Introduction
If you have done any sort of reading about Christian Theology, you will know that thoughts about the atonement are complicated, and the arguments often turn heated. What this article aims to do is not delve into the minutia of every atonement theory, nor even to dogmatically argue for what we believe in (of course, we do believe what we write here, but anyone is free to disagree). Instead, the aim of this article is to give a brief overview of some aspects of the atonement, to build the reader a foundation from which they can go on to learn more, even if this may lead to the reader eventually partially or wholly disagreeing what is written here.
With those cautions out of the way however, allow me to speculate. Most people have from popular culture at least some understanding of what the atonement is, and usually this is the very moralistic one. This is a shallow understanding where the formula essentially is:
Man do bad. God angry. God sacrifice himself. Now God no longer angry.
As we shall see, there is more to it than this. The atonement is, in fact, a baller story.
What does atonement mean?
Atonement is the process by which the relationship between God and the world is healed. I will assume for the purposes of this article that the reader has a basic understanding of sin.
The Beginning: St. Irenaeus
The first lengthy theological outlining of the atonement comes from St. Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), in his polemical tract Against Heresies. Irenaeus calls his view of the atonement ‘Recapitulation’, meaning to ‘summarize’ or ‘repeat’. At its core this view is about Christ by his incarnate work succeeding where Adam (and Israel) failed. He restores human nature to immortality through his incarnate work, reversing the effects of the fall. This is his answer on why Christ came down from heaven:
“That he might destroy sin, overcome death, and give life to man.”
The work of Christ is therefore first and foremost a victory over the powers that hold us hostage; sin, death, and the devil. In what sense do they hold us hostage? In that they all separate us from God. This victory of Christ over the powers of evil is the central idea in his recapitulation atonement, but it does not end at the death of Christ, but is continued by the Holy Spirit via the Church, until he comes again.
So if Irenaeus’ view of the atonement has more to do with victory, restoration, and immortality, does he still talk about the “classic” Christian belief that Jesus Christ saved us from sin? Yes, but we cannot separate sin and death, in Irenaeus’ mind. Rather death and sin are so connected that one cannot come without the other. Irenaeus is very opposed to a moralistic view of sin (meaning that it is simply a matter of individual acts of evil by a person).
Instead, sin is something that has complete control of a man. In one aspect its a power from which we cannot set ourselves free, that we cannot help but sin and die, what we would call original sin. In another way however it is still willful acts of disobedience, which makes us debtors in relation to God. However, it is not just that death is the reward of sin in a strictly judicial sense, rather disobedience and disfellowship with God is essentially death, and in contrast, fellowship with God is life and light. So then, when we are saved from death we are also saved from sin, and vice versa. Sin therefore is a state of alienation from God.
Further, Irenaeus does not only speak of sin as a state mankind is in, but rather liberally switches between speaking of it in its literal sense, and personifying it in the devil. This does not mean that he thinks there is no difference, that sin and death are things in themselves, or that the devil isn’t an actual entity. Rather he posits that the devil sums up in himself the power of evil, as he is the one who leads mankind into sin and death.
So this rather lengthy exposition about what Irenaeus believes we are saved from finally brings us to the meat of the matter: how is the atonement accomplished. As we shall see, Irenaeus focuses on the entire life of Christ, not emphasizing any part exclusively. What is unique in Irenaeus however, is his de-emphasis on the death of Christ. We are so used to Christ’s death being the highlight of the atoning work that this might seem strange. This does not mean that the death is unimportant to Irenaeus, however, as we’ll see further on. Especially as it leads into the resurrection.
In what way is the entire life of Christ atoning? We touched on this earlier, but essentially it is this: by his obedience throughout his life Christ annulled and recapitulated the disobedience of Adam and Israel. Even his preaching is there to win over the devil, as it is by that (and him) that we come to know the Father. So it is that his entire life is a victory in the conflict with the devil, but his death becomes the final triumph. He can say that by his death Christ “redeemed us with his blood”, but he especially likes the imagery of a ransom paid to the powers of evil. When this has been done, by Christ’s death, atonement has taken place. A new relation between God and the world is established since God now has delivered mankind, and reconciled the world with himself. God is thus both the one being reconciled, and the one doing the reconciling. God in Christ does the work, and is satisfied, and can forgive the enmity he held to man because of sin.
The resurrection of Christ then is primarily a manifestation of the decisive victory over all the powers of evil which Christ wrought through his entire life and on the cross. It is also the starting point for the next part of history, the giving of the Spirit, by which the work of God will continue via the Church, to recapture and renew creation.
More Patristic takes on the Atonement
This classic view of the atonement finds its place among many, if not most, if not all, of the early Church Fathers, with slight variations in their wording and emphasis. There are a couple of exceptions (such as Tertullian and Cyprian), but largely this is a correct statement. Even Augustine, who we otherwise think of as a prelude to every great western doctrine, agrees more with Irenaeus than with Anselm.
The greatest work on this in the patristic period is, of course, Athanasius. Athanasius continues Irenaeus’ line of thinking by expounding in further detail about the death of Christ, arguing that through the transgression sin has subjected men to the law of death. God could not go back on his word, and so there had to be death, but Christ comes and through him all can die and thus pay the price. Again though it is important to note that the entire emphasis cannot be put on Christ’s death, but his entire life being there to restore humanity to the Imago Dei. It is also important that we remember that sin and death (and to some extent the devil) are all synonymous in the thought of many Fathers. This is why God could not just restore everything willy-nilly. If sin and death are synonymous, there is no way to sin without dying, so there is no way to sin without being corrupted, so there is no way to sin without drawing upon humanity original sin.
Another great reason that these later Fathers posit for the incarnation of God is not just redemptive, it does not just have to do with reversing the effects of the fall, but it accomplishes so much more. Even though guilt rests upon all mankind, God does not cease his love for us. “His love could not be more clearly revealed than by the coming of His Son into fellowship with us, to take upon Himself our sufferings and the evil which rests upon us.”, as Gustav Aulén summarizes Augustine’s view. The incarnation thus has its cause in God’s love. That is the reason why God saves us from death, but it is also a reason in itself. It is natural, all cultures believe, that man should seek God, but in this great drama God seeks man. So then, God’s glory is not as proved by the beauty of the world, the vastness of space, the spectacular nature of the planets, stars, and supernovas, as it is proved by his coming into weakness and manhood for our sake.
The classic view of the atonement also strongly emphasizes the double aspect of the atonement, that God is both the one being reconciled and the one doing the reconciling. The Devil and death were God’s instruments for the punishment for sin. This makes God both the one to whom justice is satisfied (and so there is no longer a warrant for death and the devil to have hold over people) and the one satisfying the justice. Deliverance from the devil, therefore, is also deliverance from God’s judgment. The same is true for death, God paid the debt of death for all and thus satisfying death. Athanasius, who is the primary figure known for laying out the theology of Christ paying the law of debt, also speaks of paying the divine honor. “The alternation of the phrase means it was the judgment of God’s righteousness that subjected men to death.”
New Testament Themes
Let us quickly touch on the New Testament themes of the atonement. We limit ourselves to “themes” here, since we cannot go into an in-depth look, since that will unavoidably devolve into one or more of the atonement theories we take up in the rest of the article. Instead we will simply look at what seems important to the authors.
Let us star with St. Paul. A good first note is that he is usually taken to be an undisputed proponent of the Anselmian approach to the atonement, but we will disregard this for now, as this is just a general overview. We note that he echoes the themes of the Church Fathers (or rather, they echo him) that humanity is enslaved to certain powers of evil. There are differences worthy of note, however. He speaks considerably less of the devil than most Fathers, and significantly more of the law than any of them. The triumph of Christ is the dethroning of Law, and the deliverance of man from bondage to it.
There is a similar theme as in the Fathers of the close connection of sin with death. Where sin reigns, there reigns death also, and to be delivered from sin is to be delivered from death (and vice versa). Just as in the Fathers sin and death were powers opposed to God and at the same time Gods good punishment for transgression, so also the Law is in a sense a hostile power. It is holy and righteous, but at the same time sin seizes an opportunity through the Law and leads us to death (Romans 7:11). The good and holy Law of God is a curse, because it promises what we can never by it attain.
The reason this aspect of the atonement, that the Law itself was defeated, is not so prominent in the Fathers as it is in Paul is likely due to an overreaction against the extreme antinomianism and antimoralism of the arch-heretic Marcion.
We do not have a dichotomy in Paul however, of course he still considers the death of Christ as a victory over sin, death, and the devil. It is worth noting that these are the same themes that continue on into the patristic era, and are thus most definitely an apostolic practice, only that Paul focuses on the Law to a different degree than the Fathers.
There is also the same talk of ransom, not just in Paul but in the New Testament in general, as there is in the Fathers. We do not want to espouse to much theology in this section, but it is worth noting that it is not portrayed as paying anything to the devil, but rather paying so that we can be freed from him.
The Middle Ages and the Latin View
This brings us onto the most controversial part of any discussion on the atonement: the medieval developments. First however, we have to note that this view does indeed have some root in earlier patristic history. Namely in the conceptions of satisfaction and merit. Both of which connect to the system of penance that develops over time. The first proponent of a system or penance is Tertullian: “How absurd it is to leave the penance unperformed, and yet expect forgiveness of sins! What is it but to fail to pay the price, and, nevertheless, to stretch out the hand for the benefit? The Lord has ordained that forgiveness is to be granted for this price: He will that the remission of the penalty is to be purchased for the payment which penance makes.” (De Paenitentia, 6). I will not go into why this is the most impious and idiotic statement of any church father in this article. If these are acts that can in a sense pay for the remission of sins via penance, it follows that performing them apart from penance can earn you further merit, over and above that which is needed for the remission of your sins.
Cyprian then further develops this idea, with the addition of the idea that this superfluous merit can be transferred from one person to another. This is the basics for the Latin idea of the atonement, and Cyprian begins the idea that what Christ did was earn such an overflow of merit that it can pay for the sins of so many souls. This merit is paid to God as compensation for all the wrongs committed. The idea of penance is therefore deeply connected to Anselm’s later idea of atonement, the root idea being that man must make an offering or payment to satisfy God’s justice.
This claim is of course not wholly unique to the idea of penance, as we have seen that for Athanasius, Christ’s death is sufficient to pay for all our debts of death. However this is still fundamentally different, as in Athanasius God takes the initiative to get us a way out, since we are united to his death. God is the one whose justice is being satisfied (or rather, he finds a way by which we can get around it through Christ’s death), and the one doing the satisfaction. In the Latin view however Christ as man makes satisfaction for sins, not by union to his death, but by his manhood paying a price. This is a thin distinction, as of course what for Anselm allowed Christ to earn such an overflow of merit was his divinity, but the core difference is that in the classic view the God comes to man, but in the Latin man comes to God. It is no longer about God conquering evil, but about God merely paying a price as man to himself.
