Baylor University

George W. Truett Seminary

Introduction to Christian Theology THEO 7345
Eli Gutierrez Briseño

The Atonement Debate

All evangelicals agree that Jesus’ death and resurrection provided the reconciliation between God

and humanity. However, there is not a complete agreement on why was necessary the death of

Jesus and how it provides salvation. This can be called the atonement debate and I will briefly

present three different views about it. First, the penal substitution view which argues that on the

cross Jesus bored the punishment that humanity deserved. Second, the Christus Victor view which

maintains that Jesus’ death and resurrection defeated Satan and thus set humankind free from his

oppression. And third, the moral government view which holds that Jesus suffered on the cross as

a demonstration of God’s wrath against sin. In this essay, I will support the penal substitution view

because I find that it is deeply rooted in the Scripture and it answers satisfactorily to the question:

why did Jesus have to die?

The penal substitution view affirms that while God loves humanity and wants an eternal

relationship with us, every human being is separated from him because of the sin. In his perfect

holiness, God cannot have anything to do with sin. God cannot simply excuse sin not because he

is limited by some external law but because it is against his own character. Defenders of this view

find in the Scripture that the writers of the New Testament interpreted the death of Jesus in the

light of the Old Testament sacrificial system. Jesus was identified with the lamb of the sacrifices

because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and the shedding of blood was necessary for the

forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22). Thus, Jesus was the perfect lamb of God who died for the sins

of humankind. This view argues that God takes seriously the sin. His holiness requires that no sin
go unpunished. Therefore, in his substitutionary death, Jesus received the punishment that we

deserved. This view is deeply rooted in Scripture. I cannot quote all the passages that support its

arguments but suffice it is to say that the writers of the New Testament, especially Paul and the

author of Hebrews, agree that the death of Christ was a ransom for our sins. Something really

happened on the cross that made possible the reconciliation between God and humanity.

The Christus Victor view holds that the principal meaning of Christ’s death and

resurrection was his victory over Satan. This view argues that humanity was under the power of

Satan because of the sin. Then, Jesus came to free humans from Satan’s bondage. Defenders of

this view argue that, unlike the substitutionary view, the Christus Victor view do justice to the

resurrection of Jesus which is necessary for a true salvation. The resurrection of Jesus is the victory

over evil.

I think that the defenders of this view are right when they say that there is a scriptural basis

to support their arguments. It is true that the Bible states that Satan has power over the world and

that Jesus defeated him and his evil forces with his death and resurrection. However, this view

does not answer the central question of the debate: why did Jesus have to die? For this view, Jesus’

death and resurrection was a ransom that paid the price for humanity. Nevertheless, the question

of how that happened is not answered. Could not Jesus defeat Satan without dying? Moreover, if

Jesus definitely defeated Satan on the cross why is there still evil in the world? I find in Scripture

that the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection were the victory over death in the sense that

they provided the possibility of reconciliation between God and humanity (1 Corinthians 15:55-

57; Hebrews 9:28, 10:19-20). But the Scripture does not portrait the death of Jesus primarily as a

cosmic battle. The main teaching of the Bible about the suffering of Christ is that it was for our

sin. The influence of Satan continues (Romans 16:20; 1 Corinthians 15:26), and the defeat of evil
is a process that occurs in every heart that believes in Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Romans 7:7-25;

Philippians 1:6; Ephesians 5:17).

The moral government view maintains that the death of Jesus on the cross was a display of

God’s wrath against sin. His death was not a substitution because he did not bear our guilt nor

receive the punishment that we deserved. As the sacrifices of the Old Testament, the death of Jesus

was to show the severity of God’s judgment on sin. Defenders of this view argue that the Bible

states clearly that God forgives only on the basis of faith and repentance. He loves sinners and

forgives them freely, without the need of any kind of satisfaction. If the substitutionary view were

right then there is no forgiveness, because the debt was actually paid. The heart of God toward

sinners is that they turn from their evil ways, repent, and live holy lives. That was why Jesus died

on the cross, to show the consequences of living against God and call sinners to repentance. In my

opinion, this view (at least in the way that is presented in the Spectrum) reduces the death of Jesus

to a demonstration and his suffering to an example.

I find that these views do not necessarily exclude each other. The debate is on what is

regarded as the primary significance of Jesus death and resurrection. For the penal substitution

view, it is the punishment of Jesus in our place. For the Christus Victor, it is the defeat of Satan.

And for the moral government view, it is the display of God’s wrath over sin. It could be reasonable

to believe that Jesus received the punishment that we deserved, his death defeated Satan and shows

God’s wrath against sin. However, I support the penal substitution view because it answers the

central question of the debate: why did Jesus have to die? This view answers that God sent his Son

to die in our place and suffer the punishment that we deserve (1 Peter 2:24). That Jesus died for us

is supported by an overwhelming scriptural evidence (Matthew 26:27-28; Mark 10:45; John 10:11;

1 Corinthians 15:1-3; Romans 5:8, 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Hebrews 9:12-14; etc.). Also, it is clear
in the Bible that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and the shedding of blood was necessary

for the forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22). Perhaps it could be argued that the death of an innocent

for the evil of sinner is unjust. But it is the only satisfactory and biblical way to explain what does

it mean that Jesus died for our sins. And it is consistent with the loving and graceful character of

God.