In Christianity, the Atonement refers to the redemptive effect of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Through these works, Christ atoned for our sins, making it possible for unrighteous sinners to become positionally righteous in the eyes of God and to be adopted into His family. The words atone and atonement are portmanteaus of “at” and “one” first used by John Wycliff in the fourteenth century. They literally mean “at one” and “an onement” and indicate the healing and reconciling of a separated relationship into a unified relationship.
For theology, the most important aspect of the Atonement is what it does. It allows for the broken relationship between a person and God due to sin to be reconciled. But theologians also like to speculate on how the Atonement works by developing theories of the Atonement. The following are short summaries of the most popular theories of the Atonement.
Ransom-to-Satan Theory. Although theories of the Atonement were not discussed extensively by early church patricians, the most common view was the ransom-to-Satan theory. This theory was first developed by Origen (c.185–c.253) and is also known as Christus Victor. This theory assumes that the Fall somehow left all of mankind in legal bondage to Satan. Christ offered Himself as a ransom payment to Satan, thereby freeing mankind from this bondage. However, Satan was not able to retain his hold on Christ, and Christ emerged as the supreme Victor over Satan and his evil forces. Biblical support for this theory comes from the words of Jesus: “[T]he Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Mt 20:28 NASB), and from the words of Paul, “[Christ] gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6).
Recapitulation. This theory, developed by Irenaeus (c.130–c.202), holds that the disobedience of Adam that resulted in the fallen nature of man, which Christ rectified through His perfect obedience to God. Since Adam was the head of humanity, Adam’s sin is shared by everyone. Christ is the new head of humanity. As Adam’s sinful and disobedient nature was shared by all, Christ’s sinless and perfectly obedient nature can now be shared by all. This theory has its focus on the incarnation rather than the crucifixion. By Christ becoming fully human, God creates a way for humanity to become spiritual children of God through Christ. Biblical support for recapitulation comes from verses contrasting the role of Adam and Christ. “For if by the offense of the one, death reigned through the one, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:17; see also 1 Cor 15:45-50).
Satisfaction Theory. This theory, developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109), is that mankind’s sin robbed God of honor and glory. It is derived from the concept of honor in the feudal system in which Anselm lived. If the honor of a feudal lord was impugned, an offering to the lord could restore the lost honor. Christ was sinless and was under no obligation to die. His death therefore brought infinite glory and honor to God, restoring what was lost. This theory is sometimes called the commercial theory: mankind owed a debt to God that was paid by the death of Christ on the Cross. “Having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Col 2:14). Biblical support for this theory comes from the descriptions of Christ’s death as a propitiation for people’s sins (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2; 1 Jn 4:10).
Moral Influence. The moral influence theory was first developed by Peter Abelard, an eleventh century French theologian, primarily in response to Anselm’s satisfaction theory. Abelard objected to Christ’s death being viewed both as dept payment and as a ransom. He felt that these theories focused too much on God’s righteousness and justice and not enough on God’s love. Furthermore, Abelard found it problematic for an unchangeable God to change His mind with regards to someone’s salvation after accepting Christ’s death as a sacrificial death. Therefore, Abelard developed the moral influence theory that understands Christ’s sinless life and death as a demonstration of God’s love that has the power to reorient a sinner’s heart towards God. In this theory, the death of Jesus on the cross is the result of Christ’s perfectly moral, sin free, and unconditionally loving life. Christ knew that this would lead to death but still continued living a perfect life out of His love for us. Biblical support for this theory are Jesus’s insistence that he must suffer and die. When Peter suggests otherwise, Jesus responds, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s purposes, but on man’s” (Mk 8:23). The Moral Influence theory gained renewed prominence in liberal theology in the early 20th century through the writings of Hastings Rashdall (1858–1924).
Penal Substitution. This theory is the Reformed position as well as the belief of most evangelicals. It holds that the penalty of sin is death. Therefore, Christ died on the cross in our place to satisfy God’s justice. Christ’s death is a perfect substitutional sacrifice, similar to the burnt offering sacrifices in the OT where animals were sacrificed to God to atone for sins. Hence, Christ is the Lamb of God that is sacrificed and then consumed through the sacrament of Holy Communion just as the unblemished lamb is sacrificed on Passover and then consumed. Biblical justification for penal substitution comes from the characterization of Jesus’s death as a sacrifice. “[Jesus] has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Heb 9:26; see also Heb 10:12; Eph 5:2).
Governmental Theory. The governmental theory (also known as the rectoral theory and the moral government theory) is similar to the penal substitution theory in that it views Christ’s death as sacrificial punishment. It was initially developed by Hugo Grotius, a seventeenth century Dutch theologian. Although Christ’s death is understood to be punishment, is did not satisfy the exact punishment required for mankind’s sins. Rather, Christ’s suffering and death are to show God’s displeasure towards our sins. Christ therefore died to demonstrate God’s wrath towards sin and that there are severe penalties associated with sin. Although Christ did not die for our specific sins, Christ’s suffering and death nevertheless served as a substitute punishment. Therefore, God is able to forgive our sins while still satisfying His justice and divine order. Biblical justification for the governmental theory is the same as for penal substitution.
Vicarious Repentance. This theory, developed by John McLeod Campbell (1800-1872), holds that the Atonement is Christ’s perfect repentance performed on behalf of all sinners. Biblical support for this view relates to Christ assuming our sin, which therefore requires repentance. “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor 5:21). Those believing in penal substitution tend to strongly object to this theory. For example, Louis Berkhof writes that this theory “proceeds on a gratuitous assumption … denies the necessity and possibility of penal substitution … proceeds on erroneous principles … [and] is really a contradiction in terms.”[i]
This section ends with a discussion about the scope of the Atonement. Did Christ suffer and die for all or just for some? The position that Christ died only for the elect is called limited atonement. The position that Christ died for everyone is called unlimited atonement (also called general atonement or universal atonement). Limited atonement, the Reformed position, typically views Christ’s death as removing the effects of sin from the elect at the time of its occurrence. That is, the Atonement was immediately effective. Unlimited atonement, the Arminian position, views the Atonement as conditionally effective. Christ died for everyone’s sins, but this atoning act only becomes effective when someone repents and puts their trust in Christ. An intermediate view is that Christ’s death was for everyone, but God only gives the elect the ability to realize its saving benefits.
[i] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Eastford, CT: Martino Fine Books, 1941: 390-391.
Leave a Reply