This essay is free for distribution in any manner, with the
provision that it remains completely intact, with this notice,
the author's name and the full text of the essay.  Any
comments are gratefully welcomed.  Copyright 1997.


INTRODUCTION

The word 'atonement' is of Anglo-Saxon origin and 
means "a making at one" (Morris, 1980, p. 147).  It 
points to a process of bringing those who are estranged 
into a unity.  Its theological use is to denote the work 
of Christ in dealing with the problem that has been posed 
by the sin of man, and bringing sinners into a right 
relationship with God.

Sin is serious and man is unable to deal with it (I 
Kings 8:46; Psalm 14:3; Mark 10:18; Romans 3:23).  Sin 
separates  from God (Isaiah 59:2; Proverbs 15:29; 
Colossians 1:21; Hebrews 10:27).  Man cannot keep it 
hidden (Numbers 32:23).  The most importance evidence of 
this is the very fact of the atonement.  Morris (1980, p. 
147) writes, "If the Son of God came to earth to save 
men, then men were sinners and their plight serious 
indeed."

However, although the meaning and effects of the 
atonement are known, throughout Church history many 
theories have arisen as to the precise nature of how the 
atonement was performed, the work and nature of the 
Godhead, and man's response.

Morris (1994, p. 12) believes that essentially 
three categories of theories exist - emphasising the 
bearing of penalty, outpouring of love and victory, 
respectively.  He states, "These are not mutually 
exclusive, though some have held that the truth is 
contained in one of them."  Indeed, the thrust of Morris 
(1994) is to demonstrate how various theories have 
responded to the needs and climate of the time, while 
developing his own understanding of the atonement 
relevant for current society and culture.


THE RANSOM THEORY

The notion that it was the devil who made the cross 
necessary was widespread in the early Church (Stott, 
1989, p. 113).

Origen of the Alexandrian School, however, 
introduced a new idea, namely that Satan was deceived in 
the transaction.  Berkhof (1975, p. 166) writes

Christ offered Himself as a ransom to Satan, and Satan 
accepted the ransom without realising that he would 
not be able to retain his hold on Christ because of 
the latter's divine power and holiness. . . Thus the 
souls of all men - even of those in hades - were set 
free from the power of Satan.

Gregory of Nyssa repeated this idea, and justified 
the deceit on two grounds - namely that the deceiver 
received his "due" when deceived in turn, and that Satan 
benefits by it in the end anyway, as it results in his 
own salvation (Bromiley, 1978, p. 143).  In his Great 
Catechism he used the vivid imagery of a fish hook

as with ravenous fish, the hook of the Deity might be 
gulped down along with the bait of flesh, and thus, 
life being introduced into the house of death, . . . 
[the devil] might vanish" (Stott, 1989, p. 113).

Augustine later used an image of a mousetrap, as 
did Peter Lombard "baited with the blood of Christ".  R. 
W. Dale labelled these "intolerable, monstrous and 
profane" (Stott, 1989, p. 113-4).

The idea of a ransom paid to Satan was repudiated 
with scorn and indignation by Gregory of Nazianzus 
(Berkhof, 1975, p. 167) as well as the idea that God 
requires a ransom.

Jesus and the apostles certainly did speak of the 
cross as the means of the devil's overthrow but Stott 
(1989, p. 113) finds flaws.  Firstly, the devil has been 
credited with more power than he has.  Although a robber 
and a rebel, the view implies he had acquired certain 
'rights' over man which even God was bound to.  Secondly, 
the cross was seen as a divine transaction - the ransom-
price demanded by the devil for the release of his 
captives.  Thirdly, the concept of God performing a 
deception is not at all harmonious with the revelation of 
God given in Scriptures.


ANSELM OF CANTERBURY AND THE SATISFACTION THEORY

Athanasius and Ambrose both referred to Christ as 
having borne that which one themself deserves to bear, 
but "the emergence of the view as a full-fledged theory 
of the way atonement works is usually traced to Anselm, 
the great eleventh-century Archbishop of Canterbury" in 
his work Cur Deus Homo (Morris, 1994, p. 12-4).

Instead of God owing to the devil, Anselm's thrust 
was that man owed something to God. Anselm saw sin as an 
not rendering to God what is His due, namely the 
submission of one's entire will to His.  Hence, to sin is 
to dishonour Him.  To imagine that God could simply 
forgive us in the same we forgive others, is to have not 
considered the seriousness of sin.

Anselm continues, "nothing is less tolerable. . .  
than that the creature should take away from the Creator 
the honour due to Him, and not repay what he takes away".  
He thus sees that the sinner must repay God, but moreso 
it is impossible for God to overlook this, for He 
"upholds nothing more justly than he doth the honour of 
his own dignity" (Morris, 1994, p. 14).

However, man is incapable of ever repaying that 
which is owed.  Present obedience and good works can not 
make satisfaction either, for these are required anyway.

However, Anselm explains that there is a possible 
solution to the human dilemma.  No-one can make the 
satisfaction but God Himself, but no-one ought to do it 
but man.  Hence, it is necessary, he said, that a God-man 
should make satisfaction.  For this reason, Christ became 
man - to die.  Not as a debt, as He was sinless, but 
freely for the honour of God.  Hence, by his voluntary 
self-offering, the death of the God-man Christ has made 
due reparation to the offended honour of God.

Bromiley (1978, p. 179) believes that Anselm 
suffers from a speculative imagination and that his logic 
does not always bear the weight placed on it - or states 
simply a predetermined position, and is not the fruit of 
engaging in an exercise of pure thought.

Stott (1989, p. 119) commends Anselm's clear 
perception of the gravity of sin as a wilful rebellion 
against God, the unchanging holiness of God, and the 
unique perfections of Christ.  However, when God is 
portrayed in terms reminiscent of a feudal overlord 
(Anselm having written in a feudal society) who demands 
honour and punishes dishonour one must question whether 
this picture adequately expresses the specific honour 
which is due to God alone.  Indeed, Stott (1989, p. 120) 
continues by stating

We must certainly remain dissatisfied whenever the 
atonement is presented as a necessary satisfaction of 
God's 'law' or of God's 'honour' in so far as these 
are objectified as existing in some way apart from 
Him.


PETER ABELARD AND THE MORAL-INFLUENCE THEORY

Born in 1097, Peter Abelard of Brittany advanced a 
theory where he insisted that it is the love of God which 
avails (Bromiley, 1978, p. 187).  More specifically,

To the showing of his justice - that is, his love - 
which, as has been said, justifies us in his sight.  
In other words, to show forth his love to us, or to 
convince us how much we ought to love him who spared 
not even his own Son for us. . . Now it seems to us 
that we have been justified by the blood of Christ and 
reconciled to God in this way: through this unique act 
of grace manifested to us. . . he has more fully bound 
us to himself by love; with the result that our hearts 
should be enkindled by such a gift of divine grace, 
and true charity should not now shrink from enduring 
anything for him (Morris, 1994, p. 19).

Abelard does not specifically say that the cross 
does no more than show God's love but often his theory 
has been expanded in that way.  Nevertheless, his view 
has no objective effect - it does not pay a penalty or 
win a victory other than symbolically.  Rather, the death 
of Christ shows us the greatness of God's love and moves 
us to love in return, and by extension, our fellow man.  
The atonement avails in the effect it has on us, not in 
anything that has been accomplished outside of us.

Bromiley (1978, p. 187-8) finds this explanation 
lacking.  Does not sin against God entail guilt before 
Him?  Can God's justice be met simply by a rekindling of 
love in the sinner?  Can the righteousness and love of 
God really be equated in this way?  Pecota (1994, p. 338) 
adds that Abelard fails to take fully into account God's 
holiness as well as Biblical statements to the effect 
that Christ's death accomplished a work of propitiation 
(such as Romans 3:25-26).  Morris (1994, p. 21) sees that 
any view of the cross which does not attribute an 
accomplishment to the cross to be lacking.  In Abelard's 
case, why should Jesus have died at all?  Man needed an 
act of revelation, but not an act of atonement.


THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY

The governmental theory was conceived by Hugo 
Grotius, a 17th century Dutch jurist, statesman and 
theologian.  He viewed God as a lawgiver who both enacted 
and sustained law in the universe.  In fact, law is the 
result of God's will, and He is free to alter or abrogate 
it (Pecota, 1994, p. 341).

As God's law states "the soul that sins shall die" 
strict justice requires the eternal death of sinners.  
Simply forgiving could not uphold the law.  The death of 
Christ, then, was a public example of the depth of sin 
and the lengths to which God would go to uphold the moral 
order of the universe.  The effects of His death do not 
directly bear on us as Christ did not die in our place, 
but rather on our behalf.  The focus was not saving 
sinners but upholding the law.

This view fails to recognise the substitutionary 
motif in Christ's death as revealed in Matthew 20:28, 
26:28; John 10:14-15; II Corinthians 5:21 and Ephesians 
5:25.  Further, Pecota (1994, p. 341) states the "theory 
fails to explain the reason for choosing a sinless person 
to demonstrate God's desire to uphold the law.  Why not 
put to death the worst of all sinners?  Why Christ and 
not Barabbas?".  Finally, this theory does not take into 
account the depravity of mankind - like Abelard, Grotius 
assumes a mere example will be sufficient to enable man 
to perform a law-abiding way of living.


THE PENAL-SUBSTITUTION THEORY

A modern evangelical view is the penal-substitution 
theory which states that Christ bore in our place the 
full penalty of sin that was due to mankind.  He suffered 
in man's place and His death was vicarious, totally for 
others (Pecota, 1994, p. 342).

This view takes seriously the Scriptural depictions 
of God's holiness and righteousness, finding expression 
in His judicial wrath.  It takes seriously the Biblical 
description of man's depravity and inability to save 
oneself.  It takes literally the statements that Christ 
died in man's place (Exodus 13:1-16; Leviticus 16:20-22; 
Isaiah 53:4-12; Mark 10:45; John 3:17; Galatians 3:13 
among others).


CONCLUSION

A brief number of theories of the atonement have 
been given.  There are many more, such as that of Gustav 
Aulen from this century (although Pecota (1994, p. 339) 
sees it as a modified ransom theory), but no doubt these 
will not be the last.

Many of the theories of the atonement that have 
been developed contain serious flaws - for example, to 
attribute fraudulent behaviour to God is unworthy of Him.  
However, what is of permanent value in these theories is 
that they took seriously the reality and power of the 
devil and that they proclaimed his decisive defeat at the 
cross for our liberation (Stott, 1989, p. 114).

With reference to his three categorisations of 
atonement theories, Morris (1994, p. 114-5) concludes by 
stating

Each of the theories has made a particular appeal to 
people in a particular age. . . Our theories are of 
value in that they draw attention to particular 
aspects of Christ's saving work.

. . . Each of them draws attention to something that 
is true, and not only true but valuable.  We need the 
insight that the atonement is a victory over evil, we 
need the insight that it is the payment of our 
penalty, and we need the insight that it is the 
outpouring of love that inspires us to love in return.  
The atonement is all of these we neglect any of them 
to our impoverishment.


WORKS CITED

Badham, D. nd. Man and Sin, Rhema Bible College, 
Townsville.

Badham, D. nd. Soteriology, Rhema Bible College, 
Townsville.

Berkhof, L. 1975. The History of Christian Doctrines, 
Baker Book House, Michigan.

Bromiley, G. W. 1978. Historical Theology, T&T Clark, 
Edinburgh.

Cartledge, D. nd. Nature of Man, Rhema Bible College, 
Townsville.

Morris, L. 1980. 'Atonement', in The Illustrated Bible 
Dictionary, ed. F. F. Bruce, Inter-Varsity Press.

________. 1994. The Cross of Jesus, The Paternoster 
Press, Carlisle, U.K..

Pecota, D. 1994. 'The Saving Work of Christ', in 
Systematic Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective, ed. 
S. M. Horton, Logion Press, Springfield, Missouri.

Stott, J. R. W. 1989. The Cross of Christ, 2d. ed., 
Inter-Varsity Press.

Wright, D. F. 1968. In Understanding be Men, 6th. ed, 
Inter-Varsity Press.

davidmwilliams@oocities.com