Atonement…at-one-ment…is the means to bring to estranged parties back into relationship with one another…for two to become one again.
Historically there have been 3 views of the atonement. While the early church had no formal doctrine of the atonement, there is a consensus of the view held by the church for the first 1100 years that has been named the Christus Victor view. According to this view, God gave authority to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28 which they surrendered during the fall. There are several clues to this reality. God’s command to Noah was similar to His command to Adam, yet it was void of any reference to authority; Adam was to subdue and have dominion, yet no mention of this was in God’s words to Noah.
Also, when Jesus was being tempted in the wilderness, Satan tempted Him three times. The third temptation was the offer of all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. This would not have been a real temptation is Satan couldn’t follow through with it, but only if he did possess the authority to follow through.
Jesus, the 2nd Adam, went through temptations and trials, was put to death and then rose from the dead. When He rose He brought with Him all the captives, with the keys(authority) and emptied the grave. He then gave that authority to His disciples. We see Jesus speaking of giving a kingdom and authority to His disciples. In Luke 22:29, Jesus tells His disciples, “I confer upon you a kingdom just as my Father conferred one on me.” In Matt 16:19… “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
Christus Victor was the dominant atonement theory spoken of by the church fathers for the first 1100 years of the church. This theory has also been called the ransom theory of atonement. There are various verses that speak of Jesus being the ransom of many. Some began teaching that Jesus death was payment to the enemy to ransom, or buy back, humanity. This emphasized the devil. It put him in the driver’s seat. Anselm, in the 12th century, responded to this over-emphasis of the devil in the ransom concept. God was in the driver’s seat. Anselm was the first to formalize any theory of the doctrine of atonement. It wasn’t that the church fathers were silent on the atonement, but that they hadn’t formalized any written doctrine of it.
Anselm lived in a culture, the medieval era, in which honor was very important. If wronged, you were dishonored and could rightfully seek satisfaction to restore your honor. To not seek satisfaction was seen as dishonorable. Within this cultural attitude toward honor/dishonor, Anselm developed a new theory as to what happened at the cross. Sin dishonored God, created a wall between God and man. Sin, as a wage, became so great that someone needed to come and satisfy God’s side of justice. Since no human was good enough, Jesus had to be that person. Now, God’s wrath was satisfied. Anselm said nothing about punishment but that God had been dishonored and someone had to honor Him again.
John Calvin formalized the theory further, adding the element of punishment in what became known as penal substitution. He claimed that, “Yes, sin did dishonor God and required satisfaction, but sin also deserved punishment.” Calvin, having a background in law, viewed God as a judge demanding punishment for sin. Punishment was necessary or God would not be just. Jesus was that person. He steps in and, as the perfect man, dies in the place of sinful man.
Closely linked to this concept of punishment is the view of God being angry at us because of our sin. This has given rise to a distorted view of God that prohibits many from drawing close to Him. The Old Testament depictions of God are viewed through this lens rather than through Jesus. We find ourselves with a Jesus we love and a God we don’t like. Various teachers and pastors have taught that Jesus didn’t save us from hell, sin, death, and the enemy….but from God. This creates a dichotomy within the Trinity pitting God and Jesus against each other. When in reality God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. His justice was at work on the cross…reconciling…restoring…redeeming.
Both Anselm and Calvin had a Greco-Roman view of justice which is punitive whereas the Hebraic view of justice is the restoration of all things. To the Hebrew mind, God’s justice is enacted when those who commit wrong, and those who have been wronged are restored. To the mind influenced by Greco-Roman thought, God must punish wrongdoing or He would not be just.
Another problem arises for those who see the cross as Jesus being punished in our place. What about those who do not accept Christ as Lord…they are destined to eternal punishment. But, Christ has already been punished for the sins of the world. That would be a double punishment…both Christ and the individual being punished for their sins. This would make God unjust. The only logical choice, to be consistent with the penal substitution view, is that 1) Jesus was punished for the sins of the world, therefore everyone is saved, aka, universalism. Or, 2) Jesus did not die for those who are not chosen, aka, limited atonement. Limited atonement, the “L” in TULIP is core belief of Calvinism and the natural byproduct of the penal substitution view of atonement.
The most obvious difference between the views of Calvin/Anselm and Christus Victor is the question of whether the atonement is about punishment for our sins or rather than forgiveness. Are our sins forgiven or punished? Is my debt of sin paid or forgiven? Some would say both…but can it be both? If I have a mortgage, there are only 2 possible ways of being rid of that debt. 1)Someone pays it off, or 2) the bank forgives, or cancels, the debt. If I pay off your mortgage, the bank cannot legitimately tell you your debt has been forgiven. They have received what they were owed. Forgiveness means your debt is no longer demanded of you. If God’s justice means He must punish sin, and the cross is about punishment, then forgiveness is not present because God received what He demanded. Paul says in Colossians 2:13-14, “And you, who were dead in your trespasses….God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses by canceling the record of debt that stood against us…”
Imagine yourself as a child…one day you write all over the walls with a crayon. Dad comes home and upon seeing it is angry because you have disobeyed his orders…you have sinned against him. Since you have disobeyed, you deserve to be punished. Your father, in his anger, takes off his belt to punish you. Your older brother steps in, seeking to save you from your father’s wrath, asks to be punished instead. Your father begins to beat him…and beat him…and beat him. Bruises and welts begin to appear…flesh is torn open…blood is splattered everywhere…covering the crayon marks on the wall. After a while, your brother is still….your father’s anger is spent. Stepping over the body of your dead brother, your father opens his arms to you. “It’s ok now. Daddy isn’t angry anymore. You’re forgiven. Aren’t you glad your brother took your punishment?”
That’s penal substitution and the satisfaction of God’s wrath.
Imagine yourself as a child…one day you write all over the walls with a crayon. Dad comes home and upon seeing it is angry because you have disobeyed his orders…you have sinned against him. Since you have disobeyed, you deserve to be punished. Your father, in his anger, takes off his belt to punish you. Your older brother steps in, seeking to save you from your father’s wrath, asks to be punished instead. Your father begins to beat him…and beat him…and beat him. Bruises and welts begin to appear…flesh is torn open…blood is splattered everywhere…covering the crayon marks on the wall. After a while, your brother is still….your father’s anger is spent. Stepping over the body of your dead brother, your father opens his arms to you. “It’s ok now. Daddy isn’t angry anymore. You’re forgiven. Aren’t you glad your brother took your punishment?”
That’s penal substitution and the satisfaction of God’s wrath.
Good explanation. How messed up is the the theory we've all grown up with.