WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT?

QUESTION:

Hey Rick!  Been reading a bit on different kinds of atonement theory. Feel like I’m getting a little lost in the weeds here. Was wondering if I could get your 101 breakdown on atonement theory and why there are different kinds?

ANSWER:

Atonement theory is a great area to study, because it's become kind of a big deal these days.  For example, in some Christian circles, it's become fashionable to reject substitutionary atonement theory, which was the favored view of the Reformers.  Many are then returning to the Ransom theory, favored by the early Church.  Also, in more progressive ranks, the Moral Influence Theory and the “Example Theory” are resurging.  I’ll explain all those theories below.  But the revived debate highlights why it's good that you're looking into this.

WHAT IS ATONEMENT THEORY?

The good thing about all these different ways of looking at the work of Christ is that they all point to the central, unavoidable fact of the New Testament: the death and resurrection of Jesus.  All views of that event tell us that here by the Cross, God and humanity are reconciled.  They are made one again.  Hence, the best way to understand the word “atonement” is AT-ONE-MENT. 

Somehow, the cross set us right, made us one with God again.

But how? 

Christians all agree it “works”.  But HOW does it work?  WHY does it work?

NO ONE THEORY CAPURES ALL THE TRUTH

The biblical material and descriptions answering those questions are quite broad and this should lead us to think right off the bat we are atoned in the cross in ways which will forever be mysterious to us.  The broadness should also lead us to think no one way of looking at the cross is sufficient.  A truth this amazing, an idea this lofty –humanity is made one with God by a single historical event – must be multi layered in the why’s and how’s.  No one view captures it all.

At the same time, there cannot be an unlimited scope of whys and how’s unless we risk emptying the cross of any meaning, so it becomes like a piece of abstract art: “it means what you want it to mean”.  Avoiding this problem is why famous Christian philosopher William Lane Craig just wrote a new book on this which I recommend: Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration

ATONEMENT THEORY 101

So here’s my Atonement 101:  if you imagine the views on a spectrum, they would move from atonement as mere symbolism and subjectivity inside the individual on the left, toward an objective divine economy which needs dealing with in God on the right. For simplicity, I've collapsed some specific theories into their broader grouping (Christus Victor is a form of Ransom Theory and Penal Substitutionary Atonement fits inside Satisfaction:)

MORAL VIEW

The effect of Christ’s death was not on God, but on us.  God was not “satisfied” by the cross, rather we were made unafraid of God, for the cross shows us God loves us unconditionally.  The cross shows God is sensitive to the pains of the world and its evil.  This inspires us to love and trust him, thus we are made one with God by the moral influence of the Cross.

EXAMPLE VIEW

The cross shows us how to suffer under injustice and inspires us to do the same.  What Jesus did, love God through trouble, we can also do!  God is love and he doesn’t require payment for sin – the atonement is a metaphorical concept on this view.  We are made one with God when we embrace non-resistance and when we love our enemies like Jesus did during his Passion.

GOVERNMENTAL VIEW

God is both law giver and lover of man. At the cross he shows as the author of moral law, which is violated in all sin, he cannot simply ignore it.  To do so would say, law doesn’t matter.  But the cross, in this view, is not retribution for our sin, it is simply showing God’s abhorrence of sin.  This view is partially objective as it says Christ’s death had an impact on God (God requires  the Cross needs it to show us something).  But it is still mainly subjective because it detaches the cross from our sin.  Therefore, mainly it has an impact on us:  to see how God hates sin so we turn from it.  Then we can be forgiven.  The cross is not technically needed for this.

RANSOM VIEW

This is a spiritual warfare view which sees humanity in bondage to Satan since the Fall of Adam.  God will not do what Satan does: gain by illegitimate means what is not his.  IE. he cannot steal us as we were stolen.  He must buy us back “fairly” – but what is Satan’s price?  The blood of Christ.  So the ransom was determined by, paid to and accepted by Satan.  The cross satisfied Satan’s wrath, not God’s.  We were then freed.  But Satan was deceived by God!  For the life of Christ was divine and “unkillable” and he took his life back after offering it, along with all who trust in him.  This is a fully objective view, because the effects are not merely inside us. However, in this view the cross does not affect God – rather it affected Satan as Christ decisively disarmed him by death, to buy us back.

SATISFACTION VIEW

Several different versions of this are: substitutionary, vicarious, and penal satisfaction.  They all say that the cross satisfies something that needed satisfying in God, not us.  Thus, they are all objective views.  In Satisfaction Views, sin is not just disappointing to God, it actually steals from him.  It injures him.  This injury must be rectified.  As in the Governmental View, God would not be fully good to simply ignore the injury.  But we have no power to fix what we have broken or rectify what has been unbalanced.  And God cannot simply wave away this injury.  Thus, in this theory, Jesus HAD to become a man, and HAD to die for God’s economy to be righted.  WHy?  Only as a man, could Jesus offer payment for all of us.  As only as God could the payment be infinite, and now can be applied to all who repent and believe.

CRITIQUING THE VIEWS

The Progressive Christian Movement has walked back from Satisfaction views in favor of the first three views.  It sees all satisfaction views, in which the Cross is repayment, as “divine child abuse,” which makes God bloodthirsty and immoral.  But predictably, this critique usually goes along with a diminishment of the abhorrence of human sin and also the authority of Scripture (see below).

But one might ask of those who hold to the subjective views, how exactly does the cross show God’s love for us if it’s not actually doing anything for us?  If it is not required objectively in any way to save us, how is it not just a senseless tragedy? 

Imagine a fireman sees a building on fire and marches into it to rescue those inside, and he dies.  We would be impressed with his courage and love and perhaps seek to imitate him.  But what if he was told, and we know for a fact, that no one is in the building?  How is this even a morally exemplary action on the fireman's part?  How are we inspired by a completely useless act of self-immolation?

Thus, the cross is like theater in Moral Influence and Example views; a show God puts on to get us to stop being afraid of him or to act nicer.  It in no way is necessary.  

Most importantly, other views of the Atonement struggle to deal with the pervasive language of satisfaction/substitution which runs through Scripture.  The idea starts in Genesis with the animal skins God provides for Adam and Eve, runs through the Abrahamic covenant, is behind all the cultic demands of Mosaic law, is the prime role of the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, undergirds John the Baptist's declaration about Christ ("behold the llamb of God!") and is seen in Pauline legal language in the book of Romans.

Some today want a return to the Ransom view which has the most right to claim the title “classic.” Why?  Because it was held so pervasively by many in the Early Church.  I do think Ransom theory underlines a very biblical emphasis on spiritual warfare and must be part of our atonement picture.  The cross achieves a victory over Satan in some very real way.  It is a supreme blow to his illegitimate ownership of humanity and the earth itself. (Colossians 2:15)

MISUNDERSTANDING SATISFACTION THEORY

But finally, I still think satisfaction (without negating the other views) makes the most sense of the most biblical material. (While also being seen in the writings of the Early Fathers.) This is what should finally determine our view.  And Satisfaction can easily avoid the charges of “divine child abuse” when one remembers (as Anselm, an early defender, did) our doctrine of the Incarnation.  God is not whipping his little boy, some poor 3rd party - as some would parody the view!  This criticism denies the Trinity.  God himself is on the cross:

Denying the Trinity is also how you could think Satisfaction could be about the Father holding onto his wrath while the Son appeases him against his better judgment.  No, again, the Bible says the Atonement happened because the Father "so loved the world, that he sent his Only Begotten" (John 3:16).

Also, the problem of God needing satisfaction being some sort of barbaric attribute is a criticism built on a God who is altogether nothing like us.  It imagines a God who just snaps his fingers and forgives because he’s so impassive, so “above it all”.  A Computer, more than a Lover.  A God who is injured in sin is pathetic to these critics of Satisfaction Theory.  A God who extracts payment for his injuries by torturing another, even more pathetic.

UNDERSTANDING SATISFACTION

Understanding Satisfaction Theory starts with the fact that in all human conflict, sin exacts a cost.  For reconciliation to happen, this cost must be paid.  This is peacemaking 101.  Cost sits in the offended party as a debt waiting for payment, retribution, or restitution.  When provided, this rights the account; only then can reconciliation proceed.  i.e., Atonement.

But if the cost cannot be paid, the offended party can choose to forgive the debt. However, when they do, everyone who has ever forgiven anyone of something big knows the debt is felt objectively in the forgiver.  Like a monetary debt, moral debt does not simply – poof – go away.  It always lands on someone’s ledger.  If I forgive, it lands on mine.  I pay, not you.  Forgiveness requires something real… the forgiver must absorb the loss.  There is no “just declare them forgiven”.  To say the words “I forgive” means an objective transference has been made – a substitution.  A cost (punishment) has moved from one account to another.

DEBT: JESUS' LANGUAGE FOR SATISFACTION

This makes the most sense of Jesus own preferred monetary language of reconciliation, as in the Matthew 18 parable (and many others) where the servant has an unpayable debt.  Sin creates debt.  Broken relationship is often painted by Jesus in monetary terms (Matt 6:12, Luke 7:41).  Also, his use of the word “ransom” is monetary, for ransom involves a payment.  

But can God pay ransom to himself?  This is a critique of Satisfaction Theory by those who prefer Ransom Theory.  They say this must mean the Atonement is about payment to someone other than God.  But this isn't required.  It is entirely possible for the Ransom to be required by God and also paid to himself IF he removes the bill of Sin from above our heads and puts it over his own.

This set of money metaphors is attached to the atonement over and over in Scripture.  See, in Col 2:13-15 “the certificate of debt was canceled” – a passage which smashes the Satisfaction, Moral and Ransom theories into one!  

HOW IS VICARIOUS PUNISHMENT FAIR?

Debt languge also eliminates the weirdness of vicarious punishment.  If I step in to take a beating for a friend who deserves it, maybe it impresses him with my love.  But what about the offended party?  How are they made whole by this substitution?  

Well, if the offense of my friend was a debt he rang up (money he stole, let’s say), and then if I offer to pay this debt on his behalf, I both impress my friend with my love and the offended party is satisfied.  My friend is free because his debtor isn’t waiting around to be made whole.  Vicarious payment is not absurd or unfair in this metaphor, because the offended party’s interest is the account being balanced, not who pays.

Thus, in the Son on the Cross, the Father receives our debt into himself.  This must be Paul's meaning: “God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us” – 1 Cor 5:21. The blood and pain of the Cross show what the human race extracts from God in moral debt accrued.  The voluntary embrace of the Cross by the Son demonstrates God’s willingness to absorb the cost of sin.

This idea of the Cross being vicarious punishment and a ransom paid by God to God is not difficult to understand when I realized that every time I choose to forgive another, I do truly punish myself, for I pay what I do not deserve to pay by absorbing a loss into myself.

PERFECT LOVE, PERFECT JUSTICE

So we can say the Atonement was fully objective, because the Cross was required for our salvation, and not a kind of unnesessary bit of theater.  The Cross is perfect love and perfect justice comingled.  This is the meaning of Paul's phrase: 

This is the Atonement: at the Cross, a near infinite debt was paid with infinite capital, which now a mere mustard seed of faith can access, and the penitent may thereby be freed from the guilt and power of sin and come into God's eternal Life.