- Ransom (Christus Victor) Theory
- Recapitulation Theory
- Satisfaction Theory
- Moral Influence Theory
- Penal Substitution Theory
- Scapegoat Theory of Atonement (a new and modern theory)
When considering hell, everything boils down to one question—why did Jesus have to die? The answer, though, is very complex, and it depends on whom you ask, in what region of the world, and to what year you set your time machine. Many theologians have tried to answer this question, a doctrine known today as “Models of Atonement.” These models, or theories, offer different perspectives on the significance of Jesus’ death and its impact on humanity.
Atonement, originally from the term “at one ment,” is the medium through which reconciliation between humanity and God is made available. It serves as the bridge, the adhesive, the re-stitching, and the repair of humanity’s bond with its Creator. This fundamental concept—the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ—has been interpreted in various ways throughout Christian history. This chapter explores the six major historical theories of atonement, each offering distinct perspectives on why Jesus died and the implications of his crucifixion.
Recapitulation Theory of Atonement
St. Irenaeus (130-202 AD), an influential early Christian theologian, developed the recapitulation theory of atonement, which is predominantly embraced by Orthodox denominations. This theory posits that Christ underwent all stages of human life, facing the same challenges as sinners but responding obediently, thereby counteracting Adam’s disobedience. In this framework, Christ acts as a “second Adam” who reenacts humanity’s story on our behalf.
The underlying logic of this model draws on the concept of leadership and representation. Just as David stood for all of Israel in his battle against Goliath, so Jesus represented the entirety of humanity. Similarly, as a patriarch embodies and leads his family, or a prime minister embodies his nation, Adam was considered the first patriarch of humankind. His failure led to universal repercussions (Romans 5:12). Christ, by this theory, steps in as the new patriarch and the ultimate King Messiah who redeems Adam’s failure by perfectly adhering to God’s commands, thus reversing the curse of disobedience.
The scriptural basis for this model includes passages like 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, which articulate that everyone’s death came through Adam and everyone’s resurrection through Christ:
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:21-22
Adam and Eve, despite living in the idyllic conditions of the Garden of Eden and having only one restriction to follow, were deceived by the devil. Contrastingly, Jesus adhered flawlessly to the stringent Law of Moses under the most arduous circumstances imaginable and while opposed by many.
According to the recapitulation model, Jesus not only relived human life stages impeccably but did so as our representative. Therefore, Satan holds no claim over humanity, or at least over those who belong to Christ. Moreover, as stated in Romans 8:34, Jesus intercedes at the right hand of God. 1 John 2:1 refers to Him as our advocate before the Father, and Hebrews 7:25 highlights that He lives continually to intercede for us. Thus, the recapitulation model portrays Christ as both mankind’s ultimate representative and its advocate, re-living and redeeming human life for the sake of all who align themselves with Him.
The Ransom Theory (Christus Victor)
The Ransom Theory, also known as Christus Victor, is by far the most influential theory of atonement in Christian theology. It asserts that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to liberate humanity from the bondage of Satan. This theory emphasizes Jesus’ victory over the forces of evil and highlights the cosmic battle between good and evil.
The Ransom Theory traces its origins to the early Christian Church and was the predominant understanding of atonement for the first thousand years of Christianity. Church Fathers such as Origen (185-254 AD) were instrumental in developing this theory. Origen systematically articulated that humanity, due to Adam’s sin, was enslaved to Satan, often referred to as “the prince of this world.” To redeem humanity, God offered Jesus as a ransom, which Satan accepted, not realizing that Jesus’ divine nature would ultimately lead to his defeat. This understanding was further expanded by theologians like Gregory of Nyssa (335-394 AD).
Several key theological concepts define the Ransom Theory:
- Enslavement to Satan: Humanity’s fall in Genesis 3 resulted in humanity’s spiritual captivity under Satan’s dominion, necessitating divine intervention.
- Ransom Payment: Jesus’ death is perceived as a ransom for humanity paid to Satan, implying a transactional element where a price is paid for the sake of redemption.
- Christus Victor: The term “Christ the Victor” highlights Jesus’ triumph over the powers of darkness. His resurrection is seen as the ultimate victory, breaking the chains of sin and death, freeing humanity, and restoring cosmic order.
Biblical Foundations
Several key biblical passages support the Ransom Theory:
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Mark 10:45
This verse emphasizes the ransom aspect of the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ mission.
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.
1 Timothy 2:5-6
This passage reinforces the concept of Jesus’ life as a ransom for all of humanity.
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
Hebrews 2:14-15
This underscores Jesus’ role in defeating the devil and liberating humanity.
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
Colossians 2:13-15
This passage vividly depicts Jesus’ triumph over the forces of evil.
The Ransom Theory frames the atonement within the context of a cosmic battle between good and evil. Jesus is portrayed as a divine warrior who confronts the powers of darkness, defeats them on our behalf by giving his own life, and liberates humanity from spiritual bondage to Satan. This dramatic narrative resonates with biblical themes of redemption, such as God’s deliverance of Israel from Pharaoh.
A helpful analogy for understanding the Ransom Theory is that of a child being lured away by a stranger. Despite parental warnings, the child is tempted by the stranger’s offer of candy and is subsequently kidnapped. Similarly, humanity fell for Satan’s deception and was spiritually captured. Jesus, acting as the rescuer, offers himself as a ransom to liberate the child from the stranger’s grasp.
Scripture declares Jesus came into this world to “drive out the ruler of this world” (John 12:31), “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), “destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (Hebrews 2:14-15), and ultimately “put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Corinthians 15:25). Jesus came to overpower Satan, who holds the world in bondage, and to “plunder his house” (Luke 11:21-22). Christ came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who had seized the world to “steal, kill, and destroy” (John 10:10). Through his death on the cross, Jesus disarmed “the rulers and authorities” and made a “public spectacle of them” by “triumphing over them on the cross” (Colossians 2:15).
In a more nuanced explanation, the triumph over Satan is viewed as a “divine deception” or a “cosmic sting operation.” God used Satan’s ignorance of sacrificial love and his greedy lust for power against him. As 1 Corinthians 2:8 states, “None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Satan, in his desire to kill Christ, failed to understand that Christ’s mission was to die. God outplayed Satan within the rules of the cosmic game. Satan was overcome not by the martial power of God but by His love.
Illustration
The great late C.S. Lewis provided a vivid illustration of the Ransom Theory in his book “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.” In this story, four children find themselves in the fantasy world of Narnia, where an evil sorceress, the White Witch, has seized control. One of the children, Edmund, conspires with the witch but is eventually rescued by Aslan, the great lion and rightful ruler of Narnia. Aslan offers himself as a sacrifice in place of Edmund, illustrating the concept of a greater being sacrificing himself to defeat evil and restore order—in the name of love.
Calvinists often criticize C.S. Lewis’ view of atonement, arguing that “C.S. Lewis was not an evangelical” and had “significant deficiencies” in his theological views of atonement. This criticism stems from Lewis’ adherence to the Ransom Theory of Atonement. Why is this important? Because as I mentioned earlier, everything boils down to this one question. Your atonement theology is really the foundation for all other theological doctrines, including the doctrine of hell. Thus, one’s stance on atonement has far-reaching implications for their overall theological framework.
In the Ransom Theory of atonement, Jesus took our place, not so that God could punish him, but so that Satan could kill him. This act was a divine strategy to overcome the devil through his ignorance of sacrificial love. Sacrificial love, the spiritual “magic” that evil was unaware of, proved to be the ultimate power that overcomes evil (still true today…). The Ransom Theory dominated Christian thought until other views, such as Anselm of Canterbury’s theory of “Satisfaction,” began to challenge it in the late 11th century.
Moral Influence Theory
“Monkey see, monkey do” is the principle that underpins the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement. Imitation is the cornerstone of human learning. This is evident in child-rearing and discipleship, where extensive research has shown that infants and toddlers are exceptional ‘copycats,’ learning by observing the behaviors of others—parents, caregivers, and even television. This is also true for adults, who often learn new skills and behaviors by observing and mimicking others. Whether it’s in professional settings, social interactions, or personal development, imitation plays a crucial role in how we acquire knowledge and adapt to new situations.
With allusions in several Church Fathers’ writings, this theory was systematically articulated later by the French theologian and logician Peter Abelard (1079-1142). Abelard, who also entertained Ransom’s substitutionary atonement (not to be confused with Penal Substitution Atonement!), proposed that Christ’s death was an act of participation in the suffering of His creation, demonstrating the profound love of God—a love so deep it was willing to die with and for its creation, setting a moral example for humanity to emulate. In his commentary on Romans 3:26, Abelard wrote:
Nevertheless it seems to us that in this we are justified in the blood of Christ and reconciled to God, that it was through this matchless grace shown to us that his Son received our nature, and in that nature, teaching us both by word and by example, persevered to the death and bound us to himself even more through love, so that when we have been kindled by so great a benefit of divine grace, true charity might fear to endure nothing for his sake.
Peter Abelard
This sacrificial love aims to provoke a moral awakening in sinners, freeing them from the clutches of selfishness.
Consider Mary Magdalene, who devoted her life to the one who saved her from evil; her response was to emulate Christ’s grace and love and extend it to others. Similarly, the moral influence theory advocates that God’s love and grace should compel followers of Christ to become agents of love and grace themselves. In fact, His love and grace are considered the defining characteristics of Christ’s followers. These qualities are central to their faith and guide their actions and interactions with others.
In strained relationships, acts of grace and kindness may mend a broken heart and revive lost connections. Thus, by the grace and kindness shown by God through the cross, human hearts may soften, return to God, and mirror that love towards others. Since Christ managed to win over sinners’ hearts with nothing but His sacrificial love, so should His followers live by the love, kindness, grace, and compassion He demonstrated. This is also where we find Abelard’s answer to the question of why Jesus had to die:
Jesus died as a demonstration of God’s love, a demonstration that can change sinners’ hearts and minds, turning them back to God.
Peter Abelard
Since God cannot die—cease to exist—even for a single moment, the Moral Influence theory suggests that Jesus’s death is more than anything a demonstration of sacrificial love rather than God actually dying. Christ’s death showcases ultimate love, capable of inspiring even the most hardened individuals. This transformative power of love, as Abelard believed, is far more effective than the fear of punishment.
If someone greater than us—our Creator—demonstrated His love towards us through sacrificial death, how can we not be moved to love others similarly? “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19)—We now understand the meaning of love as self-sacrifice and are capable of reproducing it only because God first demonstrated it through the cross of Jesus.
Abelard systematically articulated and propagated the Moral Influence Theory as an alternative to Anslem’s Satisfaction Theory. While Anslem rejected the early Ransom theory, Abelard sought to improve it. However, while in Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and Calvin’s Penal Substitution, Jesus reconciles a wrathful God. Abelard, in contrast, emphasized that it is “God, who through Jesus Christ reconciled us to Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:18).
Due to his view on atonement, Abelard was eventually excommunicated by the Catholic synod in Sens, France. His theory of atonement, however, has lived on in various forms throughout the last millennium. Today, the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement is embraced particularly by denominations with a less conservative theological outlook, including non-conservative Protestants and, to some extent, liberal Catholics and Orthodox. This view sets the non-conservative Protestant groups, who generally embrace this theory, against the conservative Protestant groups, who usually favor the Penal Substitution Theory.
Satisfaction Theory of Atonement
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was an Italian Benedictine monk who lived in feudal Europe. In Anselm’s time, most of Europe was governed by a feudal system where commoners owed allegiance to knights who provided protection. The social and justice systems were largely influenced by this feudal hierarchy, with knights and kings employing severe punishments to maintain authority and prevent rebellion. Knights could not forgive transgressions without punishment as it would be seen as a sign of weakness and could incite an uprising against them. Similarly, transgressions against a king were met with even harsher penalties, often execution, to uphold their honor and deter revolt.
Influenced by Augustine of Hippo and this cultural backdrop, Anselm saw sin as an affront to the honor of God, the ultimate sovereign. Anselm proposed that just as a human king cannot overlook an affront to his dignity without imposing a death penalty on those unwilling to surrender, so too God could not forgive sins without restitution. However, Anselm argued that God’s required punishment for sin must be far more severe than earthly death penalties, affecting the afterlife. Anselm’s conception of God was significantly anthropomorphic.
The Satisfaction Theory of Atonement, articulated by Anselm of Canterbury, rejects the previous Ransom Theory and posits that, instead, Christ redeemed humanity by “making satisfaction” for humankind’s disobedience.
In this theory, Christ’s suffering and death on the cross are seen as the ultimate act of restoring—satisfying—God’s honor and retribution. In this paradigm, Jesus’s death is essentially God satisfying Himself for the sake of humanity, allowing for divine justice to be served while reconciling God. This concept of atonement implies that Christ’s sacrifice was the payment-through-retaliation necessary to mend the relationship between God and humanity, broken by sin, by paying back the great debt owed to God’s honor.
Illustration: Imagine a kingdom where a subject has committed an offense against the king, a misstep so grave that it warrants a death sentence. Instead of allowing the execution to proceed, the king’s son, moved by a deep love for the subject, intervenes. He offers his own life to maintain the king’s honor and satisfy the stringent demands of justice. This act of self-sacrifice resolves the dilemma, preserving the king’s honor while demonstrating profound mercy and love. However, the perspective of the Father killing the Son presents several moral and theological dilemmas, as it pivots God against Jesus, portraying the Son as merciful and loving, in contrast to the Father, who is depicted as cruel and merciless.
The satisfaction theory is criticized by some for depicting God as incapable of forgiving without exacting revenge. Critics argue that this perspective portrays a merciless system of justice rooted in retribution rather than restoration or transformation.
This view of atonement grew dominant within the Catholic Church, shaping its understanding of how reconciliation between God and humanity is achieved.
Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA)
John Calvin’s 16th-century Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, which emerged during the Protestant Reformation, is built upon Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and posits that Christ redeemed humanity by taking on God’s punishment for human sin. In contrast with scriptural claims, the PSA is believed to be a punishment and abuse administrated on Jesus by God.
A distinction must be made between the often confused terms ‘Substitutionary Atonement’ (Christ suffers for us) and ‘Penal Substitution’ (‘PSA,’ Calvin’s model of atonement whereby God punishes Christ in our place).
PSA is often criticized for being the most violent, merciless, and brutal of all theories of atonement and for being a major latecomer, to which proponents of PSA often point to Eusebius of Caesarea (260-339 AD), who allegedly promoted PSA when writing of Christ bearing the curses due to us:
Christ transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonor, which were due us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse.
Eusebius of Caesarea
However, Eusebius and the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement have a significant and crucial difference. According to Eusebius, evil men inflicted Christ with torture and suffering, not God, as PSA teaches. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (much like Anselm’s Satisfaction theory) is crucial for our discussion as it is where hellfire preaching really takes off.
The following quotes by conservative protestants/reformed/evangelicals best describe the Penal Substitution Atonement view.
According to John MacArthur:
We must remember, however, that sin did not kill Jesus; God did. The suffering servant’s death was nothing less than a punishment administered by God for sins others had committed
…God put his own Son to death? That is precisely what Scripture teaches.
John MacArthur
Likewise, in his sermon titled “The Pleasure of God in Bruising the Son,” John Piper, a Reformed (Calvinist) pastor as well, affirms:
Jesus was not swept away by the wrath of uncontrolled men. He was bruised by his Father.
John Piper
Likewise, Piper wrote in his book:
The ultimate answer to the question, “Who crucified Jesus?” is: God did. It is a staggering thought. Jesus was his Son. And the suffering was unsurpassed.
John Piper
Wyatt Graham, director of The Gospel Coalition (Calvinism’s online hub), wrote:
Jesus bore divine wrath at the cross for our sake, and so protected us from it. This act implies that God hates humans since he would have poured wrath upon humans.
Wyatt Graham
Trevin Wax, a writer for The Gospel Coalition as well, argues:
God killed Jesus. I know that might sound harsh, and it is, indeed, hard to wrap your mind around. But it’s true. God the Father sacrificed his Son. He killed his Son in order to spare us His righteous wrath.
Trevin Wax
In his sermon, “Jesus sweats blood,” Evangelical pastor Mark Driscoll explains:
See, at the cross of Jesus, there is hatred for Jesus and love for us…on the cross, the wrath of God was poured out on the Son of God. To say it another way, Jesus took the cup on the cross and drank every single drop of the wrath of God, and he endured it. This was physical, emotional, spiritual, mental suffering to a degree that is incomprehensible.
Mark Driscoll
C.J. Mahaney, an evangelical Reformed pastor and former president of Sovereign Grace Ministries, preached:
Who killed Jesus? The Father. The Father killed the Son….He crushed his son for you! He crushed Him! He bruised him! He punished him! He disfigured him! He crushed him! With all of the righteous wrath that we deserved. That’s what the Father did. So great was His love.
C.J. Mahaney
David Platt, evangelical reformed Baptist pastor and former president of IMB, writes:
Jesus was pulverized under the weight of God’s wrath as he stood in our place…At the cross, God showed the full expression of his wrath.
David Platt
Lastly, an excerpt from a devotional in a popular magazine for Evangelical Christian women:
God tortured His son and Himself to release the bondage and grip of sin on His creation.
Devotional, Living Better Magazine
Penal Substitution Atonement’s Logic
In the PSA theory, the term “penal” relates directly to penalty or punishment. Having consequences for transgressions is foundational in any society, and it helps maintain order. For example, under the Law of Moses, a thief might pay back more than what was stolen as both restitution and punishment. Similarly, in modern contexts, penalties like speeding fines enforce societal rules. But if someone is unable to pay their fine, another might take the penalty on their behalf, exemplifying substitution. This is reflective of Christ’s death on the cross, taking the penalty due to sin upon Himself, thereby acting as a substitute.
However, Calvin took this idea a step further by proposing that God’s justice required a much more severe penalty to be paid for sin—eternal torture in hell. According to PSA, Jesus Christ bore the full wrath of God and the ultimate penalty of torture and abuse for human sin on the cross. Thus, Calvin’s interpretation presents Jesus not only as a sacrificial offering but as the recipient of God’s wrath, which some argue diverges significantly from the original Hebrew understanding of atonement.
A distinction has to be made between the Ransom Theory of Atonement (Christ suffers for us) and Penal Substitution (God punished Christ instead of punishing us.) Also, Penal substitution differs from Anselm’s Satisfaction theory in that it sees Christ’s death not as repaying God for lost honor but rather as paying the penalty (which, according to PSA, includes the idea of hellfire’s eternal conscious torment).
While the Catholic church adopted Anselm’s satisfaction theory, the Protestant church upheld Calvin’s Penal Substitution model. The Catholic church developed the idea of purgatory, while the Protestant church continued to develop the concept of eternal conscious torment further.
Criticism of Penal Substitution Atonement
The Penal Substitution theory is heavily critiqued for various reasons, such as for depicting God’s justice as excessively severe and disproportionate—suggesting even minor transgressions merit endless hellfire torture. Critics argue that this perspective fosters a detached, transactional relationship between humanity and God, emphasizing punishment and retribution over a nurturing, parent-like relationship centered on love, reconciliation, and restoration. Other theologians and thinkers raise ethical and theological objections about the nature of divine justice and mercy and the theory’s incompatibility with many Bible passages.
Despite its criticism, Penal Substitution remains the central tenet in most Reformed, evangelical, and conservative Protestant denominations, profoundly influencing their theology, view of God’s character, understanding of atonement and the nature of salvation, and ultimately—their view of hellfire as Eternal Conscious Torment, as evident in the preachings of Reformed, evangelical, and conservative Protestant pastors and evangelists.
Since Penal Substitution Atonement is considered the greenhouse of the doctrine of hellfire, I will now offer a quick summary of the main points of criticism by modern-day theologians.
1. Problematic Father-Son Dynamic: Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA) portrays the Father requiring the torture and killing of His Son, suggesting a disturbing dynamic within the Godhead and an alleged temporary split within the Godhead. This depiction conflicts with the message of divine unity and love central to Christianity.
2. Ethical Concerns: PSA involves punishing the innocent to absolve the guilty, which contradicts our innate sense of justice. Punishing a law-abiding citizen for a criminal’s actions can be considered unjust.
3. Paradox of Forgiveness: PSA implies forgiveness requires punishment, which contradicts the essence of forgiveness and Jesus’ teachings on forgiveness in the New Testament gospels. True forgiveness, as demonstrated throughout Jesus’ ministry, involves letting go, not transferring punishment to another. Biblical teachings on forgiveness emphasize grace and mercy without conditioning or demanding for retribution.
4. Overshadowing Love and Resurrection: PSA makes punishment the essence of the Gospel, which can diminish its broader themes, shifting the emphasis from Jesus’s teachings about unconditional love, sacrifice, kindness and forgiveness to a transactional and violent view of salvation.
5. Disproportionate Punishment: PSA suggests eternal abusive punishment for temporal sins or lack of faith, which challenges the notion of a just and merciful God. This disproportionality raises ethical concerns about divine justice and compassion.
6. Logic of Trauma and Abuse: The idea of a God demanding torture for atonement seems unethical and can trigger trauma and align with patterns of abusive behavior, leading to a skewed view of God as a punitive figure rather than a loving parent.
7. Endorsement of Violence: PSA necessitates violence for salvation, which contradicts Jesus’s teachings of nonviolence and peace, potentially endorsing violence as a divine mandate.
8. Limitation on Divine Love: PSA portrays God as a judge who prioritizes retribution over mercy, obscuring the unconditional nature of divine love and potentially leading to legalism and a cult-like community.
9. Historical and Biblical Discrepancies: PSA is a relatively modern development, diverging from both early Christian understandings of atonement and that of the Hebrew Scriptures. Old Testament sacrifices were about purification, not punishment, and New Testament teachings likewise emphasize reconciliation and restoration.
10. Issue of Fairness: PSA fails to account for human limitations and imperfections. God created humans with finite knowledge and very limited cognitive abilities, making it unfair to impose eternal punishment on finite beings and for temporal sins influenced by these inherent limitations.
11. Fear as Motivation: PSA promotes fear as the primary motivator to believe, conflicting with the biblical message that “there is no fear in love” (1 John 4:18) and the portrayal of a loving and compassionate God. Psychologically, fear-driven motivation is detrimental to emotional, mental, and spiritual growth.
12. Pagan Influence: The concept of a wrathful deity demanding the torture and killing of an innocent sacrifice to appease wrath is rooted in deeply ancient pagan practices, not biblical teachings.
I have made a longer, in-depth version available on my website.
Scapegoat Theory of Atonement
A newcomer model of atonement is that of René Girard (1923-2015), a French historian, literary critic, and philosopher of social science, who delved deeply into anthropology, particularly the mechanisms of societal violence and mimetic desire. Mimetic desire is the notion that humans desire objects or statuses primarily because they observe others desiring them. This mimetic process often leads to rivalry and escalating tensions within a society. To prevent a total societal breakdown, communities unconsciously choose a scapegoat, a substitute victim who gets blamed for the crisis even if they are not the actual cause. Focusing collective aggression on this scapegoat provides temporary relief and restoration of societal order. Over time and across cultures, this process often becomes ritualized and encoded in myths wherein the scapegoat might even be deified. Therefore, the scapegoat Theory of Atonement focuses on the social aspect of the atonement.
However, Girard postulated that the Christian narrative uniquely demystifies this universal mechanism. According to Girard, in Christianity, Jesus is portrayed as the ultimate scapegoat, an innocent victim who bears collective violence but is then vindicated through the resurrection. This New Testament portrayal is crucial, as it reveals the falsehood of the scapegoat mechanism and presents Jesus not as a perpetrator deserving of death but as an innocent victim offering forgiveness. Girard argued that the Gospels expose the scapegoat mechanism for what it is, showing that the victim is innocent and that the violence directed at them is unjust.
Thus, in the Christian understanding, Girard saw a profound critique of humanity’s cycles of rivalry and violence. He believed that the death and resurrection of Jesus offer a path toward redemption and atonement that contrasts with traditional theological interpretations. By exposing the victim’s innocence and the violence’s injustice, the Christian narrative invites believers to break the cycle of mimetic rivalry, strife, hostility, and revenge and embrace forgiveness and reconciliation instead. This revelation challenges societies to move away from violence towards a more compassionate and just way of life, making Girard’s model a transformative approach to understanding atonement.
This article is based on a chapter in my book, “HELL: A Jewish Perspective on a Christian Doctrine.”
