A.    Background.

  • Humanity has a problem: sin. We are all sinners, and God hates sin. Yet God loves us.
  • God had a plan to redeem us. The Father sent His Son to become a human. This man, Jesus of Nazareth, lived a sinless life, taught us what God expects of us, then died and rose again bodily from the dead. Jesus was not only a man, he was and is God, the second Person of the Trinity.
  • Jesus died for us. Paul writes: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Jesus said this about Himself, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13).
  • How did Christ’s death and resurrection rescue us from our plight? Over the centuries, theologians have developed theories or models to explain this. These are called “atonement theories,” for they explain how Christ’s death atones for our sins and reconciles us to God.

B.     The most common atonement theories.

  • Michael Bird discusses numerous atonement theories.[1] For the most part, they are based on Scripture and supplement, but do not contradict each other. Each emphasizes a different aspect of atonement.
  • The recapitulation theory originated with Irenaeus, the 2nd century theologian and bishop of Lyon. Irenaeus argued that sin and death entered the world through Adam. Jesus, the new Adam, lived the sinless life that Adam should have lived, and through His obedience to the Father made us righteous (Rom 5:17). Bird writes: “When the Son of God became a human being, he was obedient to God, gathered the whole of humanity to himself, stood as their representative, and liberated them from death and sin into a restored divine destiny.”[2] This theory is true and biblical, but it does not explain why Christ’s death was necessary.[3]
  • The ransom theory was popular in the early church. Jesus said that He had come to offer his life as a “ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). Advocates argued that, through sin, humanity “passed into the jurisdiction of the devil.”[4] God offered the death of His Son as a ransom to the devil, who accepted it in return for humanity. The devil failed to understand that he could not keep Jesus in his power, as became clear when Jesus rose from the dead. Theologians who advocated this view included Origen (AD 185-254), Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395), and Augustine (AD 354-430). Gregory of Nazianzus (Ad 330-389), on the other hand, argued that God would not pay a ransom to the devil.[5] This objection still holds.
  • Another ancient theory, called Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulen, emphasizes Christ’s victory over the forces of evil. Many passages in Scripture attest to this. For example, Paul wrote, “And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Col 2:15). Michael Bird argues that this describes the fact of Christ’s victory over evil but does not explain how the victory was won nor how it resulted in payment for our sins. Accordingly, it is not really an atonement theory.[6] 
  • The satisfaction theory of St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) rejects the idea that Jesus paid a ransom to the devil. Instead, Christ’s death is a ransom paid to God the Father. Anselm argued that sin is a failure to give God His due. By dying on the cross, Jesus, the sinless representative of humanity, paid the debt owed to the Father. Millard Erickson points out that this theory treats God as a feudal lord and fails to consider God’s love as a motivation for the atonement.[7]
  • The moral influence theory, attributed to Peter Abelard, emphasizes the change in the believer. According to Bird, “Abelard taught that while Christ’s cross delivers us from sin, nonetheless, when people look at the cross, they behold the greatness of divine love, a love that delivers them from fear and produces in them an unwavering love in return.”[8] Bird argues that the theory, while true, fails to explain how the Cross deals with our sins.[9] Hence it is inadequate.
  • The Socinian theory of Faustus and Laelius Socinus is similar to Abelard’s moral influence theory but rejects any form of substitutionary atonement. It teaches that God forgives us freely, and so there is no need for anyone to pay for our sins. This theory, Erickson writes, teaches that “the real value of Jesus’s death lies in the beautiful and perfect example of the type of dedication we are to practice.”[10] It, too, fails to explain how the Cross covers our sins.
  • The exemplary theory argues that Christ’s obedience, including death on the cross for others, is an example that we should emulate.[11] While this is true, it does not explain how His death atoned for sin.
  • The governmental theory of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) developed Anselm’s satisfaction theory to explain why God’s justice demanded punishment. As ruler of the universe, God had to uphold His laws. If He had simply forgiven people for their sins, that would undermine the seriousness of the law. Erickson writes, “What God did through Christ’s death was to demonstrate what God’s justice will require us to suffer if we continue in sin. Underscoring the seriousness of breaking God’s law, the heinousness of sin, this demonstration of God’s justice is all the more impressive in view of who and what Christ was.”[12] This is a strong argument for why God could not simply ignore human sin, but it does not explain how the Cross redeemed humanity from sin.
  • The penal substitution theory teaches that Christ substituted Himself for us and bore our sins on the cross, thus experiencing the penalty that we deserved. Bird writes, “penal substitution was at the heart of the atonement according to the Reformers.”[13] The theory predates the Reformation. Bird argues that Clement of Rome (1st century AD) affirmed a precursor of penal substitution. It is the atonement theory favored by evangelical Christians, including John Stott, who describes it in his chapter, “The Death of Christ.”[14] Penal substitution is similar to the ransom theory in that Christ paid the price to redeem us, but the price was paid to satisfy God’s justice, not to ransom humanity from the devil. Penal substitution is often confused with Anselm’s substitution theory, but with penal substitution God’s motive is love for humanity, not restoration of His honor.

C.    Which atonement theories best explain our redemption?

  • Penal substitution plausibly explains how Christ’s death on the cross paid for our sins. Sin violates God’s justice. Jesus, as a human, could represent us, and because He was sinless, He could substitute for us. As God, His death had infinite value and so was able to make full payment for our sins. Anselm’s substitutionary theory, which is very similar, explains this as well but fails to take God’s love into account. The drawback of the ransom theory is that God would not pay a ransom to the devil. If the ransom is paid to God to satisfy justice, that describes the penal substitution theory.
  • Michael Bird argues that penal substitution explains our redemption from sin, but Christus Victor is even more central to the work of Christ. Christ on the cross not only paid the penalty for our sins, He defeated the power of death and the devil. Our redemption is part of that victory.
  • The other atonement theories are also correct and tell part of the story of Christ’s victory. Jesus did recapitulate the story of Adam; He demonstrated God’s great love for humanity and set an example for us to follow; and as ruler of the universe God upheld His justice. These theories are helpful supplements to the core theories of penal substitution and Christus Victor, but they are insufficient of themselves.

D.    Is penal substitution “divine child abuse”?

  • In recent years, many theologians have begun to question penal substitution. They argue that it is unjust of God to punish the innocent Jesus for the sins of others. They also argue that the whole idea of divine judgement contradicts the argument that “God is love.” That the Father took out humanity’s sins on His Son is, they argue, “divine child abuse.”[15]
    • The first counter to this argument is that God is loving but also just. If He had simply ignored human sin, He would betray His justice (as Grotius’s government theory explains).
    • Secondly, God is triune. Hence, when God the Son in Jesus Christ bore the sins of the world, it was God Himself who bore the sins. All three Persons of the Trinity were involved in redemption: the Father sends the Son; the Son goes voluntarily to the cross; and the Spirit empowers the Son to suffer and raises Him back to life. Our redemption was motivated by God’s love for us, and it was God Himself who paid the penalty in our place. It is like a judge who condemns a man, then takes the man’s place and has himself executed in the man’s stead.
    • Michael Bird concludes: “The problem is that this ‘divine child abuse’ argument is filled with so much straw that you could literally take that argument, put a costume on it, and audition it for the role of the scarecrow in a Broadway production of The Wizard of Oz.”[16]

V.        Discussion questions

[1] Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 440-466.

[2] Ibid., 441-442.

[3] Ibid., 443.

[4] Ibid., 443.

[5] Ibid., 446.

[6] Ibid., 450.

[7] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 729.

[8] Bird, Evangelical Theology, 453.

[9] Ibid., 454.

[10] Erickson, Christian Theology, 716.

[11] Bird, Evangelical Theology, 454.

[12] Erickson, Christian Theology, 721.

[13] Bird, Evangelical Theology, 462.

[14] John R. W. Stott, Basic Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 83-99.

[15] Bird, Evangelical Theology, 464.

[16] Ibid.