Introduction
As Adam and Eve’s descendants, humanity is a fallen race, estranged from their maker and destined for destruction. This is because humankind inherited the effects of the original sin and became prone to temptation. Consequently, being sinful alienated them from God’s grace and doomed them to spiritual death.
However, the scripture indicates that God’s unconditional love for His people was necessary for their redemption (John 3:16). He sent a savior to atone or suffer the penalty for their disobedience and sins. In this regard, in Christianity, atonement is to appease or pacify the relationship between God and sinful humanity. This reconciliation was made possible through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Rom 3:25).
Thus, the atonement refers to the work Christ did while on earth and through his death to earn salvation for humanity. Jesus assumed the burden of the fall through atonement and paid the price for people’s sins, bringing redemption. This paper examines and defends the theological concept of substitutionary atonement by exploring its significance in shaping the understanding of salvation and reconciliation of humanity with God.
Positions on the Issue
Substitutionary Theory
There are different theological perspectives on the subject of atonement. One of the leading doctrinal arguments is the substitutionary theory. This concept posits that Christ’s death satisfied God’s anger against humanity’s sin. In this view, Jesus suffered and died on behalf of sinners to meet God’s legal demand to punish evil and offer justice for human transgressions. Therefore, through Jesus’s death, God offers forgiveness to sinners because Christ was punished instead of them.
In this way, God achieves his retribution and restores a good relationship with humanity. In his book, “Atonement and the Death of Christ,” William Craig contends that the sins of humankind were transferred or “legally imputed” to Jesus, who suffered their just punishment. Through this theory, God is construed as just; hence, this character requires Him to punish any moral sins. As a result, the death of Christ, in this case, acts as a payment to God for all the transgressions that humanity had committed against Him.
Moral-Influence Theory
Another primary doctrinal argument on atonement is the moral-influence theory. Although this concept affirms that Jesus died for humanity, it rejects that He died to redeem sinners from their transgressions. Instead, it holds that “The death of Christ is a beautiful demonstration of God’s love.”The theory suggests there was no need for retribution as God had the ultimate power to forgive human beings and restore their broken relationship with Him.
Therefore, the death of Jesus is depicted as a necessity to reform society by inspiring human beings to follow his exemplary life and live moral lives. In this way, God shows his love for humanity by sacrificing his only Son. Jesus’ death is an incentive to help humanity abandon their sinful nature and repent to restore the right relationship with their maker. Through the death of Christ, human beings are reconciled with God and are motivated by the life and suffering of Jesus to lead moral lives.
Governmental Theory
The governmental theory is another central theological view on atonement. This model asserts that Jesus’ death on the cross aimed to achieve God’s justice. The theory rejects the substitutionary idea of atonement by stressing, “It was not that Christ in any sense took our place or offered a sacrifice that had to be made.” Instead, it argues that Jesus’ death “Was simply to demonstrate the serious consequences of sin and thus move us to repentance.”
In this view, Christ’s death depicts God’s displeasure toward transgressions. The governmental theory posits that God’s wrath against sin is immense; hence, a high price must be paid to satisfy it. In this case, the death of God’s only Son, Jesus, shows the magnitude of the price of sin. Nevertheless, this concept maintains the fundamental belief God’s forgiveness to humanity would not have been attained had Christ not died a propitiating death.
Ransom Philosophy
The ransom philosophy of atonement is a widespread belief among Christians. It postulates that Jesus’ death served as a ransom sacrifice to Satan to redeem the souls of humanity from his grip. This theory is founded on the notion that the original sin bound human beings to evil, and therefore, God had to pay a ransom to the Devil to set humanity free.
In “Historical Theories of Atonement,” Robert McKintosh argues, “Christ paid the price of our redemption to the Evil one.”He further supports his position by referring to the scriptures. He refers to Mark 10:45, which states, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Based on this perspective, the death of Christ gave human beings a triumph over evil. Therefore, Christ reconciles humanity with God by freeing them from the bondage of sin.
Support for Substitutionary Atonement
Concept of Substitutionary Atonement
The concept of substitutionary atonement is highlighted throughout the biblical context. The original sin made all humans prone to sin, alienating them from God. Sin is considered a flagrant denial to submit to God’s will, and those who sin deserve His retributive judgment and punishment. God’s judgment is depicted throughout the scriptures, such as the flooding during the time of Noah, the judgment of Israel for its sin, and the pagan nations in the Old Testament (OT). In 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9, Paul emphasizes that since God is just, He will punish those who disobey Him.
Therefore, the sinful nature of humans has always prompted God’s wrath and punishment. As a result, Jesus had to die on the cross to redeem humanity. In Romans 3:23-26, Paul elaborates on substitutionary atonement by highlighting how all human beings have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory but are redeemed through Jesus Christ. He further asserts that “God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of blood” (Rom 3:25). Therefore, Jesus died on the cross for the sins of humanity to satisfy God’s justice.
Theory of Substitutionary Atonement
The theory of substitutionary atonement is conveyed in numerous passages of the Bible. In this case, Galatians 3:10 stresses that humans cannot escape God’s curse by adhering to the law. However, Christ saved us from the curse by bearing the curse for all humanity (Galatians 3:13). Therefore, by dying on the cross, Jesus bore the punishment that all sinners deserved upon Himself. In addition, 2 Corinthians 5:21 states that God made Jesus, who was righteous and holy, to sin for human beings so that they would be redeemed. This passage shows the exchange between Christ and human beings.
On the one hand, Jesus took the sins of humanity and died on their behalf. On the other hand, through the death of Christ, humanity received His righteousness. Hence, Jesus’ punishment on the cross instead of the sinners served God’s retributive requirements for justice.
Cases of Substitutionary Atonement in the Old Testament
Several cases of substitutionary atonement are depicted in the OT. According to Grudem and Purswell, “In the law of Moses, directions were given to those who had sinned inadvertently to bring a sin offering and kill it to make atonement for their sins.” In this case, animal sacrifices were made to atone for humans’ sins to obtain God’s forgiveness. Through this, the people would be cleansed from their inequities as the sacrificial animal acted as a substitute for the humans, taking the penalty the worshippers deserved. Nevertheless, these sacrifices were temporary and unable to offer permanent forgiveness or ultimate redemption (Heb 10:1-4).
Alternatively, the atoning death of Christ secured complete and everlasting forgiveness of sins. As indicated in Isaiah 53, Jesus died on behalf of sinners. Prophet Isaiah states that Jesus bore humanity’s sicknesses and pain and healed them through his suffering (Isaiah 53: 4-5). He further asserts that Christ was an offering for sin, and through His death, “He bore the sin of many” (Isaiah 53: 10-12)—thus, Jesus’ suffering and death were due to the transgressions of human beings.
The death of Christ was critical in restoring a good relationship between God and humanity. In Romans 3:21-22, Paul affirms that reestablishing the right relationship with God cannot merely be obtained by adhering to the law but only through having faith in Jesus Christ. The death of Christ brought redemption to humanity, making any individual who professed faith in Him be declared righteous. God’s wrath is pronounced against the unrighteous and those who fail to repent.
However, in Romans 3:25-26, it is clear that God’s holiness, righteousness, and justice were fulfilled in Christ’s death. Through the death of Jesus, God is portrayed as loving, merciful, and just to all who place their faith in Christ. In this case, God did not compromise his justice because Jesus bore the punishment, and God’s wrath deserved humanity’s sin by dying as a substitute for the sinners. Hence, by dying on behalf of all transgressors, Jesus allowed humanity to restore the right relationship with God.
The theme of substitution and reconciliation is also depicted in John Owen’s book “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.” Owens argues that Christ died to redeem humankind from their sins and reunite them with God. His assertions are supported by the scriptures, which affirm that human beings were God’s enemies but were reconciled through Christ’s death (Rom. 5:10). In addition, another bible passage confirms that God reconciled with his creation through the blood of Christ shed on the cross (Col. 1:20).
Therefore, it is evident that Jesus died in place of sinners to mend their broken relationship with God. The substitutionary atonement is considered unlimited, where Christ died for the sins of all humanity and not for the chosen few. Nevertheless, although Jesus’s death was for the entire world’s sins, his atoning death is worthwhile when Christians believe in him. By bearing the suffering, judgment, and death that sinners deserved, Christ brought salvation to all humankind; hence, his atonement is considered a victory over sin. Thus, the savior’s demise cleansed humanity of all sins, reuniting them with God.
Cases of Substitutionary Atonement in the New Testament
The idea that Jesus’ death relieved God’s wrath against humankind’s sinful nature is also woven into the New Testament. The scriptures show that Christ gave his life as a ransom for many people to be saved (Mark 10:45). This verse stresses Jesus’ sacrificial role through offering His life as a ransom. Thus, His death was the payment for the sins committed by human beings. Similarly, John the Baptist refers to Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the world’s sin” (John 1:29). This passage shows that Christ is a sacrificial lamb for human beings to be cleansed from their sins.
Furthermore, the concept of substitutionary atonement is supported by Apostle Peter’s writings. Peter refers to Jesus when he says, “He bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds, you have been healed” (1 Pet 2:24). In addition, Peter also asserts that Jesus endured His suffering to bring both the righteous and sinners closer to God (1 Pet 3:18). Thus, Christ’s pain and anguish brought redemption to the transgressors.
Generally, Jesus died in the place of sinners to reconcile them with God. Christ, who was holy and righteous, offered Himself as a sacrificial lamb to gratify God’s wrath against sin and achieve justice. Since the Creator is just, the penalty for sin bears severe consequences, which had to be paid through the death of Jesus. Throughout the scriptures, it is clear that Christ freed humanity from their sins and the grip of evil, and it is through his death that forgiveness was granted to the transgressors.
Nevertheless, it is imperative to note that even though Jesus died to redeem all humanity from their inequities, only those who profess faith in Him can be considered righteous before God. This theological concept is called imputed righteousness, also postulated in the substitutionary theory of atonement. Therefore, although Christ’s death was a payment for the sins of all humankind, only those with faith in Him can be regarded as righteous.
Objections to Substitutionary Theory of Atonement
The Need for Atonement
There are numerous criticisms regarding the substitutionary concept of atonement. One of the significant objections challenges the need for atonement. It questions why God could not simply forgive humanity’s transgressions instead of allowing Jesus to die. Based on this view, even human beings forgive each other’s wrongdoings. Therefore, if Christians can pardon other people’s sins against them, why could God not pardon the transgressors? This objection posits that Christ did not have to die for the sins of humankind because God had the power to forgive them.
Nevertheless, it fails to understand the nature of God since He cannot be compared to ordinary people. God is holy and just; hence, a transgression against Him is more severe than that against a sinful human being. It is easy for humans to forgive each other because they have also sinned against others. However, God is righteous and infallible with no imperfections; thus, transgressions against Him must have immense consequences. In addition, if God had agreed to remove the guilt of sin without any payment, it would destroy the moral fabric of humanity.
The Morality of Substitution
Another objection challenges the morality of substitution, deeming it unfair and unjust. It questions the rightness of punishing an innocent party for the sins of a guilty person. In this view, God’s acceptance of the suffering of Jesus to forgive humankind and restore His broken relationship with them is perceived as improper because Christ was holy and righteous. Nevertheless, this argument fails because it disregards the voluntary sacrifice of Jesus. In John 15:13, Jesus says, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
Similarly, Jesus stresses that He gave up His life on His own accord (John 10: 17-18). These passages affirm that Christ sacrificed Himself for humanity out of free will to redeem them from their sins, which cannot be regarded as morally wrong. Furthermore, the scriptures reveal that the Father and the Son are one (John 10:30). Therefore, God placed the punishment of humanity’s sin upon Himself, proving his unending love for them.
The Concept of the Holy Trinity
There is an argument against propitiation due to the concept of the Holy Trinity. Since the death of Jesus was aimed to satisfy the anger and wrath of God, the Father, due to human transgressions, some critics view this as a sign of internal conflict among the Trinity. However, this objection is false because it overlooks that God sent Jesus to atone for humanity’s sins out of love. While God’s righteousness and justice necessitated a payment for transgressions, His love for humankind never ceased. This is affirmed in 1 John 4:10, which states, “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
Thus, propitiation emphasizes God’s love and mercy because He was willing to sacrifice His own Son to satisfy His wrath against sin and forgive the sinners. In this case, the need for payment for the remission of sins portrayed the extent of God’s holiness and justice. Nevertheless, by offering the needed price Himself, God manifested the magnitude of His love.
The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness
Another perspective against the substitutionary theory of atonement criticizes the notion of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Similar to the argument that Jesus cannot bear humanity’s sins, there is also a belief that humans cannot possess his righteousness. In this view, each person is responsible for themselves, and transferring one’s holiness or righteousness to another would be challenging.
Nonetheless, this objection is invalid because it disregards the relationship between Christ and Christians. This position considers the relationship between Jesus and the believers as aloof, which is inaccurate. Instead, all believers are united with Jesus, which Paul confirms when he says Christians died with Jesus and resurrected with Him (Rom 6:3-4). Thus, believers have received Christ and are merged with Him, making them share in his righteousness.
Conclusion
Christians believe that the death of Christ atoned for their sins. The substitutionary model of atonement is centered on the themes of sacrifice, propitiation, and reconciliation. It maintains that Christ suffered on behalf of the sinners and died to relieve God’s wrath against human transgressions. God is holy and just and hates sin; thus, through Jesus’ death, He achieves justice. Although there are other theological perspectives on atonement, such as the moral influence of governmental and ransom philosophies, the substitutionary concept is more relevant to Christianity.
It is also highlighted throughout the scriptures, shaping the understanding of humanity’s salvation and reconciliation with their maker. Through substitutionary philosophy, Christians believe they are free from sin and evil because Jesus paid the price for their transgressions. In addition, the belief in this atonement theory encourages Christians to trust that through their faith in Christ, they are regarded as righteous in the eyes of God.
Bibliography
Allen, David L. The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2016.
Botner, Max, Justin Harrison Duff, and Simon Dürr, eds. Atonement: Jewish and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2020.
Craig, William Lane. Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.
Erickson, Millard J., and Hustad L. Arnold, ed. Introducing Christian Doctrine. Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2015.
Gathercole, Simon, Robert B. Stewart, and N. T. Wright. What Did the Cross Accomplish? A Conversation about the Atonement. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020.
Grudem, Wayne A., and Purswell, Jeff. Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1999.
Mackintosh, Robert. Historic Theories of Atonement. Sacramento, CA: Creative Media Partners, LLC. 2022.
Morrison, Steven D. “7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized.” SDMorrison. Web.
Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Woodstock, Ont: Devoted Publishing, 2017.