Did Jesus Have To Die? A Look at Theories of Atonement
With the dawn of Easter approaching, I find myself reflecting on the death and crucifixion of Christ.
I am caught between the humanity of Christ - that Jesus is truly a flesh-and-bones Jewish man who walked the dirt paths of ancient Israel - and the divinity of Christ - that He is God, the Creator of the universe. This is a dichotomy that many theologians have wrestled with for millennia and is a discussion for another time!
My thoughts this week turned to whether Jesus truly had to die. We Christians maintain that Jesus died to save us (humanity) from our sins. But if He is God, did He truly have to die? Couldn’t there have been some other way to save us?
For that matter, why did He have to save us in the first place?
He could have simply sat back and folded His arms, leaving us to continue living our miserable existence on His earth without any intervention on His behalf. He is, after all, God. He can do as He pleases.
Stay with me here. I know that you may have an immediate answer to these questions, something along the lines of “God’s wrath had to be satisfied,” “Jesus loved us too much to leave us in our sin,” or “Jesus was fully obedient to the Father and carried out His will.”
None of these answers are wrong, but they are incomplete. I’d like to invite you to consider this question of Jesus’ death and the purpose of salvation a little more deeply. Let’s examine this mystery together, for it is indeed a mystery! Nothing about it is simple, even though we would like it to be so.
First of all, let’s examine what we mean when we say that “Jesus saved us.”
Despite what you may have heard in church, this statement is by no means cut and dry. In fact, this is also a topic that theologians have debated for millennia (and this is the topic that we will tackle today)! Saved ‘us’? Who is ‘us’? Saved from what? How?
In the theology world, this is the topic of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and is generally addressed by expanding on New Testament metaphors of the work of Christ into what is known as theories (or models) of atonement. Atonement refers to the reconciliation of God and humanity through Jesus Christ, which most Christians also refer to as salvation.
Without further adieu, let’s dig into four of the most influential theories of atonement!
Four Influential Theories of Atonement
Christ the Victor (Cosmic Conflict) Theory:
According to this view, Christ’s work of atonement is a dramatic struggle between God and the forces of evil in this world (Col. 2:15). In a last-ditch effort for power, the devil is delighted when Jesus is killed on the cross. (Who hasn’t heard some variation of “Satan thought he had won”?) Alas! The devil’s celebration is cut short by Jesus’ victorious resurrection.
Therefore, by the cross and resurrection, Jesus decisively defeated all evil powers and freed all captives who are enslaved to sin (2 Tim. 1:10).
This was a popular view in the first five centuries of Christian thought (the patristic era) and has regained popularity in Asian populations. Theologians Martin Luther and Karl Barth also advocated for this position.
Truth: Jesus did defeat evil, not by force or coercion, but by the power of divine love displayed by his humility in going to the cross (Phil. 2:5-8). Also, evil forces are not only destructive but self-destructive (Jesus was killed by hatred and violence, which resulted in the defeat of these evil forces when Jesus rose again).
Limitations: This theory is criticized for being overly enthusiastic about evil’s defeat; it fails to do justice to the presence of evil, hatred, and violence in our history and in our current lives. Also, the theory emphasizes the God-ness of Jesus at the expense of his humanity. It leaves one thinking, “Jesus’ suffering wasn’t all that bad because He knew He would be victorious anyway.” This line of thinking does serious injustice to the cross of Christ.
Judicial or Penal Substitution Model:
This view draws upon Old Testament imagery of a lamb being given as a sin offering on the Day of Atonement, the day on which the Jewish high priest made sacrifices on behalf of the sins of the people of Israel (Leviticus 6:24-25, 16:15-17). This imagery is carried into the New Testament when John the Baptist cries out, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29) Jesus is also referred to as the Lamb who was slain in John’s letter to the seven churches (Rev. 5:6).
In short, this view proclaims sin as breaking God’s eternal law, of which all humans are guilty. Jesus Christ stands before the judgment seat of God and takes upon Himself the wrath and punishment that we deserve. A popular modern metaphor of this judicial model describes Jesus representing humanity as a lawyer representing his client. Our divine Lawyer stepped in front of us and proclaimed that He, though innocent, would take on the sentence of our sin on our behalf.
Therefore, we no longer have to live in fear of death because Jesus took the punishment for sins on our behalf (Rom. 3:25-26).
Both Luther and John Calvin argued for this perspective. Calvinists are familiar with the phrase, “God imputes our sin to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to us.” This is a view that most evangelical and Reformed traditions are familiar with, myself included.
Truth: First, the imagery of Christ as a Lamb is strongly rooted in the Bible. Secondly, salvation is not something we gain for ourselves, but a free act of grace that God did for us. This view’s emphasis on God’s grace rightly places humanity in submission to Him.
Limitations: This view’s emphasis on justification (the work of Christ on the cross) fails to include the whole gospel story, which includes Christ’s ministry and teaching as well as the cross and resurrection. Unfortunately, this may lead to “saving souls” at the expense of caring for those who suffering injustice in the world right now.
Satisfaction (Anselmian) Theory:
This view is similar to the judicial model in that it also represents a wrathful Father who requires payment for sins.
Anselm of Canterbury was the first to articulate this view. His perspective arose out of his medieval understanding of the law. He viewed God as a feudal lord and humans as His serfs. Serfs were required to obey and serve in exchange for the lord’s military and economic protection. When a serf disobeyed his lord, there must be satisfaction (payment) for his disobedience or punishment would follow.
To be human is to understand that we have disobeyed God. No amount of penance or good work will balance the sin that we have committed. The satisfaction that is due to God for human sin is infinite.
Therefore, only Jesus, being God and human, can completely satisfy God’s demand for payment (1 John 2:2).
This view remains popular in Methodist thought, some Lutheran theologians, and the Eastern Orthodox church. I might argue that most evangelical thought around salvation is a mixture of the judicial model and the satisfaction theory of atonement.
Truth: This view places great emphasis on the humanity of Christ. After all, if Christ could not fully identify with the sorrow and suffering of humankind, then His payment would have been deemed insufficient. He would have been a distant God who deigned to pluck humanity from its woeful existence at that chosen time in history.
Christ’s humanness is the point at which we can look at Him and say, “Yes, He understands me.” This view rightly emphasizes both the seriousness of sin and the costliness of redemption.
Limitations: This view creates a contradiction within the Trinity: Is God a wrathful Father or a loving Son? You can see how this might result in uncertainty about how we ought to approach God. We end up cowering before an angry God, only too grateful for the loving gentleness of the Son. In doing so, we set the God of the Old Testament against the Jesus of the New Testament.
However, the Bible says that the Old Testament God is compassionate, gracious, and abounding in love and faithfulness (Ex. 34:6) and it also describes an angry Jesus overturning tables (John 2:13-17). This is the same God. We can’t separate them into two Gods of different characters.
The satisfaction theory also makes God’s act of forgiveness dependent on the payment of Christ. But is God only forgiving because of the Son’s sacrifice? Was He not forgiving in the Old Testament, too? This theory leaves something lacking.
Moral Influence (Subjective) Theory:
This view describes Christ as showing God’s love to us in such a compelling way that we are drawn to respond in love and wonder (John 15:9-13). The presence of sin in our world means that we cannot attempt to live lives of sacrificial love unless we are strengthened to do good by Christ’s example of selfless love.
Therefore, the atoning work of Christ is seen through the transformation of one’s life as the Christian imitates Christ’s example (Eph. 5:1-2).
The moral influence theory was first represented by Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm. Today, it is most clearly seen in liberal theology, which emphasizes the practicality and ethics of Christian living in our modern world.
Truth: This view rightly underscores the unconditional nature of God’s love and the importance of our human response to this love (Luke 10:25-37). It focuses on Christ’s ministry and teaching as the example that Christians ought to follow: caring for the vulnerable and bringing light into a dark world through the hope that we have.
Limitations: Some critics argue that the moral influence theory tends to sentimentalize God’s love. Evangelicals argue that this view dismisses the seriousness of sin and instead depicts Christ as merely a good example for people to follow. I often hear this theory described as “fluffy,” though I would argue that there is nothing fluffy about Christ’s love! (Perhaps we need to examine what we mean by love?)
Which theories of atonement do you align with most closely?
In presenting these differences, my aim is not to argue for one above the other. Rather, I hope to draw awareness to the mystery of Christ’s death and the atonement that He wrought on our behalf. You can see how each theory is deeply rooted in Scripture. There is no one simple answer to the question of salvation, which frustrates many people. There is a reason why great theologians have articulated these theories; we all want simple answers.
To reduce Christ’s atonement to one metaphor vastly undercuts the complexity of who He is.
Instead, I’d like you to think about Christ in a broader sense: He is not one but all of these metaphors.
He is the Christ who was and is victorious over all evil forces.
He is the sacrificial Lamb who took the punishment for our sins on our behalf.
He is the satisfactory payment for our infinite human sin.
He is the Saviour who loves deeply, unconditionally, and desires His people to live in love as He did on this earth.
French theologian John Calvin, in his doctrine of the three offices of Christ, states that Jesus is prophet, priest, and king:
Christ as prophet proclaims the goodness of the kingdom to come (moral influence theory).
Christ as priest offers to God the perfect sacrifice and mediates our redemption (judicial model and satisfactory theory).
Christ as king rules over all evil and promises the ultimate victory of God’s coming reign (Christ the Victor theory).
I like that. Prophet, priest, and king. This is no simple God that we worship and the language we use to talk about Christ and salvation needs to reflect this truth.
So, returning to our original question, why did Jesus have to die?
He didn’t have to. Not really.
But in his goodness, mercy, and love, He gave Himself up willingly to free us from the vicious cycle of hatred, violence, and evil that binds us and to set in motion the redemption of this world. The cross is the judgment of God on all sin and death.
He, in all his humanity and divinity, fixed His eyes on His loving, just, merciful Father and declared, “Not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42) In His death, He graciously offers us a new way of life - a life that begins right now if we respond to His call.
That, my friends, is reason enough to bow ourselves in humble worship and marvel at the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection!
In courage and in love,
Katelyn
Recommended reading:
Migliore, Daniel L. “The Person and Work of Jesus Christ,” In Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, third ed, 168-204. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014.
