Some time ago, I taught a series at Bayside Church called Cross Examined, which explored what the cross signifies, what it achieved, and how it has shaped our daily lives centuries after the event. The cross is at the heart of the Christian faith. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, our faith is meaningless.
Much of the New Testament was written to explain the reasons for the cross, and there is not just one objective behind the cross. The problem arises when we try to oversimplify the cross of Jesus and elevate one truth above others. Oversimplified statements then appear, claiming, “THIS is why Jesus died.”
Because of this tendency, different theories about the cross have emerged. Many hold some truth; some are incomplete, while others are simply incorrect. Let’s review these atonement theories one by one.
Penal Substitution Theory
The first sermon in the Cross-Examined series was titled “Did God Kill Jesus?” The message tackled this atonement theory, which states that God’s justice required Jesus’s death so he could forgive people’s sins. It became popular during the Reformation and went something like this:
God loves you, but He is also angry with you because of your sin. Since God is just, He cannot simply forgive you. His justice must be satisfied. Therefore, because He loves you, He punished His Son instead of you. Jesus’ death on the cross appeased God’s wrath. You no longer need to bear God’s wrath if you believe this. If you reject it, you must face the punishment of God’s anger both now and forever. In summary, God killed Jesus for your benefit.
This theory makes God somehow less than God. God loves you and wants to save you, but he can’t until his justice is satisfied. See the problem? It risks making justice greater than God. Justice is in charge here, and God becomes its servant.
Recapitulation Theory
Greek bishop Irenaeus proposed the Recapitulation theory in the second century. To recapitulate means “to go over the same ground again, to repeat or reiterate.” The theory suggests that Jesus went over the same ground as Adam but did so in perfect obedience. The Recapitulation Theory is grounded in scripture, especially in Paul’s letters (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; Romans 5:13-19).
The problem arises when this concept is pressed too far by saying that Jesus identified in every way with the first Adam, including experiencing sin. The Scriptures are emphatic that Jesus never sinned (1 Peter 2:22), even when experiencing temptation (Hebrews 4:15).
Satisfaction Theory
During the Middle Ages, Anselm, an Italian Benedictine monk and Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109, introduced the Satisfaction Theory of atonement. The theory is based on the feudal system of Anselm’s time. According to the Britannica encyclopedia, “In feudal society, an offender was required to make recompense, or satisfaction, to the one offended according to that person’s status. Thus, a crime against a king would require more satisfaction than a crime against a baron or a serf.” A crime (sin) against the eternal God calls for the ultimate satisfaction of eternal death. However, Jesus fulfilled that requirement on the cross.
The satisfaction theory, a core part of Roman Catholic theology, largely overlooks Jesus’ actual substitution for sinners: his death on their behalf.
Moral Influence Theory
Another medieval theory was put forward by the French philosopher and theologian Peter Abelard in response to Anselm’s satisfaction theory. Abelard rejected the idea of God as offended, harsh, and judgmental, and instead emphasised God’s love. According to Abelard, “Jesus died as the demonstration of God’s love,” a demonstration that can change the hearts and minds of sinners, turning them back to God.
I agree with Abelard that the most crucial reason Jesus died was to demonstrate God’s extravagant love. But I don’t think that’s the only reason for the cross.
Example Theory
The Example Theory was promoted by Faustus Socinus, an Italian theologian, during the 16th-century Reformation. This theory (also known as the Moral or Martyr Theory) claims that the cross was an act of obedience meant to inspire people to regret their sins and emulate Christ. The theory is popular among universalists, who often have to perform theological gymnastics to interpret much of the New Testament in support of this idea.
Governmental Theory
Dutch lawyer and philosopher Hugo Grotius popularised this view in the 16th century in response to Socinus’s example theory. Grotius taught “that Christ upheld the principle of Government in God’s law by making a token payment for sin through His death.”
The Governmental Theory holds that Christ’s suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve. Still, it did not consist of Christ receiving the exact punishment due to sinful people. The cross allows God to forgive sin. And this is problematic because any theory of atonement that makes God subservient to something else – his wrath or justice – should be rejected.
God is no longer sovereign if he can’t forgive people without the cross. His wrath or justice becomes supreme.
Ransom to Satan Theory
First proposed by Origen in the early third century, this view suggests that people are captive to Satan, like prisoners of war (cf. 1 John 5:19). Origen believed that at the cross, a ransom was paid, not to God, but to Satan, based on verses like Matthew 20:28, “just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Cf. 1 Tim 2:6; Heb. 9:15).
