The Latin type of the atonement understands the death of Christ legalistically. This legalistic misunderstanding of the death of Christ has its origin in the penitential system which was introduced into Christian theology by Tertullian (160?-230? A.D.). He had introduced the whole legalistic scheme of salvation with its idea of merit in reference to penance or repentance. God cannot disregard good deeds, he said.
"God, we may be sure, will not sanction the reprobation of good deeds,Although Tertullian teaches that God helps man perform good deeds, [2] in the strictest sense of the word man has to merit salvation. [3]
for they are His. Since He initiates and preserves them,
so also must He needs appove them;
since He approves them, so also must He reward them...
A good deed has God as its debtor and a bad deed, also,
because every judge settles a case on its merits.
Now since God presides as judge in order to exact
and safeguard justice, something so precious in His sight,
and since it is for this
that He establishes every single precept of His moral law,
can it be doubted that, just as in all our actions,
so, too, in the case of repentance justice must be rendered to God?" [1]
"Faith is established in the Rule.Associated with the idea of merit was the idea of satisfaction.
There it has its law and it wins salvation by keeping the law." [4]
"What folly it is, what perversity,Penance is satisfaction, the payment of a temporal penalty to escape eternal loss. It is a compensatory work of satisfaction which propitiates God.
to practice an imperfect penitence and then to expect a pardon for sin!
This is to stretch forth one's hand for merchandise and not pay for the price.
And the price which the Lord has set on the purchase of pardon is this --
He offers impunity to be bought in exchange for penitence.
If, then, merchants first examine a coin,
which they have stipulated as their price,
to see that it be not dipped or plated or counterfeit,
do we not believe that the Lord,
also, pre-examines our penitence,
seeing that He is going to give us so great a reward,
to wit, life everlasting." [5]
"Herein [in some external act] we confess our sin to the Lord,Tertullian did not apply this term to the death of Christ, but after he had introduced the legalistic vocabulary and concepts into Christian theology, the way was prepared for their application to the death of Christ. Cyprian (200/210?-258 A.D.), bishop of Carthage, in the third century was the first Christian writer to interpret Christ's death as a satisfaction. [7] He also began to apply the idea of merit to the work of Christ. Tertullian had already introduced the idea of merit; that is, associated with the performance of that which is commanded, the observance of the law, there was merit. Each man by his good works earns merit which may counterbalance the demerits of his evil or bad deeds. For most men this is all that is necessary. But some exceptional individuals may earn more merit than is necessary to balance the demerits of their evil acts. This overplus of merit may be earned by acts that are supererogatoria, that is, go beyond what is strictly obligatory. Tertullian considered such acts as fasting, voluntary celibacy, martyrdom, etc. as going beyond what was required and thus earning for the doers of them an excess of merit. Cyprian introduced the principle that this superfluous merit may be transferred from one person to another, and he began to apply this principle to the overplus of merit earned by the work of Christ as well as the saints and martyrs. Thus the way was prepared for the Anselmic theory of the atonement and the reformation theory of justification as the imputation of Christ's righteousness or merits earned by His active obedience to the believer's account.
not as though He were ignorant of it,
but because satisfaction receives its proper determination through confession,
confession gives birth to penitence and by penitence God is appeased." [6]
Anselm (1033-1109 A.D.) in the eleventh century A.D. gave classic expression to the satisfaction theory of Christ's death. In his famous work Cur Deus Homo? [Why did God become man?] Anselm interpreted the death of Christ as that by which the obligation of the broken law, the debt man owed, was paid. Anselm defines sin as failing to render to God His due. The law sets forth these obligations.
"He who does not render this honor which is due to God,Anselm argues that man cannot make satisfaction for his own sins. For he already owes God complete obedience, and he has nothing left over to pay God for his sins. [9] Also man cannot make satisfaction for his own sins because sin against an infinite God requires an infinite satisfaction. To the suggestion that human repentance can make satisfaction for sin against an infinite God, Anselm replies with those famous words, "You have not as yet estimated the great burden of sin." [10] So Anselm sees the problem of the atonement.
robs God of his own and dishonors him, and this is sin...
it will not suffice merely to restore what has been taken away,
but considering the contempt offered,
he ought to restore more than he took away." [8]
"For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay;Anselm then proceeds to explain that the one who is to make satisfaction must be born of Adam, since it is Adam's race who has sinned. [16] The Son, through his voluntary death, obtained execss merit, requiring a reward from God.
and man will not do it, because he cannot.
Therefore, in order that the God-man may perform this,
it is necessary that the same being should be perfect God and perfect man,
in order to make this atonement." [15]
"No man except this one ever gave to GodThis gift freely given by the Son deserves a reward from God. But since all things belongs to the Father were his, the Son having need of nothing, the reward can not be directily paid to the Son. Thus the reward is given in the form of salvation to those for whose sake the Son became man and suffered death. [18]
what he was not obliged to lose,
or paid a debt he did not owe.
But he freely offered to the Father
what there was no need of his ever losing,
and paid for sinners what he owed not for himself." [17]
"What is more proper than that,In the incarnation and the death of the Son the mercy as well as the justice of God is shown. [20]
when he beholds so many of them weighed down by so heavy a debt,...
he should remit the debt incurred by their sin,
and give them what their transgression had forfeited." [19]
Anselm's theory of the death of Christ is clearly built on legalistic presuppositions; his whole theological structure is built on the penitential system. The key term in Anselm's concept of Christ's death is "satisfaction." [21] According to Anselm, the problem of the atonement is either satisfaction or punishment. A third alternative of God putting away sins by compassion alone, without payment or punishment, is unfitting and improper for God.
"To remit sin in this manner is nothing else than not to punish;To freely forgive without satisfaction or punishment is from the legalistic point of view impossible.
and since it is not right to cancel sin without compensation or punishment,
if it be not punished, then is it passed by undischarged...
It is not fitting for God to pass over anything in his kingdom undischarged...
It is, therefore, not proper for God thus to pass over sin unpunished." [22]
"Everyone knows that justice to man is regulated by law,Justice demands that God's honor be upheld.
so that, according to the requirements of law,
the measure of award is bestowed by God...
But if sin is neither paid for nor punished,
it is subject to no law...
In justice, therefore, if it is canceled by compassion alone,
is more free than justice, which seems very inconsistent." [23]
"If there is nothing greater or better than God,Therefore, sin which dishonors God must either receive satisfaction or be punished.
there is nothing more just than supreme justice,
which maintains God's honor in the arrangement of things,
and which is nothing else but God himself...
Therefore God maintains nothing with more justice
than the honor of his own dignity." [24]
"Does it seem to you that he wholly preserve it,The free forgiveness of sins cannot be allowed, and the order of law and justice must not be broken by such an infringement. Moreover, if God freely forgave sins without satisfaction or punishment, it would mean that sin is not treated seriously and so would amount to moral laxity. Hence the payment of satisfaction is required as a safeguard of moral earnestness.
if he allows himself to be defrauded of it
as that he should neither receive satisfaction
nor punish the one defrauding him...
Therefore the honor taken away must be repaid,
or punishment must follow; otherwise,
either God will not be just to himself,
or he will be weak in respect to both parties;
and this is impious to think of." [25]
But no sooner had Anselm completed the formulation of the satisfaction theory of the atonement than it was criticized by his younger contemporary, Abelard (1079-1142 A.D.). Abelard in formulating the moral influence theory of the atonement in criticism of satisfaction theory began a controversy which has continued ever since. According to Abelard's moral influence theory the saving death of Christ is directed toward influencing man to turn away from his sin by the example of God's love for sinful man in Christ. Anselm's theory made little reference to the love of God as the reason of Christ's death and man's love of God as the response to it. Abelard wanted to correct this ommission. And in his formulation of his theory, Abelard attacked the basis of the satisfaction theory. He rejected the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, denying that all men are guilty of Adam's sin, and asserting that man has a tendency for good as well as for sin. Abelard also rejected Anselm's view of God that justice required a satisfaction of God's honor before sin could be forgiven. There was nothing in the nature of God that hindered the free exercise of forgiveness and the only obstacle to it was in man, not in God. [26]
Abelard raised a number of objections to Anselm's theory. But he never objected to legalistic basis of the theory and scheme of merit. In fact he treated the love awakened in men by God's love in Christ as meritorious. Also he saw the merits of Christ as completing the merits of man by virtue of Christ's intercession for them. [27]
The main objection to the moral influence theory is to its purely subjective interpretation of Christ's death. If the death of Christ is regarded only as a demonstration of God's love and as doing nothing objectively about man's sin, then this theory fails to answer the question of the "must", the necessity for Christ's death. It does not tell why it was necessary for Christ to suffer and die such an awful death, why it had to be. If Christ did not have to die, then could not God have demostrated His love some other way? Why does the death of Christ demonstrate the love of God? Also the theory seems to ignore the great body of scriptural teaching concerning Christ's death as a redemption and propitiation. It truly emphasizes the subjective effect of Christ's death but at the expense of the objective work accomplished.
John Calvin (1509-1564 A.D.) and Reformed theology modified this Anselmic satisfaction theory of the atonement. They said that God's justice, not his honor, needs to be satisfied by Christ's death. This view is called the penal satisfaction theory of the atonement. Christ's death paid the penalty of the sins of mankind and thus satisfied the justice of God. This view of the atonement is also called the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement because Christ died in the place and in the stead of man, the sinner. Calvin says,
"Thus we perceive Christ representing the character of a sinner and a criminal,Christ is punished instead of the sinner. This is a theory of the satisfaction of God's justice through vicarious punishment. It differs at this point from the Anselmic theory which sees the atoning act as the payment of a debt rather than a penalty.
while, at the same time, his innocence shines forth,
and it becomes manifest that he suffers for another's
and not for his own crime." [28]
The penal satisfaction theory is clearly legalistic. It assumes that the order of law and justice is absolute; free forgiveness would be a violation of this absolute order; God's love must be carefully limited lest it infringe on the demands of justice. Sin is a crime against God and the penalty must be paid before forgiveness can become available. According to this view God's love is conditioned and limited by his justice; that is, God cannot exercise His love to save man until His righteousness (justice) is satisfied. Since God's justice requires that sin be punished, God's love cannot save man until the penalty of sin has been paid, satisfying His justice. God's love is set in opposition to His righteousness, creating a tension and problem in God. How can God in His love save man from sin when His righteousness demands the punishment of sin? This is the problem that the death of Christ is supposed to solve. According to this legalistic theology, this is why Christ needed to die; he died to pay the penalty of man's sin and to satisfy the justice of God. The necessity of the atonement is the necessity of satisfying the justice of God; this necessity is in God rather than in man. And since this necessity is in God, it is a absolute necessity. If God is to save man, God must satisfy His justice before He can in love save man.
It is not surprising that in the popular mind this abstract problem of the seeming contradiction between love and justice in God is reduced to a concrete opposition between God the Father who wants to punish sin and God the Son who wants to forgive sin. That this is not true is clear from Scripture: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" (John 3:16). But this is the way the popular mind has seen this abstract problem.
[1] Tertullian, "On Pentence," 2; William P. LeSaint,
Tertullian, Treatises on Penance: On Penitence and On Purity,
in Johannes Quasten and Walter J. Burhardt, eds.
Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation
(Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press and
London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1959), pp. 16-17.
[2] William P. LeSaint, Tertullian, footnote 29, p. 142.
[3] Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip S. Watson
(New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969), p. 348.
[4] Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics in
Library of Christian Classics, Vol. 5,
Early Latin Theology, ed. S. L. Greenslade
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 40.
[5] William P. LeSaint, Tertullian, p. 24.
[7] Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), p. 82.
See also J. S. Whale, The Protestant Tradition
(Cambridge: The University Press, 1959), pp. 59-61.
[8] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, I, 11, in S. N. Deane,
Saint Anselm: Basic Writings
(LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962) p. 202.
[13] Ibid., II, 6, pp. 244-245.
[14] Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1966), p. 84.
[15] Anslem, Cur Deus Homo, II, 7, p. 246.
[16] Ibid., II, 8, p. 247-248.
[18] Ibid., II, 19, p. 283-284.
[21] Aulen, Christus Victor, p. 86, and
Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1966), p. 86.
[22] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II, 12, in
S. N. Deane, Saint Anselm: Basic Writings
(LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962) p. 203.
[25] Ibid., II, 13, pp. 206-7.
[26] Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1966), p. 88.
[27] Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), p.96.
[28] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion,
translated by Henry Beveridge
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), II, xvi, 5.
Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that Christ died
to pay the penalty of man's sin and satisfy God's justice.
Not in the three passages (Rom. 3:25-26; II Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13)
usually cited to support this doctrine does it say explicitly
that Christ paid the penalty of sin or
satisfied the justice of God. In the Rom. 3:25-26 passage,
propitiation
is not the satisfaction of God's justice; and
redemption
is not paying penalty of sin.
In the II Cor. 5:21 and Gal. 3:13 passages,
neither does "made to be sin" or "a curse" mean paying the penalty of sin.
In his second letter to the Corinthians Paul writes,
"He who knew no sin was made to be sin for us,Historically, there has been three interpretations of the phrase "made to be sin" in II Cor. 5:21:
that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (II Cor. 5:21 ERS)
The Greek preposition huper does not mean "instead of" but "on the behalf of" or "for the sake of". In the following passages the Greek preposition huper cannot mean "instead of".
"For it has been granted to you that for the sake of [huper] ChristThus the Greek preposition huper does not mean "instead of" but "on the behalf of" or "for the sake of".
you should not only believe in him
but also suffer for his sake [huper autou, on the behalf of him]"
(Phil. 1:29)"It is right for me to think this about all of you [huper pantan humon],
because I have you in my heart,
since both in my bonds and in the defense and confirmation of the Gospel
you all are partakers of grace with me." (Phil. 1:7 ERS)"5 On the behalf of [huper tou toitotou] such a man I will boast,
but on behalf of myself [huper emautou] I will not boast,
except of my weaknesses.
6 For if I wish to boast, I shall not be foolish,
for I shall be speaking the truth;
but I refrain from this lest anyone reckon to me
above what [huper ho] he sees in me or hears from me,
7and by the surpassing greatness [huperbole] of the revelations.
Wherefore, in order that I should not be exalted [huperairomai]
there was given me a thorn in the flesh,
a messenger of Satan to harass me,
in order that I should not be exalted [huperairomai].
8About this [huper touton]
I besought the Lord that it should leave me;
9 and He said to me,
'My grace is sufficient for you,
for my power is perfected in weakness.'
Most gladly therefore I will boast in my weaknesses,
that the power of Christ may rest on me." (II Cor. 12:5-9 ERS).
"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge,that is, in Christ who represents all.
that one died for all [huper panton, on the behalf of all],
therefore all have died," (II Cor. 5:14)
"And he died for all [huper panton, on the behalf of all],Christ was made to be a sin-sacrifice for us to save us from sin, to take away our sin (John 1:29). And Christ was made a sin sacrifice to take away our sin "in order that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." That is, that we might be set right with God in the risen Christ. As we have already seen, the righteousness of God is the activity of God to set us right with God; that is, to save us from sin (trust in false god) to righteousness (trust in the true God). Christ participated in our spiritual death to save us from sin (trust in a false god), so that we could participate in the risen Christ, being saved from death to life and hence being saved from sin to righteousness (trust in the true God). The substitution interpretation of Christ's sacrifice does not understand this participation and just assumes a legalistic substitution interpretation of Christ's death as a paying the penalty of sin for us.
that those who live might live no longer for themselves
but for him who for their sake [huper auton, on the behalf of them]
died and was raised." (II Cor. 5:15).
And when Apostle Paul writes to the Galations,
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law,he does not mean that Christ paid the penalty of sin as our substitute, but that Christ's death was to deliever us ("redeemed") from our sins and to save us from the wrath of God ("the curse of the Law", see Gal. 3:10). And Christ being made a curse for us, does not mean that Christ died as a substitute, in our place, paying the penalty of our sins, but that Christ's death was "for us", on our behalf (huper hemos), The Scripture that Paul here quotes (Deut. 21:23) does not mean that being made a curse was for another's sins but because he was being hung on a tree for his own sins (Deut. 21:22). And since Christ was hanging on the tree (the cross) was not because of His own sins (He was without sin - II Cor. 5:21) but it was on our behalf to redeem us from our sins and from God's wrath against our sins (Rom. 1:18). Paul does not say that Christ took our curse but that He became a curse for us to redeem us from the curse of the law. Christ's death sets us free from the law and from its curse.
having become a curse for us--for it is written,
'Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree'" (Gal. 3:13),
The introduction of these concepts into the interpretation of these passages has obscured their meaning and interpretation. Apart from the clear and explicit statement of Scripture, it cannot be assumed that this is what these verses mean. Since this legalism is contrary to the clear and explicit statements of Scripture, any interpretation employing these legalistic concepts is suspect. In fact the Scripture explicitly rejects the principle of vicarious penal sacrifice upon which this interpretation depends.
"The person who sins will die.
The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity,
nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity;
the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself,
and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."
(Ezekiel 18:20 NAS; see also Deut. 24:16; Jer. 31:30).
If Christ did not die to pay the penalty for man's sin and to satisfy God's justice, then why did Christ have to die to save man? Why then do men need to be saved? An examination of Scripture (John 10:10; Eph. 2:4-5; Heb. 2:14-15; I John 4:9; etc. - see Chapter 3) clearly shows that the answer to this question is that man needs to be saved because he is dead. Man is separated and alienated from God (Eph. 4:8). He does not know God personally, and because he does not know the true God, he turns to false gods -- to those things which are not God -- and makes those into his gods (Gal. 4:8). The basic sin is idolatry (Ex. 20:2; Rom. 1:25), and man sins (chooses these false gods) because he is spiritually dead -- separated from the true God.
All men have sinned because they are spiritually dead. This is what the Apostle Paul says in the last clause of Romans 5:12: "because of which [death] all sinned." Spiritual death which "spread to all men" along with physical death is not the result of each man's own personal sins. On the contrary, a man sins as a result of spiritual death. He received death from Adam, from his first parents. The historical origin of sin is the fall of Adam -- the sin of the first man. Adam's sin brought death -- spiritual and physical -- on all his descendants (Rom. 5:12, 15, 17). This death inherited from Adam is the personal, contemporary origin of each man's sin. Because he is spiritually dead, not knowing God personally, he chooses something other than the true God as his God; he thus sins.
This is why a man needs to be saved. He is dead spiritually and dying physically. Man needs life -- he needs to be made alive -- to be raised from the dead. And if he receives life, if he is made alive to God, death which leads to sin is removed. And if death which leads to sin is removed, then man will be saved from sin. Thus salvation must be understood to be primarily from death to life and secondarily from sin to righteousness. And since God's wrath -- God's "no" or opposition to sin -- is caused by sin (Rom. 1:18), the removal of sin brings with it also the removal of wrath. Salvation is then thirdly from wrath to peace with God (Rom. 5:1, 9).
This salvation (from death, sin and wrath) is exactly what God accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, His Son. This is why Christ died, that he might be raised from the dead. Jesus entered into our spiritual death in order that as he was raised from the dead, we might be made alive in and with Him (Eph. 2:5). And by saving us from spiritual death, Christ saves us from sin. It is by taking away the spiritual death which leads to our sin that God takes away our sin. Jesus died for our sins -- literally -- to take them away (John 1:29). What the Old Testament sacrifices could not do (Heb. 10:1-4) the death of Christ has done. The blood of Jesus (His death) cleanses us from our sins (I John 1:7). We are delivered from sin itself. We were saved from our trust in false gods when we put our trust in Jesus Christ and the true God who sent Him. We "turned from idols to serve the living and true God" (I Thess. 1:9). When we were spiritually dead we trusted in and served those things that are not God -- money, power, sex, education, popularity, pleasure, etc. But when we turned to the risen Christ, we entered into life, leaving behind those false gods. The risen Jesus Christ is now our Lord and our God (John 20:28).
The death and resurrection of Jesus was the means by which God removed death -- the barrier to knowing God personally and knowing His love. In the preaching of the Gospel, God reveals Himself to us making us spiritually alive to Himself when we receive Jesus Christ who is the life (John 14:6; I John 5:12). To be spiritually alive is to know God personally, and to know God personally is to trust Him. For God is love (I John 4:8, 16) and love begets trust. The trust that God's love invokes in us is righteousness (Rom. 4:5, 9); it relates us rightly to God. Thus by making us alive to Himself, God sets us right with Himself through faith. Life produces righteousness just as death produces sin.
This is what the law cannot do; it cannot make men alive. As Paul says in Gal. 3:21 "...for if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been by the law." And since the law cannot make alive, salvation cannot be by the law. The righteousness of the law, the merits earned by keeping the law, is a false righteousness, dirty filthy rags (Isa. 64:6; Phil. 3:7-9; Rom. 10:3-4). Just as trust in a false god is sin, so trust in the true God is righteousness (Rom. 4:3-5). And just as sin flows from death, so righteousness flows from life. The law cannot give life. And because the law cannot remove death, it also cannot remove sin. And since it cannot make alive, it cannot produce real righteousness.
What the law could not do, God has done through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, His Son. God has made us alive to Himself in the resurrection of Jesus and set us free from the slavery of sin. Since the basic sin is idolatry (trust in a false god) and sin is a slavery to a slave master (John 8:34), the false god is the slave master. We were all slaves of sin, serving our false gods when we were spiritually dead, alienated and separated from the true God, not knowing him personally. But we have been set free from this slavery of sin through the death of Christ. Jesus entered into our spiritual death and died our death. His death is our death. Now when a slave dies, he is no longer in slavery; death frees him from slavery. So we likewise have been set free from the slavery of sin having died with Christ. We have died to sin with Christ (Rom. 6:1-7). But now Christ is alive, having been raised from the dead, and we have been made alive to God together with Him in His resurrection. His resurrection is our resurrection. We are no longer slaves of sin but have become slaves of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Now that we are alive to God in Him, we have become slaves of righteousness (Rom. 6:17-18). For just as death produces sin, so life produces righteousness. Since we have passed from death to life, we have been saved from sin to righteousness (I Peter 2:24).