Theories of Atonement: Why did Christ die?

What problem did His death solve? Was it God’s anger or the demands of Justice, or did sin give Satan ownership of this world?

If Jesus did not die, we could not be saved. On that, we agree. However, different Theories of the Atonement are different explanations of HOW His death atoned for the sins of God’s people. 

Reconciled God to His Creatures.

Some say that God was reconciled to His creatures, as if Christ’s death changed God. However, Paul always wrote that people are reconciled to God, never the other way around. In other words, Christ’s death did not change the Father’s attitude towards people; man changed. [Show More]

Pacified God’s wrath.

One horrible distortion of the gospel is that God was angry and that Christ died to pacify His anger. Firstly, it is not God who was hostile to man. Man is hostile to Him. [Show More]

Secondly, the Father is not angry with His enemies. Instead, God took the initiative to save man (Col 1:22). Christ was the Means of reconciliation, but the Father redeemed us. [Show More]

To say that sin made God angry and that He was eager to punish us, but that Christ took our punishment and pacified God, is a blatant contradiction of the Bible.

Restored Justice.

In Reformed circles, one often hears that sin perverts justice, insults God’s honor and that God’s righteousness or justice demands that someone had to suffer. Therefore, Jesus died to restore Justice. He suffered what we deserve so that we receive what He deserves. 

This is more acceptable than saying that God was angry. However, how can it be justice to torture an innocent Person for the sins of other people? [Show More]

Christ’s Righteousness Imputed

Another theory is that Jesus lived sinless and that His righteousness is imputed to sinners. This is more acceptable than the previous versions because it does not assume that God is angry but focuses on the wonderful message that Jesus remained without sin even when subjected to the greatest possible temptation and torture. 

However, while this theory interprets the word “justified” literally, it is only one of several Metaphors for Salvation, and we should not interpret it literally or emphasize it over other such metaphors. (Read Article[Show More]

Triumph Over Evil

A very different explanation is that sin gave Satan ownership of this world. Humanity became his captive. However, Christ’s death triumphed over the evil spiritual forces, “disarmed” Satan (Col 2:15), rendered them “powerless” (Heb 2:14), and threw them “down to the earth” (Rev 12:9). 

This was the view held by the church until Anselm in the 11th century. This website supports a variation of this theory, as discussed in the articles listed below. 

Moral Influence

The moral influence theory suggests that believers are moved to repent and reunite with God when they see God’s love expressed through Jesus’ life and death. This is undoubtedly true but does not explain why Jesus had to die.


The English term atonement did not mean to propitiate God’s wrath.

Summary

When the word “atonement” was put in the King James translation, it did not mean what it means today.

Today, it means the process whereby Christ made amends to propitiate the Father’s wrath.

But, a few centuries ago, it meant to be reconciled, at one, or ‘at-one-ment.’

It was the forensic doctrine of salvation, that presented God as angry and the death of Christ as a sacrifice to pacify God, that slowly changed the meaning of “atonement” over the centuries.

But Christ did not die as a sacrifice to pacify God. The blood of the Cross did not change how the Father feels about sinners. Instead, because He loves us, God sent His only Son to be “the Lamb of God.”

Introduction

Making amendsCommonly, in the last few centuries, Atonement has come to mean making amends, paying a penalty to meet legal demands, to propitiate wrath, or to adjust one’s legal standing. To many, Atonement is what Christ did to reconcile the Father unto us and assuage His offended wrath. But that is not the term’s original meaning nor the word’s meaning in the Bible.

Original Meaning

Dictionaries agree that the word Atonement began as a made up of three terms: “at-one‐ment.” It was based on a verb, ‘to one’. Two people are fighting, and you are sent to ‘one’ them. And when you have succeeded, they are in a state of oneness. Atonement is the state of being ‘at one,’ not the process of ‘one-ing’ people. Therefore, it means to be in harmony or unity. That is what Atonement meant when the Bible was first translated into English.

Katallasso

The only place you’ll find the word “atonement” in the King James Version is in Romans 5:10. But, in the Greek, it is the very common word ‘katallasso’. In this word, there’s no hint of making amends. It means ‘reconciliation’. Holman’s Bible dictionary defines this word as follows:

Reconciliation … specifically the reconciliation between God and humanity effected by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. … The basic Greek word is usually translated as “to reconcile.” The basic meaning is to establish friendship.

Therefore, in the NASB, Romans 5:10 reads:

“For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son.”

Why the Meaning Changed

Only one dictionary really gives the word’s history, a multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary. It shows how, for a long time, it was used in its original sense of being at one, reconciling people to harmony, friendship, unity, and so on. However, later on, it was changed to mean ‘making amends, paying the penalty,’ and that’s how it’s commonly used now.

It was the forensic doctrine of salvation that changed the meaning of “atonement” over the centuries. This doctrine teaches that somebody must pay for sins committed. It presents God as angry and the death of Christ as a sacrifice to pacify God. It was because the reformers had this understanding of the purpose of Christ’s death that the meaning of “atonement” has slowly changed over the centuries to “reparation for an offence or injury” (Merriam-Webster).

How we should understand Atonement

Christ did not die as a sacrifice to pacify God. It is not God that had to change. The blood of the Cross did not change how the Father feels about us sinners. The opposite is rather true, namely that the blood of Christ was the means by which the Father reconciled His creatures to Himself (Col 1:20). We must change. It is not God that is angry; it is His creatures who “were enemies” (Rom 5:10) and “hostile in mind” (Col 1:21). In the Bible, God is never reconciled to us; it is always us that must be reconciled to God, through Christ (Col 1:20). God, because He loves us, sent His only Son to be “the Lamb of God” (John 1:29) to bring His people back to Him (John 3:16).

Other Articles

Why Jesus had to die

External Resources:

Other

TABLE OF CONTENTS