Penal Substitution

[bling]

I find that a major deficiency in all of the atonement theories is they tend to begin with philosophically understanding New Testament passages on atonement, rather than developing an understanding of the pattern set in the OT sacrifices. When the OT material comes into the question, it is usually a matter of reading things into the text(such as the notion that the animals "represent" the offerers) rather than attempting to understand the sacrifices as those who were given them would have. For example, Leviticus and Hebrews both speak of cleansing in the blood without reference to the death of the animal. A major issue with interpreting the Levitical sacrifices comes from interpeters imposing a notion that the elements of the sacrifices are symbolic onto the text, rather than asking "What is happening in the offering?" The latter question leads to something that is curious to modern readers, as Leviticus declares that the offerings are food for God(a sweet savor, a meal offering).

You might want to read my post 6.

The Jews under the Law would have a good understanding of atonement by experiencing atonement for very minor sins which took little disciplining:



Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement has some lite symbolic references to Christ, Lev 5 is a closer representation. I will discuss Lev. 16 if you want to take the time, but it takes some explaining of what and why it was needed by itself. Please read Lev. 5 before going further.

Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

Please think up some questions to ask me.

 

[Fervent]

You might want to read my post 6.

The Jews under the Law would have a good understanding of atonement by experiencing atonement for very minor sins which took little disciplining:



Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement has some lite symbolic references to Christ, Lev 5 is a closer representation. I will discuss Lev. 16 if you want to take the time, but it takes some explaining of what and why it was needed by itself. Please read Lev. 5 before going further.

Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

Please think up some questions to ask me.

There's a lot of your posts I agree with, and a lot I disagree with. The main thing is you seem to be associating atonement principally with the forgiveness of guilt, whereas in Leviticus the main concern is uncleanness wrought by sin so atonement is primarily about cleansing. That is why Leviticus 17:11 says the atonement is in the blood. Where penalty/payment is concerned it is not about making God whole but consequences to the one making the sacrifice. These animals were not just commodity livestock, but likely a significant part of the people's livelihood. The variations depending on sacrificer were, as you noted, likely about making the impact on the one making the sacrifice an equivalent burden. The main thing is that these sacrifices were given by God to the Israelites as a systematic way to maintain their vassal relationship with Him as those already having His favor, not ways the Israelite's sought to win God's favor.

 

[bling]

There's a lot of your posts I agree with, and a lot I disagree with. The main thing is you seem to be associating atonement principally with the forgiveness of guilt, whereas in Leviticus the main concern is uncleanness wrought by sin so atonement is primarily about cleansing. That is why Leviticus 17:11 says the atonement is in the blood. Where penalty/payment is concerned it is not about making God whole but consequences to the one making the sacrifice. These animals were not just commodity livestock, but likely a significant part of the people's livelihood. The variations depending on sacrificer were, as you noted, likely about making the impact on the one making the sacrifice an equivalent burden. The main thing is that these sacrifices were given by God to the Israelites as a systematic way to maintain their vassal relationship with Him as those already having His favor, not ways the Israelite's sought to win God's favor.

Atonement is mainly about disciplining the sinner for their sinning: thus, In lev. 5 you have different sacrificial values for the exact same sin done by people of different wealth to equalize the hardship (punishment/discipline). A bag of flour has no blood.

If Christ was not to be coming along later as our Atonement sacrifice, all these sacrifices would lack any meaning. These sacrifice systems did not maintain the Israel nation in their relationship with God, but God’s forgiveness allowed them to return to a relationship. God can forgive without any sacrifices, but as a wonderful parent God need to see to our fair/just punishment/discipline for our sins if at all possible. Only relative minor sins, unintentional sins could be atoned for with these little atonement sacrifices producing some hardship discipline.

There is nothing we can do worthy of God’s favor and God loves all His children, not having favorites.

 

[Fervent]

Atonement is mainly about disciplining the sinner for their sinning: thus, In lev. 5 you have different sacrificial values for the exact same sin done by people of different wealth to equalize the hardship (punishment/discipline). A bag of flour has no blood.

If Christ was not to be coming along later as our Atonement sacrifice, all these sacrifices would lack any meaning. These sacrifice systems did not maintain the Israel nation in their relationship with God, but God’s forgiveness allowed them to return to a relationship. God can forgive without any sacrifices, but as a wonderful parent God need to see to our fair/just punishment/discipline for our sins if at all possible. Only relative minor sins, unintentional sins could be atoned for with these little atonement sacrifices producing some hardship discipline.

There is nothing we can do worthy of God’s favor and God loves all His children, not having favorites.

Atonement is about restoring a sinner, not disciplining them. While discipline may be part of the process, it is not the central feature. Most of what you are saying about "fair/just punishment/discipline" comes from philosophizing on the matter from a view that sees guilt as the principal separation between God and man. While the NT does address the guilt of the sinner, the atonement in the sacrifices was about providing a cleansing salve from sins stain. These sacrifices were a gift from God to the Israelites as His mechanism for maintaining the covenant relationship and His continued dwelling in their midst. It wasn't them buying favor or suffering consequences, but a matter of strict obedience to God's instruction.

 

[bling]

Atonement is about restoring a sinner, not disciplining them. While discipline may be part of the process, it is not the central feature. Most of what you are saying about "fair/just punishment/discipline" comes from philosophizing on the matter from a view that sees guilt as the principal separation between God and man. While the NT does address the guilt of the sinner, the atonement in the sacrifices was about providing a cleansing salve from sins stain. These sacrifices were a gift from God to the Israelites as His mechanism for maintaining the covenant relationship and His continued dwelling in their midst. It wasn't them buying favor or suffering consequences, but a matter of strict obedience to God's instruction.

What are you finding in Lev. 5 that suggests it is not a disciplining activity, since it certainly provides the benefits of being disciplined:

• The sin will be more careful in the future to avoid the penalty for these minor sins.
• People witnessing what the sinner has to go through will be even more diligent in their future to avoid these sins.
• The sinner can now put the sin behind him, since he has gone through the disciplining for these minor sins.
• The sinner can experience the cost for almost accidental and unintentional sins and imagine how much greater the discipline would have to be for rebellious intentional sins.
• The sinner should be drawn closer to God as part of the results of his personal actions in the temple. The sinner’s obedient actions can be offered up to God as worship.
• The sinner can use his disciplining as a witness to others.

There are good logical reasons for these sin sacrifices, which helps man, so are God’s gift to man.

The blood of animals is certainly used for cleansing, which almost seems contradictory since red blood is messy, but again this goes back to Christ’s blood.

I do find the Bible to be logical, which does not make it just philosophical. God’s Love does exceed logic, but it can be seen as God’s logic.

 

[Fervent]

What are you finding in Lev. 5 that suggests it is not a disciplining activity, since it certainly provides the benefits of being disciplined:

• The sin will be more careful in the future to avoid the penalty for these minor sins.
• People witnessing what the sinner has to go through will be even more diligent in their future to avoid these sins.
• The sinner can now put the sin behind him, since he has gone through the disciplining for these minor sins.
• The sinner can experience the cost for almost accidental and unintentional sins and imagine how much greater the discipline would have to be for rebellious intentional sins.
• The sinner should be drawn closer to God as part of the results of his personal actions in the temple. The sinner’s obedient actions can be offered up to God as worship.
• The sinner can use his disciplining as a witness to others.

There are good logical reasons for these sin sacrifices, which helps man, so are God’s gift to man.

The blood of animals is certainly used for cleansing, which almost seems contradictory since red blood is messy, but again this goes back to Christ’s blood.

I do find the Bible to be logical, which does not make it just philosophical. God’s Love does exceed logic, but it can be seen as God’s logic.

I'm not denying that there may have been a penal function in the sacrifice, but the atonement aspect is not disciplinary but medicinal. These sacrifices were given with or without a consciousness of guilt, both as an ordinary part of communal life and under the faintest hint of suspicion. They were also given by relatives on account of another(such as Job's offerings for his children). The way Leviticus describes them in general is as meal offerings, and calls them a sweet savor. The sacrifice is not what makes atonement for the sinner, it is the priest that makes atonement and atonement is in the blood because the life is in the blood. So while the act of making a sacrifice may have been a civic penalty, that is ancilliary to the question of atonement.

 

[bling]

I'm not denying that there may have been a penal function in the sacrifice, but the atonement aspect is not disciplinary but medicinal. These sacrifices were given with or without a consciousness of guilt, both as an ordinary part of communal life and under the faintest hint of suspicion. They were also given by relatives on account of another(such as Job's offerings for his children). The way Leviticus describes them in general is as meal offerings, and calls them a sweet savor. The sacrifice is not what makes atonement for the sinner, it is the priest that makes atonement and atonement is in the blood because the life is in the blood. So while the act of making a sacrifice may have been a civic penalty, that is ancilliary to the question of atonement.

I see no penal substitution with atonement:

Atone Penal Sub. (PS) Issues

1. Unjust and unfair

2. Has God seeing to the torture humiliation and murder of Christ (punishes Christ).

3. Makes God out to be blood thirsty

4. There is no logical part for man to play

5. It is not participative but passive “Christ was crucified so I do not have to be” v.s. “Christ was crucified so I must be crucified”.

6. If Christ is paying it all than there is nothing to forgive.

7. Lev. 5 describes what the atonement sacrifice is in relationship to the sinner and it is not said to replace him in any way.

8. In Lev. 5 you have the exact same sin being atoned for with different atoning sacrifices which if they are to be substitutes for the sinner wound teach God gives great value to the rich then the poor.

9. All the benefits from being lovingly fairly justly disciplined are not there with PS.

10. PS mean’s universal atonement was completed for everyone (all were atoned for so all should be saved).

11. Peter does not mention Penal Substitution in his wonderful Christ Crucified sermon on Pentecost, nor any time before the stoning of Steven and Steven’s stone it is questionable.

12. The sin sacrifices of the OT can be a bag of flour, so could a bag of flour be a human substitute.

13. There are others individuals at the cross which can be seen way better as standing in for us (mockers, soldiers, teachers of the Law , a thief), so how can we so arrogant as to say Jesus is standing in for me.

14. The idea is we are crucified “with” Christ and not instead of.

15. The Greek words translate “for” do not support the interpretation of ‘instead of”.

16. It does not explain how atonement is a ransom scenario.

17. PS emphasis is on a problem God is having and not man’s problem being solved.

18. It does not fit lots of scripture especially Ro. 3:25

19. PS emphasizes God’s wrath as the problem and not man’s personal need.

There are just a few atonement sacrifices and lot of other sacrifices, some were really fellowship sacrifices (more like an outdoor barbecue party).

Jesus is our atoning sacrifice and His blood is needed by me outside His body available to me for my cleansing. As I weekly partake of the Lord’s Supper, I can physically feel, what is spiritually happening, as the wine (representing Christ’s blood) goes down my throat over my heart cleaning my heart and making me holy. Christ shed His blood because of me and for my benefit.

 

[Fervent]

I see no penal substitution with atonement:

Atone Penal Sub. (PS) Issues

1. Unjust and unfair

2. Has God seeing to the torture humiliation and murder of Christ (punishes Christ).

3. Makes God out to be blood thirsty

4. There is no logical part for man to play

5. It is not participative but passive “Christ was crucified so I do not have to be” v.s. “Christ was crucified so I must be crucified”.

6. If Christ is paying it all than there is nothing to forgive.

7. Lev. 5 describes what the atonement sacrifice is in relationship to the sinner and it is not said to replace him in any way.

8. In Lev. 5 you have the exact same sin being atoned for with different atoning sacrifices which if they are to be substitutes for the sinner wound teach God gives great value to the rich then the poor.

9. All the benefits from being lovingly fairly justly disciplined are not there with PS.

10. PS mean’s universal atonement was completed for everyone (all were atoned for so all should be saved).

11. Peter does not mention Penal Substitution in his wonderful Christ Crucified sermon on Pentecost, nor any time before the stoning of Steven and Steven’s stone it is questionable.

12. The sin sacrifices of the OT can be a bag of flour, so could a bag of flour be a human substitute.

13. There are others individuals at the cross which can be seen way better as standing in for us (mockers, soldiers, teachers of the Law , a thief), so how can we so arrogant as to say Jesus is standing in for me.

14. The idea is we are crucified “with” Christ and not instead of.

15. The Greek words translate “for” do not support the interpretation of ‘instead of”.

16. It does not explain how atonement is a ransom scenario.

17. PS emphasis is on a problem God is having and not man’s problem being solved.

18. It does not fit lots of scripture especially Ro. 3:25

19. PS emphasizes God’s wrath as the problem and not man’s personal need.

There are just a few atonement sacrifices and lot of other sacrifices, some were really fellowship sacrifices (more like an outdoor barbecue party).

Jesus is our atoning sacrifice and His blood is needed by me outside His body available to me for my cleansing. As I weekly partake of the Lord’s Supper, I can physically feel, what is spiritually happening, as the wine (representing Christ’s blood) goes down my throat over my heart cleaning my heart and making me holy. Christ shed His blood because of me and for my benefit.

I agree with most of your points, and also find PS a poor theory. When I spoke of a penal function, I was referring to the Levitical sacrifices operating like modern day fines, though more just because they are adjusted based on the ability to pay so that the burden is comparable. There is far too much that happened at Calvary for any one theory to properly capture, which is why I prefer something like Christus Victor which is not a theory so much as it is a motif.

 

[bling]

I agree with most of your points, and also find PS a poor theory. When I spoke of a penal function, I was referring to the Levitical sacrifices operating like modern day fines, though more just because they are adjusted based on the ability to pay so that the burden is comparable. There is far too much that happened at Calvary for any one theory to properly capture, which is why I prefer something like Christus Victor which is not a theory so much as it is a motif.

When I dug into Christus Victor theory, the author was saying for the most part: "Jesus had to die to rise from the grave" and if pressed for the part played at the cross, it was the "Ransom Theory of Atonement". paid to satan, which I have problems with.

 

[Fervent]

When I dug into Christus Victor theory, the author was saying for the most part: "Jesus had to die to rise from the grave" and if pressed for the part played at the cross, it was the "Ransom Theory of Atonement". paid to satan, which I have problems with.

Yes, the ransom theory of atonement is problematic. But Christus Victor isn't so much a theory of how Christ accomplished the atonement but the image of Christ bursting out of the grave, placing the emphasis not on Christ's death as much as on His resurrection. Death by crucifixion isn't exactly unique to Christ, but being the firstfruits of the resurrection is.

 

[bling]

Yes, the ransom theory of atonement is problematic. But Christus Victor isn't so much a theory of how Christ accomplished the atonement but the image of Christ bursting out of the grave, placing the emphasis not on Christ's death as much as on His resurrection. Death by crucifixion isn't exactly unique to Christ, but being the firstfruits of the resurrection is.

"If Christ be not risen, we are wasting our time here on earth, but I also find the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ to be hugely significant to me and others. Yes, other people have died in some ways much harsher deaths, but none of them were holding back the erg to have 10,000 angles rescue them at any time plus destroy all those who put them there. Christ stayed there to help a very undeserving unworthy me, if there was any other way He would not have gone and stayed there as long as He did. Christ personally from His pray in the garden did not want to shed His blood and God personally out of empathy for Christ would not want Christ to shed His blood. This was a huge Love choice, since it was I who needed Christ to go to the cross and hang there. This allows me to be crucified with Christ empathetically, have that Acts 2:36 death blow to my heart (the worst experience I could have without literally dying). God my parent not only forgives me, but also provides a fair just disciplining for my sins (my crucifixion).

 

[bling]

I find that a major deficiency in all of the atonement theories is they tend to begin with philosophically understanding New Testament passages on atonement, rather than developing an understanding of the pattern set in the OT sacrifices. When the OT material comes into the question, it is usually a matter of reading things into the text(such as the notion that the animals "represent" the offerers) rather than attempting to understand the sacrifices as those who were given them would have. For example, Leviticus and Hebrews both speak of cleansing in the blood without reference to the death of the animal. A major issue with interpreting the Levitical sacrifices comes from interpeters imposing a notion that the elements of the sacrifices are symbolic onto the text, rather than asking "What is happening in the offering?" The latter question leads to something that is curious to modern readers, as Leviticus declares that the offerings are food for God(a sweet savor, a meal offering).

I agree and you might read my post 7 and ask questions. The blood is more for cleansing and a bag of flour could be the sacrifice (Lev. 5).

 

[Mark Quayle]

The issue is one of WRATH.

Only a biblically illiterate would argue that Jesus was not made sin in our place or that Jesus was not the “propitiation” (God’s word) for our sin.

The issue is finding anyplace that even HINTS that the Father was ever angry at the Son … the cornerstone of WRATH. Where does scripture describe the Father as feeling anything except LOVE for the Son?

Yet, you have to admit that nobody really knows the nature of God's wrath, nor of his love. ( Tina Turner — "What's feelings, got to do, got to do with it?")

Seems to me it would be a bit naïve to try to put them into a quantifiable equation.

 

[atpollard]

Seems to me it would be a bit naïve to try to put them into a quantifiable equation.

Are you calling me naive? I resemble that remark!

What is the alternative: abandon all attempts at Theology (which is all about attempting to put the things of God into ‘quantifiable equations’)?

JESUS LOVES ME, THIS I KNOW.
FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO.
(full stop, do not attempt to understand any deeper)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Are you calling me naive? I resemble that remark!

What is the alternative: abandon all attempts at Theology (which is all about attempting to put the things of God into ‘quantifiable equations’)?

Hardly! Everybody has a theology anyway, whether they realize it or not. We can't help but try to understand things, and things are necessarily related in some way to God (through the fact that he created, if no other way). And when we try to understand, we posit concepts and principles and causes and effects and so on. Our own words assist and obstruct our understanding of the truth. But never do we get anything 100% right —even when we quote from Scripture, our understanding of it is limited, at best, and usually very colored by our lack of understanding, not to mention our self-important notions of substance-to-our-thoughts.

But we are not only driven to try to understand, but we are told to do so, as we grow in grace.

JESUS LOVES ME, THIS I KNOW.
FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO.
(full stop, do not attempt to understand any deeper)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Seven Theories of Atonement

#1 The Moral Influence Theory

One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).​

​

Within this theory the death of Christ is understood as a catalyst to reform society, inspiring men and women to follow His example and live good moral lives of love. In this theory, the Holy Spirit comes to help Christians produce this moral change. Logically, in this theory, the Eschatological development too becomes about morality, where it is taught that after death the human race will be judged by their conduct in life. This in turn creates a strong emphasis on free will as the human response to follow Jesus’ example. Although Augustine himself differs here in that he did not teach free will, but instead that human beings are incapable of changing themselves, and require God to radically alter their lives sovereignly through the Holy Spirit.​

​

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.​

#2 The Ransom Theory

The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominant view) 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.​

​

The Ransom view could be summarized like this:​

​

“Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the devil at the time of the Fall’ hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.” 1​

​

Redemption in this theory means to buy back, and purchase the human race from the clutches of the Devil. The main controversy here with this theory is the act of paying off the Devil. Some have written that this is not a fair statement to say that all Ransom Theorists believe that the Devil is paid, but rather in this act of Ransom Christ frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death. In this way, Ransom relates the Christus Victor theory. But it’s worth differentiating here because in one way these views are similar, but in another way, they are drastically different.​

#3 Christus Victor

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.​

​

Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” 2 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.​

#4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)

In the 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory, Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin and to satisfy the justice of God.​

​

This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this 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 therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays pack 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).​

#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory

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 imputed righteousness is postulated.​

​

This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not satisfied with a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Jesus in the place of mankind. The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory, but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical.​

#6 The Governmental Theory

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 teaches 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.​

#7 The Scapegoat Theory

The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures 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 (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental), or as payment to the devil (as in Ransom). 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.​

​

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.”​

Never was very good with peanut substitution.

But Christus Victor sounds about right.

 

[atpollard]

But Christus Victor sounds about right.

That is where I lean as well. It affirms what the Bible CLEARLY states about Jesus and simply refuses to step beyond that into “reasonable speculation” about WHY. Christ did what He did, to achieve what He achieved (no more and no less).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where does the Bible say that God’s wrath was directed at Jesus (in any sense)?

Hello again atpollard, the Bible NEVER says that the Father was angry with Jesus 'Himself'. It does say that He was angry at us/at our sins however, which Jesus bore in His body and died for in our stead.

So, the anger/wrath of God, which was originally meant for us, was directed toward our Savior instead (when He took our place on the Cross as our sin-bearing Substitute). It is in that sense alone that God's anger (which was meant for us and directed at our sins) was directed toward Him as our Sin-bearer.

One last question, where does the definition of "penal substitution" tell us that God was angry with Jesus Himself?

Thanks

God bless you!!

--David

1 Peter 2​

24 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the Cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.​

.​

It may be worth mentioning that God's wrath is not like ours. He doesn't do wrath because he GETS mad, like we do, but because he is purity and justice.