Well, perhaps not “most Christians,” but certainly most Protestants (Calvinists, Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, etc.) and most Catholics. Historically, this overlook made them develop their Theories of Atonement pretty late in the game, disregarding the earlier teachings of the Church Fathers.1
The Models of Atonement held by both the Catholic and Protestant churches are largely similar and go something like this: God is very upset with humanity for not being as perfect as He is, and to appease His anger, God must punish all humankind by torturing them in fire foreverāforever. Yet, because He is kind and loving, He is willing to spare us and direct His wrath elsewhere instead through a sacrifice. This concept, by the way, is absent from the Hebrew Scriptures but was always popular with the pagans. The ancient Persians are a good example:
Embarus, a native of the island Pyraeum, offered his daughter in sacrifice to appease the wrath of the gods.2
Either way, the first conceptāor doctrineāof sacrifice and atonement did not start with Calvin and Luther 500 years ago nor with Anselm’s earlier theory a thousand years ago. It started with the Old Testament sacrifices. These sacrifices in the Torah are the true source of the doctrine and also what Jesus came to fulfill!
Sacrifices in the Hebrew Scriptures
Israel never sacrificed to God in order to relax His wrath or satisfy His appetite for bloodāas taught by Calvin, Luther, and Anselm’s theories of atonement. Sacrifices were not about Israel killing animals in the hopes that God, upon seeing these dead corpses, would choose not to punish Israel as well (Substitutionary Atonement). They were also not about satisfying God’s wrath and honor (Satisfaction Atonement) for a little while longer. These were the pagan’s motivations, not Israel’s. Killing and abusing others as a means to avoid punishment for ourselves is why the pagans worshiped their gods. For Israel, however, the sacrificial system included a profound act of giving thanks, communion, worship, cleansing, and covenant renewal. It was a chance for Israel to realign herself back with Godās will and commandments (repentance), expressing devotion and thanksgiving. The sacrificial system, as outlined in the Old Testament, was multifaceted and symbolic, deeply embedded in the spiritual life of Israel. There were many kinds of sacrifices in the Torah, but only two directly dealt with the forgiveness of sins: ASHAM (Guilt-offering) and HATAāAT (āSin-offeringā or āPurification-offeringā).
Atonement in the Hebrew Scriptures
While it is true that these specific sacrifices were meant to atone for sins, this was not about appeasing a wrathful deity’s demand for bloodshed. In Leviticus, for example, atonement is linked with purifying what was contaminated to ensure God’s presence and blessings, not with diverting punishment. The main purpose of the sacrifices’ blood wasāspirituallyāto cleanse, disinfect, sterilize, and sanitize Israel’s worship place where God dwelt. If it was contaminated, God could not reside there; without His presence, blessings would cease.
Life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). The sacrifices’ blood for Israel was akin to what alcohol gel, bleach, or detergent is for us today. No physician would be willing to enter the hospital’s operation room unless it is sanitized and germ-free. Likewise, it wasn’t that God would punish Israel if they didn’t sacrifice; rather, it was as if they were saying, “We don’t care for you being here right now, god. We’ll manage on our own. Thanks.” (And so, there was no one to protect Israel when her enemies came by to visit…)
For Israel, the purpose of the sacrifices was not to avoid punishment from God but to enjoy His presence and receive His blessings and protection by ensuring He was “invited” and His “residence” was always clean and ready. This fundamentally differs from pagan practices, which viewed the gods as capricious beings requiring appeasement through pain, abuse, and death for their sadistic and demonic satisfaction.
Unfortunately, this view penetrated the Church through brilliant but flawed theologians such as Calvin, Luther, and Anslem, and became the dominant model(s) of atonement in both the Catholic church and the Protestant church which emerged from it.
Therefore, from a Jewish perspective, believing in Christ’s atonement does NOT mean believing that God tortured, abused, and killed Jesus so He doesn’t have to torture and burn us (as taught by Calvinism). From a Jewish perspective, Christ’s atonement means we can enter the Holy of Holies and enjoy God’s presence and blessingsānow and forever.
One of my favorite theologians is Dr. Tim Mackie, the leader and theologian behind the famous “The Bible Project” animated videos. This is what Mackie had to say about the Evangelical/Protestant view of Atonement in one of his podcasts:
Many of us have inherited a story about animal sacrifice, and it goes something like this:
Animal Sacrifice? Really?ā, bibleproject.com
āThe gods are angry with me and are going to kill me. But maybe if I kill this animal and make sure the gods get their pound of flesh, theyāll be appeased and happy. Maybe they wonāt kill me or send a plague on my family. Sure, itās barbaric, but so are the godsā¦ā
Much of popular Christian belief has simply imported a pagan storyline into Leviticus and the stories about Jesusā death on the cross. The result is a tragic irony. What the Bible is portraying as an expression of Godās love gets twisted into something dark. Our version goes like this:
āGod is holy and perfect. You are not. Therefore, God is angry at you, and hates you even, so he has to kill you. But because heās merciful, heāll let you bring this animal to him and will have the animal killed instead of you. Thankfully, Jesus came to be the one who gets killed by God instead of me. Jesus rescues us from God, so now we can go forever to the happy place after we die and not the bad place.ā
Is this story recognizable to you? If so, youāre not alone. The main problem with this story, to be a bit snarky, is the Bible. More specifically, the problem is that this story has enough biblical language in it that it can pass for what the Bible actually says about animal sacrifice and Jesusā death. However, when you step back and allow Leviticus and the New Testament to speak for themselves, you can recognize this story as an imposter.
He Values Us
The Torah commanded Israel to sacrifice only their finest.3 This is also why Cain’s sacrifice was rejected. Therefore, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ profoundly underscores the immense value God places on humanity. By sending the Son to atone for human sin, a bridge was symbolically built by God to overcome the insurmountable gap caused by human disobedience. This act was a deep expression of Godās love and commitment to restore the broken relationship between Him and His people.
In this divine exchange, where Jesus, sinless and perfect, willingly gave His life on our behalf, we see the flawless nature of Godās justice. Unlike human justice, which can be retributive and revengeful, Godās justice is restorative, driven by love rather than anger. The blood of Jesus, thus, serves as a declaration of His love, emphasizing that God values us immenselyālike a parent willing to die for their children’s sake.
Christ’s sacrifice demonstrates that we are deeply loved and highly valued by God. It inspires us with dignity and purpose, knowing that we are worth the greatest sacrifice in the eyes of our Creator.
Other Sacrifice-Related Articles:
ā¦¾ Two Sacrificial Offerings in the Hebrew Scriptures That Will Completely Revise How You View Forgiveness of Sins.
ā¦¾ Why Sacrifice is the Highest of Virtues.
ā¦¾ What is God’s Wrath?
ā¦¾ An entire book I wrote on Atonement in relation to God and the Gospel.
- Unlike most Catholic and Protestant churches, most Church Fathers believed in an Atonement Theory known as the “Ransom” Theory. This was also C.S. Lewis’s view, which he used “Narnia” to illustrate. ā©ļø
- Ā Bellās New Pantheon; or Historical dictionary of the gods, demi-gods, heroes, page 286. ā©ļø
- E.g., Exodus 12:5; Leviticus 1:3-10; 3:1; 22:20-21. ā©ļø
