Summary: A historical survey of the different models or metaphors for atonement, for what Jesus accomplished in his life, death, and resurrection, looking at leading proponents of those views.

How should we understand what Christ has done through his life, death, and resurrection? The purpose of this volume is to study the multiple ways the church’s theologians have answered this question throughout church history up to the present. The term used for this is “atonement” which the authors differentiate from the overlapping categories of Christology, who Jesus is, and soteriology, how Jesus saves us. They elaborate the domain of atonement as follows:

“The doctrine of the atonement focuses on the ‘work’ of Christ: what Jesus does. Atonement deals with Jesus’s incarnate mission and earthly life, his crucifixion, resurrection, ascension to and session (seating) at the right hand of God, his second coming, and how all of this accomplishes the reconciliation of sinful human beings to God” (p. 4).

The authors make several important observations that frame their discussion. One is that there is no ecumenical consensus on how atonement is accomplished. Second is that the language is varied, metaphorical, and symbolic and there is danger of imposing the logic of metaphor onto the biblical text rather than working from the text’s account of the life of Jesus. This figures greatly in the subsequent discussions. Finally, they note a contemporary debate between constitutive and illustrative understandings of atonement, with the latter more characteristic of modern theology.

The plan of the book is a survey of models under three types:

Type 1: Models that are incarnational and ontological, that emphasize our participation in union with Christ. These include:

Incarnational/recapitulation models that focus on the assumption of human nature by God in Christ in which he fulfills (recapitulates) the human telos without sinning. This includes Irenaeus, Athansius and Cyril among the fathers, and Richard Hooker and Lancelot Andrews as well as Thomas Torrance and Hans Urs von Balthasar.

The Christus Victor model emphasizing the defeat of sin, death, and Satan through Jesus life, death, resurrection and ascension. Gustav Aulen is the leading proponent of this view, but aspects of this are found in Irenaeus, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Great, and Rufinus as well as Luther and moderns J. Denny Weaver and Gregory Boyd.

Type 2: These models focus particularly on the death of Jesus and questions of forgiveness of sin, judgment, and guilt. The models are substitutionary and forensic in character.

Satisfaction models such as Anselm’s satisfaction of God’s honor/justice through the death of Christ as well as Aquinas in differing ways and contemporaries Walter Kasper and Wolfhart Pannenberg.

Substitution models focusing on Jesus’s death for sinners. John Calvin is the primary Reformed model with Luther’s “great exchange” also noted. Charles Hodge represents the development of the idea of penal substitution, which I thought the authors dealt with in a balanced fashion uncharacteristic of today’s dismissive approach to the language of penal substitution. Karl Barth’s “The Judge Judged in our place” approach is also considered.

Type 3: Exemplarist and moral models in which Christ is the example or representative of God’s salvation. These are subjective and illustrative approaches.

The moral influence approach. This sees the atonement as the revelation of God’s love eliciting and empowering our love for God. Peter Abelard is the classic figure considered but modern figures who focus on the atonement as revealing God’s love in Christ include John and Charles Wesley, George MacDonald, C.S. Lewis, and Karl Rahner.

The moral example approach. This tends to be the approach of the liberal protestantism of Schleiermacher, Bushnell, von Harnack, and Hastings Rashdall, upon whom the authors focus. John Hick, takes this to an extreme in his pluralistic theology.

Chapters offer an in-depth exploration of the thought of chief proponents and critical assessment. As evident even in the above listing, many proponents of a model also incorporate other models and metaphors into their thought. There is an implicit recognition that no one model is adequate to elaborate what Christ has done. They also focus on the idea that in atonement, it was not God who needed to be reconciled to us, but we to God.

The authors conclude with a consideration of the thought of Thomas Torrance, who observes three terms for redemption in the OId Testament: padah, kipper, and goel. Padah focuses on the nature of the redeeming act (for example, redemption from slavery), kipper on the act of redemption (for example, the blotting out of sin), and goel on the person of the redeemer (for example, Boaz in the book of Ruth). This is seen in Jesus in the offices of prophet, priest, and king. Torrance thus moves away from a forensic focus to a more patristic incarnational understanding that sees propitiation as participation in Christ.

The authors treatment avoids caricature of any view, which I’ve often seen in more polemical works advocating for one of the views. They help the reader understand the historical developments contributing to each view, the dangers of pressing any metaphor too far or in an all-inclusive fashion, and the richness of the church’s testimony, while recognizing shortcomings in each view, or particular formulations of those views. This is a valuable resource both for those sorting out the “atonement debates” and for enriching theological reflection on what Christ has done.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. ( )