What parts of the Bible a Christian focuses on depends
on which one or mixture of the seven (or more) atonement theories a person believes.
There are scriptures that substantiate each theory. Unfortunately, few churches
teach the various theories so people can see we are all one in Christ even
though we may emphasize different aspects of Christ's wonderful atonement.
Here's a summary of seven of what I consider the major
atonement theories:
(1) Moral Influence theory – Early Church
This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus
Christ, but on His entire life. This sees the saving work of Jesus not only in
the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He has spoken, and the
example He has set. In this theory the cross is merely a ramification of the
moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a martyr due to the radical nature of
His moral example. In this way the Moral Influence theory emphasizes Jesus
Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as
a result, our first martyr. It is one of the seminal atonement theories for almost
two thousand years. Augustine’s writings show this theory; this theory was
defended by Abelard (1079 – 1142) when other theories were becoming popular.
(2) Christis Victor (Christ the Victor) Theory – Early
Church (classic version) and 20th Century (narrative version)
Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement
is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical
Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the
powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind
from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference
being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus
Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone, but defeated evil
thereby setting the human race free. The “narrative”
version of Christus Victor focuses more directly on how Jesus challenged the
violent powers that kept people enslaved. He healed the sick, forgave sinners
freely, demonstrated love and compassion and challenged the power structures
that enslaved people. Thus, we shouldn’t act as though Christians must battle non-Christians but to
love them like Christ loved the Roman soldiers, the Syrophoenician woman, the Samaritan,
etc. Sin should be taken
seriously but the only way to defeat it is through Christ’s way of life. This is still the predominant
theory in the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and other Eastern Christian
churches after the Roman church broke away from the other churches. The classic version was penned by Ireneaus
in the second century A.D.; the narrative version is an encapsulated and slight
variation version penned in the 20th century. It was written at a
time when loyalty to Christ vied with loyalty to Ceasar. It was never held as the one true atonement
theory but a starting point for new believers and expected that other theories
could be amalgamated as the person was lead into maturity by the Holy Spirit.
(3) The Ransom Theory – about 200 AD
This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died
as a ransom (buying back) sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominate
view of this theory), or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment
to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited
from Adam’s original sin. Penned by Origen Adamantius of Aleander (185-254); this theory may have been embraced prior to
that time. Origen was the son of a Christian martyr and considered a child
prodigy. This was written at a time when
Christians were heavily persecuted and were often martyrs for their faith and a
time when a potential martyr could be ransomed from their captures.
(4) The Satisfaction Theory – late 1000s
This theory was developed in reaction to the Ransom theory:
that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that the ransom theory
was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast
with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt
to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of
injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and ftherefore
must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ
pays back God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement
theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e.
that Jesus satisfies God). It was penned by Anselm (1033
– 1109). This was penned at a time people lived in a feudal system; a carefully
managed series of reciprocal obligations. Lords living in castles offered
protection to villagers (vassals) and kept the community in order by
maintaining justice and the rights of the people and a time when penance (often
extreme penance) was necessary for forgiveness.
(5) The Penal Substitutionary Theory – Mid 1200s
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of
the Reformation. The Reformers, specifically Calvin and Luther, took
Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more
legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as
satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies
to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the
place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the
legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death God can now
forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner,
in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal
balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that
Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the
notion of inputted righteousness is postulated. This theory dates back to Thomas
Aquinas (1225-1274) who believed Jesus offered up his life as a ransom. John
Calvin (1509-1564) went farther by declaring that this sacrifice was
orchestrated by God the Father in order to satisfy the demands of retributive
justice. This was written at a time that the court system became important to
society. This is the predominant theory in North America that was brought over
when people from various denominations emigrated for religious freedom.
(6) The Governmental Theory – Early 1600s
The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight
variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in
Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In
the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and
propitiates God’s wrath. In this way it is similar to Penal Substitution.
However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact
punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross
therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display
God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to
specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also begins
the teaching that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are
part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts
as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts
both the Penal and Satisfaction models, but retains the fundamental belief that
God cannot forgive if Jesus does not die a propitiating death. It was developed
by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and was held by some Methodists but
not by John Wesley; it is espoused by the Salvation Army and the Armeniens. Grotius,,
who wrote this theory, was a Dutch lawyer and wrote books about natural law and
saw everything as unchangeably good or bad. He wrote this theory in opposition
to the penal substitutionary theory. 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.”
(7) The Scapegoat Theory – Mid 1900s
The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory
rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures
are Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus
Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea
that Jesus died in order to act upon God. Scapegoating therefore is considered
to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but
a victim. There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this
model, but in a general sense we can say that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat
means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent
crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent,
as the true Son of God. 4) The crowd is therefore deemed guilty. This was written at a time when non-violence,
especially as Christianity was viewed by Martin Luther King, Jr., Bishop
Desmond Tutu, and in Hinduism by Gandhi who had changed their nation through
non-violent actions.
If a person believes Revelation is a coming event on
earth; they will search the scriptures to understand and build upon that belief. If a person believes Revelation is what Jesus
did/is doing in heaven as He prepared/prepares a place for us; they will focus
their Bible reading on other areas – like how to be examples of his love (1
John 4:19) and how if we’ve seen Christ then we’ve seen the
loving God. (John 14:9).
** NOTE: Some sentences are plagiarized, if you wrote it, I'll be glad to give you credit.
