What Is the Atonement?

One of the most widespread symbols of Christianity is the cross. At first blush, this might seem rather strange if you know anything about Roman history. In ancient Rome, the cross represented crucifixion—a horrible, excruciating, humiliating form of execution for criminals. And yet the earliest Christians, taking their cue from the New Testament (Gal. 6:14; 1 Cor. 1:17–31), embraced this symbol. The reason is readily apparent: it represents Christ’s death on the cross, which is at the heart of the gospel message. In summarizing the gospel message, Paul succinctly captures why Christ’s death is so vital to the faith: “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3 ESV).

We call this the atonement. This doctrine refers to Christ’s work of resolving the central problem of humanity’s sin and its dreadful effects. Christians have differed over the centuries in how to understand the precise nature of Christ’s atoning work. Various atonement theories have therefore been proposed, each focusing on different objects of Christ’s atoning work.

Atonement Theories

Certain theories have focused on the forces of evil as the object of the atonement. In some way, the atonement defeats the forces of evil that enslave or oppress sinful human beings. One ancient example is the ransom theory. This view assumes that Satan owned all fallen human beings. If we were to be freed from his clutches, a ransom price must be paid—and Christ’s death was the ransom price Satan demanded. Christ provided that ransom and freed us, but neither death nor Satan could hold Him and Satan was thus defeated. Another theory, recapitulation, maintained that Christ defeated the oppressive power of sin and death bequeathed to us from Adam. He did this by reversing the curse of sin and death in His perfect incarnation, life, death, and resurrection, thereby becoming the Second Adam who creates a new, redeemed humanity in Himself. The Christus victor theory, broader than the first two, simply affirms that Christ’s death on the cross constituted His victory over sin, Satan, and death.

A second group of atonement theories focuses on the effect of the atonement on human beings. According to these, the atonement in some sense changes our perception of God and sin so that we can be reconciled with Him. The moral influence theory, for example, sees Christ’s death on the cross as a powerful demonstration of God’s love toward us, a love that prompts us to love God in return. Similarly, the example theory sees Christ as the quintessential example of a godly man, a man thoroughly committed to obeying God, even at the expense of His own life. His example inspires us to follow the same path of committed obedience to the Lord and to receive forgiveness from Him. A more complex view is the moral government theory. It conceives of God as the ruler of the universe. As a ruler He has the power to relax His law and pardon us from the punishment our sin deserves. But if He simply cancels all punishment, sin will flourish unchecked in His universe. Christ’s death therefore provides a deterrent, a powerful display of God’s just punishment against lawbreakers. Sinners who wisely heed the cross’s warning will turn from their sin to God for pardon; those who don’t will face judgment.

“The cross saves because Christ was raised.”

A third set of atonement theories is directed toward God Himself. These maintain that our sin is an affront to God’s character, and that affront must be satisfied. The satisfaction theory insists that God’s dignity and honor have been insulted by our sin. That insult must be satisfied with a suitable compensation. Since God’s majestic dignity is infinite, the compensation must be similarly infinite; yet because it is our sin, the compensation must be fulfilled by a man. Only Jesus Christ, who is both infinite God and fully human, can meet that satisfaction by His death on the cross on our behalf. The penal-substitutionary theory is similar, but it refines the satisfaction theory in an important way. It is God’s holy justice that must be satisfied, and if it is to be satisfied, then sin’s penalty must be paid. In love, however, God sent His Son to die on the cross to atone for our sins. As man Christ takes our place on the cross (substitution), and as God He fully satisfies the just penalty (penal) for our sins so we don’t have to face it ourselves. By faith our sins are thereby paid in full and we are reconciled to God.

The Reality of the Atonement

Which theory is correct? In truth, the Bible’s teaching on the atonement is rich and complex, encompassing many elements of theories mentioned earlier. Yet our fundamental problem as sinners is our alienation from the living God due to our sin. This is why most Protestant evangelicals rightly start with penal-substitution as central to the atonement. Here’s why. Scripture stresses that Christ’s death on the cross was a sacrifice (Isa. 53; Heb. 9–10) whereby He bore sin’s penalty (Gal. 3:10–14; Col. 2:13–15). In particular, as a substitutionary sacrifice, He took our sins upon Himself (Isa. 53:6; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24). In doing so, God’s righteous wrath— that we deserved—was fully satisfied and turned away from believers; this is called propitiation (Rom. 3:21–26; Heb. 2:17). Consequently, believers are completely forgiven of their sins (Eph. 1:7; Col. 2:13–14). What’s more, they are reconciled to God, moving them from enemies to beloved children (Col. 1:21–22; Rom. 5:6–11; 2 Cor. 5:18–21).

“The New Testament makes clear that the cross cannot be isolated from Christ’s resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3–4).”

Beyond dealing with our fundamental problem with God, the cross also defeats the forces of evil and, of course, affects human beings. Although God owes Satan nothing, Christ’s death was a ransom in the sense that it cost God dearly to free us from sin (Matt. 20:28; Eph. 1:7; 1 Cor. 6:20; Rom. 6). In addition, the cross’s apparent defeat in fact marked a great victory over Satan and his minions (1 John 3:8; Col. 2:15; cf. Gen. 3:15). Moreover, sin and death itself were defeated in the death and resurrection of the second Adam, who represents redeemed humanity (Rom. 5–6). Further, the cross provides an example for believers to follow Jesus faithfully even if it means suffering (1 Peter 2:21).

Debates Around the Atonement

The Bible’s rich and complex picture of Christ’s atoning work helps explain not only why Christians have put so much emphasis on it, but also why they have debated its meaning in the various atonement theories. Christians have also debated two other matters related to the cross. The first of these is the extent (or intent) of the atonement. That is, did Christ die only for the ones He has chosen for salvation throughout time (the elect), or did He die to make the atonement available to every human being? Those who hold to limited atonement (or particular redemption) maintain the former, that Christ died for the elect only—and actually secured their redemption. Those who hold to unlimited atonement affirm the latter, that Christ’s work on the cross made salvation universally available for anyone who will accept it. This debate is part of the larger debate between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Second, Christians also debate the descent into hell. That is, did Christ literally descend into hell between His death and resurrection? This doctrine is included in later editions of the Apostles’ Creed, and advocates appeal to texts like Ephesians 4:9–10 and 1 Peter 3:19–20 to support the view. But interpretation of these texts is highly disputed. Other Christians deny the descent into hell because no biblical text clearly supports it and because Jesus promised the thief on the cross in Luke 23:43 (ESV) that “today” He would join Jesus in “Paradise” (i.e., heaven).

When thinking about Christ’s atoning work on the cross, we must remember one final point. The New Testament makes clear that the cross cannot be isolated from Christ’s resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3–4). The cross saves because Christ was raised (1 Cor. 15:12–19; Rom. 4:23–25). We therefore need to consider the resurrection more closely.