In the pages of Scripture, we find the harrowing story of a loving father who must sacrifice his only son. The father is obligated to perform this tragedy as a manifestation of righteousness; he does not lightly enact this sacrifice for he is as close to his son as he his is own being. The deed is carried out with a deep sadness but in hope of a greater good.
This is a story that appears in Scripture’s pages more than once—first in the tale of Abraham and Isaac and second in the passion of the Son of God. The striking connections between these two stories—one a monumental event in the history of Israel, the other the capstone of the Christian religion—ought to catch our eyes. There is a connection between these two occurrences. And if we acknowledge that link, then it ought further intrigue us how the stories differ, particularly in their endings and in God’s rejection of Isaac as a suitable sacrifice to establish Abraham’s righteousness. There is, indeed, something theologically interesting in God’s declaration that he does not need the death of the son.
Consider next the famous parable of the Prodigal Son. It is one of the most beloved descriptions of God’s love from the lips of Jesus. It tells of a father who welcomes home his son despite squandering his portion of the family fortune. Yet the parable is distinctive by what it does not include. As the longest and most developed parable in the Bible, it is interesting that Jesus does not choose to wrap-up the financial loose-ends. No payment is ever made to the father; there is no reimbursement. It doesn’t even say the father’s fortune multiplied in later years. He’s just out one inheritance.
Lastly, recall one of the less visited parables of Jesus’s ministry, the parable of the vineyard owner—sometimes called the parable of the wicked husbandmen. In the story, an absentee landowner sends representatives to receive the fruits of his land from the tenets currently occupying it. Yet upon seeing these representatives of the master, the tenets abuse and throw out each of them. The episode builds to a climax when the owner finally sends his son who, when the tenets recognize him for who he is, kill him that they might seize the property. The parable is a clear attack on the priests of the Sanhedrin—those who rejected the prophets of past generations; that is what Jesus’s story is designed to do. But I think the subtler implications of the parable run deeper and speak concerning the whole enterprise of God-made-man. In this tragic parable, the Church learns the true nature of mankind, the squatters on God’s creations. When faced with the heir of the heavenly Father, we chose to kill him. The natural consequence of the messianic identity and a sinful people is death.
The several theories of atonement, three of those being of particular importance. A theory of atonement, if you’re not familiar, is an explanation of what went on during those hours on the cross and in the grave. What did Jesus accomplish in his death and resurrection?
For many of us, there is an assumed answer, using whatever language we grew up with. He saved us from our sins or He died that we might know God or He eliminated the gap between us and God—the list goes on and on, and it’s important to first realize that there are lots of explanations for the purpose of Christ’s death.
The three main atonement theories, the ones that most other theories fall under as versions or subcategories, are:
Ransom Theory (dynamic) – Satan or Death was defeated in Christ’s resurrection
Satisfaction Theory (objective) – God’s internal nature was appeased by the sacrifice of Christ
Moral Influence Theory (subjective) – Christ’s life exemplified holy living and his death demonstrated God’s love
While these theories and their various forms are often associated with specific figures in Church History, they can all be traced to Scripture and the writings of the various apostles and evangelists. Beyond this, I’ve heard it said that each theory grasps an element of the truth of the atonement—much like the blind men and elephant parable (not found in the Bible). The mysterious reality of Christ’s death and resurrection is far greater than any of these theories can do justice.
With that said, I think it is still worth our time to appreciate the last of the three main theories, Moral Influence. As a theory of atonement, I have often heard Moral Influence disparaged or dismissed—often as a form of liberalism. While a history and examination of Moral Influence is beyond the scope of a single post, I think the theory deserves reconsideration. There is something going on in the ministry and life of Jesus that cannot be boiled down to a simple transaction or feat of victory. There is something universal about his life and its ultimate end. That possibility is what invites our openness to considering every possibility.
It’s great that you posted about this. The theories of atonement will be a discussion among Christians forever. I agree with everything you said (excluding your last paragraph where you shared which one you believe is best; thank you for sharing!).
As a historian, I am surprised to find that the Ransom Theory was the ONLY theory for the first 1000 years of Christianity. I love the idea of how Jesus was a sacrifice “given to Satan,” and mankind should take the blame also. The Ransom Theory is not about “sinners in the hands of an angry God” (which the Satisfaction Theory certainly implies) but “God (Jesus) in the hands of angry sinners.” I love that idea.
I have come to disagree with the Satisfaction Theory very strongly. It paints the Father as both Hero and Villain. This theory is certainly much more modern than the other two theories. As you said, it can be supported by various Scriptures… or appears to be so. However, I do not believe the Scriptures have ever promoted or entertained this theory. I believe this a theory that is easily understood by modern people and it is read into (eisegesis) the Scriptures.
About the Moral Influence Theory, while I believe this theory was invented by mankind, I do not believe it is bad at all. It paints Jesus as the real Hero and it calls people to live like Him. It focuses on Jesus’ (and God’s) righteousness, which is a demonstration of a God as a God of love (“God IS love”). This is unlike a theory that focuses on the consequences/penalties of sin, which sees God as a God of Justice (and the Bible never says, “God is justice”).
I always enjoy discussing atonement theories; I’ll have to bring it back at some point.
To be clear, I don’t think Moral Influence is the best approach. The second to last paragraph best captures my thoughts—I’m most dogmatic that none of the current theories are exhaustive. If I had to pick a favorite, it would be (a demythologized) Ransom Theory.
To say that Ransom Theory was the only theory for 1000 years is highly contestable, thought it surely was the dominant theory for a long time. I too have issues with Satisfaction Theory, but if you’re at all interested in building your sympathy for it, I’d recommend W. L. Craig’s recent lecture at Harding about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNtZfaDUzIg. If you check out his channel, there are a few more on the subject.
Very insightful post! Most of what is written in the early paragraphs of this post suggests a stance that Jesus did not need to be sacrificed for us to be saved. Care to clarify? The call of the prodigal son would have to fall under the “silence of scripture” hermeneutic. The need for sacrifice is not mentioned, but we cannot assume that it is not needed since other parts of scripture give clear reasoning for why it is. The parable should be identified for what it is: A call for those who are a lost to come to God. Then follow it up by asking, “How do we come to God?” Obviously, Isaac’s sacrifice would not have fulfilled prophesy (which are later to come in the timeline) or been perfect (regardless of your view on original sin). Isaac would not have been able to save us from sin. Side note: I feel that God essentially played a trump card on Satan. Satan is not able to understand the full nature of God and was deceived by himself to think that his rebellion against God would prove to be profitable. The sacrifice of God for us is something we or Satan cannot FULLY comprehend due to not knowing the full nature of God. I also do not believe it is was in humankind’s nature to kill Jesus.
Check out my second to last paragraph—I strongly advocate that each of the main atonement theories captures some truth of what is accomplished in the resurrection of Christ. This almost necessarily means that Jesus’s death is a crucial element in salvation from sin.
Regarding the three beginning examples, I don’t want to suggest that any of them (besides possibly the vineyard parable) directly relate to Christ’s death at all. Rather, they act as character witnesses, demonstrating who God is and how he sometimes acts. They are the furthest thing from proofs.
Based on your own thoughts, it sounds like you most align with Ransom Theory (maybe even in its classical form which is rare—most people lean towards Christus Victor).
I think our only real point of disagreement is your last sentence: I do think by humanity’s sinfulness it was a foregone conclusion that Jesus would die.