The word "atonement" often is used in the
Old Testament to translate the
Hebrew words and , which mean "
propitiation" or "expiation"; the English word
atonement is derived from the original meaning of "at-one-ment" (i.e., being "at one" or in harmony, with someone). According to
Collins English Dictionary,
atonement is used to describe the saving work that God granted (through Christ) to reconcile the world to himself, and also of the state of a person
having been reconciled to God. According to
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, atonement in Christian theology is "man's reconciliation with God through the sacrificial death of Christ." Many Christians believe in
unlimited atonement; however, some Christians teach
limited atonement to those who are
predestined unto salvation, as its primary benefits are not given to all of humankind but rather to believers only.
Theories of atonement A number of metaphors (and Old Testament terms) and references have been used in New Testament writings to understand the person and death of Jesus. Starting in the 2nd century AD, various understandings of atonement have been put forth to explain the death and resurrection of Jesus, as well as the metaphors applied by the New Testament to understand his death. Over the centuries, Christians have held different ideas regarding how Jesus saves people, with different views still existing within various Christian denominations. According to the biblical scholar C. Marvin Pate, "...there are three aspects to Christ's atonement according to the early Church: vicarious atonement
[substitutionary atonement], the eschatological defeat of Satan [Christ the Victor], and the imitation of Christ [participation in Jesus's death and resurrection]." Pate further notes that these three aspects were intertwined in the earliest Christian writings but that this intertwining was lost since the Patristic times. Because of the influence of
Gustaf Aulén's 1931 study, the various theories or paradigms of atonement which developed after the New Testament writings are often grouped under the "classic paradigm," the "objective paradigm," and the "subjective paradigm".
Old Testament In the Hebrew writings, God is absolutely righteous, and only pure and sinless persons can approach him. Reconciliation is achieved by an act of God, namely by his appointment of the sacrificial system, or, in the prophetic view, "by the future Divine gift of a new covenant to replace the old covenant which sinful Israel has broken." The Old Testament describes three types of vicarious atonement which result in purity or sinlessness: the
Paschal Lamb; "the
sacrificial system as a whole," with the
Day of Atonement as the most essential element; and the idea of the
suffering servant (Isaiah 42:1–9, 49:1–6, 50:4–11, 52:13–53:12), "the action of a Divinely sent
Servant of the Lord who was 'wounded for our transgressions' and 'bear the sin of many'." The
Old Testament Apocrypha adds a fourth idea, namely the righteous martyr (2 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Wisdom 2–5). These traditions of atonement offer only temporary forgiveness, and (offerings) could only be used as a means of atoning for the lightest type of sin, that is sins committed in ignorance that the thing was a sin. In addition, have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents of their actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.
Marcus Borg notes that animal sacrifice in
Second Temple Judaism was not a "payment for sin", but had a basic meaning as "making something sacred by giving it as a gift to God," and included a shared meal with God. Sacrifices had numerous purposes, namely thanksgiving, petition, purification, and reconciliation. None of them was a "payment or substitution or satisfaction", and even "sacrifices of reconciliation were about restoring the relationship."
James F. McGrath refers to 4 Maccabees 6, "which presents a martyr praying “Be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them. Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs” (4 Macc. 6:28-29). Clearly there were ideas that existed in the Judaism of the time that helped make sense of the death of the righteous in terms of atonement."
New Testament Jerusalem 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 contains the of the early Christians: In the Jerusalem , from which Paul received this creed, the phrase "died for our sins" probably was an apologetic rationale for the death of Jesus as being part of God's plan and purpose, as evidenced in the scriptures. The phrase "died for our sins" was derived from
Isaiah, especially Isaiah 53:1–11, and 4 Maccabees, especially 4 Maccabees 6:28–29. "Raised on the third day" is derived from Hosea 6:1–2: Soon after his death, Jesus's followers believed he was raised from death by God and exalted to divine status as Lord () "at God's 'right hand'," which "associates him in astonishing ways with God." According to Hurtado, powerful
religious experiences were an indispensable factor in the emergence of this Christ-devotion. Those experiences "seem to have included visions of (and/or ascents to) God's heaven, in which the glorified Christ was seen in an exalted position." Those experiences were interpreted in the framework of God's redemptive purposes, as reflected in the scriptures, in a "dynamic interaction between devout, prayerful searching for, and pondering over, scriptural texts and continuing powerful religious experiences." This initiated a "new devotional pattern unprecedented in Jewish monotheism," that is, the worship of Jesus next to God, giving a central place to Jesus because his ministry, and its consequences, had a strong impact on his early followers. Revelations, including those visions, but also inspired and spontaneous utterances, and "charismatic exegesis" of the Jewish scriptures, convinced them that this devotion was commanded by God.
Paul The meaning of the of 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 for Paul is a matter of debate, and open to multiple interpretations. For Paul, "dying for our sins" gained a deeper significance, providing "a basis for the salvation of sinful Gentiles apart from the Torah." Traditionally, this is interpreted as meaning that Jesus's death was an "atonement" for sin, or a ransom, or a means of propitiating God or expiating God's wrath against humanity because of their sins. With Jesus's death, humanity was freed from this wrath. In the classical Protestant understanding humans partake in this salvation by faith in Jesus Christ; this faith is a grace given by God, and people are justified by God through Jesus Christ and faith in him.
A predecessor researcher for the New Perspective on Paul (in 1963) raised several concerns regarding these interpretations. The traditional interpretation sees Paul's understanding of salvation as involving "an exposition of the individual's relation to God." According to
Krister Stendahl, the main concern of Paul's writings on Jesus's role, and salvation by faith, is not the individual conscience of human sinners, and their doubts about being chosen by God or not, but the problem of the inclusion of Gentile (Greek) Torah observers into God's covenant. Paul draws on several interpretative frames to solve this problem, but most importantly, his own experience and understanding. The from 1 Cor.15:3-5 refers to two mythologies: the Greek myth of the noble dead, to which the Maccabean notion of martyrdom and dying for ones people is related; and the Jewish myth of the persecuted sage or
righteous man, in particular the "story of the child of
wisdom." For Paul, the notion of 'dying for' refers to this martyrdom and persecution. According to
Burton Mack, 'Dying for our sins' refers to the problem of Gentile Torah-observers, who, despite their faithfulness, cannot fully observe commandments, including circumcision, and are therefore 'sinners', excluded from God's covenant. Jesus's death and resurrection solved this problem of the exclusion of the Gentiles from God's covenant, as indicated by Romans 3:21–26. According to
E.P. Sanders, who initiated the
New Perspective on Paul, Paul saw the faithful redeemed by participation in Jesus's death and rising. But "Jesus's death substituted for that of others and thereby freed believers from sin and guilt," a metaphor derived from "ancient
sacrificial theology," the essence of Paul's writing is not in the "legal terms" regarding the expiation of sin, but the act of "participation in Christ through
dying and rising with him." According to Sanders, "those who are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death, and thus they escape the power of sin [...] he died so that the believers may die with him and consequently live with him." This is not only different from
substitution, it is the opposite of it." While this view has found support by a range of scholars, it has also been questioned and criticized.
Gospels In the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as calling for
repentance from sin, and saying that God wants mercy rather than sacrifices (Matthew 9:13). Yet, he is also portrayed as "giving His life [as] a ransom for many" and applying the "suffering servant" passage of
Isaiah 53 to himself (Luke 22:37). The Gospel of John portrays him as the sacrificial
Lamb of God, and compares his death to the sacrifice of the
Passover Lamb at
Pesach. Christians assert that Jesus was predicted by Isaiah, as attested in Luke 4:16–22, where Jesus is portrayed as saying that the prophecies in Isaiah were about him. The New Testament explicitly quotes from Isaiah 53 in Matthew 8:16–18 to indicate that Jesus is the fulfillment of these prophecies.
Classic paradigm The classic paradigm entails the traditional understandings of the early
Church Fathers, who developed the themes found in the New Testament.
Ransom from Satan The ransom theory of atonement says that Christ liberated humanity from slavery to sin and
Satan, and thus death, by giving his own life as a
ransom sacrifice to Satan, swapping the life of the perfect (Jesus), for the lives of the imperfect (other humans). It entails the idea that God deceived the devil, and that Satan, or death, had "legitimate rights" over sinful
souls in the
afterlife, due to the fall of man and
inherited sin. During the first millennium AD, the ransom theory of atonement was the dominant metaphor for atonement, both in eastern and western Christianity, until it was replaced in the west by
Anselm's satisfaction theory of atonement. In one version of the idea of deception, Satan attempted to take Jesus's soul after he had died, but in doing so over-extended his authority, as Jesus had never sinned. As a consequence, Satan lost his authority completely, and all humanity gained freedom. In another version, God entered into a deal with Satan, offering to trade Jesus's soul in exchange for the souls of all people, but after the trade, God raised Jesus from the dead and left Satan with nothing. Other versions held that Jesus's
divinity was masked by his human form, so Satan tried to take Jesus's soul without realizing that his divinity would destroy Satan's power. Another idea is that Jesus came to teach how not to sin and Satan, in anger with this, tried to take his soul. The ransom theory was first clearly enunciated by
Irenaeus (), who was an outspoken critic of
Gnosticism, but borrowed ideas from their dualistic worldview. In this worldview, humankind is under the power of the
Demiurge, a lesser god who created the world. Yet, humans have a spark of the true divine nature within them, which can be liberated by
gnosis (knowledge) of this divine spark. This knowledge is revealed by the
Logos, "the very mind of the supreme God," who entered the world in the person of Jesus. Nevertheless, the Logos could not simply undo the power of the Demiurge, and had to hide his real identity, appearing in a physical form, thereby misleading the Demiurge, and liberating humankind. In Irenaeus' writings, the Demiurge is replaced by the devil.
Origen (184–253) introduced the idea that the devil held legitimate rights over humans, who were bought free by the blood of Christ. He also introduced the notion that the Devil was deceived in thinking that he could master the human soul.
Gustaf Aulén reinterpreted the ransom theory in his study (1931), calling it the
Christus Victor doctrine, arguing that Christ's death was not a payment to the Devil, but defeated the powers of evil, particularly Satan, which had held humankind in their dominion. According to Pugh, "Ever since [Aulén's] time, we call these patristic ideas the way of seeing the cross."
Recapitulation theory The recapitulation view, first comprehensively expressed by
Irenaeus, went "hand-in-hand" with the ransom theory. It says that Christ succeeds where
Adam failed, undoing the wrong that Adam did and, because of his union with humanity, leads humanity on to
eternal life, including
moral perfection.
Theosis ("divinisation") is a "corollary" of the recapitulation.
Objective paradigm Satisfaction In the 11th century,
Anselm of Canterbury rejected the ransom view and proposed the
satisfaction theory of atonement. He allegedly depicted God as a
feudal lord whose honor had been offended by the sins of humankind. In this view, people needed salvation from the
divine punishment that these offences would bring, since nothing they could do could repay the honor debt. Anselm held that Christ had infinitely honored God through his life and death and that Christ could repay what humanity owed God, thus satisfying the offence to God's honor and doing away with the need for punishment. When Anselm proposed the satisfaction view, it was immediately criticized by
Peter Abelard.
Penal substitution In the 16th century, the
Protestant Reformers reinterpreted Anselm's satisfaction theory of salvation within a legal paradigm. In the legal system, offences required punishment, and no satisfaction could be given to avert this need. They proposed a theory known as
penal substitution, in which Christ takes the penalty of people's sin as their substitute, thus saving people from
God's wrath against sin. Penal substitution thus presents Jesus saving people from the divine punishment of their past wrongdoings. However, this salvation is not presented as automatic. Rather, a person must have
faith in order to receive this free gift of salvation. In the penal substitution view, salvation is not dependent upon human effort or deeds. The penal substitution paradigm of salvation is widely held among Protestants, who often consider it central to Christianity. However, it has also been widely critiqued, and is rejected by liberal Christians as un-Biblical, and an offense to the love of God. According to Richard Rohr, "[t]hese theories are based on
retributive justice rather than the
restorative justice that the prophets and Jesus taught." Advocates of the
New Perspective on Paul also argue that many New Testament epistles of
Paul the Apostle, which are used to support the theory of penal substitution, should be interpreted differently.
Governmental theory The "governmental theory of atonement" teaches that Christ suffered for humanity so that God could forgive humans without punishing them while still maintaining divine justice. It is traditionally taught in
Arminian circles that draw primarily from the works of
Hugo Grotius.
Subjective paradigm Moral transformation The "moral influence theory of atonement" was developed, or most notably propagated, by
Abelard (1079–1142), as an alternative to Anselm's satisfaction theory. Abelard not only "rejected the idea of Jesus's death as a ransom paid to the devil", which turned the Devil into a rival god, but also objected to the idea that Jesus's death was a "debt paid to God's honor". He also objected to the emphasis on God's judgment, and the idea that God changed his mind after the sinner accepted Jesus's sacrificial death, which was not easily reconcilable with the idea of "the perfect, impassible God [who] does not change". Abelard focused on changing man's perception of God – not to be seen as offended, harsh, and judgemental, but as loving. According to Abelard, "Jesus died as the demonstration of God's love", a demonstration which can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God. During the
Protestant Reformation in
Western Christianity, the majority of the Reformers strongly rejected the moral influence view of the atonement in favor of
penal substitution, a highly forensic modification of the honor-oriented Anselmian
satisfaction model. However,
Fausto Sozzini's
Socinian arm of the Reformation maintained a belief in the moral influence view of the atonement. Socinianism was an early form of
Unitarianism, and the Unitarian Church today maintains a moral influence view of the atonement, as do many
liberal Protestant theologians of the modern age. During the 18th century, versions of the moral influence view found overwhelming support among German theologians, most notably the Enlightenment philosopher
Immanuel Kant. In the 19th and 20th century, it has been popular among
liberal Protestant thinkers in the Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches, including the Anglican theologian
Hastings Rashdall. A number of English theological works in the last hundred years have advocated and popularized the moral influence theory of atonement. A strong division has remained since the Reformation between liberal Protestants (who typically adopt a moral influence view) and conservative Protestants (who typically adopt a penal substitutionary view). Both sides believe that their position is taught by the Bible.
Moral example theory A related theory, the "moral example theory", was developed by
Faustus Socinus (1539–1604) in his work (1578). He rejected the idea of "vicarious satisfaction". According to Socinus, Jesus's death offers us a perfect example of self-sacrificial dedication to God." A number of theologians see "example" (or "exemplar") theories of the atonement as variations of the moral influence theory.
Wayne Grudem, however, argues that "Whereas the moral influence theory says that Christ's death teaches us how much God loves us, the example theory says that Christ's death teaches us how we should live." Grudem identifies the
Socinians as supporters of the example theory.
Other theories Embracement theory Domenic Marbaniang sees the divine voluntary self-giving as the ultimate embracement of humanity in its ultimate act of sin, viz,
deicide, or the murder of God, thus canceling sin on the cross. Accordingly, the Cross becomes the moment and locus in history where the world is split into those who identify with the crucifiers of Christ and those who are regarded as crucified with Christ.
Shared atonement theory Southern Baptist theologian
David Jeremiah writes that in the "shared atonement" theory the atonement is spoken of as shared by all. To wit, God sustains the
Universe. Therefore, if
Jesus was God in human form, when he died, the entirety of humanity died with him, and when he rose from the dead, the entirety of humanity rose with him.
Compatibility of differing theories Some theologians maintain that "various biblical understandings of the atonement need not conflict".
Reformed theologian
J. I. Packer, for example, although he maintains that "penal substitution is the mainstream, historic view of the church and the essential meaning of the Atonement... Yet with penal substitution at the center", he also maintains that " and other Scriptural views of atonement can work together to present a fully orbed picture of Christ's work".
Anglican theologian
Oliver Chase Quick described differing theories as being of value, but also denied that any particular theory was fully true, saying, "if we start from the fundamental and cardinal thought of God's act of love in Jesus Christ [...] I think we can reach a reconciling point of view, from which each type of theory is seen to make its essential contribution to the truth, although no one theory, no any number of theories, can be sufficient to express its fullness." Others say that some models of the atonement naturally exclude each other. James F. McGrath, for example, talking about the atonement, says that "Paul [...] prefers to use the language of participation. One died for all, so that all died (2 Corinthians 5:14). This is not only different from substitution, it is the opposite of it." Similarly, Mark M. Mattison, in his article
The Meaning of the Atonement says, "Substitution implies an "either/or"; participation implies a "both/and."" J. Kenneth Grider, quoted above showing the compatibility of various atonement models with the governmental theory, nevertheless also says that both penal substitution and satisfaction atonement theories are incompatible with the governmental theory.
Confusion of terms Some confusion can occur when discussing the atonement because the terms used sometimes have differing meanings depending on the contexts in which they are used. For example: • Sometimes
substitutionary atonement is used to refer to penal substitution alone, when the term also has a broader sense including other atonement models that are not penal. • Penal substitution is also sometimes described as a type of satisfaction atonement, but the term 'satisfaction atonement' functions primarily as a technical term to refer particularly to Anselm's theory. • Substitutionary and penal themes are found within the
Patristic (and later) literature, but they are not used in a penal substitutionary sense until the
Reformed period. • 'Substitution', as well as potentially referring to specific theories of the atonement (e.g. penal substitution), is also sometimes used in a less technical way—for example, when used in 'the sense that [Jesus, through his death,] did for us that which we can never do for ourselves'. • The phrase 'vicarious atonement' is sometimes used as a synonym for penal substitution, and is also sometimes used to describe other, non-penal substitutionary, theories of atonement. Care needs to be taken to understand what is being referred to by the various terms used in different contexts. ==Eastern Christianity==