Edgework

We have made the point in previous essays that before we even begin formulating “theories of atonement” we must simply let the biblical text speak for itself when it addresses the entire Jesus event. When we do this it becomes clear that the various writers explain the life, death and resurrection of Jesus by drawing on concepts and images that would have resonated with first-century audiences; using terms that are alternatively economic, substitutional, militaristic, sacrificial and priestly.

The question that confronts us is whether to take these terms literally for the purpose of formulating an atonement theory or not. In her essay, “The Repetition of Reconciliation,” published in Stricken By God, (Brad Jersak and Michael Hardin, editors), Sharon Baker says these terms are best seen as metaphorical, “…language employed for the sole purpose of helping God’s community to understand the extent of divine love and the extravagance of divine forgiveness” (224).

That is to say that such language points to a truth bigger than any one metaphor is capable of conveying. It is fair to say that in the biblical text there is little, if any, proclivity toward defining a “theory” about atonement. The apostles of the early church preached a message of power and certainty, not a “theory” about how one “might” think about how Jesus accomplishes salvation. The very concept of “theory” implies that we are speaking about an hypothesis or speculation, that is a “possible” explanation that can either be proved or disproved with further revelation or insight.

But as we move into the post-biblical period it seems that church leaders felt the need to interpret the work of Christ using contemporary thought patterns to help people make sense of the gospel message. And so they began developing atonement theories making use of current ways of thinking and then going to the biblical text to support these theories. With the passing of time, the assumption emerged in each case that the new theory actually originated in the biblical text, not in contemporary theological or philosophical reflection. After some time, such a reversal appeared to be legitimate because there were always enough proof-texts to make the theory sound truly biblical.

Already in the second century, Irenaeus began to speak of the Christus Victor theory of atonement. He was writing in a context in which Christianity was illegal and Caesar had proclaimed himself Lord. So it made sense to relate the temporal conflict the church was in to the cosmic battle that Jesus had won over the celestial powers. Around the turn of the first millennium, Anselm of Canterbury developed the Satisfaction theory based on the feudalistic system of the time. According to custom, when a vassal dishonored his Lord in any way, the Lord was duty-bound to have his honor restored by punishing or otherwise shaming the vassal. So the gospel came to be understood in terms of honor and shame.

A generation later, Peter Abelard found Anselm’s views too harsh and so began to speak about the atonement in terms of “courtly love” and the new humanist culture that was finding a root in the society of his day. He wrote that Christ came to win men’s hearts by an example of reconciling love. His view came to be known as the Moral Influence theory. A few centuries later, Thomas Aquinas added a penal component to Anselm’s Satisfaction theory, reflecting the judicial powers that were emerging in the new nation states of the time, complete with a focus on punitive measures and penitentiaries. This Penal Substitution theory held that God could not forgive sin until the sinner had been punished. So Jesus, a member of the trinity, came to earth for the express purpose of dying on a cross with the weight of the world’s sin on his shoulders and so taking the place of sinners who deserved the punishment. This theory, in some form or other, became the bedrock of Reformation thinking and eventually also that of modern evangelicalism.

Of course there have been many more theories that have sprung up over the past 2000 years, each finding some perspective in contemporary thought to shed some light on how Jesus accomplished the work of atonement. But the story line given above represents the broad brush strokes of atonement theories over the years. The question remains as to what to do with all these theories of atonement.

I will at this point venture to make some preliminary observations related to that question.

1. Some contemporary thinkers suggest that it is entirely legitimate for the church in any era to formulate atonement theories using categories of thought that make sense to people of that era. God is able to work within any theory even if we judge it to be imperfect.
2. This leads some to suggest that we should continually and in every social context be looking for new ways to speak about atonement. This is being true to our tradition because our tradition is that of always finding new and more relevant theories of atonement.
3. Other Christian thinkers propose that, with the benefit of hindsight, contemporary Christians should legitimize some atonement theories developed in the past but firmly reject others.
4. Still others propose that we should choose one of the historical theories and then tweak it in order to make it more true to biblical revelation and more relevant for all time.
5. And then there are those who suggest that perhaps we should abandon the whole process of developing theories altogether and focus more simply on mining the various metaphors used to describe Jesus’ work on our behalf and seek relevance for modern Christians that way. They note that theories usually end up becoming dogma whereas metaphors remain nimble and applicable in a myriad of times and places.

We will reflect at greater length upon these various options after we have examined the various atonement theories we have cited above in more detail.