Christianity and the Problem of Human Violence: Part 115: Atonement Theologies, part 2: Satisfaction Atonement and Moral Influence Theories
from All-Creatures.org Guide to Kingdom Living

True Christian living requires us to live according to Kingdom standards which bring Heaven to earth.

Christianity and the Problem of Human Violence: Part 115: Atonement Theologies, part 2: Satisfaction Atonement and Moral Influence Theories

By Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D.
http://www.christianveg.com

In 1098, Anselm of Canterbury’s Cur Deus Homo offered a satisfaction atonement theory that maintained that humankind’s sin had offended God, and Jesus’ death was necessary to satisfy God’s honor. Human sin had upset the moral order, and Jesus death was necessary to restore order to the universe. The Protestant Reformers modified this theory with the notion that Jesus’ death was necessary because divine law required that sin be punished. Humankind’s sin, which relates back to Adam and Eve’s “Original Sin” in the Garden of Eden, had created an imbalance of good and evil in the universe, and punishment was necessary to restore order. Jesus submitted to and bore the punishment that all humans, as sinners, should have received.

The moral influence theory posits that Jesus’ death was a loving act of God aimed to show us that God loves humankind so much that God was willing to give up his most precious possession, his son, for humankind. This dramatic, loving act would get sinful humankind’s attention and leads us towards a more righteous path.

On closer inspection these atonement theories are problematic. If one asks, “Who killed Jesus,” the Christus Victor theory (essay [previous]) posits the devil. However, if God permitted this to happen, then one might reasonable question God’s goodness. The satisfaction and moral theories intentionally removed the devil from the equation, but difficulties remained. If one blamed the mob, the Roman authorities, or the high priests for Jesus’ death, then one would come to the awkward conclusion that the evildoers were actually doing the will of God.

In fact, if humans killed Jesus, it would make little sense to see Jesus’ death as atonement for humankind’s sins, because this would mean that sinful humankind was saving itself by killing an innocent person. In other words, murder would somehow deliver humankind from sin. Therefore, it appears that, if humankind’s salvation derived from killing Jesus (whether to satisfy God’s honor, to relieve humankind from the burden of Original Sin, or to show humankind how to live righteously), then God must be responsible. So, these theologies suggest that God either killed Jesus or desired Jesus’ death. This seems to portray God in an unattractive light and seems to conflict with God’s previous declaration, “This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17; see also Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22).

God’s responsibility for Jesus’ death is particularly problematic for a moral influence atonement theory. In essence, this theory holds God orchestrated the death of one child (Jesus) in order to save the rest of God’s children (us sinners). Would we ever approve of a parent who had one innocent child killed in order to teach a lesson to the sinful siblings?

Getting back to Anselm’s satisfaction theory, it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate God’s honor from God. Therefore, saying that Jesus’ death satisfied God’s honor is tantamount to saying that God desired Jesus’ death to satisfy God’s own honor.

Those new to this series may wonder how satisfaction atonement theory relates to the frequent blood sacrifices in the Hebrew Scriptures and Paul’s statement “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). I have been suggesting a view of God as loving and compassionate and not desiring sacrificial violence, and I refer readers to essays 19 and 20 regarding the Hebrew Scriptures and essay 108 regarding Romans 6:23.

Next week, we will further explore difficulties with satisfaction atonement theories. I will argue that these theories have predisposed Christians to perform acts of violence and injustice, though this was probably not the intent of most of those who have developed or have espoused satisfaction atonement theories.

Go on to: Part 116: Atonement Theologies, Part 3: Further Problems with Satisfaction Atonement
Return to: Christianity and the Problem of Human Violence Table of Contents
Return to: Christian Living Table of Contents