Works of scholars

What you'll learn

• What atonement and soteriology mean, and why they matter in Christianity.
• Four major models of atonement: sacrifice, victory, substitution and moral exemplar.
• How Anselm, Gustaf Aulén, Karl Barth and John Hick explain the saving meaning of Jesus’ death.
• How to compare Barth and Hick for Edexcel Paper 4 Christianity essays and Anthology extracts.

Why atonement matters

Christianity claims that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection are not only inspiring events but saving events. The key question is: how does Jesus’ death restore the relationship between God and sinful humanity?

Atonement theories usually begin with sin, meaning human rebellion against God, moral failure, and separation from God. Different models explain the problem differently: some focus on guilt, some on evil powers, and some on human moral transformation.

The map below gives you the big picture before we zoom in.

The sacrifice model

The sacrifice model uses the language of offering. In the Hebrew Bible, sacrifice could express repentance, thanksgiving, covenant relationship or cleansing from sin. In the New Testament, Jesus is often presented using sacrificial imagery: for example, as the “Lamb of God” and as the one who offers himself “once for all”.

This model sees Jesus’ death as a self-offering to God that deals with sin and restores communion between God and humanity.

Anselm: satisfaction for sin

Anselm of Canterbury developed a famous version in Cur Deus Homo? — “Why did God become human?” His theory is usually called satisfaction theory.

For Anselm, sin dishonours God. God’s honour and justice cannot simply be ignored, because the moral order of the universe matters. Humans owe satisfaction to God, but because sin is against God, finite humans cannot offer adequate satisfaction. Therefore, the one who makes satisfaction must be both fully human and fully divine: Jesus Christ.

The victory model

The victory model, often called Christus Victor, presents the cross and resurrection as God’s victory over the powers that enslave humanity: sin, death, evil and sometimes the devil.

G Aulén: the classic view

Gustaf Aulén, in Christus Victor, argued that this was the “classic” early Christian view of atonement. He contrasted it with Anselm’s more legal and satisfaction-based “Latin” view.

For Aulén, atonement is not mainly a payment or legal transaction. It is a divine drama: God in Christ enters the human condition, confronts the powers of evil, and defeats them through death and resurrection. This gives the resurrection a central role, because victory is not complete if Jesus simply dies.

Strengths of Aulén’s view include its strong biblical themes of liberation and triumph. It can speak powerfully to Christians who see evil as more than individual wrongdoing. A weakness is that modern readers may find the language of “powers” or the devil difficult unless it is interpreted symbolically or socially.

The substitution model

Substitution means Christ takes the place of sinful humanity. In some versions, Jesus bears the penalty humans deserve; this is called penal substitution.

Substitutionary language has biblical roots, including Isaiah’s suffering servant, Paul’s claim that Christ was “made sin”, and New Testament imagery of judgement, curse, forgiveness and reconciliation.

Karl Barth: “The Judge Judged in Our Place”

Karl Barth was a major twentieth-century Reformed theologian. The Reformed tradition is the Protestant theological tradition associated with figures such as Calvin, often stressing God’s sovereignty, human sinfulness and salvation by grace.

Barth’s key phrase is “the Judge judged in our place.” He means that in Jesus Christ, God does not merely judge humanity from a distance. God takes human judgement upon himself. Jesus is both the divine Judge and the human one judged.

This matters because Barth avoids the crude idea that an angry Father punishes an innocent third party. For Barth, the triune God acts in Christ to bear judgement and offer forgiveness. The cross shows the seriousness of sin and the depth of divine grace.

Barth’s view has strong meaning for many Christians because it preserves traditional doctrines: the seriousness of sin, the necessity of grace, the divinity of Christ, and the saving power of the cross. It also fits well with biblical language of guilt, judgement and forgiveness.

However, critics argue that substitutionary atonement can sound morally troubling. It may appear to glorify suffering or imply that justice requires violence. Barth’s reply is that God does not punish someone else; God in Christ bears judgement himself.

The moral exemplar model

The moral exemplar model says Jesus saves by revealing perfect love and inspiring human moral transformation. The cross shows what self-giving love looks like. Humans respond by repentance, discipleship and ethical change.

This is more subjective than Anselm, Aulén or Barth, because the main change happens in human hearts and lives.

John Hick: myth, metaphor and modern Christianity

John Hick was a twentieth-century philosopher of religion and pluralist theologian. He argued that some traditional Christian doctrines should be understood as myth and metaphor.

Hick applies this to the incarnation, the doctrine that Jesus is God made flesh. He argues that Jesus’ divinity should not be understood as a literal metaphysical claim that Jesus is uniquely God in a way no other religious figure could be. Instead, Jesus can be seen as a human life fully open to God and transparent to divine love.

This affects the Trinity, the Christian doctrine that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If Jesus’ divine sonship is metaphorical rather than literal, then traditional Trinitarian belief is also reinterpreted.

Hick also treats resurrection language in a non-literal or symbolic way. The resurrection can express the continuing significance of Jesus and God’s vindication of him, rather than functioning as a straightforward supernatural proof.

For Hick, the cross matters in the modern age because it reveals self-giving love in a world marked by violence and atrocity. Twentieth-century events such as genocide and war show the depth of human evil, but they also make sacrificial love and moral transformation urgent.

Hick’s view also supports interfaith dialogue, because it reduces the claim that Christianity alone possesses final and absolute truth through a uniquely divine incarnation. This makes space for other religions as genuine responses to the Real.

Barth and Hick compared

Strengths and weaknesses overall

Barth’s view is powerful because it gives the cross objective saving significance. It takes sin seriously and offers a rich account of divine grace. For many Christians, it protects the heart of the gospel: God saves humanity through Christ.

Its weakness is that the language of guilt, judgement and punishment can be hard for modern believers. Some may see it as ethically troubling or too dependent on courtroom imagery.

Hick’s view is attractive because it makes Christianity more accessible in a pluralist world. It highlights the ethical challenge of the cross and encourages humility in relation to other faiths.

Its weakness is that many Christians would argue it changes Christianity too radically. If incarnation, resurrection and Trinity are only myth or metaphor, then the cross may become inspirational rather than truly salvific.