2. Atonement Theories
J. Denny Weaver (2001, p. 172) said, “If Christians are uncomfortable with Christianity as a violent religion, the first step is to recognise the extent to which formulas of classic theology have contributed to violence both overt and systemic.” This chapter follows Weaver’s advice in surveying the main atonement theories.
The categories of traditional atonement theories are as follows.
1) Christ the victor (Latin: Christus Victor).
2) Forensic models: Satisfaction and penal substitution.
3) Moral influence (or exemplary).
4) Multifaceted (or kaleidoscope) combinations of the other three.
There are many variations within these categories, but a broad-brush treatment of each category will highlight issues. We seek an atonement theory for a gospel with an act of violence at its centre consistent with a God worthy of worship.
This theory (held by Origen, Augustine and Gustav Aluén) applies the battle metaphor given in the New Testament with Christ the victor. The spiritual warfare worldview of scripture is taken seriously. Christ defeats the devil, not by power, but by sacrifice. On the cross, Christ gave his life as a ransom for sin. Although some early theologians (e.g. Origen) thought God paid the ransom to the devil, most consider this as taking the ransom metaphor too far. The violent sacrificial death of Jesus is integral to this theory’s soteriology. Christ was the bait in the trap that exposes the world’s justice system as unjust and thereby nullifies Satan’s authority.
Weaknesses in the Christus Victor theory include:
a) Making the focus of the atonement a battle between God and Satan does not resolve human responsibility for sin. Humanity’s proclivity to sin does not mean we can blame Satan for our sins. Neither does the theory provide any absolution for the guilt of sin. But those who hold this view would say God is able to forgive sin out of his gracious nature and that receiving such forgiveness induces human repentance. This fits with the Orthodox Churches’ emphasis of God as our physician.
b) In seeing victory in terms of a cosmic power struggle won by Christ on the cross, the theory does not explain the continuing presence of evil.
c) Either portraying God as outsmarting Satan by deception or using Satan’s self-deception to defeat him, involves God in the use of deceit to secure Christ’s victory, which contradicts the goodness of God.
J. Denny Weaver (2001, p. 171) proposed a “Narrative Christus Victor” variation of this theory. He wrote Jesus’ “suffering is not something willed by nor needed by God.” Jesus passively submitted to death to complete his mission and demonstrate the non-violent reign of God. Thus, Weaver saw the crucifixion as a revelation. Christopher Marshall (2003, p. 89) disagreed with Weaver pointing to Romans 3:25 which says of Christ, “whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed.” Marshall thought that “God’s active involvement in Jesus’ death is clearly asserted.” Colin Gunston added that Christ did not just reveal something of importance but achieved something of importance (McGrath, 2007, p. 328).
Forensic models place sinners in a law court setting where the judge (God) declares the sinner righteous because of Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross. Yung Suk Kim (2019, p. 6) summarised the forensic theories of Christ’s sacrifice as follows. “He delivered sinners from the grip of the devil by paying the ransom (ransom theory). He was punished and died instead of sinners (penal-substitution theory). His sacrifice was a propitiation to allay God’s wrath (propitiation theory). His death was a cost needing to restore a broken relationship between God and humanity (expiation theory). His sinless sacrifice was a perfect means to satisfy God’s moral demands for humanity (satisfaction theory).”
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 CE) proposed Christ’s vicarious sufferings on the cross earned God’s satisfaction which is required because of human sin. His mediaeval thought-world demanded the maintenance and vindication of God’s honour. Although God’s glory is not diminished by human sin, for humanity to reconcile with God it must make restitution for the honour it failed to bestow. The satisfaction theory sees the Scriptures about Christ dying to redeem sinners (Isa 53:5; Gal 3:13) in this light. Still today, this interpretation helps people feel free from the guilt of disobeying God. The theory presents God relating to humanity on the basis of obedience. Anselm wanted to present an alternative to retributive punishment (Williams, 2014, p. 5). Modern critics say Anselm portrays God as an abusive father figure in God’s treatment of Christ. The theory portrays a God who condemns people to eternal punishment unless he diverts his wrath towards his Son. Catholics respond that the focus is on Christ’s sacrifice and not on the Father’s demand for retribution. The satisfaction is of both the Father and the Son that the debt of humanity has been paid by a sacrifice of love.
The penal substitution theory is popular in evangelical circles (“Jesus paid the penalty for my sins”). It evolved from the satisfaction theory by seeing the violence of the cross in terms of a substitute punishment. It emphasises Christ’s selfless sacrifice. Rohintan K. Mody (2008, p. 117) gave this definition: “Jesus Christ by his death on the cross exclusively bears the wrath of God and the retribution for sinful transgressions against God’s law in the place of sinners.” Its advocates try to stay loyal to their interpretation of those Scriptures linking salvation with Christ’s death. These scholars reason God cannot forgive sin without punishment, for that would be to condone it (Morris, 1979, p. 415). Sin clashes with God’s moral nature because God is holy and just (Packer, 2010, p. 9). It is because God is never self-contradictory that God’s justice must be “satisfied” and he must deal with the problem of sin (Stott, 2006, p. 157). God imputes the guilt for human sin to Christ, who pays the penalty on the cross. This appears to conflict with Ezekiel Chapter 18 where God says, “the person who sins shall die” (Ezek 18:20) because the ways of the Lord are fair. The reply that this does not apply to Christ because he was divine ignores Christ’s human nature.
Robin Collins (2012, p. 185) began his criticism of the forensic theories with a parody of the “Parable of the Prodigal Son.” In Collin’s parody, the older son offers to take the younger son’s punishment because the father refused to forgive and receive back the prodigal. Proponents of these theories would reply that God so loved the world he took on human form to deal with the breach of justice. However, in both the satisfaction and penal substitution theories, God uses violence to atone for sins (Collins, p. 186). This raises the question of how punishment could satisfy God’s justice and reconcile sinners with God.
I. H. Howard Marshall (2005, p. 8) does not concede there is a problem with God’s use of redemptive violence. Marshall argues God is justified in being angry at sin and in condemning sinners. He derives this from the essential attributes of God of holiness and love. Marshall says these attributes “find expression in both love towards creation and yet also judgement and wrath when that creation is spoilt by sin” (p. 7). He suggests that wrath is like “grace and mercy which are necessitated only when his creatures are in need caused by sin” (p. 6) and “Both qualities or actions are expressions of the fundamental justice and love of God” (p. 6).
Thomas Torrance (2009, p. 125) asked: “how can one die for another and do it justly?” Torrance sought an answer in the incarnation of the Word of God where “God steps personally from behind the law and is joined to mankind” (p. 127). Inbody (2002, p. 157) complained that this only replaces “divine child abuse” with “divine masochism”. J. I. Packer (2010, p. 13) cautioned that we should not think of the members of the Trinity as separate individuals. Packer called the sacrifice of atonement “a ‘wrath absorber’ which quenches the judicial wrath of God.” Henri Blocher (2004, p. 643) said, “Such crude metaphors that redescribe divine wrath in terms suggestive of a physical quantum, of energy or matter, are devoid of explanatory power (why the alleged absorption or exhaustion?). They lack biblical warrant.” Packer’s argument does not explain why in this theory God required for redemption a substitute death as punishment. Emphasising Christ’s sacrificial love does not explain why God required the sacrifice in the first place.
The Old Testament sacrificial system appears to offer support for substitutionary atonement. Although ancient civilisations used blood sacrifice to appease the gods, Israel used it as an expression of faith. Daniel Bell (2009, p. 25) said: “Christ’s work on the cross is the divine refusal of blood sacrifice.” Bell thought modern scholars have misinterpreted Anselm and the apostle Paul. So, he proposed a re-interpretation of the satisfaction theory. Bell said Anselm and Paul if understood rightly, were not saying the cross is about appeasing the wrath of God, but the lengths God will go to bring humanity into relationship with God. Bell said Anselm does not see the Son of God as becoming human so there would be a suitable sacrifice for God to vent his wrath. Nor was it to meet the demands of the moral order, “but so that humanity might be restored to the place of honour that God had intended for it from the beginning (2 Pet 1:4).” Thus, Christ is our substitute, not in the sense of taking the penalty, but in offering God the faithfulness, love and obedience we could not. Interpreting Paul’s comments in Rom 3:25 and 5:9 in the light of Phil 2:5-8 makes it clear that God does not save us using violence, “but Jesus’ obedience and fidelity.” When Paul says “God is just” Paul means God is faithful to his promises and desire for communion with his people. Humanity perpetrated the violence of the cross, not God. Jesus fulfilled his mission of faithfully reaching out to humanity even when faced with human rejection in the form of the cross (Bell, 2009, p. 25).
Bell (2009, p. 26) was concerned that the logic of human sacrifice simply lets us “off the hook for our sin by deflecting the punishment for that sin onto someone else.” He said, “Christ’s work of atonement demands the rejection of blood sacrifice and the logic of redemptive violence.” Bell directed attention to Ezek 18:32, which says God has no pleasure (satisfaction) in the death of anyone, and this would include his Son. Unfortunately, Bell’s return to Anselm’s satisfaction theory still has the ethical problem of portraying God as needing appeasement because of human sin which required Christ to be sacrificed on the cross. Where Anselm emphasised Christ’s obedience in the place of humanity’s disobedience, the Protestant Reformers emphasised Christ taking the punishment that humanity deserved and which entailed God imputing humanity’s sin to Christ on the cross. Either form of forensic theory implicates God in the perpetration of Christ’s crucifixion to satisfy God’s honour or justice. The only “satisfaction” a good and gracious God could receive through the crucifixion of his Son, would be in saving his people, but the forensic theories direct the satisfaction in a God-ward direction.
Furthermore, the forensic theories give no purpose to Christ’s resurrection with regard to atonement. For them, the resurrection merely confirms the satisfaction of divine justice (the debt has been paid). But when Paul said Christ “was raised for our justification” (Romans 4:25) it appears he intends more than what the forensic theories assert. Justification by faith is discussed in Chapter 7.
Proclaiming a gospel from a law court setting does not have traction in cultures that emphasise shame and honour which, it can be argued, is the relational emphasis of Scripture.
Both the life and death of Jesus taken together are a moral influence for discipleship. Peter Abelard (1079-1142 CE) devised this theory because he found the Christus Victor and satisfaction theories to be morally offensive. The moral influence theory was popular with liberal theologians. James Gregg (1917, p. 205) reasoned, “If you hold that all evil-doing must be rewarded by the infliction of a supposedly appropriate amount of suffering, without regard either to the past or to the future, then you may be able to believe that God is just in requiring the crucifixion of his innocent Son as an expiation of the sin of the world.”
Abelard taught that Christ upheld the moral order of the universe by submitting to crucifixion. The theory emphasises the endurance of suffering. Jesus proved his love for his friends to the extent of dying for them (John 15:13; Rom 5:8) and gives Christians an example to follow (1 Pet 2:21).
The theory has several shortcomings. It does not explain the resurrection or why crucifixion was necessary as a sacrifice. Although the theory calls for a human response, it does not show how Christ’s death overcomes human bondage to sin.
The moral influence theory replaces the concern of the substitution theories for God’s honour and justice with a concern for the moral order of creation. Gregg (1917, p. 208) pointed out, “Since God’s love, like the wisest and truest human love that we know, is strong and firm and utterly uncompromising toward evil, we can understand that his forgiveness does not remove the natural penalties of sin.” But God, in his goodness, would want to do more than influence people to be virtuous; he would want to do more than pardon an offence; he would want to save them from all the consequences of sin.
Christ’s incarnation brought God’s kingdom into this world which guaranteed conflict ending in violence (Inbody, 2002, p. 158). Violence permeates the culture of a sinful world. Gregg concluded (1917, p. 208) “the distinctive meaning of the cross is that God’s love was and is ever ready even to suffer on our behalf, that we may be drawn back to Him.” In encouraging people to follow Christ’s example, this theory inadvertently sanctions a life of submission to abuse.
Christians who find truth in each of the traditional atonement theories have tried to combine these into one multifaceted theory. Many evangelicals see salvation as complex and say although penal substitution is a helpful, even the pre-eminent theory, it needs enhancement with other atonement metaphors (Morris, 1979, p. 415).
For example, Bruce Reichenbach (1998, p. 551) wanted to add a “healing through suffering” motif to the traditional theories. Dennis Kuhns (2003, p. 3) suggested the collected insights from each theory would give a superior understanding of the atonement. Kuhns added that Christian participation in the cross is essential for sanctification where such works are not meritorious for salvation (p. 11).
Joel Green (2006, pp. 157-185) categorised atonement theories into those that focus on atonement as a sacrifice and those focusing on atonement as a revelation. Green proposed that a kaleidoscope view of God’s saving work does better justice to the varied images of the biblical narrative.
Daniel Migliore (2004, pp. 182-187) suggested using John Calvin’s doctrine of the three offices of Christ, prophet, priest, and king, to combine the three traditional atonement theories. Christ as a prophet, teaches on the kingdom of God (moral influence), Christ the priest offers himself as the perfect sacrifice on behalf of sinners (satisfaction), and Christ the king, rules the world, despite its recalcitrant evil (Christus Victor).
The weakness of all these combined approaches is that they do not give answers to the problems of the component theories. They are not mutually corrective as Migliore surmised (2004, p. 186), but create more difficulties because of the conflicts between disparate theories. For instance, Abelard proposed the moral influence theory because he found the other theories to be immoral. Multifaceted models that include the Father using violence against the Son do not portray God as being good in every way. But God is good and a multifaceted model must affirm this.
Soteriology has to embrace the following valid and scriptural concerns of the traditional atonement theories, but in a new theological framework.
1) Christ was victorious over Satan but also reconciled sinners to a holy God without using deceit.
2) Jesus acted as a substitute for sinful humanity in giving God the Father a sinless human he can bless. God upheld his honour and justice by restoring his children to communion and righteousness, without requiring violence.
3) The cross is the ultimate demonstration of God’s love, and an influence for transformation, but is more than a powerful example.
4) A multifaceted model keeps the truths found in the constituent theories while acknowledging and avoiding the limitations and errors of each.
The statements of faith of many churches include one or more of these theories but ignore their faults. Pastors do not want to confuse their flocks by raising theological problems. Within the wider church, the adherence by denominations to diverse atonement theories contributes to disunity. People looking on from outside the faith may well think the Christian message is of dubious logic and portrays a vengeful God.
The challenge to the church in declaring Christ as Lord and Saviour is to proclaim God as both holy and merciful. Unlike pagan gods, Christ does not seek revenge on sinners. The church as the body of Christ must present God’s atoning work in a way that honours God and unifies differing church traditions.
