Atonement is essential to Christian thought. In its most simple form, atonement refers to a reconciled state between parties that were formerly alienated in some manner (Robert S. Paul, The Atonement and the Sacraments, 20). However, as important as this word is said to be, you may find it interesting to know that the word “atonement” isn’t actually used in the New Testament. Isn’t that curious? Atonement is a—if not the—paramount concept in Christian perspective. Many theologians would heartily state that atonement is the whole point of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Others, being less bombastic, would say that atonement is central to the meaning of the gospel. Yet, as important as this word is said to be, it is altogether absent from the New Testament.
A Brief Word Study
In the New Testament, at least two English translations—the NRSV and NIV—attempt the word “atonement” twice and the word “atoning” another two times. However, these translations aren’t precise usages for what’s in the Greek. Forgive me for this brief translation lesson, but it’s important. Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, and 1 John 4:10 all contain the Greek root hileos. Hileos refers to being favorably disposed, with implication of overcoming obstacles that are unfavorable to a relationship (BDAG). In these particular verses, we’re told that Jesus’ shed blood is a sacrifice, which allows God to forgive sins. While the idea that Jesus’ blood allows God to forgive sins fits within the theological conception of atonement—I.e.: the reconciling of alienated parties—the NAS’ translation of hileos as “propitiation” is more appropriate. Propitiation means “to appease a god,” which is exactly what these four verses describe. As we’re about to see, propitiation is certainly an aspect of atonement, but it doesn’t sufficiently capture the totality of meaning and nuance that’s associated with atonement as a theological concept.
A Conceptual Notion
Because the word “atonement” doesn’t actually exist in the Greek, it is a conceptual notion. That is to say, because we can’t simply look at how the word “atonement” is used in the New Testament to derive meaning, we’re left to consider expressions of alienation between two parties who are reconciled. We then point at each expression and say, “That’s atonement.” This is the only way to impute theological meaning into a word that doesn’t exist in the Bible.
What follows is the New Testament’s multifaceted articulation of alienation between two parties who are reconciled. I.e.: Biblical conceptions of atonement. Rather than exhaustively demonstrate each kind of atonement with numerous verses, I’m merely providing one reference for each conception.
In Romans 3:23-25a, atonement results in
propitiation—
Jesus’ blood appeases the Divine
who forgives sins.
In Romans 5:6-8, atonement results in
proof of love—
Jesus’ death for strangers
demonstrates Divine affection.
In Romans 5:1-2, atonement results in
peace—
Faith in Jesus justifies humans.
In Galatians 4:3-5, atonement results in
freedom—
Jesus’ life redeems humans
from being under Law.
In Ephesians 2:11-16, atonement results in
reconciliation—
Jesus’ blood makes two races, one.
In Hebrews 9:13-14, atonement results in
innocence—
Jesus’ blood cleanses
human consciences.
In Hebrews 9:24-25, atonement results in
the end of sacrificial systems—
Jesus’ blood satiates
Divine need for sacrifice.
In Revelation 12:10-11, atonement results in
silence—
Jesus’ blood frees humans
from the devil’s accusations.
In Hebrews 13:11-12, atonement results in
holiness—
Jesus’ blood makes humans
acceptable to the Divine.
According to these passages—and many more just like them—atonement is about much more than mere propitiation. Atonement makes for peace, freedom, reconciliation, innocence, and holiness. Atonement silences demonic accusation and it proves Divine love.
The Evolution of Atonement’s Direction
Beyond that which atonement accomplishes, the significance of who atonement is for has an interesting history of evolution. Over the centuries, some have thought that atonement is primarily for God. Others have thought that atonement is primarily for humans. Still others have thought that atonement is primarily for the devil. Let me explain.
Satan-Ward Atonement
To the surprise of many, the earliest understanding of atonement in church history is that it was for the devil. This perspective is called “Christus Victor.” According to this theory, “The idea of the atonement [is] a Divine conflict and victory; Christ—Christus Victor—fights against and triumphs over the evil powers of the world, the ‘tyrants’ under which mankind is in bondage and suffering” (Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor, 4).
It may be helpful for me to put this idea in historical language. Irenaeus explains, “For he [Jesus] fought and conquered; for He was man contending for the fathers, and through obedience doing away with disobedience completely: for He bound the strong man [satan], and set free the weak…” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Against Heresies, 3.18.6). Rufinus is even more clear in explaining that atonement is for the devil. He writes, “For the object of that mystery of the Incarnation which we expound just now was that the divine virtue of the Son of God, as though it were a hook concealed beneath the form and fashion of human flesh… might lure on the Prince of this world [satan] to a conflict, to whom offering His flesh as a bait, His divinity underneath might catch him and hold him fast with its hook, through the shedding of His immaculate blood” (Nicene and Post-Nicene, Rufinus, A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 16).
As wild as this perspective may seem, please note that both Irenaeus and Rufinus, along with the majority of their contemporaries, sincerely believed that humankind was in literal bondage under satan, which kept them from relationship with the Divine. For this reason, in their minds, atonement occurred through an actual fight in which Jesus’ death was “bait” that would “catch [satan] and hold him fast with its hook,” freeing humans to enter into relationship with God.
God-Ward Atonement
If you think that this way of understanding atonement is a bit absurd, you’re not alone. By the eleventh century came the demise of Christus Victor’s satan-ward focus on atonement. Put frankly, Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) writes, “For, supposing that the devil, or man, were his own master, or belonged to someone other than God, or was permanently in the power of someone other than God, then perhaps one could justly speak in those terms” (Anselm of Canterbury, Why God Became Man, I.7). It’s this precise perspective—that God alone is in power, not satan—from which satisfaction theory, arises.
According to satisfaction theory, atonement is necessarily directed toward God because humans are depraved and in debt, cannot repay their debt, and are in need of making satisfaction to God, which is made by Jesus’ shed blood on a cross. In this theory, Jesus’ shed blood fulfills God’s requirement of satisfaction (Anselm of Canterbury, Why God Became Man, I.18).
This theory became prominent in The Reformation and was antecedent to the notion of penal substitution. More so, this conception of atonement caught fire in the 1700s when preachers like Jonathan Edwards began preaching hell and brimstone to New England settlers. Anyone familiar with evangelicalism understands this message because it is, for most evangelicals, the meaning of atonement and the work of the gospel.
Human-Ward Atonement
Around the same time as Anselm’s satisfaction theory came Peter Aberlard (1079-1142) who, like Anselm of Canterbury, could not logically conceive of a satan-ward atonement. However, he also could not conceive of a God-ward atonement. Aberlard struggled to imagine the efficacy of a blood thirsty God saving humans by killing Jesus. Thus, he explains that reconciliation occurs between humanity and Divinity when humans observe God to be kind, as opposed to vindictive (Peter Aberlard, Ethics: Know Yourself, I. 161-166). Aberlard’s human-ward focus on atonement is often referred to as “Humanistic Theory,” which explains that the work of Christ consists in demonstrating to the world the amazing depth of God’s love for humanity.
Although Aberlard’s human-ward atonement didn’t catch on at the time, its focus on humankind’s struggle to trust in God’s love had resonance during The Reformation in the writings of, for example, Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) as a counter argument to penal substitution. More so, human-ward atonement has found incredible resonance with Christian mystics. Francis of Assisi, Bonaventure, Julian of Norwich, and Teilhard De Chardin, along with contemporary mystics such as Matthew Fox, Ilia Delio, and Richard Rhor all emphasize the atonement as human-ward. For these, the death of Jesus is an expression of God’s love, resulting in reconciliation. Rhor succinctly explains human-ward atonement writing, “Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity; Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God” (Richard Rhor, “Love, Not Atonement,” 5/4/2017, cac.org).
Summary
As I see it, in 2021, we find ourselves in a place much like that of Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century. Anselm—due to the slow but steady progression of human consciousness—couldn’t fathom the need for an atonement that used Jesus as bait to hook the devil thereby freeing humanity from his demonic clutches. Similarly, many today cannot fathom a Divinity in need of his child’s spilt blood in order to forgive and to live in harmonious relationship with humans. This whole idea strikes most reasonable people as an ancient and barbaric way of seeing the world and understanding God. Yet, depending on the consciousness of individuals today, it’s possible to find expression for each direction of atonement: some pentecostals emphasize a satan-ward atonement; evangelicals explain a God-ward atonement; many progressive Christians explain a human-ward atonement.
Atonement is What Matters
This context helps to situate us in the heart of the issue, which can be stated as a question: So what exactly is the meaning of atonement? Answer: The story of Jesus’ death on a cross is exactly what you need it to mean in order to rest into your inextricable union with all things—God, creation, self, and others.
Now, before deciding that I’m awash in relativism, please hear me out. First, as we’ve observed, the word “atonement” does not exist in the New Testament. Therefore, it is a conceptual notion that imports its meaning from many different Bible passages that articulate all kinds of alienation, which are then said to be reconciled—atoned for—by Jesus. Second, as we’ve also observed, church history reveals an evolution in the direction of atonement, depending on human consciousness—sometimes devil-ward, sometimes God-ward, and sometimes human-ward.
With these points in mind, I’d like to conclude by commenting on a passage in Colossians that gestures toward the soul of atonement, which I’ve been saving. Paul writes in Colossians 1:19-20, “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things [my emphasis] to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” According to Paul, anything and everything, on earth or in heaven, is reconciled to God through Jesus.
I believe that this is a helpful contribution to the conception of atonement; it’s also a fitting summary for this reflection. Does your perceived lack of propitiation, peace, freedom, innocence, holiness, etc., cause you to experience alienation? Paul explains that everything is reconciled through the Jesus story. Furthermore, do you think that the devil, God, your own heart, or any other person or thing is in need of atonement? Paul explains that the Jesus story satiates divinities and sets humanity free to realize and accept their union with all things.
This is the good news of atonement—
there is no alienation.
This is the good news of atonement—
the Jesus story is a means
through which we come to appreciate
that all things,
are reconciled.
Therefore, if the Jesus story is somehow constrained to result in just one aspect of atonement—for example, propitiation—then it is not robust enough to reflect the depth and breadth of atonement. And if the Jesus story is somehow construed to increase just one person’s sense of alienation, then it does not accurately reflect the good news of atonement. For at the heart of the Jesus story—according to the Bible, theology, and church history—is a beautiful conception called “atonement” which, if it truly be the essence of atonement, must function in every generation, every social more, and every heart, to reconcile whatever it is that we humans experience and name as, “estranged.”