There has been a tendency in recent years to talk about “models of atonement”. The tendency came to the forefront during the 2003 controversy over Penal Substitution. Evangelical Christians have historically tended to talk about Jesus’ death as paying the penalty for our sin. Steve Chalke and Alan Mann in their book “The Lost Message of Jesus” argued that we had got it all wrong.
The idea that atonement was about Jesus bearing the penalty, paying a debt was, they argued just one attempt to describe what had happened on the Cross. Others joined in the debate arguing that there have been various attempts throughout history to describe the Cross, to offer a model of atonement. These models are culturally conditioned and fitting to particular societies and cultures.
So, one argument was that the Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the belief that we deserved death as the penalty for our sin but Jesus died in our place as our substitute was one particular model, fitting to feudal societies at best but having no place in modern society. In fact, the argument has often been that whilst all models may have had their place, that PSA never should have, that out of all the theories, it got things completely wrong.
The different models that have been suggested include
- Example -that Jesus set us an example of sacrificial love.
- Demonstration – that Jesus was demonstrating how much God loves us.
- Victory, or Christus Victor, that Jesus defeated evil on the Cross.
Some have argued that yes there is an element of substitution but whilst Jesus was in our place, it was not that he bore our deserved punishment, that God judged him in our place. Rather, he was on the Cross soaking up the forces of evil, bearing the brunt of their rage in order to take away their sting, their power.
Now, here’s the thing. There is actually Biblical truth in all of those so called models. It is true that God demonstrated his love for us by sending Jesus and 1 Peter even demands that we follow Christ’s example. Certainly, Jesus is presented by Scripture as the victor over sin, Satan and death. However, none of those explanations offer a complete answer as to why Jesus died. In what way is his death an example? Are there not other ways to love? If Jesus’ death was a demonstration, then doesn’t that make it an empty gesture, a manipulative one even? How does his death rob Satan of his power and so defeat him?
I believe that the answer is simple. We need all of the explanations with penal substitution at the heart. In that respect, we do well not to talk in terms of models, especially if we think of them as competing. Rather, we will want to say as much about Christ’s death as possible.
In Christ’s death, God reconciles us to himself. He does so first by condemning sin and evil itself, second Christ does take our place and bear the punishment we deserve. Because judgement and condemnation have already happened in and to Christ, we are forgiven and there is now no condemnation. This takes away Satan’s power to accuse. The victory is won.
Suffering and death no longer have power over us. We no longer see them as penal. This means that God can use suffering for our good, to encourage patience and perseverance. This enables us to follow Christ’s example in our own approach to suffering and sacrificial love. All of this together demonstrates God’s love for us.
Faithroots 