On Atonement Theories

There’s no shortage of theories about the atonement. There’s penal substitution, satisfaction, ransom, Christus Victor, moral influence, and no doubt many others. Of course, this abundance of theories is not surprising. The atonement is arguably the most important phenomenon in human history. Humanity’s great problem is that we are alienated from God. The atonement is God’s solution. The atonement is the means by which we become at one with God (literally “at-one-ment”). The Venerable Bede esteemed Christ’s atoning work so essential to human history that he decided to date everything else based on it, and no one really objected. As a result, the atonement actually sits at the center of human history.

In light of this, it makes sense that we would theorize about the atonement. And such theorizing is bound to yield numerous theories. But my question is this. Do we have to choose? Do we have to pick just one theory, or can we accept some or all of them?

There are two extremes I think we need to avoid. On the one hand, we don’t want to unintentionally limit God’s work by restricting it to one theory. But on the other hand, we also don’t want to do eliminate the actual objective reality of the atonement by compromising to accept every possible theory.

Don’t limit the atonement.

I think it’s foolhardy to try to reduce God’s redemptive work to one theory. Every time I choose one theory exclusively, I examine another theory and feel like the first theory is missing something. I suspect this is unavoidable. The atonement is a multifaceted reality. There are so many different ways to look at it, and any one individual perspective will inevitably miss some aspect of the atonement.

For instance, penal substitution approaches the atonement from a legal perspective. This emphasizes our guilt and God’s justice, as well as his simultaneous wrath and love. But I feel like it misses so much. There are countless images in the Bible that penal substitution cannot single-handedly account for. Penal substitution covers satisfaction, justification, and substitution. But what about redemption, deliverance, ransom, reconciliation, sanctification, adoption, participation, and deification? These are all biblical ideas that penal substitution doesn’t do a great job of explaining. Penal substitution is certainly consistent with these ideas, but it still might neglect them.

This is why I think it’s dangerous to choose just one atonement theory. In fact, I don’t think “theory” is necessarily the right word. I prefer to think of them as “models.” A theory aims to comprehensively explain something, and no single atonement theory can sufficiently explain the complex reality of the atonement. But a model has a much more humble and feasible aim. Models simply serve as a framework for understanding something. Different models can focus on different aspects of the atonement. One model might understand sin as a crime that requires justification. Another might interpret sin as sickness that cries for healing. Still another might think of sin as type of captivity that longs for deliverance. None of these is wrong, but together they get much closer to the complete picture than any individual model ever could.

Don’t water down the substance.

There is a danger here, though. While multiple perspectives about the atonement can be right, there’s still only one objective reality. The hope is that each perspective contributes to a more thorough understanding of and appreciation for the objective substance of the atonement. But the reverse can also happen. It’s also possible for a model to bring its own substance to the table, which will necessarily require that some of the real substance gets removed to make room for the new substance. If every model brings its own substance to the table, the actual reality of the atonement will inevitably be crowded out and lost completely.

Some models are better than others.

By no means am I suggesting that some models aren’t garbage. As I said before, there is only one objective reality. Each model can do a better or worse job of capturing that reality. Personally, I think penal substitution offers the most helpful framework for understanding what Christ accomplished in his incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. I think it cuts to the heart of the atonement. Other models can help highlight different components of the atonement, but I think that penal substitution most effectively communicates the objective reality of the suffering servant who “was pierced for our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5). Nevertheless, I do not think that penal substitution is sufficient on its own; we can still benefit from other models.