The atoning work of Christ is central to the Christian faith. Humanity’s fundamental problem is guilt before God because of sin.[1] As a result of our guilt before God, we are alienated and lost, spiritual dead and in need of saving. God’s solution to our fundamental problem is to provide atonement for sin through Christ. The mechanism of our salvation is Christ’s atoning work, particularly on the cross. References to “sin,” “salvation,” “atoning work,” and “cross,” will sound odd, perhaps even meaningless to many today. These terms, and the imaginative framework that gives these terms meaning, are part of a bygone era, we are told. They are relics, the contemporary purveyors of disenchantment tell us, of a superstitious and violent age. For enlightened humans, it is no longer reasonable or desirable to believe in God, the idea that humans are morally accountable to God, or the idea that sins must be atoned for through violence and the shedding of blood. Given this cultural mindset, is it possible to show Christianity reasonable and desirable? I believe it is. This two-part essay is a work of cultural apologetics, endeavoring to show that Christianity in general, and the doctrine of the atonement in particular, is true to the way the world is (i.e., reasonable) and true to the way the world ought to be (i.e., desirable).[2] To show that Christianity is true and satisfying, we must first immerse ourselves into the great story of God as told in Scripture.
The Biblical Case for the Atonement
All things come from God and will, one day, return to God. This central motif is a traditional way of understanding the biblical narrative. Let’s give this idea wings by noting five key themes found in the biblical narrative. First, God is a personal being that is worthy of worship. Any being that qualifies as God must be worthy of worship. And to be worthy of worship, God must be perfectly good and the source of all good things (Ps. 34:8, Rom 3:21, 1 John 4:9). This means that God is the ultimate cause and ground of all reality, including all physical, spiritual, and moral reality. Second, created reality is good (Gen. 1, 1 Tim. 4:4). This good world that God has made is finite, contingent, and full of a panoply of diverse beings that together reflect the goodness and wisdom of God (Prov. 8:22-31, Ps. 104). God exists prior to creation and is the source and end (goal, telos, purpose) of creation. Third, God created humans as the pinnacle of creation and as morally innocent and free creatures.[3] As unique image-bearers, humans are like God and represent God on Earth (Gen. 1:26-28). As priests and priestesses, kings and queens of creation, humans are uniquely called to receive, care for, and (one day) return all things to God. The first humans—Adam and Eve—were originally righteous and without sin yet created with great dignity and capacity for moral good and evil. Sadly, fourth, Adam and Eve misused their creaturely freedom for evil, fell into sin, and became guilty, corrupt, and alienated from God (Gen. 3). The doctrine of the fall holds that humanity’s first couple, as the representative head of all humans, disobeyed God and as a result all humans after them are born “in sin” and separated from God (Ps. 51:5, Rom. 5:12-18a). In this state of corruption, all humans are alienated from God and under God’s righteous judgement. As Paul writes, “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). Fifth, in love, God the Father sent Christ the Son into human history to save fallen humans from the consequences of sin (John 3:16). Christ Jesus lived a morally perfect life and was crucified on a Roman cross to pay the penalty for sin on behalf of fallen humans (Rom. 5:18b-20). Christ’s sacrificial death on behalf of fallen humans removes the guilt and power of sin in our lives (called expiation) and satisfies God’s justice (called propitiation) so that humans can be reconciled and united to God (Rom 5:9, I John 2:1-2). This “gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus” (Rom 6:23) and is offered by grace, through faith, to all who would believe (Eph. 2:8-9).
Given these five claims derived from Scripture, we might ask, how might we best characterize the doctrine of the atonement? The first thing to note is that there is no agreed upon doctrine of the atonement as specified by any church creeds. As a result, it is better to speak of various models of the atonement.[4]Prominent models of the atonement include the ransom model (Christ buys back from Satan fallen humans through his death on the cross), the Christus Victor model (Christ unjust death defeats Satan and justified the liberation of fallen humans in Christ), the satisfaction model (Christ death is offered to God as a gift of great value, satisfying the demands of justice due to human sin), the moral exemplar model (Christ’s death is an example of divine love for humans to follow), the penal substitution model (Christ is punished in the place of fallen humans), the governmental model (Christ death is an example of divine love for humans to follow and a fitting punishment for the sins of fallen humans), and more.[5]
Why so many atonement models? More importantly, which one, if any, is the correct model? Let’s begin with the first question. There are at least two reasons for the assortment of atonement models. First, there is rich variety of motifs and metaphors found in Scripture concerning the atonement. The biblical data concerning the atonement has been described as a “multifaceted jewel,” involving motifs and metaphors such as ransom/release, trial/triumph, punishment or compensation/satisfaction, child/parent, sacrifice, retribution, moral influence, and more.[6] Each of the models listed in the previous paragraph identifies one biblical motif or metaphor as central to the atonement and builds a resultant model around that core, explaining the other atonement metaphors and motifs in light of the one dubbed most fundamental. Secondly, the word “atonement” has a narrow and wide meaning, and the variety of models can be partly understood in terms of which meaning is given priority.[7] Atonement in the narrow sense concerns the removal of guilt whereas atonement in the wide sense involves achieving union or reconciliation (“at-one-ment”) with God.
Which atonement model, if any, is the correct model? While all the models mentioned earlier are defended by card-carrying Christians, I think those models that (i) privilege God as fundamental and central to the universe and (ii) provide an objective mechanism that explains how fallen humans transition from a state of corruption to a state of grace (i.e., atonement in the narrow sense) seem most promising. The main “Godward” focused models are the satisfaction, penal substitution, and governmental models.[8] Of those three, (and this is highly debated), it seems to me that the satisfaction and penal substitution models, but not the governmental model, offer a mechanism that adequately explains how guilt is removed through Christ’s atoning work (either by compensating God for human sin (satisfaction model) or by punishing Christ for human sin (penal substitution model)). Since the penal substitution model enjoys wide popularity amongst Protestant Christians, and since it is also viewed by many (Christians and non-Christians) as unreasonable and undesirable, in the second part of this series, I’ll assume its truth and consider whether it can be defended against objections. If so, then there is at least one theory of the atonement that is reasonable and desirable, God-focused, and able to explain how humans can be cleansed from sin and subsequently reconciled to God.
Notes:
[1] It is not our only problem, just our most fundamental. This claim, like many claims in theology, is hotly debated. Along with guilt before God because of sin, humans suffer shame, fear, despair, loss, and corruption. For more on the multifaceted nature of the human need for atonement due to sin, see John Mark Comer, Practicing the Way (Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook, 2024), 92–96. For an account of our fundamental problem in terms of self-isolation and disintegration due to shame instead of guilt, see Meghan D. Page and Allison Krile Thornton, “Have We No Shame? A Moral Exemplar Account of Atonement,” Faith and Philosophy 38.4 (2021): 409–430.
[2] For more on cultural apologetics, see my book Cultural Apologetics: Renewing the Christian voice, conscience, and imagination in a Disenchanted World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019).
[3] In the “from God-to God” motif, the theologian James Arcadi speaks of humans as the “hinge of the cosmos” or the pinnacle of God’s creation in his “Homo Adorans: exitus et reditus in Theological Anthropology,” Scottish Journal of Theology 73 (2020): 1–12.
[4] Oliver D. Crisp, Approaching the Atonement: The Reconciling Work of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2020), 25.
[5] For a helpful survey of each of these models, see Crisp, Approaching the Atonement. See also The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, eds. James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006).
[6] William Lane Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020), 4.
[7] This ambiguity is pointed out by William Lane Craig in Ibid., 2–3.
[8] Boyd and Eddy, “The Atonement: An Introduction,” 14–18.