:28; cf. Rom 5:18–19).”35 With unmistakable consistency, from paragraph no. 50 through no. 618 and beyond, the Catechism interprets the biblical testimony as refraining from placing restrictions on God’s love for sinners. Instead, it avows the universal scope of “the Father’s plan of divine salvation” in sending his Son as atonement for the sins of all, for the sake of all, for love of all.”Turek, Margaret. Atonement: Soundings in Biblical, Trinitarian, and Spiritual Theology (pp. 128-129). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

“Our discussion until now has stressed that sin is committed by one who is “more than” a mere creature.38 Nevertheless, sin is the work of human freedom alone, and thus it should be dealt with by human freedom. Indeed, as we observed in our reading of the Old Testament, sin cannot be merely walked away from; it must be borne away, effaced, eliminated. Sin is borne away by being transformed or converted into its opposite. If sin is to be transformed into its opposite, then that which is the opposite of sin—filial love—must take up and bear sin away. But filial love can bear sin only insofar as filial love is willing to bear the effects of sin, primarily separation from the Father (in a word: God-forsakenness). And given the enormity of sin, its complete and definitive transformation calls for a filial love infinite in efficacy,39 capable of plumbing the Trinitarian proportions of sin. And there’s the rub: although the work of atonement must involve human freedom, human freedom alone cannot turn around the repercussions of rejecting the extension of the divine Father-Son relationship to and in human persons. Alone it cannot convert sin’s effects into material for the expression of a filial love infinite in quality that perfectly images—and thus perfectly glorifies—the Father’s passion of love in the face of sin. This can be accomplished only by the divine Son, who, taking up human freedom in his Incarnation, makes it the place in which a return of love—precisely in the form of an infinite filial love-suffering—can be made to God the Father.40 Atonement for the sin of the world, simply put, is the assertion of incarnate sonship against sin. Sonship takes sin upon itself—without ceasing to be itself—in order to transform sin into the suffering form of filial love, thereby annihilating it.”Turek, Margaret. Atonement: Soundings in Biblical, Trinitarian, and Spiritual Theology (pp. 85-86). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

“In this chapter, we focused our attention on the Old Testament and traced the gradually emerging pattern of a process of atonement that is patrogenetic: it originates from and is engendered by God’s own power to love. God exercises his power against sin in such a way that human freedom is not merely bypassed by a one-sided forgiveness. God’s power is a forgiving power, but it takes full effect in his chosen beloved only by engendering a response of repentant love that willingly bears sin’s consequences. The sinner turns back to God with filial love (regenerated by God; in this respect God is near), such that now he endures the effects of sin (principally distance from God) in filial love-suffering, and by bearing this sin-wrought distance, he turns sin around: away from a refusal of filiation to an occasion of asserting it. Atonement is a work of sonship that “cleanses” from sin by transforming sin into its opposite: nearness to God in the filial love-suffering of distance from God. Hence God’s generative (fore-giving) love brings about a union between himself and his beloved that takes the form of a shared willingness in love to suffer through and transform the separation wrought by sin, thereby enabling his beloved to fulfill his vocation as the image of God’s glory in this “fallen” world.As we arrive at the threshold to the New Testament, the main lines of our sketch point toward a convergence in the atoning mission of God’s Son incarnate. Yet this point of convergence cannot be foreseen by reason alone. “It remains an ‘utterly strange work’ (Is 28:21), an ‘offence’ (Is 8:14), ‘something unheard-of’ (Is 52:15).”155 All the same, the constellation of features presented here may indicate a hidden “theo-logic” that can cast a penetrating light on the transition from the Old Testament to the New. We will continue our attempt at uncovering this “theo-logic” in our next chapter on the Cross as atonement, and in the process illuminate the Cross event in view of its closeness to and distance from the old covenant history of eliminating sin.”

Turek, Margaret. Atonement: Soundings in Biblical, Trinitarian, and Spiritual Theology (pp. 74-75). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

“After he sins, man tries to keep hidden the lie he is living. “At the beginning of the Letter to the Romans, Paul explicitly speaks of the pagans ‘not acknowledging’ God’s divinity; this failure to ac-know-ledge presupposes a prior (and persisting) ‘knowing.’ If evil is the lie, it necessarily implies that there must be a primary consciousness of what is fundamentally true, of what should be the case; and there must be a constant attempt to reassure oneself that it is not true and is not thecase.”147This evil and the lie that maintains it are what incur the judgment of God. God’s judgment on the corrupt hearts and works of the Gentiles reveals that they have in fact usurped the power of God, who is almighty goodness. From here we can understand Saint Paul’s assertion that all men, Gentiles and Jews alike, are “liars” (Rom 3:4), “under the domination of sin” (3:9); “all have sinned, and are deprived of the glory of God” (3:23). Nevertheless, Paul is aware of a significant difference between the sin of Gentiles and the sin of Jews. As Balthasar points out, “Sin arises in the case of Gentiles (in biblical terms, those who have not come into contact with God’s historical revelation) because, while they are bound to know God—this is a basic law applying to all men—they do not want to acknowledge him (Rom 1:18ff.).”148

To be sure, the Gentiles exhibit an awareness of guilt and the need for atonement, but insofar as their efforts to atone for faults and evil deeds proceed solely from their own power, they repeat the basic pattern of man’s original sin. For even in dealing with their guilt, they regard themselves as empowered to draw divine power over to their side. Here again, fallen human freedom appears bent toward the “will to power” and acts as if the good to be gained from godly power (overcoming guilt) were in its power.149 Now, at this juncture, how are we to situate the Gentiles in relation to the vocation of Israel? Hardly anyone disputes the fact that the Old Testament connects the original “fall” of the human race with the divine mission of Abraham. God chooses Abraham to be the head of a new people, whose vocation is to become through obedience the authentic filial image of God in the world and thereby to renew human life in history. This renewed humanity is itself intended to be a gift, a source of blessing, for all the nations.”

Turek, Margaret. Atonement: Soundings in Biblical, Trinitarian, and Spiritual Theology (pp. 71-72). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

“However, just as God’s wrath is a modality of love that serves the salvation of his beloved, so God’s self-concealment is a modality of God’s accompaniment that serves the atonement of sin. In the context of a sin-ruptured covenant, God can remain near his beloved while hiding his face. Consider what occurs between the Lord and Israel in Hosea 2:12–22. Israel forsakes the Lord by running after idols. Indeed “everything begins with God’s statement . . . that ‘the land commits great harlotry by forsaking the LORD . . . (1:2). . . . The people have ‘abandoned’ God (4:10) and ‘rebelled’ against him (7:13; 8:1); they have ‘fled’ from him (7:13) and ‘turned to others’ (3:1).”105

On his side, the Lord lets the people endure the God-forsaken state that they have chosen for themselves. He, the forsaken God, lets his people suffer his absence. In concrete historical terms, the Lord hands over Israel to the power of Assyria, and his people are exiled thereto in 722 B.C. Yet though God conceals himself, he nonetheless accompanies Israel into exile (2:12). God withdraws (5:6; 9:12) in order thereby to draw Israel back to himself, for in actuality God’s forgiving love goes in advance of his people, albeit incognito, for the purpose of converting hearts and restoring the covenant relationship.”

Turek, Margaret. Atonement: Soundings in Biblical, Trinitarian, and Spiritual Theology (p. 53). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

We have already acknowledged that a defective notion of divine wrath can get in the way of the biblical claim that God reveals himself to be love precisely in sending his Son as atonement for sin (1 Jn 4:8–10). Nonetheless, we may not simply ignore or cast aside the many biblical references to God’s anger in both the Old and the New Testaments. As Balthasar recognizes: “The Old Testament perceptions of the divine ‘wrath’ (Rom 5:9) . . . and ‘judgment’ (Rom 8:3), which are taken up by Paul and the whole of the New Testament in speaking of the Cross, are not to be represented as superseded, anthropomorphic, and incompatible with the God of love who wills reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18; Col 1:20), for this reconciliation is to take place precisely ‘through the death of his Son’ (Rom 5:10) . . . in his ‘offering for sin’ (2 Cor 5:21).”95 Both Hoffmann and Balthasar tackle head on the subject of God’s wrath while attempting to avoid two extremes: on one side, the stance that simply dismisses the biblical testimony to God’s anger as primitive thinking; and on the other, the view that imagines God’s wrath along the lines of the punitive rage of a celestial child abuser.The course to take, we suggest, is to regard divine anger as an aspect of the second of the three factors integral to the process of atonement: namely, God’s passionate involvement. This will entail striving toward a superior harmony in which every aspect of God’s involvement in man’s redemption is ultimately explained by God’s passion of love.

Turek, Margaret. Atonement: Soundings in Biblical, Trinitarian, and Spiritual Theology (pp. 49-50). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

“According to the Old Testament, sin is not simply an ethical fault. It is not simply a failure to act according to the natural law inscribed in every conscience. There is more to it, for the proper setting in which to understand sin is the covenant relationship. Already in the old alliance, the fervent emphasis on keeping the commandments signifies nothing less than Israel’s response of grateful love expressed in actions. “Good deeds become acts of personal fidelity, faithfulness to the personal God”, explains Levenson, “and not simply the right things to do within some universal code of ethics (though they may be that as well).Conversely, bad deeds become acts of betrayal. . . . They are not simply morally wrong in the abstract: they wrong the divine covenant partner.”63 Consider, for instance, the Lord’s response to the sin of David, which the prophet Nathan communicates to the king in 2 Samuel 12:7–9. Thus says the LORD God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel: I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your lord’s house and your lord’s wives for your own. I gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were not enough, I could count up for you still more. Why have you despised the LORD and done what is evil in his sight? You have cut down Uriah the Hittite with the sword; his wife you took as your own, and him you killed with the sword of the Ammonites.

God.64 Sin is fundamentally a refusal to see and mirror the character of God, whose deeds show his paternal presence and benevolence (Ex 4:22–23; Deut 4:37; 7:8). It is a refusal to hear and to live according to the words that God personally addresses to his chosen beloved (Zeph 3:2; Bar 1:15–22). As Balthasar points out, “The particular transgressions against the commandments . . . are only the results of a fundamental evil, namely, a falling away from the covenant relationship, betrayal, disobedience, culpable forgetfulness of God, the sinful failure to ‘know God’.”65 Sin as deed is thus unmasked as a refusal to exist in intimate co-existence with God. Sin indicates a spurning of the Lord’s love; it is a forsaking of God (Hos 1:2, 9; 4:10; Is 1:2, 4).66″

Turek, Margaret. Atonement: Soundings in Biblical, Trinitarian, and Spiritual Theology (pp. 39-40). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

On God’s side, atonement for sin is the result of (1) his own sovereign initiative. God is the one whose actions are decisive, not only in making atonement possible, but in originating the covenant itself.6 A brief glance at Deuteronomy reveals that the covenant derives from God’s election of this particular people, “for which no reason can be given (Deut 7:6–7), without any merit on the people’s part (9:6; 8:17), on the basis of love alone (7:8; 10:15).”7 It is a love that in initiating the covenant, focuses on mutuality with an unswerving commitment (Deut 6:5; cf. Ex 6:7; Lev 26:11ff.). Consequently, the relationship that God establishes can live only by the dynamic process of “word and answer, love and reciprocating love, directive and obedience”.8 When the answer of obedient love is not given, God himself provides the means for the restoration of the covenant relationship. Joseph Ratzinger highlights this factor as follows: “In other world religions, expiation usually means the restoration of the damaged relationship with God by means of expiatory actions initiated on the part of men. Almost all religions center around the problem of expiation.” In the Bible, however, God restores the damaged relationship “on the initiative of his own power to love, by making unjust man just again . . . through his own creative mercy.”

Turek, Margaret. Atonement: Soundings in Biblical, Trinitarian, and Spiritual Theology (p. 23). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.