On Atonement

I wrote recently about the uniqueness of Christianity that is found in the forgiveness of sins. No other religion offers this. You either need to be good enough or you don't make it. Simple as that. And this has the potential to make Christianity attractive over other religions. After all, most humans experience guilt for their failings, and Christianity offers a genuine solution. There is a problem, however. How is God able to forgive sins?

The answer from the Bible is Atonement. Now, this can be a tricky word. You see, we've used it so casually for so long that we don't even know what it means anymore. Beyond that -- and this may come as a surprise to many -- there are actually multiple theories about the Atonement. I have been able to find six distinct theories. So, when we talk about "Atonement", what are we talking about?

Before we talk about the theories, we need to remember the point. Without remembering the point, we can end up far astray of anything of value. First, the problem: All have sinned, and the wages of sin is death. The problem, then, is that a debt is owed. That debt is owed to justice. We routinely hear this terminology in the justice system. If a person is convicted of a crime and serves his or her sentence, we will say, "He paid his debt to society." Now, I might say, like Julia Roberts in Ocean's Eleven, "I never got the check." That's missing the point. The debt was to justice. Justice demanded a payment, and it was made. So we have a payment due -- death -- and if God is just (God defines justice), then that payment must be made. Sinners owe a payment of death. The solution? Well, that would be "Atonement". The word is very simply defined as "satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury". The question, then, is in what sense did Jesus's death and resurrection provide satisfaction for the wrong we committed against God?

There are a variety of theories. One of the earliest was the Ransom Theory. It goes like this. Satan owns all humans because they sinned. God makes a deal with Satan. "I'll give you My Son in exchange." Satan makes the deal, then God raises Jesus from the dead, tricking Satan out of the souls he owned. God paid a ransom of His Son to Satan. Never mind that it was deceitful of God to do it. That was one of the earliest ideas. The next one, chronologically, is called the Recapitulation Theory. In this one, Jesus is the New Adam and starts a New Race of people who are sin-free of which believers can become a part. It's an interesting theory, but it doesn't actually answer "In what sense did Jesus's death and resurrection provide satisfaction for the wrong we committed against God?" Instead, He just changed the game. Anselm came up with the theory that is the Roman Catholic theory to this day. It is the Satisfaction Theory in which God's honor was offended by sin. Thus, the death of the God/Man Jesus was satisfaction to God's honor. It was a debt paid by God to Himself. In response to Anselm's theory, the Moral-Example Theory was formulated. In this one, there is, again, no payment, no penalty, no satisfaction for wrong. No, in this case Jesus died to influence humans toward being moral. Christ didn't die to satisfy the demands of divine justice, but to persuade Man to do what is right. He died as an example, not as a payment. The Reformers also disagreed with the Satisfaction Theory, holding that it didn't go far enough, so they offered the Penal-Substitution Theory which said that it wasn't just God's honor that was offended, but His justice as well. It wasn't, then, merely a price paid by God to Himself, but it was the price required by justice -- death for sin. In this view, Christ took the punishment due to sinners (thus "penal-substitution") on their behalf, freeing them from the penalty of sin. Perhaps the most recent (although it was back in the 17th century) is the Governmental Theory. In this one, Christ served as an example to mankind to tell us that sin displeases God. Again as an example, Christ's death served to show that God hates sin and that was sufficient to God.

Whew! All that for Atonement. First, let's recognize that the Bible doesn't explicitly say any of these things. We find the language of payment, sure, but there isn't any reference to whom the payment is made. Debate over that is pointless. I'd also like to point out that all of these theories have some merit. As an example, the hymn, When I Survey the Wondrous Cross, is written entirely from a Moral Example viewpoint. That is not to say that it argues for this theory, but that the hymn tells us that looking at the cross produces a response. Nothing about payment. Having said that, it is important to return to 1) the definition of Atonement and 2) the problem at hand. Atonement, remember, is satisfaction or reparation for a wrong. And the problem is that we, by virtue of our sin, owe death as payment. If Atonement is Atonement, it must provide satisfaction and that payment must be made. If we argue, along with the Recapitulation, Moral-Example, or Governmental theories that no actual payment is made, then we come to one of two conclusions. Either we are still required to pay or God is not just. Atonement requires that payment be made on our behalf or no reparation has been made for wrong incurred.

Now, you can argue all day about to whom the payment was made, what form the payment took, or other such things, but if you are going to set aside that payment as some theories of Atonement do, you are either eliminating Atonement entirely or making our situation worse (by mitigating God or placing us under judgment still). So, you see, it's no small deal. And given the language of Scripture about redemption, ransom, and payment, I don't think that there's any question that Atonement requires more than a good example.