Introduction

Theological usage of the term “atonement” refers to a cluster of ideas in the Old Testament

that center on the cleansing of impurity (which needs to be done to prevent God from leaving

the Temple), and to New Testament notions that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians

15:3) and that “we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son” (Romans 5:10). In

English translations of the Old Testament, “make atonement” usually translates kipper, the

verb for the cultic removal of impurity from the Temple or sanctuary, accomplished through

the dashing or sprinkling of the blood of the “purification offering” or “sin offering” on

particular Temple furnishings. Kipper occurs most often, but not exclusively, in sacrificial

texts. Kipper is also performed over the scapegoat in one passage (Leviticus 16:10). Thus,

scholarly discussions of atonement in the Old Testament focus on the sacrificial and

scapegoat rituals but also attend to the procedure for making a redemption payment, for

which the word kopher (cognate with kipper) is used.

In sum, atonement is the reconciliation of God and humankind through Jesus Christ (Rom.

5:1; Heb. 10:19–22). This is best summed up in Romans 5:10–11, which says, “For if while

we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that

we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God

through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.”

Alan Cairns correctly defines atonement as, “The satisfaction of divine justice by the Lord

Jesus Christ in His active and passive obedience (i.e., His life and death), which procures for

His people a perfect salvation.”[1]

Stanly Grenz writes, “Atonement refers to God’s act of dealing with the primary human

problem, sin.”[2]
Douglas Mangum describes atonement as, “The doctrine concerned with the removal of guilt,

the covering over of sin, or the satisfaction of the penalty for sin that separated humankind

from God, especially with reference to the obedience of Christ even unto death on the

cross.”[3]

As a theological concept, atonement articulates the acts by which relations between God and

creatures, disrupted by human offence, can be restored. Although other cultures show an

awareness of the need for atonement, the Christian tradition understands it as provided by

God’s particular historical action in Jesus Christ. At its centre is the notion of reconciliation

between God and his alienated creatures, which is achieved particularly by the death of Jesus.

The distinctive philosophical and other problems of atonement theology derive from two

features in particular: its claiming of universal significance for the historical life and death of

Jesus of Nazareth (the problem of universality); and the moral difficulties, especially in the

realm of human freedom and responsibility, which arise from the claim that he is the vehicle

of atonement with God (the problem of human autonomy).

Although there were many theologies of atonement before Anselm of Canterbury’s, his

systematic treatment is the fountainhead of much modern discussion, both Roman Catholic

and Protestant. Centring on the concept of satisfaction, it understands Christ as the God-man,

satisfying both divine justice and human need by a free gift of his life. Criticisms of the

formulation have centred on its understanding of sin and its tendency to understand

atonement in external, transactional terms. Subsequent discussion of the concept has also

raised questions about Christ’s substitutionary and representative roles and about the relation

between the justice and the love of God. A significant proportion of modern thinkers have

rejected the need for any concept of atonement at all. They have preferred instead to

understand Jesus as an example to be followed (‘exemplarism’) or to concentrate upon the

combination of both.

The most important day in the ancient Jewish liturgical calendar was Yom Kippur, the Day of

Atonement, when the supreme sacrificial rituals of the year were performed, and the only day

of the year on which the scapegoat rite was performed. Atonement in the New Testament is

expressed through metaphors of sacrifice, scapegoat, and redemption to picture the meaning

of the death of Christ. The Apostle Paul is the main fountainhead of these soteriological

metaphors, but they occur in the other epistles and in Revelation. Atonement imagery is much

less common in the Gospels, possibly appearing in the Lord’s Supper and the ransom saying

(Mark 10:45). Most (but not all) scholars would agree that atonement in the Old Testament

concerns cleansing the Temple (the Deity’s home), not soteriology. In the New Testament,

however, atonement is central to the soteriological metaphors in Paul’s letters, the deutero-

Pauline letters, Hebrews, First Peter.

Biblical Themes

In the biblical discussions of the atoning work of Christ, several key ideas are used to give a

comprehensive understanding of the way in which we are rescued from sin and its

consequences by the death of Christ. One idea is ransom (Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:5–6; cf. Job

33:24, 28; Ps. 49:7–8). Atonement as a theological concept, atonement articulates the acts by

which relations between God and creatures, disrupted by human offence, can be restored.

Although other cultures show an awareness of the need for atonement, the Christian tradition

understands it as provided by God’s particular historical action in Jesus Christ. From the

interchange of words for ransom and redemption, we learn that these two concepts are

closely related. They speak of a price to be paid that is deemed sufficient for the release of a

captive or a slave from those who have captured or have legal right to him (Num. 25:48–55;
cf. Rom. 3:24–25; Eph. 1:7). Propitiation is elemental to the price of ransom and

redemption. This indicates that the ransom given by Christ that brings redemption to sinners

is exacted through Christ’s enduring divine wrath (1 John 4:10). God’s pre-temporal love for

sinners made the incarnation and wrath-bearing necessary as means to achieve his purpose of

redemption. This wrath is an expression of fitting justice to be inflicted for the sins of those

for whom he died, who by this death are delivered from “the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10).

We find Paul stating this succinctly in writing that this propitiation is a demonstration of

God’s “righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in

Jesus” (Rom. 3:26).

This work of Christ is also presented in Scripture as substitutionary in nature. Its voluntary

nature, essential for its truly substitutionary effect, can hardly be separated from its

substitutionary character. Jesus himself set the theme by teaching that he would die in the

stead of his people, his sheep (John 10:15, 17, 18; Matt. 1:21; Rom. 4:25; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; 2

Cor. 5:21; Eph. 5:25; Col. 2:14; Titus 2:14; Heb. 2:17; 9:26, 28; 1 Pet. 3:18).

The death of Christ also is set forth as an example. Though some in the history of this

doctrine have gravitated to this idea as the primary power of Christ’s death, Scripture does

not present it as the substance of what was accomplished in his death. Rather, the objective

substance itself serves as a model of how completely we must commit ourselves to the will of

God (1 Pet. 2:21). If Christ can be patient and joyful (Heb. 12:1–2) in going to a death that

involved unmitigated divine wrath, we as his redeemed ones should be patient and joyful in

suffering for his sake. The example theories as discussed below lose their motivational power

unless founded on true substitutionary propitiation.

All of these ideas are prominent in the history of theories about the atonement. The different

concepts have been alternately set forth as the leading idea around which the other aspects
were synthesized as contributing factors. These views propose that something objectively

substantial in Christ’s death is necessarily connected with forgiveness and acceptance before

God. The death of Christ is seen as materially effecting the sinner’s forgiveness of sin and

release from the enslavement to sin and susceptibility to divine wrath. Another view, a

minority stream of thought, focuses on the subjective impact the death of Christ has on the

sinner to create a desire to repent of sin, to love God, and to serve him faithfully; God needs

nothing else for his gracious reception of such a returning sinner. Both the moral example

theory and the moral government view fall within this framework.

HISTORICAL BASIS/NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT

The different concepts have been alternately set forth as the leading idea around which the

other aspects were synthesized as contributing factors. These views propose that something

objectively substantial in Christ’s death is necessarily connected with forgiveness and

acceptance before God. The death of Christ is seen as materially effecting the sinner’s

forgiveness of sin and release from the enslavement to sin and susceptibility to divine wrath

and includes:

1 Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165) saw clearly in Scripture that there was no salvation

without the death of Christ and faith in him. No longer do we look to the mere shadows of the

sacrifices of goats and sheep, “but by faith through the blood and the death of Christ who

suffered death for this precise purpose.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 13) He was

crucified as a “sinless and just man” and by his “sufferings are healed all those who approach

the Father through Him.”

2 Irenaeus (ca. 130–202) sought an understanding of the atonement that blended the

redemptive value of the incarnation with the redemptive power of the cross. Irenaeus believed

that Christ recapitulated “the long line of the human race, procuring for us a comprehensive
salvation, that we might recover in Christ Jesus what in Adam we had lost, namely, the state

of being in the image and likeness of God”. Three elements constitute recapitulation: Christ’s

obedience gave us righteousness, his ransom delivered us, and his resurrection restores our

immortality. The ransom was not a matter of conceding “rights” to the devil but rather of

God’s performing his salvation in a just manner, according to his own just threat that sin

would bring death.

3 Later, Gustav Aulen (1879–1978) in a series of lectures published as Christus Victor

would point to the ransom theory in its defeat of Satan as the primary biblical emphasis and

the classic Christian view. He rescued it from post-Irenaeus developments of defeat-by-deceit

and payment to Satan of a just claim, but he was not enthusiastic about the Reformed

understanding of substitution and its concomitants.

4 Tertullian (ca. 160–220) believed that in Adam’s sin “he has infected the whole

human race by their descent from him, transmitting to them his own damnation.” Tertullian

says that the “death of Christ … is the whole essence and value of the Christian religion”

because in Christ’s death “the Lord ransomed him from the angelic powers who rule the

world, from the spirits of iniquity, from the darkness of this world, from eternal judgment,

from everlasting death.

5 Anselm investigated the purpose of the incarnation and the death of Christ that “sinful

man owes God a debt for sin which he cannot repay, and at the same time that he cannot be

saved without repaying it”. Our just debt to God as creatures and our moral debt to God as

sinners would be impossible to fulfill apart from the way established by infinite wisdom:

“Thus it was necessary for God to take manhood into the unity of his person, so that he who

in his own nature ought to pay and could not should be in a person who could [whose life]
was so sublime, so precious, that it can suffice to pay what is owing for the sins of the whole

world, and infinitely more”.

6 Peter Abelard shifted discussions of the atonement from objectivity to subjectivity—

from necessary requirements of the justice and wrath of God to an affecting influence on the

human spirit. Abelard identified the grace of God, the justice of God, and the righteousness of

God with love. Christ’s perfect love as the perfect man completes what may be lacking in our

love and the merit of his love infuses ours so we are forgiven and received by the Father.

7 Luther certainly believed in the subjective effects of the atonement but based this

solidly on a rich understanding of the objective Godward impact of the death of Christ. He

emphasized its substitutionary aspect when he reminded the congregation to be aware “why

God spared not his own Son but offered him a sacrifice upon the cross, delivered him to

death; namely, that his wrath might be lifted from us once more”.

8 Calvin, in like manner of Anselm, based his discussion of the atoning work of Christ

on the orthodox understanding of the person of Christ. He fell under the curse for us, bore our

sins, and changed the cross from a tragic instrument of shameful death into a “triumphal

chariot.” Only by seeing Christ as a sacrificial victim could we believe with assurance “that

Christ is our redemption, ransom, and propitiation”.

9 John Owen brought the Reformed understanding of substitutionary atonement to its

most precise and mature development in his work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

His sacrifice was intended and effected for all of those, and those only, whom the Father had

given him: “It is evident that every one for whom Christ died must actually have applied unto

him all the good things purchased by his death” (181).

may be classified as moral influence, or in some presentations of it, moral government. For

his opposition to these public sins Jesus was killed. They were the “active agents in the legal

steps which led to his death.” The evil projected onto society by religious bigotry, graft and

political power, corruption of justice, mob spirit and action, militarism, and class contempt.

His contradiction of these six social sins insured the he would die for our sins.

PHILOSOPHY OF ATONEMENT (THEORIES OF ATONEMENT)

1 MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY

Moral influence views say that Christ atones for human sin by influencing humans to live a

morally good life. In effect, these views emphasize the moral transformation aspect of

atonement. This view is often attributed to the twelfth century theologian Abelard.

Contemporary scholarship has tended to see Abelard’s view as more sophisticated (Quinn

1993; Weingart 1970), although some still argue that Abelard is best understood as

embracing a moral influence theory (Pugh 2014).

They can say that Christ’s death shows the depth of human depravity, inspiring humans not

just to want to be better people, but also to see more clearly their own sins and to repent for

those sins. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit—the third person of the Trinity—works to bring

about transformation within a person who is open to receiving it (Moberly 1924). The Holy

Spirit can transform people and undo obstacles to transformation that would be difficult or

impossible to manage without God’s help.

2 THE RANSOM THEORY

An early model of the atonement emphasizes Christ’s death as a ransom. One finds this

language also in the Catechism, which says that the Crucifixion is “the ransom that would
free men from the slavery of sin.” But if Christ’s death was a ransom, to whom was it paid,

and for what? The traditional answer to this question is that it was a ransom paid to Satan.

The idea is that by sinning, human beings have freely put themselves in Satan’s power. God

wishes to free us from Satan, and hence from death. So God has to offer Satan something for

which Satan is willing to trade all of us. God’s idea is then to send Jesus to earth in human

form. Satan is fooled into thinking that Jesus is human, but not God. But Satan sees Jesus

performing miracles, and so thinks of Jesus as more valuable than the rest of humanity

combined. As Gregory of Nyssa put it, ‘When the enemy saw the power, he recognized in

Christ a bargain which offered him more than he held. For this reason he chose him as the

ransom for those whom he had shut up in death’s prison.’ Satan can’t condemn Jesus to death

by tempting him into sin. So the only way for Satan to trap Jesus in deaths to trade the human

beings in his power — all of us — for Jesus. God’s triumph over Satan then comes with the

resurrection. Anselm gave several objections to this theory: (i) it seems to make God less than

omnipotent; (ii) it is mysterious why God should have to respect any supposed claim that

Satan has on us; (iii) it makes God a deceiver.

3 CHRISTUS VICTOR THEORY

Aulén’s (1930) study of patristic views of atonement led to a flourishing of that approach in

theological literature into the twenty-first century. Christus Victor views highlight the ransom

motif from scripture: humans are in some way enslaved to the power of sin and their only

escape from its power can come from a rescuer, Jesus Christ, who will free humans from its

power. his death and resurrection constitute his ultimate defeat of Satan, as he allows Satan to

influence humans to kill him, only to show that Satan cannot win. Christ’s resurrection is

central to atonement, on this view, as it is a demonstration of defeat over Satan’s worst.

certain specific theories). First, they do not account for the importance of Christ’s crucifixion

for atonement. Second, they downplay individual responsibility for sin. Lastly, if the primary

mechanism of atonement is to free humans from the power of sin, empirical evidence

indicates that this hasn’t been achieved.

4 SATISFACTION THEORY

Swinburne’s theory of atonement is Anselmian, although it dispenses with Anselm’s calculus

about how valuable the satisfaction must be in order to atone. According to Swinburne

(1989), atonement has four components: repentance, apology, reparation, and penance. For

less severe wrongs, repentance and apology may suffice to atone, but for more serious

wrongs—especially those that cause harm aside from the offense itself—reparation and

penance are required.

Porter (2004), among others (Quinn 1994; Stump 2018; Thurow 2021a), objects that

Swinburne’s theory does not explain why Christ’s death is distinctly important for atonement.

His perfect life is what appears to do the reparative work; his death appears to be simply a

causal consequence of that work, but not something in virtue of which reparation is made.

Hick (1994) adds that since Swinburne thinks God could have accepted a supererogatory act

from a mere human or angel as satisfaction, it is hard to see why God would instead use the

horrific death of the Son of God as satisfaction.

5 PENAL SUBSTITUTION

Penal substitution has been defended by many in the Reformed and more broadly evangelical

tradition. It has strong roots in Luther and Calvin; there has been considerable debate about
whether there are earlier precursors.[40] On this view Christ, instead of paying satisfaction

for human sin, suffers punishment on behalf of humans for human sin.

On this definition one could hold that Christ was not punished; he merely experienced

sufferings that would have constituted punishment if we mere humans had endured them.

Somehow, though, in virtue of his enduring these sufferings, “we no longer deserve

punishment”. Another option is to say that the debt of punishment is a collective debt

humanity owes to God and that Christ, through his death, pays it on behalf of the human

community. Humanity is punished, but Christ is not, on this view (Thurow 2015). A third

option is to say that nobody is punished. Hard treatment can be endured by an innocent third

party—and this isn’t regarded as punishment of the third party or anyone else—in virtue of

which the guilty party’s debt of punishment is canceled (Quinn 1994: 298).

6 THE SCAPEGOAT THEORY

The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of

the Scapegoat. Here the key figures Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the

Atonement Jesus Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity.

James Allison summarizes the Scapegoating Theory like this, “Christianity is a priestly

religion which understands that it is God’s overcoming of our violence by substituting

himself for the victim of our typical sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the

fullness of creation as if death were not.”

Cairns Alan, William Lane, 2019, “Eleonore Stump’s Critique of Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Theories”, Faith and Philosophy, 36(4): 522–544. doi:10.5840/faithphil2019364136

–––, 2020, Atonement and the Death of Christ, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

Crisp, Oliver D., 2007, “Non-Penal Substitution”, International Journal of Systematic Theology, 9(4):
415–433.

–––, 2008, “Penal Non-Substitution”, The Journal of Theological Studies, 59(1): 140–168.

–––, 2012, “The Moral Government of God”, in After Jonathan Edwards: The Courses of the New
England Theology, Oliver D. Crisp and Douglas A. Sweeney (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press,
78–90. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756292.003.0006

–––, 2015, “Is Ransom Enough?”, Journal of Analytic Theology, 3: 1–16. doi:10.12978/jat.2015-
3.141117021715a

–––, 2016, The Word Enfleshed, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

–, 2020a, Approaching the Atonement, Downers

Alan Cairns, Gustav Aulen, Christus Victor; H. D. McDonald The Atonement of the Death of
Christ, p. 258–265).

www.nd.ed/ - (Stanly Grenz) the three theories of atonement

Tertullian; The Testimony of the Soul, Against Marcion, and On Flight in Persecution, in
Early Christian Fathers, pp. 116, 128, 129).

Anselm; “Why God Became Man,” in A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, p. 146)
Abelard; “Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans,” A Scholastic Miscellany, p. 279, 283.

Martin Luther; Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, 4.1:190, 191).

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 10:159.

Aulén, Gustaf, 1930. Translated as Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main
Types of the Idea of the Atonement, A. G. Herbert (trans.), London: SPCK Press, 1931.

Anselm, c. 1098 [1998], Cur Deus Homo. Translated as “Why God Became Man”, in Davies
and Evans 1998: 260–356.

Bayne, Tim and Greg Restall, 2009, “A Participatory Model of the Atonement”, in New Waves in
Philosophy of Religion, Yujin Nagasawa and Erik J. Wielenberg (eds.), London: Palgrave-Macmillan,
150–166.

Beilby, James and Paul R. Eddy (eds.), 2006, The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, Downers
Grove, IL: IVP.

Belousek, Darrin Snyder, 2011, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the
Mission of the Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Biggar, Nigel, 2001, “Forgiveness in the Twentieth Century”, in Alistair McFadyen, and Marcel Sarot
(eds.), Forgiveness and Truth, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, pp. 181–218.

Blocher, Henri, 2004, “Biblical Metaphors and the Doctrine of the Atonement”, Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, 47(4): 629–45.

Boersma, Hans, 2004, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

–––, 2006, “Violence, the Cross, and Divine Intentionality: A Modified Reformed View”, in Sanders
2006: 47–72 (ch. 2).

Boyd, Gregory, 2006, “Christus Victor View”, in Beilby and Eddy 2006: 23–49 (ch. 1).

Bovens, Luc, 2008, “Apologies”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series), 108: 219–39.

Brock, Rita Nakashima and Rebecca Parker, 2001, Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive
Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us, Boston: Beacon Press.

Brooks, Roy, 2004, Atonement and Forgiveness: A New Model for Black Reparations, Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.

Brown, David, 2004, “Anselm on Atonement”, in The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, Brian Davies
and Brian Leftow (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 279–302.
doi:10.1017/CCOL0521807468.013

Baker, Mark D. and Joel B. Green, 2011, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New
Testament and Contemporary Contexts, second edition, Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. First
edition, with authors reversed, in 2000.
Bynum, Caroline Walker, 2004, “The Power in the Blood: Sacrifice, Satisfaction, and Substitution in
Late Medieval Soteriology”, in The Redemption: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on Christ as
Redeemer, Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 177–206.

Cornille, Catherine (ed.), 2021, Atonement and Comparative Theology, New York: Fordham
University Press.