A History of the Doctrine of the Gregg Allison

Gregg Allison is Associate Professor The church has historically explained throughout its history. of Christian at The Southern the atonement—“the work Christ did Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Allison in his life and death to earn our salva- The Atonement in the Early Church has contributed articles to the Evangeli- tion”—in various ways.1 At times, it has The early church offered various cal Dictionary of World Missions (Baker, viewed the death of Christ as a payment descriptions of Christ’s sacrifi cial work. At 2000) and serves as the book review to ; at other times, Christ’s death fi rst, these were quite simple explanations. editor for theological, historical, and has been considered a tribute offered to For example, Clement of Rome described philosophical studies for the Journal God to restore his honor lost through Christ’s work of substitution: “Because of the Evangelical Theological Society. humanity’s . Some in the church have of the love he had for us, Christ our He is the author of two books for high focused on the great example of Christ’s Lord, in accordance with God’s will, gave school students, Getting Deep: Under- life as his chief accomplishment; others his blood for us, and his fl esh for our fl esh, stand What You Believe About God have underscored how much the death and his life for our lives.”3 This suffering and Why (Broadman & Holman, 2002) of Christ demonstrates the love of God on behalf of others becomes the example and Jesusology: Understand What You and prompts humanity to love in return. for Christians to follow: “You see, dear Believe About Jesus and Why (Broad- The number of different views is quite friends, the kind of pattern that has been man & Holman, 2005). extensive. given to us. For if the Lord so humbled Unlike many important doctrines, the himself, what should we do, who through atonement has never been the subject of him have come under the yoke of his an ecumenical, or general, church council. grace?”4 In another approach, the Letter to Thus, whereas the , the deity of Diognetus exalted the transaction that took the Son of God, and the incarnation of place between Christ and sinners worthy Jesus Christ have defi nitive statements of punishment and death: that have stood the test of time and are O, the surpassing kindness and embraced by all Christians, no similar love of God! He did not hate us, or doctrinal formula on the death of Christ reject us, or bear a grudge against exists. The prevalent view among Protes- us. Instead, he was patient and for- bearing; in his mercy he took upon tants in general and evangelicals in par- himself our . He himself gave up ticular is called the penal substitutionary his own Son as a ransom for us—the holy one for the lawless, the guilt- view: “Christ’s death was ‘penal’ in that less for the guilty, “the just for the he bore a penalty when he died. His death unjust” (1 Pet. 3:18), the incorrupt- was also a ‘substitution’ in that he was a ible for the corruptible, the immortal 2 for the mortal. For what else but his substitute for us when he died.” It will righteousness could have covered be the purpose of this article to outline our sins? In whom was it possible briefl y the development of the doctrine for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justifi ed, except in the Son of God of the atonement with particular attention alone? O the sweet exchange! O the given to the various theories or models of incomprehensible work of God! O the atonement formulated by the church the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hid- 4 den in one righteous man, while the ing to the image and likeness of God—we righteousness of one should justify could recover in Jesus Christ.”9 ’ many sinners!5 model focused on the events in the life The early church focused discussion on of Jesus Christ as the recapitulation, or different aspects of Christ’s work as well. summation, of all the life events of fallen Rehearsing the themes of the curse and humanity. However, instead of these healing, Justin Martyr explained, “The being lived out in disobedience to God, Father of all wished his Christ to take Christ lived them obediently. Therefore, upon himself the curses of the entire he reversed the sinful direction in which human family—while knowing that, after people were headed, saved them, and he had been crucifi ed and died, he would provided them with a new orientation: raise him up…. His Father wished him Jesus Christ came to save all human- to suffer this, in order that by his stripes ity through means of himself—all, I the human race might be healed.”6 Melito say, who through him are born again to God—infants, children, boys, developed the theme of by young men and old. Therefore, he means of sacrifi ce, playing off the offer- passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctify- ing of Isaac (Gen 22): “In place of Isaac ing infants; a child for children, the just, a ram appeared for slaughter, in thus, sanctifying those who are of order that Isaac might be liberated from this age (at the same time becoming an example of holiness, righteous- his bonds. The slaughter of this animal ness and submission); a young man redeemed Isaac from death. Similarly, the for youths, becoming an example Lord, being slain, saved us; being bound, to young men and thus sanctify- ing them for the Lord. Similarly, he he freed us; being sacrifi ced, he redeemed was an old man for old men, that us.”7 Similarly, Irenaeus appealed to Abra- he might be a perfect master for all, ham’s sacrifi ce of Isaac to portray Christ’s not merely in regard to setting forth the truth but also in regard to age, work of redemption through his sacrifi cial sanctifying at the same time the death: “According to his faith, Abraham aged also, and becoming an example to them as well.10 followed the command of the Word of God. With a ready mind, he delivered up, Thus, Christ’s life repeated the course as a sacrifi ce to God, his only begotten and of human existence, with this important beloved son, in order that God also might difference: the sinful course was reversed, be pleased to offer up for all his offspring and Christ’s obedient life was exchanged his own beloved and only-begotten Son, for it. as a sacrifi ce for our redemption.”8 But it was not only the curse-reversing Irenaeus was also responsible for for- life of Jesus Christ that Irenaeus empha- mulating one of the earliest well-devel- sized; he also saw Christ’s death as undo- oped views of the atonement, called the ing human disobedience: recapitulation theory: “When the Son of God was incarnate and made man, he In order to do away with that dis- obedience of humanity that had recapitulated—or summed up—in him- occurred at the beginning by means self the long line of the human race. In of a tree, “he became obedient unto so doing he obtained salvation for us in a death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8). By this he rectifi ed that brief and complete way, so that what we disobedience that had occurred by had lost in Adam—that is, to be accord- means of a tree through that obedi- 5 ence that was on the tree—that is, are bought with a price, without doubt the cross. We had offended God we are bought by someone whose slaves in the fi rst Adam, when he did not obey God’s commandment. In the we were, who also demanded what price second Adam, however, we are rec- he would, to let go from his power those onciled, being made obedient even whom he held. Now it was the devil that unto death.11 held us, to whom we had been sold by Thus, according to Irenaeus’ recapitula- our sins. Therefore, he demanded the 14 tion theory, what Adam is to disobedi- blood of Jesus as our price.” Though he ence, Christ—through both his life and demanded Christ for a ransom, Satan did death—is to obedience: “For as by the not anticipate the consequences of this 15 disobedience of the one man—who was transaction, out of his own ignorance. originally formed from virgin soil—the Once Satan had Christ in his clutches, many were made sinners and forfeited he could not hold him; rather, Satan was life, so was it necessary that, by the obe- forced to let Christ go. Thus, he lost not dience of one man—who was originally only his former slaves, who had been ran- born from a virgin—many should be somed by Christ, but the ransom—Christ justifi ed and receive salvation.”12 himself—as well. Thus, the death of Christ Another common theme in the early dealt “the fi rst blow in the confl ict that is church’s understanding of the atone- to overthrow the power of that spirit, ment was rescue from Satan, the enemy the devil, who had obtained dominion 16 of humanity. The person most commonly over the whole world.” associated with this view is , who Popularized by Origen, the ransom popularized the ransom to Satan theory to Satan theory was reworked by many of Christ’s work: “Christ submitted to who came after him. Strange twists death, purchasing us back by his own were often added to the basic view. For blood from him who had got us into his example, Gregory of Nyssa conceived power, sold under sin.” For Origen, Satan of Christ’s work as an exquisite decep- had usurped God’s rightful ownership tion—with God being credited with of human beings; thus, all people ille- tricking Satan and causing the loss of his 17 gitimately belong to Satan. Christ’s death victim. The deception entered by means was the ransom that was paid to release of Christ’s deity being enclosed in human people from this tragic situation, and the fl esh. Lured by the powerful miracles of ransom was paid to Satan. As Origen Christ, Satan desired to conquer him as reasoned, “To whom did Christ give his the ransom for humanity. But Satan was life a ransom for many? Certainly not to tricked, for he had no idea that hidden God. Could it then be to the evil one? For under Christ’s fl esh was the divine nature. he was holding us fast until the ransom Gregory used the metaphor of bait on a should be given him—that is, the life of fi shing line, luring hungry fi sh: Jesus—being deceived with the idea that In order to be sure that the ran- he could have dominion over it, and not som on our behalf might be easily seeing that he could not bear the torture accepted by Satan who required it, 13 the deity of Christ was hidden under in retaining it.” Origen’s wording made the veil of our human nature. Thus, it seem as though Satan was the one who as with hungry fi sh, the hook of the dictated the terms of salvation: “If we deity would be gulped down along with the bait of fl esh. In this way, life 6 would be introduced into the house was that two wonderful things came of death, and light would shine in to pass at the same time: The death the darkness. And so that which is of all people was accomplished in diametrically opposed to light and the Lord’s body, and death and cor- life would vanish. For it is not the ruption were completely done away nature of darkness to remain when with by reason of the Word that was light is present, nor of death to exist united with it. For death was neces- when life is active.18 sary, and death must be suffered on behalf of all, so that the debt owed 21 Thus, Gregory of Nyssa presented Satan as by all might be paid. a fi sh that was lured by the bait of Christ’s Thus, Christ “became to us salvation, and human nature but was then caught by the became life, and became propitiation” by hook of his divine nature. The ransom that offering his death as a sacrifi ce to pay the was to be paid to Satan destroyed him and penalty for sins.22 left him with nothing. This idea of substitution was joined Another modifi cation of the ransom with various other themes in Augustine’s theory was made by those who dissented understanding of the atonement. Focusing from the idea that the ransom was paid on Christ as the one mediator between to Satan. For example, John of Damascus God and humanity, Augustine noted, proposed that Christ ransomed fallen “Christ is both the priest who offers and humanity through his death, but that ran- the sacrifi ce offered.”23 In this dual role, som was given to God the Father because Christ fulfi lls the four aspects of a fi tting the sin of humanity had been committed sacrifi ce—to whom it is offered, by whom it against him. Rather than Satan being is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is tricked, it was death that was lured by the offered: “The one and true Mediator him- bait of Christ’s humanity and deceived by self, reconciling us to God by the sacrifi ce his deity.19 of peace, remained one with the Father to Though it became the most common whom he offered it, made one in himself view of the work of Christ in the early the believers for whom he offered it, and church, the ransom to Satan theory did he himself was both the offerer and the not enjoy a monopoly. Some church offering.”24 Specifi cally, this sacrifi ce was leaders emphasized the substitutionary for sin: “We came to death through sin; nature of the death of Christ. For example, Christ came to it through righteousness. Tertullian presented Christ’s death as an Therefore, as our death is the punishment atonement for sin, with escape from hell of sin, so his death was made a sacrifi ce for and eternal life in heaven as the results.20 sin.”25 Furthermore, this sacrifi cial death Similarly, Athanasius described how brought redemption for sinners: “Christ, Christ’s sacrifi ce paid the penalty for the though guiltless, took our punishment, sins of all humanity: that he might cancel our guilt and do It was necessary that the debt away with our punishment…. Confess owed by everyone should be paid, that he died, and you may also confess and this debt owed was the death of all people. For this particular that he, without taking our sin, took its reason, Jesus Christ came among punishment.”26 us…. He offered up his sacrifi ce on In terms of the benefits of Christ’s behalf of all people. He yielded his temple—that is, his body—to death work, Augustine saw the death of Christ in the place of everyone. And so it as a ransom offered to Satan that liberates 7 people from his evil power.27 But he did Anselm lived in a feudal system in which not limit his discussion to this one benefi t. overlords provided protection for their Another benefi t is escape from the second serfs, who in turn provided food and ser- death, or eternal death that is meted out vices for their lords. In this feudal system, on the wicked after the resurrection. For restitution of honor was a key concept. If believers, however, the death of Christ a serf dishonored his lord by stealing ten rescues from this horrifi c end.28 Another chickens, for example, the satisfactory benefi t is the removal of God’s wrath and solution to this problem was not merely reconciliation to friendship with God.29 restoration of what had been stolen—ten Furthermore, when Christ’s death is chickens. Satisfaction demanded a pay- viewed as the supreme demonstration of ment that went beyond what was due, so God’s love for humanity, a fi nal benefi t the serf owed, say, fi fteen chickens to his that fl ows from it is a stimulus to love lord. Anselm picked up on this concept God in return.30 The cross of Christ dem- of satisfaction, and viewed the solution onstrates God’s love for fallen humanity, to human sin in the same light: and those who see this demonstration are 31 As long as he does not repay what encouraged to respond with love. he has taken away, he remains in In summary, the early church, working a state of guilt. And it is not suf- ficient merely to repay what has from the background of the Old Covenant been taken away: rather, he ought sacrifi cial system, the teachings of Jesus to pay back more than he took, in Christ, and the writings of the apostles, proportion to the insult which he has infl icted…. One should observe developed various theories or models. that when someone repays what he has unlawfully stolen, what he is The Atonement in the Middle Ages under an obligation to give is not the same as what it would be possible to After many centuries of domination by demand from him, were it not that the ransom to Satan theory, a fresh view he had seized the other person’s of the atonement of Christ was offered property. Therefore, everyone who sins is under an obligation to repay by Anselm. It is often referred to as the to God the honor which he has vio- satisfaction theory. In his infl uential book lently taken from him, and this is the satisfaction which every sinner Why God Became Man, Anselm set forth is obliged to give to God.33 the major aspects of his model, beginning with the problem of sin: At this point, Anselm denied that “it is fi tting for God to forgive a sin out of mercy To sin is nothing other than not to give God what is owed to him. What alone, without any restitution of the honor is the debt which we owe to God?… taken from him.”34 Two options remained: This is righteousness or uprightness “It is a necessary consequence, therefore, of the will. It makes individuals righteous or upright in their heart, that either the honor which has been taken that is, their will. This is the sole away should be repaid, or punishment honor, the complete honor, which should follow.”35 To not restore God’s we owe to God and which God demands from us…. Someone who honor is unthinkable, so Anselm focused does not render to God this honor on a satisfactory payment for sin: due to him is taking away from God what is his, and dishonoring God, It is impossible for God to lose his and this is what it is to sin.32 honor. For either a sinner of his own accord repays what he owes or God will take it from him against his— 8 the sinner’s—will. This is because sinner righteous.41 either a man of his own free will demonstrates the submission which So man is helpless to save himself. he owes to God by not sinning, or alternatively by paying recompense For Anselm, the only one who can for his sin, or else God brings him to save humanity is one who is both God torment, and in this way he shows and man: that he is his Lord, something which the man himself refuses to admit [Satisfaction] cannot come about voluntarily.36 unless there should be someone who would make a payment to Perhaps, then, God could simply punish God greater than everything that all humanity—each and every person— exists apart from God…. It is also a necessity that someone who can for his or her sins. That would satisfy give to God from his own property his justice. But Anselm could not accept something which exceeds every- this idea, for a reason that he picked up thing which is inferior to God, must himself be superior to everything from Augustine: God cannot punish that exists apart from God…. Now, every human being, because a number there is nothing superior to all that of human beings equal to the number of exists which is not God—except God…. But the obligation rests with 37 fallen angels must be saved. This would man, and no one else, to make the restore the original creation to its balance payment…. Otherwise, man is not making recompense. If, therefore and harmony. So satisfaction for sin—in … no one can pay except God, and one way or another—is necessary.38 no one ought to pay except man: it Could it be that a man could pay the is necessary that a God-man should pay it.42 debt himself? Anselm imagined what could be offered to God as a payment Therefore, Jesus Christ, the God-man, for sin: “Penitence, a contrite and broken is the only one who can offer satisfaction heart, fasting and many kinds of bodily for the sin of humanity. Moreover: labor, the showing of pity through giving and forgiveness, and obedience.”39 But He ought to possess something… which he may give to God vol- Anselm quickly dismissed these as things untarily and not in payment of a already owed to God.40 Thus, if owed to debt…. If we say that he will make a God, these things cannot be given to him present of himself as an act of obedi- ence to God…this will not constitute in payment for sin. And there is another giving something which God does problem as well: not demand from him in repayment of a debt. For every rational creature Because of the man who was con- owes this obedience to God. [But] to quered [Adam, in the fall], the hand himself over to death, for the whole of humanity is rotten and, as honor of God…is not something it were, in a ferment with sin—and which God will demand from him, God raises up no one with sin to fi ll in repayment of a debt, given that, up the complement of the renowned since there will be no sin in him, heavenly city. Correspondingly, he will be under no obligation to 43 supposing a man were victorious, die. because of him as many humans would be brought out of sin into Thus, the death of Christ is the suffi cient a state of righteousness as would make up that full number…for the and necessary satisfaction that he will- completion of which mankind was ingly offered to God. In doing so, Christ created. But a man who is a sinner obtained a reward, but it was a reward is in no way capable of doing this, for one sinner cannot make another that he did not need. It only makes sense 9 that Christ would give this reward to of the Christian faith: “Christ died for us fallen human beings, “for whose salvation in order to show how great was his love … he made himself a man.”44 So Christ for humanity and to prove that love is the directs that his reward should be given essence of .”49 to sinners so as to provide satisfaction for In discussing Christ’s atoning work, their sins, and the Father gives redemp- Thomas Aquinas developed Anselm’s tion to all who embrace the Son.45 In this idea that Christ went beyond the call of way, Anselm explained the work of Christ duty in dying—his was a work of super- in terms of the satisfaction theory of the erogation.50 For Anselm, this had meant atonement. that Christ’s infi nite satisfaction through While reaction to Anselm’s theory was his death could be applied to the infi nite generally positive, dissenters expressed penalty accumulated by humanity’s sin. contempt for his view. Chief among these But Aquinas viewed both the life and was Abelard, who originated the moral the death of Christ as “a superabundant infl uence theory of the atonement. Actu- atonement for the sins of humanity.”51 ally, he rejected both of the prevalent This atonement, according to Aquinas, theories of his time—the ransom to Satan has to be appropriated by several means: theory and Anselm’s satisfaction view. “Christ’s suffering works its effect in those In their place he proposed another posi- to whom it is applied, through faith and tion: “I think that the purpose and cause love and the sacraments of faith.”52 Specifi - of the incarnation was that Christ might cally, these sacraments are baptism—to illuminate the world by his wisdom and remove original sin and actual sins com- excite it to the love of himself.”46 What mitted before baptism—and —to people need, according to Abelard, is a deal with actual sins committed after bap- persuasive exhibition of God’s love. Christ tism.53 Thus, while affi rming that Christ’s provided this demonstration by his life death was a superabundant atonement, and especially by his death, the crown- Aquinas held that a human cooperation ing act of love: “Our redemption is that with the work of Christ is necessary. Faith, supreme love shown in our case by the love, and participation in the sacraments passion of Christ. This not only liberates unite people to the atonement of Christ us from to sin, but also wins from and become a necessary part of it. It is us the true freedom of the children of easy to see how this idea could turn into a God, so that we may fulfi ll all things from system of human works designed to merit love rather than from fear.”47 The work of the grace and forgiveness of God. This Christ, being an exhibition of divine love, was one of the reasons that people like stimulates people to love God.48 In short, Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to Abelard did not minimize the death of reform the church. Christ, but he denied that it has a neces- sary connection to the forgiveness of sins. Atonement during the Reformation Also, he removed the atonement from an and Post-Reformation objective reality—what Christ accom- The Reformers introduced another plished on the cross—to a subjective infl u- view of the atonement, generally called ence on people—it kindles within them a the penal substitutionary theory. In some love for God. This, for Abelard, is the heart ways, it was similar to Anselm’s satisfac- 10 tion theory, but with this major difference: from the curse of the law.”55 Luther speci- Instead of grounding the atonement in fi ed that Christ became this sacrifi ce and the honor of God—that of which God had curse by dying on the cross as a substitute been robbed by the sin of humanity—the for sinful human beings.56 This sacrifi ce, Reformers grounded it in the justice of then, is a propitiation: “Christ … truly God. Because he is holy, God hates sin born, suffered was crucifi ed, died, and with wrathful anger and acts against it was buried, in order to be a sacrifi ce not by condemning and punishing sin. Thus, only for original sin but also for all other an eternal penalty must be paid for sin. sins and to propitiate God’s wrath.”57 In so Humanity could not atone for its own doing, Luther contributed to the develop- sin, but Christ did: as the substitute for ment of the doctrine of the atonement. humanity, he died as a sacrifi ce to pay John Calvin located the penal sub- the penalty, suffered the divine wrath stitutionary atonement within Christ’s against sin, and removed its condemna- larger work of exercising the three offi ces tion forever. of prophet, king, and priest.58 As priest, Martin Luther expressed the penal Christ reconciles sinful people to God by substitutionary theory in this way: his sacrifi cial death:

An eternal, unchangeable sentence As a pure and stainless mediator, of condemnation has been passed— Christ is by his holiness to reconcile for God cannot and will not regard us to God. But God’s righteous curse sin with favor, but his wrath abides bars our access to him, and God upon it eternally and irrevocably. in his capacity as judge is angry For this reason, redemption was not toward us. Thus, an expiation must possible without a ransom of such intervene in order that Christ as precious worth as to atone for sin, to priest may obtain God’s favor for assume its guilt, pay the price of the us and appease his wrath. Thus, wrath and thus abolish sin. This no to perform this offi ce, Christ had creature was able to do. There was to come forward with a sacrifi ce. no remedy except for God’s only Son The priestly offi ce belongs to Christ to step into our distress and himself alone because by the sacrifice of become man, to take upon himself his death, he blotted out our own the load of awful and eternal wrath guilt and made satisfaction for our and make his own body and blood a sins.59 sacrifi ce for sin. And he did so, out of the immeasurable great mercy and In discussing the details of Christ’s love toward us, giving himself up and bearing the sentence of unend- atonement, Calvin emphasized several ing wrath and death.54 key points: Atonement is necessary because of God’s righteous wrath against Luther emphasized the dreadful state in sin. Calvin described the situation of a which sinful humanity fi nds itself, due typical sinner: “Scripture teaches that he specifi cally to its failure to obey God’s was estranged from God through sin, is law. This results in a curse on all people. an heir of wrath, subject to the curse of Jesus Christ accomplished salvation by eternal death, excluded from all hope of bearing the curse for everyone: “Putting salvation, beyond every blessing of God, off his innocence and holiness, and put- the slave of Satan, captive under the yoke ting on your sinful person, he bore your of sin, destined finally for a dreadful sin, death and curse. He became a sacrifi ce 60 destruction and already involved in it.” and a curse for you, in order to set you free The atoning work of Christ intervened 11 into this human nightmare. Involved in life as an Asham—that is, as an this work were substitution, cleansing, expiatory offering for sin—upon which our stain and punishment expiation (removing the liability to suf- might somehow be cast and cease to fer punishment through satisfaction), be imputed to us. The Son of God, and propitiation (appeasing the divine utterly clean of all fault, nevertheless took upon himself and the shame 61 wrath). and reproach of our iniquities and in 67 According to Calvin, it was not only return clothes us with his purity! by his death that Christ accomplished Thus, in terms of benefi ts for humanity, all of this; his life of obedience was also “we have in Christ’s death the complete involved: “From the time when he took on fulfi llment of salvation, for through it we the form of a servant, he began to pay the are reconciled to God, his righteous judg- price of liberation in order to redeem us.”62 ment is satisfi ed, the curse is removed, But this life of obedience was not the key and the penalty paid in full.”68 element: “To defi ne the way of salvation Calvin and Luther focused on the more exactly, Scripture ascribes this espe- atonement as a , Christ cially and properly to Christ’s death.”63 paying the penalty of death as a substi- Calvin underscored the voluntary nature tute for sinful humanity. Lutheran and of this death. And he emphasized that Reformed theology following them con- Christ died as an innocent and righteous tinued to develop this theory. For example, man, in place of sinful humanity.64 Thus, the Lutheran Formula of Concord, speaking “the guilt that held us liable for punish- about condemned people, affi rmed ment has been transferred to the head of the Son of God.”65 [I]t is their duty to believe that Jesus Furthermore, the very form of death Christ has expiated all their sins and made satisfaction for them. He suffered by Christ—crucifixion—was has also obtained remission of sins, meaningful for Calvin. By dying on a righteousness before God, and eter- cross, Christ became the curse for human- nal life, without the intervention of any merit on their part.69 ity: “The cross was accursed, not only in human opinion but by decree of God Similarly, the Reformed Belgic Confes- (Deut. 21:23). Thus, when Christ is hanged sion described the multi-faceted nature of upon the cross, he makes himself subject the atonement: to the curse. It had to happen in this way We believe that Jesus Christ is in order that the whole curse—which on ordained with an oath to be an account of our sins awaited us, or rather eternal high priest. He presented lay upon us—might be lifted from us, himself on our behalf before the Father, appeased his wrath by his while it was transferred to him.”66 And full satisfaction, offered himself on by dying as a sacrifice, as pictured in the tree of the cross, and poured out the sacrifi ces under the Old Covenant, his precious blood to purge away our sins. He suffered all this for the Christ removed the wrath of God against remission of our sins.70 humanity: Furthermore, the Reformed Heidelberg What was fi guratively represented in the Mosaic sacrifices is mani- Catechism echoed much of Anselm’s sat- fested in Christ, the archetype of isfaction theory, with the key difference the fi gures. Therefore, to perform a introduced by the Reformers: Instead of perfect expiation, he gave his own 12 grounding the atonement in the honor of Socinus argued, “Why should God have God, it focused on the holiness of God as willed to kill his innocent Son by a cruel its foundation.71 Thus, the penal-substi- and damnable death when there was no tutionary theory of the atonement was need of satisfaction? If this were the way, developed during the Reformation. both the generosity of God would perish Although this theory became the and we would invent for ourselves a God standard view of the atonement among who is base and sordid.”74 Protestants, it did not go unchallenged. also maintained that The heretical Socinians developed a view Jesus was an unusually holy man who similar in some ways to Abelard’s moral was equipped with the power of God, infl uence theory; it is called the example but who was not God himself. It pointed theory of the atonement. Like Abelard’s to this powerful example of virtue and position, it rejected the idea that God, integrity in the life of Jesus as the model because he is just, punishes sin by met- for all humanity to follow. The crowning ing out judgment.72 Indeed, for Faustus moment of his exemplary life was Jesus’ Socinus, founder of the movement, jus- death, the supreme act of obedience. Thus, tice leading to punishment, and mercy by his life and death, Jesus provides a leading to forgiveness, are completely wonderful example that moves people to contradictory. Thus, if Jesus Christ suf- break with their sins and live holy lives: fered punishment to satisfy the justice “Christ takes away sins because by heav- of God, there can be no mercy leading to enly promises he attracts and is strong to forgiveness. However, we know that God move all people to repentance, by which is merciful. This means that he forgives sins are destroyed. He draws all who sin without demanding that his justice is have not lost hope to leave their sins and satisfi ed. This is possible because divine zealously to embrace righteousness and justice and mercy are a matter of the will, holiness.”75 Like Abelard’s moral infl u- and so God can simply choose not to exer- ence theory, the Socinian example theory cise his justice: removed the atonement from an objective reality—what Christ accomplished on There is no such justice in God that absolutely and inexorably requires the cross—to a subjective infl uence on that sin is punished and that God people—it moves them to receive the for- himself cannot repudiate. There is giveness of God, which he wills to exercise a kind of justice that we are accus- tomed to call by this name and that instead of his justice. is seen only in punishment of sin. Hugo Grotius disagreed with the Socin- But the Scriptures by no means ians that God does not require a payment dignify this with the name of justice; rather, they call it wrath or anger. for sin, for he could not will to set aside his Thus, they are greatly in error who, justice and simply show mercy by forgiv- deceived by the common use of the word justice, suppose that justice in ing sinful people. But Grotius also rejected this sense is a perpetual attribute of the Reformers’ idea that Christ’s death is 73 God and affi rm that it is infi nite. a propitiation that removes God’s wrath from sinners. So he developed a new view Because God could choose not to exercise of Christ’s work, called the governmental his justice, he willed to exercise his mercy theory of the atonement. instead. Therefore, Christ did not have to Grotius’ position envisioned God as offer himself as a satisfaction to God. As 13 Governor of the universe—thus, the to no law, willed to use the sufferings name governmental theory. As Governor, and death of Christ to establish a weighty God could choose to relax his standards example against the immense guilt of us and forgive sinful people through his all, with whom Christ was most closely mercy. This was due to the fact that as the allied by nature, by sovereignty, by secu- Lawgiver, God himself was not subject to rity.”78 But Christ’s sufferings and death his law. Actually, God as Governor could did not meet the exact requirements of eliminate the law or relax it. The former the divine law; his work only satisfi ed the was the option that Socinus had chosen. less stringent demands of the relaxed law. Grotius opted for the latter. And he based Thus, Christ’s work is only “some sort” of God’s relaxation of the law on two goods, satisfaction. More than anything else, it both of which would have been elimi- protected the interests of God’s govern- nated had God as Judge strictly upheld ment of the universe. the law: “If all humanity had been given Grotius summarized his governmental over to eternal death as sinners, two most theory: beautiful things would have perished Among all the attributes of God, from the earth: reverential piety toward love of the human race stands fi rst. God on the part of humanity, and the Therefore, though he could justly demonstration of a wonderful goodness punish the sins of all people by a worthy and legitimate punish- 76 toward humanity on the part of God.” ment—that is, eternal death—and But why did God not simply eliminate the though he was moved to do so, God willed to spare those who law entirely and be merciful toward sinful believe in Christ. But when it was people? Citing Isa 42:21 (“It pleased the determined to spare them, either Lord for the sake of his righteousness to by instituting or not some example against so many and so great sins, make his law great and glorious”), Grotius God most wisely chose that way by drew two conclusions: upholding the law which the greatest number of his to some degree underscored the holiness attributes could be manifested at the same time. These were both his of God as Governor, and it was in the mercy and his severity, or hatred of best interests of the governed for God to sin, together with his concern for 79 support the law in some measure. Grotius upholding the law. called this the “common good—the pres- By placing God’s government of the world ervation and example of order.”77 and his love for humanity as the highest At this point, Grotius introduced the priorities of God, Grotius developed a work of Christ as meeting the require- theory that dismissed the atonement of ments of the relaxed law. His death Christ as an exact payment of the pen- underscored the terrible nature of sin alty demanded by the justice of God and and emphasized that the law must be expressed in his law. Christ suffered and respected. And Christ’s sharing in human died, not as a satisfaction for the exact nature allied him closely enough with penalty, but as a token of God’s concern people so that God could mete out punish- to uphold his moral law. ment on him instead of sinners: “There is nothing unjust in this: That God, whose is Modern Theories of the Atonement the highest authority in all matters not in Most Protestants embraced the penal themselves unjust, and is himself subject substitutionary theory of the atonement, 14 originated by the Reformers and devel- divine justice.83 A second objection was oped by their successors. Challenges like that “the idea of expiation—the innocent those of the Socinians and Hugo Grotius suffering for the guilty and God being were fairly uncommon and repudiated thereby propitiated—is declared to be by most Protestant theologians. But new pagan and revolting.”84 Hodge responded: challenges to the position arose in the “No one has the right to make one’s taste modern period and were accepted by or feelings the test of truth. That a doctrine more and more churches. Able apologists is disagreeable is no suffi cient evidence of for the penal substitutionary view also its untruth…. So far from being revolting, defended and developed that position it is cherished and delighted in as the only against these new theories. hope of the guilty.”85 Both Shedd and William G. T. Shedd was a stalwart Hodge echoed the Reformed doctrine of defender of this doctrine of the atone- the atonement and defended it against its ment. Affirming that “the atonement many critics. of Christ is represented in Scripture as One such critic was Friedrich Schleier- vicarious,”80 Shedd demonstrated both macher. In The Christian Faith, he offered its substitutionary nature and penal a new theory of the atonement in line character, the penalty in this case being with his vision of religion as a feeling of the sufferings endured by Christ as sub- absolute dependence on God. But God, for stitute for sinful human beings.81 Charles Schleiermacher, is not a personal, tran- Hodge was another outstanding defended scendent being. Rather, God is the infi nite of the penal substitutionary theory of the spiritual reality that fl ows through all that atonement, which he summarized in the exists. Christianity, therefore, is not about following: doctrines and beliefs; rather, it is about the heart, nurturing the intuitive awareness It is the plain doctrine of Scripture that Christ saves us neither by the of being united with, and dependent on, mere exercise of power, nor by his this world spirit that pervades everything. doctrine, nor by his example, nor by With this notion of religion, Schleierm- the moral infl uence that he exerted, nor by any subjective infl uence on acher maintained that Christ redeemed his people, whether natural or mys- humanity from this sinful power by pro- tical, but as a satisfaction to divine justice, as an expiation for sin and as viding the supreme example of a man in a ransom from the curse and author- whom the intuitive sense of dependence ity of the law, they reconciling us to on God was nurtured. He was not the God, by making it consistent with his perfections to exercise mercy God-man; rather, “the Redeemer is like toward sinners, and then renew- all people in virtue of the identity of ing them after his own image, and human nature, but distinguished from fi nally exalting them to all the dig- nity, excellence, and blessedness of them all by the constant potency of his the sons of God.82 God-consciousness, which was a real existence of God in him.”86 Because of this, Hodge also addressed numerous possible “the Redeemer assumes believers into objections that had been and would con- the power of his God-consciousness, and tinue to be offered against his view of the 87 this is his redemptive activity.” Thus, atonement. One such objection empha- Schleiermacher developed a completely sized the love of God to the exclusion of all subjective idea of the atonement. the other divine attributes—including the 15 In the twentieth century, Gustav Aulen his view. For example, he reinterpreted rehabilitated the ancient Christ as Victor the recapitulation theory of Irenaeus and theory. In his book, Christus Victor, Aulen the penal substitutionary theory of Mar- set forth this view of the atonement: “Its tin Luther so that they agreed with his central theme is the idea of the atone- position. Of course, he also pointed to the ment as a divine conflict and victory: many ransom to Satan theories, insisting Christ—Christus Victor—fi ghts against that his Christ the Victor theory was at and triumphs over the evil powers of the the core of all of these.92 world, the ‘tyrants’ under which human- Though not written specifically in ity is in bondage and suffering. In him response to Aulen’s model, J. I. Packer’s God reconciles the world to himself.”88 “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic These powers holding humanity in of Penal Substitution” became one of the slavery include sin, death, the law, and most important expressions of this theory demonic forces. Joining together sin and of the atonement. According to Packer, the death, Aulen offered, “Sin takes the cen- classical model is anchored tral place among the powers that hold within the world of moral law, guilty man in bondage; all the others stand in conscience, and retributive justice. direct relation to it. Above all, death, Thus is forged a conceptual instru- which is sometimes almost personifi ed ment for conveying the thought that God remits our sins and accepts our as ‘the last enemy that will be destroyed’ persons into favour not because of (1 Cor. 15:26), is most closely connected any amends we have attempted, but because the penalty which was with sin. Where sin reigns, there death our due was diverted on to Christ. reigns also.”89 As for the law enslaving The notion which the phrase “penal humanity, Aulen explained, “The way of substitution” expresses is that Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love legal righteousness that the law recom- that was determined to do every- mends or, rather, demands, can never lead thing necessary to save us, endured to salvation and life. It leads, like the way and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were of human merit, not to God but away from otherwise inescapably destined, and God, and deeper and deeper into sin.”90 so won us forgiveness, adoption and The fi nal group that holds humanity in its glory. To affi rm penal substitution is to say that believers are in debt to sway is the demonic realm: “The array of Christ specifi cally for this, and that hostile forces includes also the complex this is the mainspring of all their joy, peace and praise both now and of demonic ‘principalities,’ ‘powers,’ for eternity.93 ‘thrones,’ ‘dominions’ that rule in ‘this present evil age’ (Gal. 1:4) but over which The penal substitutionary model contin- Christ has prevailed. There is compara- ued to fi nd able defenders. tively little direct mention of the devil, but In the twenty-fi rst century, the doctrine he is without doubt regarded as standing of the atonement has come under fi erce behind the demonic hosts as their chief.”91 attack. Particularly singled out for criti- For support for his view, Aulen appealed cism is the penal-substitutionary theory to many passages of Scripture (Col 2:15; because, according to its detractors, it 1 John 3:8; 5:19) that emphasize Christ’s privileges one (outmoded) metaphor of victory over evil forces. Aulen also mar- the atonement, it fosters passivity in the shaled historical evidence in support of face of evil and oppression, and it even 16 encourages child abuse. Some evangeli- ment using substitutionary language cals, disturbed by these criticisms, have that we fi nd in the early church. sought to revise the traditional doctrine. 6Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho the Many evangelicals, however, rehearse Jew 137, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 (10 and defend the penal substitutionary vols.; ed. Alexander Roberts and James model.94 Donaldson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, In conclusion, what does the history 1956), 1:268. Cf. Justin Martyr, Dialog with of the doctrine of the atonement teach Trypho the Jew 95. Christians and churches today? Three 7Melito of Sardis, from the Catena on Gen- important lessons can be learned. First, esis, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8:759. we should resist attempts at reducing the 8Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.5.3, in Ante- multifaceted wonder of Christ’s atoning Nicene Fathers, 1:467. work to any one particular element of it. 9Ibid., 3.18.1. Still, a focus on the penal-substitution- 10Ibid., 2.22.4. ary element has strong biblical warrant. 11Ibid., 5.16.3. Second, theologians should be encour- 12Ibid., 3.18.7. aged to continue the development of this 13Origen, Commentary on Matthew 16:8. doctrine, recognizing that one reason Cited in J. N. D. Kelley, Early Christian for the proliferation of theories of the Doctrines (rev. ed; San Francisco: Harp- atonement has been a general failure to erSanFrancisco, 1978), 185. construct the doctrine within its proper 14Origen, Homilies in Romans, 2:13. Cited biblical-theological framework. Third, in H. D. McDonald, The Atonement of all Christians and churches should give the Death of Christ in Faith, Revelation, great praise and thanksgiving to God for and History (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), the gracious and costly work of atoning 142. sacrifi ce by the God-man, the Lord and 15Origen, Homilies in Ps. 35 (34):8. Cited in Savior Jesus Christ, on behalf of us created R. S. Franks, The Work of Christ: A Histori- yet fallen human beings. cal Study of Christian Doctrine (Nelson’s Library of Theology; ed. H. H. Rowley; ENDNOTES London: Thomas Nelson and Sons), 40. 1Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An 16Origen, Against Celsus 7:17, in Ante-Nicene Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Fathers, 4:617. Though certainly a ques- Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 568. tionable theory of Christ’s work, seeing 2Ibid., 579. that it lacks extensive biblical support, 3Clement of Rome, The Letter of the Romans the ransom to Satan theory was only one to the Corinthians 49, in The Apostolic aspect of Origen’s overall understanding Fathers: Greek Texts and English Transla- of the death of Christ. He also placed tions (ed. Michael W. Holmes; Grand a strong (and biblical) emphasis on Rapids: Baker, 1999), 85. Christ’s death being a vicarious substitu- 4Ibid., 16. This is the lesson that Clement tion (e.g., Homilies in John 28.19.165. Cited drew from descriptions of the Suffering in Kelley, Early Christian Doctrines, 186. Servant in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. Cf. Homilies in John 28.14; and Homilies in 5Letter to Diognetus 9, in The Apostolic Numbers 14.1. Cited in Franks, The Work Fathers, 547. This is the strongest state- of Christ, 41). 17 17Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Cat- Evans; Oxford World’s Classics; sin? … Thus, we also affi rm that it echism 22-23, in Nicene and Post- Oxford: Oxford University Press, is necessary for righteousness to Nicene Fathers (second series; 14 1998), 283. In the original, “honour” be restored to us by Christ—not vols.; ed. Philip Schaff and Henry and “dishonouring” have been by instruction, but by regeneration Wace; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, changed to “honor” and “dishon- and by righteousness of life (Rom. 1954), 5:492-93. oring” to refl ect American English 5:18).” Bernard of Clairvaux, “To 18Ibid., 24. spelling. Pope Innocent, Against Certain 19John of Damascus, Exposition of the 33Ibid. Heads of Abelard’s Heresies,” Let- Orthodox Faith 3.27. 34Ibid., 1.12. ter 190.23, in The Works of Bernard 20Tertullian, On Flight in Persecution, 35Ibid., 1.13. of Clairvaux, microfiche, 589. In 12, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4:123. 36Ibid., 1.14. keeping with these concerns, the 21Athansius, On the Incarnation of the 37Ibid., 1.16. Augustine expressed this Council of Sens, in 1140, condemned Word 20, in Nicene and Post-Nicene idea in his Enchiridion on Faith, Hope Abelard’s moral infl uence theory for Fathers, 4:47. and Love 29. being incomplete. 22Athansius, Four Discourses Against 38Anselm, Why God Became Man 1.19. 50Supererogation comes from two the Arians 1.63, in Nicene and Post- 39Ibid., 1.20. Greek works indicating “a work that Nicene, 4:343. 40Ibid. goes beyond” what is required. 23Augustine, The City of God 10.20, in 41Ibid., 1.23. 51Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (fi rst 42Ibid., 2.6. part 3, question 48, article 2. series; ed. Philip Schaff; Grand Rap- 43Ibid., 2.11. 52Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, ids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 2:193. 44Ibid., 2.19. part 3, question 49, article 3. 24Augustine, On the Trinity 4.14.19, in 45Ibid., 2.20. 53Ibid. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (fi rst 46Council of Sens. Cited in McDonald, 54Martin Luther, Epistle Sermon. series), 3:79. Atonement, 174. Twenty-fourth Sunday after Trinity. 25Ibid., 4.12.15. 47Peter Abelard, Exposition of the Cited in McDonald, Atonement, 26Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Epistle to the Romans, The Epitome 182. Manichean 14:4, 7, in Nicene and of Christian Doctrine, comment on 55Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Post-Nicene Fathers (first series), Romans 3:26. Cited in ibid., 175. 26:288. Cited in ibid., 183. 4:208-09. 48Ibid., 175-176. 56Ibid., 26:279. 27Augustine, Sermon 163.1. Cited in 49Peter Abelard, Sentences, 23; and 57Augsburg Confession, article 3. Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei (3rd Exposition of the Letter to the Romans. 58John Calvin, The Institutes of the ed.; New York: Cambridge Univer- Cited in Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce Christian Religion (2 vol.; ed. John T. sity, 2005), 29. A. Demarest, Integrative Theology (3 McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 28Augustine, The City of God 13.11. vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 29Augustine, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope 1990), 2:374. Reaction to Abelard’s 1:495. and Love 33, in Nicene and Post-Nicene view was quick. Its chief opponent 59Ibid., 1:501-02. Fathers (fi rst series), 3.249. was Bernard of Clairvaux, who 60Ibid., 1:505. 30Augustine, On the Trinity 13.10.13. wrote to the pope with his concerns: 61Ibid. 31Augustine, De catechizandis rudibus, “What benefi t is there for Christ to 62Ibid., 1:507. 4.7. Cited in McDonald, Atonement, instruct by example us if he did 63Ibid. 161. not first restore us by his grace? 64For Calvin, Christ’s condemnation 32Anselm, Why God Became Man 1.11, Are we not instructed in vain if the before Pontius Pilate, a mere “moral in : The Major body of sin is not fi rst destroyed in man,” taught this lesson. Ibid., Works (ed. Brian Davies and G. R. us, so that we may no longer serve 1:508-09. 18 65Ibid., 1:509-10. Clark, 1928), 385. 66Ibid., 1:510. 87Ibid., 425. 67Ibid. 88Gustav Aulen, Christus Victor: An 68Ibid., 1:520. Historical Study of the Three Main 69The Formula of Concord, article 5, 4, in Types of the Atonement (London: The Evangelical and Protestant Creeds SPCK, 1931), 20. (vol. 3 of The Creeds of Christendom; 89Ibid., 83. ed. Philip Schaff; repr., Grand Rap- 90Ibid., 84. ids: Baker, 1996), 127. 91Ibid., 86. 70The Belgic Confession, article 21. in 92The response to Aulen’s proposal ibid., 406-07. was mixed. On the one hand, many 71The Heidelberg Catechism, questions appreciated his emphasis on the 12-18, in ibid., 311-13. victory that Christ achieved over 72Faustus Socinus, De Jesu Christo sin, death, the law, and demonic Servatore 3.1. Cited in McDonald, forces. On this point, they granted Atonement, 197. that Aulen was correct and right 73Faustus Socinus, De Jesu Christo Ser- in drawing the church’s attention vatore 1.2. Cited in ibid., 198. to a much-overlooked aspect of 74Ibid., 198. the atonement. On the other hand, 75Faustus Socinus, Praelectiones Theo- many decried the one-sidedness logia 591. Cited by L. W. Grensted, of his position: It both overlooked A Short History of the Doctrine of the crucial biblical data that empha- Atonement (repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf sized other aspects of the atonement & Stock, 2001), 287. and twisted the views of Irenaeus 76Hugo Grotius, Defense of the Catho- and Luther to fi t in with its under- lic Faith on the Satisfaction of Christ, standing. Still others noted that the against F. Socinus 3. Cited in McDon- victory achieved by Christ over sin, ald, Atonement, 204. death, the law, and demonic forces 77Ibid., 4. was the result of his work on the 78Ibid. cross, not the actual work itself. 79Ibid., 5. 93 J. I. Packer, “What Did the Cross 80William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic The- Achieve? The Logic of Penal Sub- ology (3rd ed.; ed. Alan W. Gomes; stitution,” Tyndale Bulletin 25 (1974), Phillipsburg: P & R, 2003), 690. 3-45. 81Ibid., 690-719. 94See, e.g., John Stott, The Cross of 82Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, (3 vols.; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerd- 1986). mans, 1997), 2:520. 83See Ibid., 2:495-543. 84Ibid. 85Ibid. 86Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Chris- tian Faith (ed. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart; Edinburgh: T. & T. 19