C.S. Lewis considers the fact of the Atonement as central to Christianity but considers theories of the Atonement important only if they are personally helpful. Lewis writes, “The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories about it are another matter … Theories about Christ’s death are not Christianity: they are explanations of how it works … [Theologians] would probably admit that no explanation will ever be quite adequate to the reality.”[i]
Lewis was quite critical of the penal substitution theory. “[Penal substitution] on the face of it … is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all that I can see.”[ii] In addition, Lewis does not think divine retribution is the defining problem facing sinful humanity. Rather, Lewis believes that our need for repentance is the driving factor, which involves a death to the sinful self.
Lewis is more sympathetic to the Atonement as substitutional debt payment (as in the satisfaction/commercial theory), “If you take ‘paying the penalty,’ not in the sense of being punished, but in the more general sense of ‘standing the racket’ or ‘footing the bill,’ then, of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend.”[iii] However, Lewis does not believe that “footing the bill” is done to restore God’s impugned honor. Rather, the Atonement somehow helps sinners who have got themselves “into a hole” and cannot get out by themselves. Lewis therefore disagrees with both commercial substitution and penal substitution.
Lewis presents in Mere Christianity his own theory of the Atonement that differs from traditional theories. This theory is rarely mentioned in either literature about atonement theories or in literature about Lewis’s Christian beliefs. Those that do suspect that it is the same as or is strongly influenced by John McLeod Campbell theory of vicarious repentance or of Robert Campbell Moberly’s modified theory, as all refer to Christ performing a perfect repentance.[iv] But Lewis’s theory has original elements that are worth considering. Recall that Lewis describes the Atonement as something that somehow lets God help sinners get out of their predicament. This is needed because fallen people cannot sufficiently repent of their sins. Lewis writes:
“Now repentance is no fun at all. It is something much harder than merely eating humble pie … It means killing part of yourself, undergoing a kind of death. In fact, it needs a good man to repent. And here comes the catch. Only a bad person needs to repent: only a good person can repent perfectly. The worse you are the more you need it and the less you can do it. The only person who could do it perfectly would be a perfect person–and he would not need it.”[v]
Lewis explains that God adds to human mental capability by giving us a bit of divine mental capability in the sense of communicable attributes. But Lewis points out that repentance is not an inherent divine attribute that can be communicated. He solves this problem with his theory of the Atonement:
“Can we do it if God helps us? Yes, but what do we mean when we talk of God helping us? We mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His love into us and that is how we love one another. … But unfortunately, we now need God’s help in order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at all–to surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die. Nothing in God’s nature corresponds to this process at all. So that the one road for which we now need God’s leadership most of all is a road God, in His own nature, has never walked. God can share only what He has: this thing, in His own nature, He has not. But supposing God became a man–suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God’s nature in one person–then that person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die, because He was man; and He could do it perfectly because He was God. You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us; but God can do it only if He becomes man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we men share in God’s dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God’s dying unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man. That is the sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not suffer at all.”[vi]
Lewis views substitutional atonement as God paying a price in order to help mankind deal with a problem. In this case, God helps people repent of their sins, which they cannot do alone. In order to help with repentance, God needs to experience all aspects of a perfect repentance, which He does through the incarnation and crucifixion. Once done, repentance becomes a communicable divine attribute that allows people to sufficiently repent with God’s help.
Lewis’s theory contains elements of several traditional theories. The biblical verses most directly related to the purpose of Christ’s death refer to it as a “ransom for all” (1 Tim:26), “to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Heb 9:26), and a “propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb 2:17). Ransom, sacrifice, and propitiation are distinct concepts. Therefore, a systematic theological assessment must conclude that Christ’s death must be metaphorically related to each, while not being literally equivalent to any. Lewis’s view is that fallen man is separated from God and is unable to help himself bridge this gap. “But the same badness which makes us need it, makes us unable to do it.”[vii] That is, we are in bondage to our badness (sinful nature). Lewis’s theory of the Atonement frees sinners from this bondage and can therefore metaphorically be likened to a ransom. Lewis is clear that Christ needed to suffer and die in order to help sinners repent. “Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we men share in God’s dying.”[viii] The sacrifice of Christ is therefore central and essential to Lewis’s theory of the Atonement. Lewis is less direct about satisfying God’s impugned honor, but specifically rejects substitutionary atonement in both its penal and commercial forms. But Lewis does believe that sins are an offence to God. He describes Jesus acting as if He was “the person chiefly offended in all offences.”[ix] Lewis then describes sin as acts of rebellion against God. The sinner is a “rebel who must lay down his arms.”[x] That is, God’s requirement of sinners is that they surrender. Part of Christ’s perfect repentance was to “surrender His will,”[xi] thereby allowing sinners to surrender their will with God’s help. In this sense, the surrender of the will in Lewis’s theory can also be seen as a propitiation that satisfies the offence done to God by our sins.
Whereas prominent theories focus on ransom, satisfaction, and sacrifice, Lewis focuses on the need for personal repentance aided by God. This approach has much merit, as Christ’s very first words in Mark are “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the Gospel” (Mk 1:15; see also Mt 3:2; Lk 13:3; Acts 2:38; Rom 2:4; 2 Pt 3:9; Rev 3:19). Furthermore, Lewis’s theory is compatible with aspects of ransom, satisfaction, and sacrifice, resulting in a somewhat unified concept. Ultimately, Lewis found substitutionary theories personally unhelpful, and therefore developed a theory that reflects his way of looking at the Atonement. Lewis hopes that this theory will also be helpful to others, and it certainly has been for me.
[i] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, New York, NY: HarperOne, 1952/2002: 54.
[ii] Ibid., 56.
[iii] Ibid., 56.
[iv] John McLeod Campbell presents his theory in The Nature of the Atonement (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1856). Robert Campbell Moberly presents his theory in Atonement and Personality (London: Forgotten Books, 1901/2012). It is known that C.S. Lewis had read this work of Moberly.
[v] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, New York, NY: HarperOne, 1952/2002: 56-7.
[vi] Ibid., 57-8.
[vii] Ibid., 57.
[viii] Ibid., 58.
[ix] Ibid., 52.
[x] Ibid., 56.
[xi] Ibid., 58.
Leave a Reply