I have been reading New Testament recently, and I have been thinking about the atonement you know the saving grace of Jesus Christ. That, and conversations I have had/seen recently have prompted me to write this blog post on the nature of the atonement and what it is about. How are we supposed to understand what Christ has done for us. Throughout the history of the church there have been a handful of explanations about the nature of the atonement. Today, these are called atonement theories or theories of the atonement, however, as I will argue, the language of “theories” creates an unnecessary division between what at the end of the day are different aspects of Christ’s atoning work. I am writing about these theories and how I have come to understand them, particularly how they align with Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers of the Church.
Why are there even theories of the atonement?
Christians are commanded to meditate on the Scriptures day and night. As we meditate on the Scriptures, naturally we begin to think about ways to describe the content contained in the Scriptures, the story of the atonement is contained within the Scriptures and thus we endevour to create language to describe it. From that, various emphases have been placed on different aspects of the atonement by Christians in history, which produced what modern scholars today call “theories of the atonement”
There are a handful of atonement theories that have been put forward, these include: the Ransom theory of atonement, the moral influence theory of atonement, Christus Victor, the recapitulation theory of the atonement, the Satisfaction theory of atonement, and the Penal Substitution Theory of atonement.
In the beginning
In the first few chapters of Genesis, we read about the creation of the world, the creation of man, how all these were created good and eventually how it all fell. The Fall is an essential part of Christian teaching because it is due to the Fall that the atonement is necessary.
The views explained
The Ransom Theory
The ransom theory of the atonement has been presented by scholars as the view that the death of Christ is a ransom paid by God, usually to Satan, in order to free us from the bondage of Satan and sin. Immediately, a Christian living today might be scandalised by the idea that God had to pay Satan in order to save mankind, the issue is that there is a great misunderstanding in what the early Christians who presented this aspect of the atonement were trying to say.
The Scriptures present the atonement in terms of a ransom such as in Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” And 1 Timothy 2:5-6 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Secondly, the ransom is never presented as being paid to the devil as though this were a transaction, but rather Christ’s death frees us from the bondage of sin and death. As St Cyril of Jerusalem says in his Catechetical Lectures. Lecture 13”: “But the glory of the Cross led those who were blind through ignorance into light, loosed all who were held fast by sin, and ransomed the whole world of mankind”
So where does Satan or the devil come in all this? He is the Captor, the one who wants to keep us enslaved to sin and death. So when St Augustine says: “The Redeemer came and the deceiver was overcome. What did our Redeemer do to our Captor? In payment for us He set the trap, His Cross, with His blood for bait. He [Satan] could indeed shed that blood; but he deserved not to drink it. By shedding the blood of One who was not his debtor, he was forced to release his debtors” he did not mean that the debt is paid to Satan, rather that we are debtors to Satan, which is in this context means a type of slavery since he is also described as the one holding us captive. Therefore, the ransom is paid for the emancipation of mankind. Ultimately, this is just one aspect of the atonement, but like all aspects, it needs.
The recapitulation theory
The recapitulation theory of the atonement emphasises the aspect of the atonement wherein Christ reverses the actions of Adam, and in doing so reverses death and bestows life on all men. First articulated by St Irenaeus, it builds on the words of Scripture, such as 1 Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” and Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because sinned” ; Romans 5:17 “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.”
Irenaeus articulates this in his writing Against Heresies, Book 3 Chapter 18 point 1 he says: “As it has been clearly demonstrated that the Word, who existed in the beginning with God, by whom all things were made, who was also always present with mankind, was in these last days, according to the time appointed by the Father, united to His own workmanship, inasmuch as He became a man liable to suffering, [it follows] that every objection is set aside of those who say, If our Lord was born at that time, Christ had therefore no previous existence. For I have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist, being with the Father from the beginning; but when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam — namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God — that we might recover in Christ Jesus”
Clearly, this aspect of the atonement has Scriptural warrant, and with patristic backing. As shown by many patristic scholars, the recapitulation theory as articulated by St Irenaeus would become the usual way of describing Christ’s atoning work for a millennium.
Christus Victor
Christus Victor is a theory of the atonement, or the understanding of how Jesus’ death on the cross saves humanity from sin and reconciles us with God. The term “Christus Victor” is Latin for “Christ the Victor,” and the theory emphasizes that through his death and resurrection, Jesus triumphed over sin, death, and the powers of evil.
According to this understanding of the atonement, Jesus’ death on the cross and his resurrection was a victory over the powers of sin and death that had held humanity in bondage. Through his death, Jesus defeated these powers and made it possible for us to be reconciled with God. The Scriptural basis for this is Colossians 2:13-15: “ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” As you can see from this passage, Christ’s conquest over sin, death and the powers of evil is associated with “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us” which in other translations is rendered as “having cancelled the debt ascribed to us” which calls back to the ransom theory. In fact, Gustaf Aulén, a Swedish Lutheran theologian, has argued in his book Christus Victor that the Fathers of the Church who are said to have taught ransom theory should be instead interpreted as having taught Christus Victor. There exists nuances between the two views, but they are linked.
The Satisfaction Theory
Anselm of Canterbury put forth the satisfaction model for the Atonement in the 12th century. According to this view Jesus Christ died to fulfil God’s demands for justice, repaying the debt humanity owes to God.
Anselm emphasizes God’s justice in this perspective and contends that sin is an injustice that needs to be balanced. According to Anselm’s model of satisfaction, Jesus Christ died primarily to atone for humanity’s sin and injustice and to appease God’s justice. This model was created in opposition to the Ransom theory, which held sway historically and held that God used Christ’s death to atone for the devil. Anselm saw a logical problem with this theory, what does God owe the devil?
As a result, Anselm taught that, in contrast to the Ransom theory, humanity owes God a debt, not the other way around. According to this theory, injustice is what we owe. God’s justice has been robbed by our injustices, which must be made up for. According to the satisfaction idea, Jesus Christ’s death on the cross served as a payment to God. This is the first atonement theory to assert that the atonement has an effect on God (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).
Isaiah 53:10-12 “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
The satisfaction model also has patristic support, such as St Ambrose of Milan who wrote in his work On Flight from the world: “Jesus took flesh that he might destroy the curse of sinful flesh, and he became for us a curse that a blessing might overwhelm a curse, uprightness might overwhelm sin, forgiveness might overwhelm the sentence, and life might overwhelm death. He also took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled, and satisfaction might be given for the judgment, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death. Therefore, nothing was done contrary to God’s sentence when the terms of that sentence were fulfilled, for the curse was unto death but grace is after death.”
The Penal Substitutionary Theory
The Reformation led to the establishment of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). Anselm’s satisfaction theory was adopted by the Reformers, particularly Calvin and Luther, who made some minor modifications. They enhanced this idea of the cross as satisfaction by introducing a more legal (or forensic) framework. Jesus Christ dies as a result of Penal Substitution to appease God’s anger toward human sin. Jesus is penalized (punished) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy God’s justice and the requirement under the law that sin be punished. God is now able to pardon the offender because of Jesus’ death because He bore the punishment due the sinner’s place, thereby satisfying the conditions of God’s justice for retribution.
If you’re like me, and you come from a Reformed, Lutheran or evangelical background, this view is the one most familiar to you. It also has Scriptural and Patristic warrant. Romans 5:8 “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
Isaiah 53:5 “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”
St John Chrysostom writes in his homilies on 2 Corinthians “God allowed his Son to suffer as if a condemned sinner, so that we might be delivered from the penalty of our sins. This is God’s righteousness, that we are not justified by works (for then we would have to be perfect, which is impossible), but by grace, in which case all our sin is removed.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria wrote in On the Incarnation.25.5.1-3: “But if any of our own people also inquire, not from love of debate, but from love of learning, why He suffered death in none other way save on the Cross, let him also be told that no other way than this was good for us, and that it was well that the Lord suffered this for our sakes. 2. For if He came Himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could He have become Galatians 3:13 a curse, unless He received the death set for a curse? And that is the Cross. For this is exactly what is written: Cursed Deuteronomy 21:23 is he that hangs on a tree. 3. Again, if the Lord’s death is the ransom of all, and by His death the middle Ephesians 2:14 wall of partition is broken down, and the calling of the nations is brought about, how would He have called us to Him, had He not been crucified? For it is only on the cross that a man dies with his hands spread out. Whence it was fitting for the Lord to bear this also and to spread out His hands, that with the one He might draw the ancient people, and with the other those from the Gentiles, and unite both in Himself. 4. For this is what He Himself has said, signifying by what manner of death He was to ransom all: I, when John 12:32 I am lifted up, He says, shall draw all men unto Me.”
The Moral Influence Theory
The moral influence theory was given its most explicit portrayal by Peter Abelard (1079-1142). This is the view that the atonement of Christ is a manifestation of God’s love that moves people to repent and softens their hearts. According to proponents of this viewpoint, man is spiritually sick and in need of healing, and when he witnesses God’s love for him, he is driven to accept God’s pardon. They consider that the point and significance of Christ’s death was to reveal God’s love for mankind.
Peter Abelard put forth this view in contrast to both the satisfaction view presented by Anselm of Canterbury and the Ransom theory. He focused on the change that occurs in man as a result of the atonement instead of the change in man’s standing before God.
Focusing on the change that occurs in man, proponents of this view cite the following Scriptures
“Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.” – 1 Corinthians 11:1 (NKJV)
“He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.” – 1 John 2:6 (KJV)
Moving past the language of theories
If you have been reading so far, you can see that each of these views have Scriptural warrant, but they cannot work on their own. Each of these views only represent an aspect of the atonement, they do not present the full view, though some of them are more representative of the atonement than others. Christians must move past the language of theories, setting one aspect of the atonement against the other, and seek to describe Christ’s atoning work holistically.
To quote the scholar Pate, C. Marvin ”There are three aspects to Christ’s atonement according to the early Church: vicarious atonement [substitutionary atonement], the eschatological defeat of Satan [Christ the Victor], and the imitation of Christ [participation in Jesus’ death and resurrection].“
All these aspects of the atonement are represented in the views discussed above: Vicarious atonement in PSA; Cosmic victory over Satan in Christus Victor and Ransom theory; and the imitation of Christ [participation in Jesus’ death and resurrection] in the Moral influence theory.
Some might object and say that these views are not compatible with one another but look at it this way: The Fall put us in bondage to sin and death, put us under the dominion of Satan, caused us to become “children of wrath” destined to be punished for sin, and all this is because it separated us from God. We know this from the Scriptures.
So, Christ comes as the Second Adam, and through perfect obedience to God takes the penalty on our behalf, satisfying the justice of God, diverting His wrath, and demonstrating His Love. In taking the penalty (death) on our behalf He frees us from sin and death, defeating Satan, making the gift of eternal life available to all. Through faith alone, we participate in the life of Christ by imitating Him, and therefore we can individually receive the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection, which is eternal life and communion with God and are therefore justified and sanctified, fully reconciled with God. All of this is because of the Grace and Love of God. All aspects of the atonement are represented here, described holistically.
By viewing the atonement in this way, we are able to more fully understand and appreciate what Christ has done for us.
God be with you.
Sources:
The Holy Bible
C Marvin Pate. (2011). From Plato to Jesus : what does philosophy have to do with theology? Kregel Publications.
Meyer, James David. “The Patristic Roots of Satisfaction Atonement Theories: Did the Church Fathers Affirm Only Christus Victor?” Tyndale Bulletin, vol. 72, no. 2, 1 Nov. 2020, 10.53751/001c.27751. Accessed 8 Oct. 2021.
CHURCH FATHERS: On the Incarnation of the Word (Athanasius). (n.d.). Www.newadvent.org. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.18 (St. Irenaeus).” Www.newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103318.htm.
CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lectures (Cyril of Jerusalem).” Www.newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm.
Gustaf Aulén. Christus Victor : An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement. London, Spck, 2010.
