Atonement: A Primer

A few weeks ago I did a Sunday School class on theories regarding atonement. Since it is Passion Week I thought I'd post my notes. Nothing original here, just a synopsis if anyone is looking for a quick primer on the history of atonement theology.

i. The word "atonement."
What happened at Golgotha? When the New Testament authors spoke about what happened at the Place of the Skull one common way they viewed the event was through the Hebrew Day of Atonement. According to Leviticus 16 the High Priest would slaughter a goat as a "sin offering" and then sprinkle the blood on the Mercy Seat, the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. The word for "Mercy Seat" comes from the Hebrew kapporeth which means "cover." But "cover" here is twofold, a literal cover and also the place where sins are "covered" over.

The Hebrew kapporeth comes down to us as hilasterion in Greek. Hilasterion is the word that is translated as "atonement." Hilasterion has many shades of meaning. Two of the most important meanings are the words propitiation and expiation. Propitiation refers to making something propitious or favorable. That is, something that is an object of wrath or judgment is now considered to be favorable. Thus, propitiation involves notions of satisfaction or appeasement, disfavor or wrath is turned away and is replaced with favor. Expiation refers to making amends or the compensation for a wrong done.

All in all then, hilasterion has two shades of meaning: Appeasement/satisfaction (propitiation) and making amends (expiation). No single word in English captures both of these meanings. "Reconciliation" comes close, but William Tyndale coined the word "atonement" to create a theological term in English that could capture the shades of meaning inherent in hilasterion and kapporeth. Some scholars have contended that "atonement" may be the only significant theological term that is of English origin.

ii. What we all agree on.
What happened at Golgotha? Christians generally agree on this: We were saved at Golgotha. That is, there was something about the death of Jesus of Nazareth that created an atonement, a reconciliation, a peace between God and humanity. This atonement saved us, rescued us.

Now beyond this general consensus little else about Golgotha is agreed upon. Worse, once we get outside this consensus much becomes very controversial.

The issues revolve around the How? and the Why? of atonement. Why, exactly, did Jesus have to die? And how, exactly, did Jesus' death effect the atonement? The answers to these questions have been diverse. What follows is a rough, historical overview of the theories

iii. Ransom theory.
For the first thousand years of the church ransom theory was the dominant view of the atonement. Because of this some scholars call ransom theory the "classical" view of the atonement.

To start, we observe that some of the New Testament writers use the image of "ransom" in describing the events at Golgotha:

Mark 10.45
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

1 Timothy 2.5-6
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

The question, obviously, is if Jesus' death was a ransom who got paid? The classical theory had it that Satan was paid the ransom. On this view, due to humanity's sin Satan held humankind captive. To release humanity from Satan's rightful claim Jesus gives his life in exchange, as a "ransom."

I like to call this The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe view of the atonement because it follows the logic of C.S. Lewis' story. Readers will recall that the Witch (the Satan figure) has a rightful claim to the traitor Edmund. However, Aslan gives his live in exchange for Edmund's, thus saving him.

(There is a curious history involving the ransom view. Specifically, why did Satan make this exchange? Interestingly, C.S. Lewis offers the same answer many of the church fathers did: Satan (or the Witch) makes the exchange because he was tricked into it.)

Although ransom theory appears archaic to modern ears (more on that in a bit), facets of the classical view have been revived in what has been called Christus Victor theology. According to Christus Victor theory we should not understand Jesus to be paying a ransom to the Devil. Rather, we should see Jesus as defeating the Devil. The cross is a victory, the defeat of sin, death, and Satan. Satan and the power he represents--sin and death--are still central features in this view but Satan is seen as a vanquished enemy rather than as a bamboozled bargaining partner. The Eastern Orthodox church never significantly moved away from the Christus Victor themes of the classical atonement position. A good example of this is their emphasis on the harrowing of hell, with its depiction of the defeat of the devil and death, at Easter time.

iv. Satisfaction theory.
Around 1027 Saint Anslem published his treatise Cur Deus Homo? (Why did God become man?). In this treatise Anselm rejected ransom theory on the grounds that it gave Satan too much power. God doesn't have to haggle with Satan about the fate of humanity.

But if Satan isn't getting the ransom, who is getting "paid" in Anselm's theory? It is with Anselm that we see the now common move that it was not Satan but God who was "satisfied" at Golgotha.

According to Anselm human sin was an affront to the honor of God. However, humans, due to their sinfulness, cannot pay the price to restore God's honor. But Jesus, due to his sinlessness, can die in the place of humanity to provide a "more perfect sacrifice" to restore God's honor. This theological move--Jesus takes our place to satisfy God--is the beginning of what is known as satisfaction theory.

With John Calvin and others Anselm's satisfaction theory eventually gets morphed into what is known as penal substitutionary atonement. This is the dominant view of atonement in most Protestant churches. "Penal" notes a change from Anselm's theory in Cur?. Specifically, penal substitutionary atonement is a crime and punishment model. The broad outlines are as follows (and they are well known): Death is the just punishment of sin. Jesus, being sinless, accepts death in our place. Thus, the love and justice of God are parsimoniously satisfied in Jesus' sacrifice.

Penal substitutionary atonement is growingly controversial in many Christian circles due to its view of God (e.g., God requires blood sacrifice to be "satisfied"). However, there is another substitutionary model that I, personally, find more viable.

The governmental substitutionary model harkens back to Anselm's original focus on God's honor. In this model, God is "governing" the world. He wants his rule to be both just and loving. However, in the face of sin God is presented with a problem. God wants to punish and he wants to forgive. The trouble is that if God too easily forgives sin humanity would recieve the message that sin is "no big deal." This is particularly problematic given that God should care about the voices of victims. Some sin is horrible and God should not easily forgive it. So how does God express his concern for victims and his anger at sin? God chooses to inflict a wound on himself. In this, Jesus "dies for us" but not because God's nature demands our death. God needs to demonstrate both wrath and love but he handles this internally, within his own nature. The cross is a demonstration, forever answering the question: Does God hate human sin? The cross clearly says yes. And it is by grace that we are not in Christ's place. In short, the cross demonstrates God's wrath at sin and this allows him to forgive us in a way that doesn't make God look "light on sin." Clearly, sin cost God dearly. But he paid the price to make that message clear. We did not. Thus, the cross functions as a dual symbol: Wrath and love intertwined. The cross shows us how much God hates sin yet how much he is willing to suffer to forgive us. The cross shows us that God's grace is costly.

In sum, I like the governmental model as it keeps all the decent pieces of penal substitutionary atonement while removing the problematic facet of God's nature demanding death as "satisfaction" for sin.

v. Moral Influence theory.
A final perspective on atonement is that the cross brings reconciliation between God and humanity by showing humanity the path of peace. Jesus hints at this perspective when he says:

Luke 14.27
And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

The notion here is that the cross is a path, a way, the dharma, a trajectory, a goal, a life. And it is this path--the Cruciform Way--that saves us.

Further, the cross can function as an exposure and an unmasking that is aimed at halting the mechanisms of human evil. On this view, the cross is aimed at humanity rather than at God (as it is in penal substitutionary atonement). Of these theories I am particularly sympathetic to Rene Girard's scapegoat theory.

vi. An oversimplified synopsis.
As I reviewed the historical theories I summarized them for myself this way:

The cross saves us from...
Satan (ransom theory)
God (substitution theory)
Ourselves (moral influence theory)

vii. Metaphors and Theories
What happened at Golgotha? Most Christians agree that we were saved at Golgotha. Like the Mercy Seat, the cross is the "place of atonement," the locus of the event. But what exactly happened at Golgotha? And why did it have to happen in just that way?

All the New Testament writers offer us are metaphors. Ransom. Victory. Crime and punishment. Discipleship. But none of these are worked out in a systematic way.

The systematization occurred when theologians took a particular metaphor, wove it together with bits of Scripture, and then constructed a theory. The metaphors seem viable. But the post hoc theories often look more suspect.

The point, it seems to me, is that the cross refutes systemization. The cross is too big to be captured. The cross cannot be reduced, pigeonholed, or packaged. There is no final catechesis for the cross. The best we can do is metaphor. And lots of them.

In the end, it seems that the only language for the cross is poetry.