Basic Christian Beliefs: Differing Views of Atonement

The concept of atonement in Christian theology relates to the way in which humanity is reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. While there is one correct, orthodox view of Christ, there are several valid ways of viewing the significance of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Over the centuries, various theories of atonement have been developed to explain the mystery of how Christ reconciles us to God the Father.

Jesus’ Death as a Sacrifice Ransom Theory Recapitulation Theory Christus Victor Theory Penal Substitution versus Governmental View Moral Influence Theory

Jesus’ Death as a Sacrifice

The idea that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice appears throughout the New Testament. Romans 3:25 compares Jesus’ death to the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement in the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians 5:7 compares Jesus to the Passover lamb. Romans 8:3 compares Jesus’ death to a sin offering. The book of Hebrews extends this image to Jesus being the great heavenly high priest who offers the sacrifice to end all sacrifices (e.g., Heb. 10:14).

The idea of a sacrifice usually combines two different elements that have been highlighted throughout the years in relation to Christ’s death on the cross. One is the satisfaction of justice, and the other is the substitution of Jesus for us. For example, Romans 3:25 indicates that the sacrifice of Jesus shows that God is in fact just even though he had passed over sins that had been committed previously. God is just. It makes sense that justice would be satisfied.

2 Corinthians 5:21 is often thought to reflect Jesus taking our place: “God made the one who did not know sin to become sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God.” The verse might be a little more complex than at first meets the eye, but it does seem to point to an interchange whereby the spotless sacrifice of Jesus makes us righteous. There are also passages like 1 Peter 2:24: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross.”

NOTE: These images of atonement are not precisely formulated in the Bible. Later thinkers have filled in the blanks with their own conjectures, and thus wars over atonement theories have broken out over time. The basics are there in Scripture, but they are pictures and metaphors. Christianity has never universally embraced just one theory of atonement. All of them have at least an element of truth to them.

Ransom Theory

The Ransom Theory is one of the oldest atonement theories in Christian theology, often associated with early Church Fathers like Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. According to this theory, humanity was under the bondage of sin and the Devil since the Fall of Adam and Eve. To redeem humanity, Jesus offered himself as a ransom in exchange for the liberation of humanity.

The theory's foundation lies in the metaphor of a ransom or purchase price, found in several New Testament passages (e.g., Mark 10:45). However, some took Ransom Theory too far, suggesting that God paid the ransom to Satan. Some early theologians like Augustine suggested that the ransom was paid to God himself, who requires payment for sin. Again, the basic image is biblical, but the metaphor can be taken too far.

Recapitulation Theory

One picture of atonement that Paul gives is that of Jesus as the “Last Adam.” Adam brought sin and death into the world (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:21-26). Christ undid Adam’s sin. Christ’s one act of obedience undid Adam’s one act of disobedience. In Adam, all have died. By contrast, all of those who are in Christ will live.

It is striking how often in Paul’s letters he uses the expression “in Christ.” We are buried with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:4). We have been crucified with Christ (Gal. 2:20). The extent to which Paul speaks of our life as a life “in Christ” is one of those pervasive themes that is often overlooked. Our participation “in Christ” is a major feature of our reconciliation to God.

Christus Victor Theory

The Christus Victor Theory, a term coined by Gustaf Aulén in his 1931 work Christus Victor, reinterprets the early Ransom Theory in a way that addresses its main criticisms. Aulén argues that the atonement is primarily a cosmic conflict between God and the powers of evil. In the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus, God decisively defeated these powers, liberating humanity from their bondage. Hebrews 2:14 clearly states that Jesus defeated the Devil, who held the power of death.

The Christus Victor Theory has gained popularity in the 20th and 21st centuries, particularly among those seeking a more holistic understanding of atonement that goes beyond individual sin to address evil and oppression in all their forms. However, critics argue that it can downplay personal responsibility for sin and the need for personal repentance and transformation.

Penal Substitution versus Governmental View

The idea of “penal substitution” combines the idea of a satisfaction of the need for punishment with Jesus substituting for our sins and makes it mathematical. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century, moved the focus of atonement from Satan and sin to God’s justice and honor. Anselm proposed that human sin dishonored God. The dishonor created a debt that humans, as finite creatures, could not repay. Therefore, God became incarnate in Jesus Christ, a being both divine and human, who could and did offer the perfect act of obedience and honor to God – his death on the cross (cf. Rom. 3:25; 2 Cor. 5:21).

The Satisfaction Theory was particularly influential in the medieval Western church, and it became almost a mathematical and transactional view. There is a precise amount of sin that has and will be committed in history for which punishment must take place. Jesus must suffer exactly that amount for that amount of atonement to take place. Suffice it to say, the Parable of the Prodigal Son knows nothing of such mathematical calculations.

Another view, the governmental view, takes the satisfaction of justice more broadly. Justice and the order of things needed to be satisfied, but there was no precise mathematical calculation. God, the righteous Judge, received ample satisfaction in the death of Jesus.

Moral Influence Theory

The Moral Influence Theory of atonement, often associated with Peter Abelard in the 12th century, offers a different perspective. This theory focuses on Jesus’ life and death as the supreme example of God's love (cf. Rom. 5:8), which inspires humans to reciprocate that love and change their sinful ways.

The Moral Influence Theory's strength lies in its emphasis on the transformative power of love and the ethical implications of Jesus' life and teachings. Critics, however, argue that it fails to adequately address the problem of sin and the need for some form of reparation or justice.

These theories represent just a sample of the many ways Christians have tried to articulate the profound mystery of atonement. Each one offers insights into different aspects of God’s relationship with humanity and the cosmos. The Ransom Theory emphasizes liberation. The Satisfaction Theory underscores God’s justice and honor. Substitution indicates that Christ took our place. The Moral Influence Theory highlights the transformative power of divine love, and the Christus Victor Theory presents a cosmic conflict and victory over evil.

Romans in a Nutshell

Romans 1-3 Gentiles have sinned, but Jews have sinned too. “All have sinned” (Rom. 3:23) and “the wages of sin is death” (6:23).
Romans 4-5 The solution is Christ’s atonement and faith in what God has done in Christ (Rom. 3:24-25). “God demonstrates his love for us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom. 5:8).
Romans 6-8 That’s not an excuse to sin. The Law showed us we were sinners. Now, the Spirit gives us the power to keep the Law (which is love – 13:9).
Romans 9-11 But why have so many Gentiles believed and so few Jews? Because the Jews did not seek God by faith but by works of the Law (Rom. 10:9). But Israel will be saved.
Romans 12-16 Let’s live it out with a transformed mind that does not look down on each other (whether Jew or Gentile) but has an attitude of love, even though we sometimes