The Kaleidoscopic Cross: Three Atonement Theories

Have you ever looked through a kaleidoscope? Twisting the scope creates various colorful designs. Likewise, there’s so much that occurred in the cross of Christ that we must look then turn the scope to see another aspect of what happened.

Throughout the course of Christian history, the atonement has been one of the most controversial areas of theology. Atonement theories are attempts to explain precisely how Jesus’ death redeems us. Three prominent theories are christus victor, satisfaction, and moral influence. (What follows is an excerpt from my book Seeing the Invisible God: 52 Biblical Reflections on Divine Anatomy.)

Christus Victor

First, the christus victor theories emphasize Christ’s victory over the powers of evil and death. Paul writes, “And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Colossians 2:15). Christ’s death was a conquest of evil forces. One of the first expressions of this view, espoused by the church fathers, is the ransom-to-Satan theory. According to that theory, since Satan ruled over humanity, God paid Satan a ransom—the death of his own Son—to free humans from his power.

The recapitulation theory also falls under the christus victor label. By becoming one of us, dying a human death, and rising from the dead, Jesus became the new head of humanity—he recapitalized the human race. And now he imparts his resurrection life, freeing us from the power of death.

The main idea of christus victor theories is that Christ’s death primarily affected the powers of evil, such as Satan and death, by defeating them.

Satisfaction

Second, satisfaction theories arose in the Middle Ages with Anselm (AD 1033–1109), who was a monk and theologian. According to Anselm, we have dishonored a holy God with our sins and divine justice requires that we make a payment to God. But we are sinful and cannot make the payment required so Christ becomes one of us to make the payment we owe by his death. Martin Luther (AD 1483–1546) and John Calvin (AD 1509–1564) developed the satisfaction theory into the penal substitutionary atonement theory.

Penal substitution means that Christ bore our guilt and received the punishment we were destined to receive. Now God can freely forgive us in Christ. Paul says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). The main idea of satisfaction theories is that Christ’s death primarily affects God the  Father by satisfying his honor and justice.

Moral Influence

Third, moral-influence theories emphasize Christ’s death as an example for us. Jesus’ love for his enemies shows us divine love in the face of human hatred. Paul states, “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). And, “Since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11). When we see God’s love displayed in Jesus’ death, our hearts change. By absorbing evil and not retaliating, Jesus’ example ends the cycle of human violence. The main idea of moral-influence theories is that Christ’s death primarily affects us by serving as our example.

Missing Details

The controversy persists because the New Testament doesn’t identify the primary focus of Christ’s death—God, Satan, or humans. The New Testament also doesn’t explain the mechanics of how Christ’s death saves us. Yes, there are New Testament statements that can be used to support each view, but those statements don’t explain certain details incorporated into the theories.

For example, while Paul calls Jesus a ransom, he doesn’t state to whom the ransom was paid. The ransom-to-Satan theory adds the missing detail. But did God really owe Satan a payment? And did God deceive Satan by making the payment and then taking it back when Christ rose from the dead? Anselm answered those questions negatively.

Regarding the penal substitutionary theory, some cannot accept the idea that the Father was punishing the Son on the cross for our sins. It seems unjust and even grotesque. Furthermore, it appears to divide the indivisible Trinity. Detractors note that the blame for Jesus’ death is most often placed directly on sinful humans. Peter accused the crowd: “You, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross” (Acts 2:23). Instead of being against the Son, the Father was fully united with him. Even more, the Father was in Christ “reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). The death of Christ didn’t change God from being against us to being for us because “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16), and “God presented Christ” as our mercy seat (Romans 3:25). God was always for us. Christ’s death was not a display of God’s wrath, but the ultimate display of God’s love.[1]

Others object to the moral-influence theory by asserting that it doesn’t go deep enough to address our problem of sin. Our plight is so desperate that a good example is not enough to save us.

The Big Picture

Certainly, in the big picture, the Bible portrays Christ’s death as an example, a conquest of evil, and an expression of the Father’s heart. And because of that there are aspects of each view that must be correct, but as a whole, the theories are difficult to combine into a coherent overarching theory.^[2] The best we can do is twist the scope to see another image.

In light of the Bible’s lack of detailed explanation, it’s best to see the idea of Christ’s redemption as a general description without seeking to pinpoint all of the details. The point of the redemption language is that Christ frees us from our sins and the judgment we deserve, and he did that through his life, death, and resurrection. And for that, Jesus will be praised forever (Revelation 5:9–10).

——————————————————————————————————————————

[1] For more on this line of thinking see Bradley Jersak, A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel (Pasadena: Plain Truth Ministries, 2015), Ch. 13.

^[2] For more information on atonement theories see Ben Pugh, Atonement Theories: A Way through the Maze (Eugene: Cascade, 2014).