I think I also had a question about some comments you made to an article on Facebook. You talked about penal substitution or substitutionary atonement (I forget the exact term). If penal substitution is what I think it is, then that’s pretty much what I was taught by the church. But I got the impression from your comments that you did not accept the penal substitution theory of atonement. Do you recall your comments?
Dear Inquiring Christian,
I hope I can answer your question with this piece that I wrote. +Chris.
Introduction
The person of Jesus of Nazareth is usually understood as central to the Christian faith. As God’s anointed (i.e. Messiah or Christ) he serves a pivotal role in God’s work of redemption. Most (if not all Christians) can agree with that statement. The problem arises when we try to explain how Jesus effects that redemption.
In Western Christianity discussions about the work of Jesus usually focus on the doctrine of the atonement. Atonement, originally at-one-ment, is an English word coined to translate the Latin Vulgate’s reconciliatio. (The Vulgate was and remains the definitive Latin translation of the Bible for the Roman Catholic Church.) Through the work of Jesus the Christ, God and creation move from a state of estrangement to a state of communion. Atonement is what effects that change.
Although ecumenical councils have established as dogma much about Jesus Christ as a person, there is no universally proscribed understanding of atonement. Through church history, a number of thinkers have proposed different “theories” of how atonement works. These theories differ in how they understand the human problem, what Jesus actually accomplishes, and what the end result is. For the purposes of this discussion, I will discuss a few of the major theories in each historical period.
I confess that I am deeply suspicious when it comes to explaining the atonement. I happen to think that the doctrine of the atonement is at best a symbolic representation of a deeper truth. This Truth with a capital “T” is something that possibly cannot even be expressed in human language. When we use these different theories we seem unable to understand them as symbols, instead believing them to be literal statements about objective reality. This suspicion makes me fairly critical of most attempts to model the atonement.
The Post-New Testament Period
Since no one seems to be able to agree what the Bible teaches as the correct atonement theory, I will skip the Bible and move right into the period of the Church Fathers. This “post-New Testament” period began in the late first century CE and continued until the beginning of the Middle Ages. This period tended to uphold two different understandings of atonement. The first is the ransom theory and the second is the recapitulation theory.
The Ransom Theory
The ransom theory, first definitely argued by Irenaeus (c.130 – c.202), asserts that humanity, because of Adam and Eve’s sin, was held in bondage by Satan. In order to free humanity, God the Son gave himself as a ransom to the devil. The social model being drawn from is the “prisoner exchange.” Two sides in a war will – from time to time – swap prisoners. That was done in ancient times, and is still done today. Jesus, as divine, could not actually be held by Satan. Consequently, the supposed ransom was in actuality a ruse – a trick by God to fool the devil into releasing his prisoners (i.e. humanity).
The New Testament appears to teach this view in at least a few places. Many of the Church Fathers subscribed to some sort of ransom theory (e.g. Augustine of Hippo). It is still held by some Christians today. C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and Wardrobe is a good example of the ransom theory. A specific manifestation of the ransom theory, called Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) modifies the theory so that death itself is who holds humanity captive. Christ gives himself to death, by dying, and destroys death by his resurrection.
The primary concern with ransom theories is that they appear to give Satan (or death) a power that even God is forced to honor. Christianity is a monotheistic faith that rejects the existence of any other gods. If God is truly the creator and lord of all, why the need for a ruse to defeat Satan? This concern would be dealt with in the next period of history.
The Recapitulation Theory
A second theory widely accepted in the patristic period (and also first stated by Irenaeus) is the theory of recapitulation. The problem that this theory is having to contend with is that humanity and God have become separated by Adam and Eve’s wrong actions. We humans, following in our ancestors’ footsteps, continue to follow the same sinful lifestyle. We can’t really break out of it on our own. The gap between God and us remains. Hellenistic (Greek) philosophy played a big role in this theory’s development.
God the Son, Jesus Christ, becomes incarnate – a fully human being. He experiences all that humans experience: birth, life, suffering, and death. He rises from the dead. Through his actions he makes straight the path that humans made crooked. His sinless incarnation, birth, life, and death establish a new way forward for all humanity. He redeems humanity by taking the entirely of human life into the divine life. Athanasius (c.298 – 373), the Egyptian bishop, summarizes this view with his maxim “Only what has been assumed can be redeemed.” Jesus’ assumption of human nature corrects and salvages that nature. The world of flesh is won back by God becoming flesh.
I believe this view is still the predominant perspective in the Eastern Churches. I’m not sure it has ever been very popular in the West. The philosophy behind this theory seems to make sense, but many (especially Protestants) see it as lacking biblical warrant. It is unclear if this theory adequately takes into account the power of sin.
The Medieval Period
The Middle Ages brought a new set of problems and a different cultural context for Christianity in the West. Consequently, during this time new atonement theories were developed to respond. The two theories I will discuss are the satisfaction theory and the moral influence theory.
The Satisfaction Theory
The satisfaction theory was primarily the brainchild of Anselm of Canterbury (c.1033 – 1109). Anselm attempted to correct the perceived problems with the ransom theories that came before him. He found a way to express the atonement in a way that made sense to a medieval worldview. You can see the major influence of feudalism at play here, especially relations between lords and their vassals.
In many ways he simply re-worked the ransom theory. Instead of paying the ransom to the devil, the ransom was actually paid to God himself. Human sinfulness had robbed God of his rightful honor. This honor needed to be maintained to preserve the orderliness of the universe. Because human beings were incapable of giving the honor due to God, Jesus Christ entered the world and, through the sacrifice of his innocent life, paid for the missing honor. Humanity is saved and the moral order of the universe is maintained.
Anselm’s work has spawned several theories since then. It may sound quite familiar to my readers as a result. Although his theory may have made perfect sense to the thinkers of the Middle Ages, in our time, it appears to be lacking. For example, the Bible makes frequent use of the word “forgiveness.” But in Anselm’s schema there is no forgiveness. Instead the missing honor is simply paid by a third party. That hardly seems moral in our day and age. Many sensitive thinkers have also pointed out that the satisfaction theory makes God look cruel or even petty to demand an innocent life just so his honor can be preserved.
The Moral Influence Theory
Partly as a reaction to Anselm’s work, Peter Abelard (1079 – 1142), another medieval thinker, proposed the moral influence theory. Although he agreed with Anselm’s abandonment of the ransom theory, Abelard rejected the notion that God’s honor had to be preserved by the sacrifice of Jesus. He saw Jesus’ whole life as redemptive – not just his death. God has no trouble forgiving sinners, but we sinners have trouble living as God intended us to. Jesus, through his virtuous life, provides a moral example that we can follow. Christ’s suffering demonstrates God’s great love for us, which is what frees us from bondage and enables us to live righteously.
This theory has had great influence in liberal theological circles, but conservatives have generally rejected it. They (and some others) often wonder if Abelard has a sufficient notion of sin. Isn’t the power of sin too great for just a moral example to break it? Abelard also rejected the doctrine of original sin, which probably does not win him any supporters among conservatives. His model says nothing about Jesus’ resurrection either, which leaves one wondering if that part mattered at all.
The Reformation
The Reformation proved to be a time of dramatic upheaval in Western Christianity. Old traditions and loyalties were set aside. A new literal way of reading the Bible was becoming the norm. Consequently, the older ideas needed to be updated. The penal substitution theory was developed to address the concerns of a new era.
The Penal Substitution Theory
Many of the Reformers (e.g. John Calvin and Martin Luther) advocated the penal substitution theory. Penal substitution builds on Anselm’s work. Instead of seeing honor that needs to be satisfied, however, penal substitution sees sin that must be punished. In order for God’s holy and righteous nature to be propitiated tremendous punishment must be administered in response to human sinfulness. Because humans cannot possibly pay this debt of punishment, God the Son as the sinless man takes on the punishment for himself. Jesus pays the debt. Human beings are freed from the consequences, while preserving God’s holiness. Legal theories going all the way back to the Romans lie at the base of penal substitution.
This view has been made dogma by many Protestant churches. If you grew up Protestant (especially Evangelical), you almost certainly learned this model as the correct model. It is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as a valid theory, but it is not the only one. To my knowledge Eastern Churches do not accept this theory.
Many of the objections to the satisfaction theory also apply to penal substitution. Again, there is no forgiveness because the penalty for sin is simply meted out to a third party. Furthermore, the portrayal of God’s nature as requiring bloody sacrifice has led some people to reject it.
One particular variant of the penal substitution theory is what is often called the happy exchange. In the happy exchange model Jesus takes on all human sin, and humanity takes on all of Jesus’ righteousness. Consequently, humans can enjoy the benefits of Jesus’ virtuous acts, while being free from the consequences of their sins. Not only is the slate wiped clear of our sin, but it is also filled up with Jesus’ good deeds.
Different Protestant denominations have developed variations on the penal substitution theory. I suspect they do not differ substantially from the basics I have discussed here. Also, I have no idea how many of them are actually out there. Consequently, I will not attempt to delve into each of them.
The Modern Era
As noted above, the penal substitution theory left many folks of various theological stripes unhappy: liberals for the portrayal of God, pacifists for the redemptive violence, feminists for the apparent child abuse. The modern age has led many to go back and try to reclaim older models or move forward and create new ones. The ransom theory (particularly in its Christus Victor form) has enjoyed considerably popularity among pacifists. Moral influence theory enjoys support among liberals. The mimetic theory is one such attempt to reinvigorate moral influence.
Mimetic Theory
The Mimetic Theory is largely the work of Christian anthropologist René Girard (b. 1923). Girard realized that since time immemorial humans have desired to create a just and peaceful society, but because our human desired are mimetic (i.e. copied from others), we are in some sort of conflict all the time. Different people are always fighting with others because we all want the same things.
In order to bring some semblance of peace and stability to an otherwise violent existence, societies make use of the scapegoat. The scapegoat is a person sacrificed for the good of the community. This act of mob violence dissipates much of the violent energy present in the society and strengthens the cohesiveness of the community. The people become joined together, knowing that together they killed the scapegoat. Girard sees this as the origin of ritual sacrifice in human religions.
Jesus, in this theory, is referred to as the “scapegoat to end all scapegoats.” He enters the scene as an innocent and sinless victim. The Roman and Jewish authorities sacrificed him for the good of their community, but by doing so they revealed the violence that was being used to preserve the system. Once this barbarity under the supposedly civilized exterior is exposed, it can no longer be utilized.
Jesus comes to unveil this scapegoat mechanism. While archaic religions seek to reinforce the scapegoating system, Jesus destroys it. He brings it out into the light, where exposed to public scrutiny, it is unable to continue to exist. Once people consciously realize what they are doing, according to Girard, the scapegoating mechanism no longer functions.
At least one theologian considers Mimetic Theory as a variant of Moral Influence Theory. Like that theory, it shares a lower view of sin and leaves open an interpretation of the resurrection. It is unclear if it understands just how powerful sin is in human existence.
Table of Atonement Theories
| Atonement Theory |
Human Problem |
Jesus’ Work |
End Result |
| Ransom Theory |
Because of sin, human beings are now captive to the devil (or death itself). We are unable to free ourselves. |
Jesus gives his life as a ransom to death/the devil. His divinity, however, prevents him from being captive, and he defeats death/the devil |
Humans are free to live righteously |
| Recapitulation Theory |
Sin has destroyed the likeness of God in humanity, causing estrangement between God and humanity. We are unable to bridge the gap. |
Jesus lives a virtuous human life (birth, growth, death) in order to unite human nature with the divine |
Humans can now participate in the divine life by becoming more and more holy |
| Satisfaction Theory |
Human sin has deprived God of his rightful honor. Humans can by no means to pay this debt. |
Jesus, an innocent, gives his life to pay the debt of honor owed to God |
Humans can now live in right relationship with God. |
| Moral Influence Theory |
Human beings, following in Adam and Eve’s example, keep sinning. |
Jesus lives a virtuous life, demonstrating how we are to live in accordance to God’s will. |
Following Jesus’ example, we humans can also live according to God’s will. |
| Penal Substitution Theory |
Human beings, because of sin, must be punished to an infinite degree. Humans have no means to provide propitiation. |
Jesus, an innocent yet divine, is able to provide a sacrifice through his death that covers all human sins (past, present, and future) |
Humans are now justified before God. They no longer need to be punished. |
| Mimetic Theory |
Rival human desires cause violence, which is mitigated through scapegoating an innocent victim |
Jesus appears to function as a stereotypical scapegoat, but – because he is perfectly innocent – the process actually reveals the violent barbarity of that system. |
Humans, free from the scapegoating mechanism, are able to live nonviolently |
Concluding Thoughts
Trying to figure out how it is that Jesus effects salvation and restores us to a right relationship with God has taken up much time and effort in the Christian Church. To date each theory raises problems. If I were to pick the models that I thought were the best, I’d probably go for the oldest: the Christus Victor theory and the recapitulation theory, but also have fond feelings towards Girard’s mimetic theory.
Ultimately, however, I think we are making a mistake by converting biblical and confessional metaphors into objective realities. The language of the Bible and our Christian tradition is symbolic. Trying to understand the atonement literally as ransom, satisfaction, or penal substitution will create problems. That’s when God becomes a blood-thirsty tyrant, an abusive Father, or a moral monster. We are asking too much of these symbols.
Those concepts are human in origin. Our tradition has always affirmed that God’s thoughts and actions are somehow above and beyond our human understanding. I don’t want to lazily leave it as a mystery, but I think it’s important that we Christians recognize the limits of human language and the smallness of our finite concepts when we try to speak about and to understand the infinite God. Consequently, these symbols we bandy about just scratch the surface of the deeper truth that they seek to convey.
Annotated Bibliography
Brock, Rita Nakashima. Journeys by Heart: A Christology of Erotic Power. New York: Crossway, 1998. Brock presents a feminist critique of the substitutionary atonement, particularly penal substitution. She also presents an alternative.
Park, Andrew Sung. Triune Atonement: Christ’s Healing For Sinners, Victims, and the Whole Creation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009. Park, a Korean theologian, presents a view of the atonement from a liberationist perspective.
Peters, Ted. God – the World’s Future: Systematic Theology for a Postmodern Era. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Peter provides a concise overview of several different atonement theories.
Weaver, J. Denny. The Nonviolent Atonement. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2011. Writing from a Mennonite perspective, Weaver is very critical of atonement models that rely on redemptive violence. He attempts to revive Christus Victor, but he also gives an overview of the other major atonement theories.
){kind=link}
Dear Inquiring Christian,
You are asking a question about what scholars call ethnogenesis – how did an ethnos (nation or people) come into existence. Where did the nation of Israel come from? How did it come to form a cohesive society? These are important questions for discerning the historicity (or lack thereof) of the biblical narratives.
In Ancient Near Eastern studies there are three hypotheses to answer that question. They are: the exodus/conquest model, the tribal confederation model, and the peasant revolt model.
The exodus/conquest model follows the biblical narrative, assuming it is mostly historical. It sees a rag-tag band of Semites (related to the Arameans/Syrians or Canaanites) who were enslaved by the Egyptians and led to freedom by Moses. After wandering in the wilderness/desert they conquer Canaan and establish themselves as Israel. More or less, this is the model many of us were taught in Sunday School. It comes from a fairly uncritical look at the biblical narratives.
But there are problems with it… there’s no archaeological evidence of any large encampments in the Sinai. Egyptians record no mass exodus of slaves (not in itself a problem – nations tend to de-emphasize things that make them look bad.) And yes, the cities of Canaan have all been burnt down many times, but never in a concerted way to suggest a massive invasion by a new people. You would expect to see major Canaanite cities all destroyed about the same time, but that does not appear in the archaeological strata. Nor is there any changes in pottery to suggest a new people displaced an old. These are the things archaeologists see when one people is tossed out by another.
These problems led scholars begin to look for another model for how ancient Israel became a nation. If you read carefully through the Old Testament you will notice there are some confusing tensions. How did the nation of Israel begin? Some passages talk about slavery in Egypt, being liberating by Yahweh, and coming to the Promised Land. Others will mention being descended from an Aramean (Syrian) named Abraham. Sometimes the two stories are put together. Other times they are mentioned separately.
Also in the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, you’ll notice that each one of these patriarchs is associated with a different part of Canaan. Abraham is almost always connected to the Oaks of Mamre (near Hebron — south-central). Isaac lived in the very south near the Negev. Jacob is identified with Shechem (north). Why would these three patriarchs be connected so tightly with places that are quite far apart (from an ancient point of view)?
That led to the formation of the second model: the tribal confederation. Scholars who subscribe to this view (mostly Germans) assert — based on the geographical differences — that the three patriarchs were each legendary ancestors of separate tribes. When the tribes confederated into the Israelite nation the legends were revised from three separate lineages into one lineage where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were different generations of the same family, making all Israelites descended from all the patriarchs.
Consequently, there never was an exodus or even a conquest. Instead various peoples joined Israel over time. These peoples wandered in from the desert or from other areas and joined up with the people who were already there. They joined together under their common commitment to Yahweh with their central shrine at Shiloh. Some scholars have even suggested that there are 12 tribes because each tribe was to take custody of the shrine at Shiloh for one month each year. There’s not really any definitive evidence of this in the Bible, but such an arrangement was used in ancient Greece.
But of course this raises other problems. Does the Arabian Desert really provide an inexhaustible supply of wandering tribes who can really come together and form a new nation? Why these stories about Egypt? Why the genocidal hatred of the indigenous Canaanites? These questions and others led to the third model.
This model is called the peasant revolt model. It tries to respond to the problems in the prior two models. This model has strong affinities with liberation theology. It argues that the Israelites were peasants or even slaves in Canaan, hence they were actually indigenous. The wealthy oligarchic Canaanite city-states were their masters – with Egypt as the city-states’ master. This created an oppressive and hierarchical society, where the peasants were exploited for the urban elites in Canaan and in Egypt.
Somehow these peasants came to know a new god, Yahweh. This was a god of slaves and peasants. This was a god who declared he would free the oppressed. Under his banner the peasants revolted from the Canaanite city-states. They left the coastal plain for the hill country where they set up an alternative community. They organized themselves into tribes, and established an egalitarian tribal confederation to government themselves. All this centered on the worship of their liberator god Yahweh. Their rituals and beliefs all focused on preserving this new order and preventing a return to the old oppressive one.
Noting that the Levites Moses, Aaron, and Miriam all have Egyptian names, it has been considered by advocates of this model that perhaps the Levites were a group of refugees or fleeing slaves from Egypt who brought knowledge of Yahweh with them to Canaan, and introduced him to the peasants there, precipitating the revolt. Yahweh bears many resemblances to the Aten, the monotheistic god that Pharoah Akhenaten earlier tried to impose in Egypt. But the Levites may have even had some sort of experience of Yahweh on a mountain in the desert before they arrived in Canaan. This would explain why Levites were the ones entrusted with care for the shrine of Yahweh.
Sorry I can’t give you a definite answer on Abraham or Moses. That is a complex question. They could be historical but they also could have been the creation of writers centuries later. I also think it only ultimately matters if your faith requires that the Bible be 100% factually accurate. I do not think that way. It’s okay for me to understand biblical texts as symbolic or even legendary.
Bibliographic Aside
The American archaeologist and biblical scholar William F. Albright is usually identified with the exodus/conquest model (see his From the Stone Age to Christianity [Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1940]). For a representative of the tribal confederation model, check out Martin Noth’s The History of Israel (New York: Harper, 1958). Norman K. Gottwald’s Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 BCE (Maryknoll, N.Y. : Orbis Books, 1979) remains the definitive work arguing for the peasant revolt model. Sadly, I cannot claim to have read any of these books.
Let me know if that answers your question or not…
Peace,
+Chris.