Theories over the centuries

Over the centuries, theologians have formulated several different theories or models of the atonement. Most models get something right, although some are much closer to reality than others. We will examine ten models, ending with penal substitution, which is at the heart of the atonement and the “theory” that brings together all the biblical ideas from the other theories.

1. Theory of recapitulation (Irenaeus).

According to this model, Christ lived through all stages of human life in such a way that his life of obedience compensated for Adam’s life of disobedience. Christ obeyed the Father, reversing Adam’s curse and freeing us from the grip of the devil. This understanding of the atonement is right in what it affirms, although there is nothing about the satisfaction of divine wrath and little about Christ bearing the punishment of sin.

2. Ransom for Satan (Origen).

In this popular and well-attested model, Christ’s death is seen as a ransom to purchase man’s freedom. The atonement is directed at Satan, who was deceived – as a fish is deceived by bait on a hook – into thinking that the cross was his triumph when it was his defeat (think of Aslan’s sacrifice at the White Witch of Narnia). The contemporary version is generally called Christus Victorwhich means that Christ is the one who defeated the powers of hell. While this is certainly an important aspect of the atonement, the theory gives too much power to Satan by making him the object of payment.

3. Commercial theory (Anselm).

Anselm’s theology of the atonement represented a major advance in biblical thinking. In Anselm’s mind, Christ’s death brought infinite honor to God. In turn, God gave Christ a reward which he passed on (without needing reward himself) to man in the form of forgiveness and eternal life. What is important is that Anselm understood that atonement was directed toward God and that man’s main problem was dishonoring God. Yet the nature of the transaction remains somewhat vague. Christ’s death is offered as a tribute – rooted in God’s honor rather than God’s justice – but it is not clearly indirect suffering as punishment for sin.

4. Theory of moral influence (Abelard).

For the medieval theologian Peter Abelard, the death of Christ showed the great love of God, which in turn gave man the impulse to repent and believe. In Abelard’s theory, man’s main problem is spiritual need, with atonement directed toward man in order to convince him of God’s love. This makes Christ’s atoning work strictly voluntary rather than a necessity according to the logic of divine justice.

5. Example of theory (Socinus).

According to Faustus Socinus, the 16th-century anti-Trinitarian heretic opposed by all branches of the Church, Christ’s death was an example of obedience and piety that can inspire in man the same virtues. The Socinian vision of atonement is not only Pelagian in its conception; this devalues ​​the divinity of Christ and calls into question the necessity of the incarnation itself. If man only needs to be inspired, why did God have to become man, and why a violent death on the cross? Socinianism fails where all theories of human-directed atonement fail: it underestimates the plight of sinners, overestimates the power of human abilities, and does nothing to explain the holiness and righteousness of God.

6. Government theory (Grotius).

In this conception of atonement, often associated with 17th-century political theorist Hugo Grotius, the cross demonstrates that the law must be obeyed and sin must be punished. Christ’s death is not an indirect sacrifice but a means for God to maintain his moral governance of the universe. Grotius so emphasized God’s rectoral justice (maintaining moral righteousness) to the exclusion of God’s retributive justice (inflicting punishment on those who do not live according to this moral righteousness) that it is difficult to know which base Christ specifically (as opposed to someone else) had to die.

7. Mystical theory (Schleiermacher).

As in moral influence theory, atonement, in this model, aims to bring about change in man. Unlike moral theory, which is simply ethically inspired, mystical theory maintains that a change has taken place in man deep in his subconscious. Like the liberal theology he inspired, Friedrich Schleiermacher’s theory gave no real place to the guilt and depravity inherent in man.

8. Repentance by proxy (Campbell).

According to the 19th-century Scottish theologian John McLeod Campbell, the atonement represented Christ’s identification with us. Christ lived a self-sacrificing life, identified with us by suffering on the cross, and repented on our behalf, thereby leading God to be merciful to sinners. The problem with Campbell’s theology is that it makes mercy a necessary attribute of God and justice an arbitrary attribute. And yet, the justice that can be set aside (rather than satisfied) is not really justice, and the mercy that must be administered is not really mercy.

9. Elected and effective (Barth).

According to Karl Barth, since Christ assumed human nature, his death must have been intended for all who possessed this nature. Likewise, because God has decreed to make himself known to the world in Christ, the atonement must be effective in all. Barth and his followers are notoriously difficult to pin down the universalist implications of their views, but it is difficult to see how the incarnation and atonement will not effectively save everyone under a Barthian understanding.

10. Penal substitution (Protestant reformers).

This point of view was emphasized by Calvin and Luther, but we also find traces of it in Justin Martyr and Tertullian. This continues to be the dominant understanding among confessional Reformed Christians and other evangelicals. In this view, Christ’s death was a substitutionary sacrifice designed to satisfy the demands of God’s justice. Man’s primary problem is depravity, and so atonement is directed to God as payment for the prescriptive and penal demands of the law. This understanding of the atonement does not eliminate all aspects of other views, but it more fully explains the biblical data on the meaning of the cross. The atonement may be more than a substitutionary sacrifice, but it is not less. None of the other theories would make sense if Christ had not died in our place to appease God’s wrath. As John Stott says: “Substitution is not an “atonement theory.” Nor is it even an additional image that would be inserted as an option among the others. Rather, it is the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself.¹ In the substitutionary penal atonement we find hope for sinners, the heart of the gospel, and the good news without which all other news concerning the cross is null and void.

This article is adapted from Everyday Doctrine: A Year’s Guide to Systematic Theology by Kevin DeYoung.

Related articles