**Question** I am not asking for all Christian interpretations; I am asking from a biblical-theology perspective. **Romans 7:2** says that a married woman is bound (by the law) to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from that marital bond and may belong to another (the law ceases to have jurisdiction). My question is not whether Christ’s death makes the Law itself void, abolished, or of no effect. In Paul’s marriage analogy, when the husband dies, the marriage law does not cease to exist. What ceases is the woman’s legal status as bound to that particular husband under the law within that particular marriage. Given this distinction, I am asking whether **Romans 7:2–4** can be understood as addressing the legal termination of the old covenant-marriage bond. The Old Testament presents YHWH’s relationship to Israel in covenant-marriage terms; **Jeremiah 31:32 says Israel broke the covenant, though YHWH was her husband; **Jeremiah 3:8** says YHWH gave faithless Israel a certificate of divorce; **Jeremiah 3:1** invokes the **Deuteronomy 24:1–4** problem, where a divorced and defiled wife may not return to her former husband; and finally **Jeremiah 31:31–34** promises a new covenant (marriage), not simply a repaired old-covenant. Within a Pauline biblical-theology context, does the cross address a covenant-legal problem (as well as the atonement for sin)? More specifically, does Christ’s death terminate the old covenant legal claim of a bond between Israel as bride and YHWH as husband, thereby making a new covenant union possible, without implying that the Law itself has ceased to exist?

All throughout the Bible, in too many instances to list, there is a meta narrative wherein the sentence of a righteous judgment is avoided by the sacrifice of an innocent: The innocent bearing the sentence of the guilty. Examples of this include the Passover lamb in the Exodus story, and the scapegoat of the great day of atonement. Up until the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world put an end to sacrifice, by becoming the once for all sacrifice, those sacrifices were of lesser beings for greater beings; lambs for people, etc. Jesus turned that around and made it the sacrifice of a greater for the lesser, but it doesn't seem as though the underlying idea of punishment for sin, retribution if you will, being transferred from one being to the other as disappeared On the other hand, I know that there are theologies which reject the notion of penal substitutionary atonement as being unbiblical. What do those theologians do with Passover and the scapegoat, for example??

I was very surprised when I entered the words 'substitutionary atonement' into the Google Ngram Viewer and produced the graph below. The graph shows usage in literature from 1600 to 2019. This reports from the corpus thus far digitally scanned into Google Books. This is a fairly reliable representation of the usage of language. And this appears to indicate that the phrase is a relatively modern phenomenon. The fact that its heavier usage begins in the mid 1850s might point to rising usage in the beginnings of the Brethren movement - the 'Plymouth Brethren' at the time. It could also denote usage among the rising Baptist movement - the 'Strict Baptists' (as opposed to 'Anabaptists') of the time. But what surprises me is that it appears not to be terminology used either by the Reformers or by the Puritans. And certainly not from the early Church. Does anyone have any more information on its first usage and first popularity - or why it seems to have gained significant usage in the past few years ? Link to the Ngram Viewer As per the comment, I have added the Ngram for 'atonement' and its usage far outweighs that of 'substitionsary atonement' (to the point of flattening its curve to zero) but shows an increase, also, in the past few years. As per the second comment, I have plotted 'vicarious atonement' against 'substitutionary atonement'. Very interesting indeed.

The Christus Victor model of atonement emphasizes Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the powers of evil, rather than focusing primarily on substitutionary punishment or satisfaction. However, several New Testament and prophetic passages seem to frame atonement in terms of sacrifice, blood, and substitution. - Hebrews 9:22 --*“Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”* - Isaiah 53:5–6 -- *“But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”* - Paul the Apostle (e.g., Ephesians 2:15) -- *“by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances…”* - Paul the Apostle (e.g., Hebrews 10:12) -- *“But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.”* Given these passages: 1. How do proponents of the Christus Victor model interpret such texts? 2. How are ideas like “shedding of blood,” “bearing sin,” and “final sacrifice” integrated into a primarily victory-centered framework? 3. Do they understand sacrificial and substitutionary language as metaphorical, complementary, or secondary to the theme of victory?

I am looking for a good overview/introduction to atonement theory that covers multiple points of view so that I can better understand the difference between the various different theories. I am not looking for someone to outline them here, as I would like a more thorough answer than what would be reasonable in a SE answer. I am also looking for something beyond what Wikipedia provides, as frankly it is not very helpful. Perhaps a book that devotes a chapter or two to an academic presentation of several different views, but doesn't (strongly) argue for or against any of them, would be best.

From the [Cannons of Dort](https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort) 2nd Point of Doctrine, Article III > This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. This is from a Calvinist perspective, but I assume that most Christians hold that Christ's atonement for man is infinite and unlimited in time and in power. My question is about where this belief was sourced from. Is it somewhere I don't know about in the Bible or from early Christian creeds/councils? So what do Calvinists point to as the origin of the belief of an infinite atonement?

Calvin, among his other points, includes the point that Atonement is Limited; i.e., that Christ's death was sufficient for all but only effective for the elect. What is the Biblical basis for this doctrine?

The "L" in the TULIP acronym of Reformed Theology stands for Limited Atonement, which the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms defines as : > Sometimes called 'particular redemption,' the view that Jesus' death > secured salvation for only a limited number of persons (the elect), > in contrast to the idea that the work of the cross is intended for all > humankind (as in “unlimited atonement”). This view resulted from the > post-Reformation development of the doctrine of election in Calvinist > circles. Proponents claim that because not everyone is saved, God > could not have intended that Christ die for everyone. We already have a question asking for the Biblical basis **for** Limited Atonement , so my question is what is the Biblical argument **against** Limited Atonement?

Non-Trinitarians who do not believe Jesus is God Almighty include Unitarians, Socinians, Arians, Jehova's Witnesses, etc. This would not include, supposedly, Modalists and LDS/Mormons. The idea of atonement in the Old Testament was that a sinner would bring an offering to atone for his sin, and the death of that animal (and thus, its life) would take the place of the sinner's. In his *Temple, Its Ministry and Services *, Alfred Edersheim wrote, >The fundamental idea of sacrifice in the Old Testament is that of substitution, which again seems to imply everything else—atonement and redemption, vicarious punishment and forgiveness. The firstfruits go for the whole products; the firstlings for the flock; the redemption-money for that which cannot be offered; **and the life of the sacrifice, which is in its blood (Lev 17:11), for the life of the sacrificer**. Hence also the strict prohibition to partake of blood. Even in the ‘Korban,’ gift (Mark 7:11) or free-will offering, it is still the gift for the giver. This idea of substitution, as introduced, adopted, and sanctioned by God Himself, is expressed by the sacrificial term rendered in our version ‘atonement,’ but which really means covering, **the substitute** in the acceptance of God **taking the place of**, and so covering, as it were, **the person of the offerer**. Now, this would be a 1:1 relationship, i.e. one sinner, one animal. If Jesus is just a man (or even an angel, another created being), even if he be a sinless man (just like the animal was sinless and was offered as an atonement), how can Jesus effect atonement for all of humanity (John 1:29 ) rather than just one person?

To Peter Turner’s point A) Scripture is the source that says blood was necessary and that blood was sufficient, question revolves around why a Non-Trinitarian Jesus has sufficient worth to save mankind from sin of He is not God and therefore not infinitely valuable as God is. > “*For by **a single offering** (blood offering) he has perfected **for all time** those who are being sanctified*.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:14‬ ‭ . > *“he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but **by means of his own blood**, thus **securing** an eternal redemption.”* ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:12‬ To point B) this question is for non Trinitarians, if moderators require a more specific group, to Jehovah Witnesses. (Not for Modalist Non-Trinitarian) —————— The OT foreshadowed a coming sacrifice through which sin would be purged and expunged > “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:4‬ ‭ Animal sacrifices were done in faith anticipating the future redemption of mankind But why was Jesus’ death/blood sufficient? If Jesus was merely a coequal to satan or of the same kind any other ‘angel’ as some claim, and NOT God incarnate (as Trinitarians say He is) then why is an angel incarnate a sufficient sacrificial lamb for the sins of mankind? It is clear that prior to incarnation Jesus existed as a non “Adam” man, two texts, one is His own admission because the conversation was prior to the prepared body > *“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but **a body have you prepared for me**;” “Then I said, ‘Behold, **I have come to do your will**, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:5‬,7 > “For **I have come down from heaven**, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.” ‭‭John‬ ‭6:38‬* And secondly *“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, **from eternity**.””* ‭‭Micah‬ ‭5:2‬ ‭ If He is not God, as God the Father is God, but a created being on what basis is His sacrifice sufficient? > “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent ( not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, **how much more will the blood of Christ**, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:11-14‬ Why is His blood sufficient if he is not the eternal God? ———— - Animals were used in substitution for sin as foreshadowing - One man could die for another man or take the punishment in substitution - **Since when can an angel substitute the sins of all mankind? It would make sense if it were the eternal everlasting God but a created being makes no sense, humans are created, as are angels why is one angel worth all of mankind?**

In the words of the blessed apostle Saint Paul (cf. Philippians 2:5-9): > 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became **obedient unto death, even the death of the cross**. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. Is according to the obedience of Christ unto death, in contrast with the disobedience of the first Adam (which was also for death, cf. Genesis 2:17), that Christ fulfilled the Law and was exalted above all creation. Meditating on what this obedience was, I encoutered this theological opinion in an [article](https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/obedient-unto-death) : > What theologians are trying to do when they distinguish between the active and passive obedience of Christ is point to a very real distinction between different aspects, or different dimensions, of the one life of Christ. Throughout His entire life, Christ fulfilled the Moral Law. But so would Adam have done if sin had not entered the world when he sinned. **It’s the entrance of sin that brings in a new, darker dimension to the obedience required of Man: he must now submit to God’s holy judgment as a result of his transgression. So when Christ comes as the Second Adam, it won’t suffice for Him simply to live the holy life that unfallen Adam ought to have lived. The Second Adam’s obedience also means submitting humbly to the awesome divine verdict on human sin.** but it goes further, saying: > He was submissive throughout His life as He underwent all the hardships and sorrows of a sinless man in a fallen world. But His submission to His Father’s judgment on our sin reached its apex on the cross. **Prior to this, Christ had only walked in the outer shadow of judgment, so to speak, still enjoying the light of His Father’s face. On Skull Hill, He entered the innermost darkness when He cried out, “My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Yet still He embraced the darkness with a submissive spirit — a Son obeying His Father’s purpose, at one with the Father in His redemptive design**. Of course, this is not a Catholic opinion, and it's indeed Catholic doctrine that Christ, in His human nature, had the beatific vision of the Father at all moments of His earthly life, including on the cross. Reading the first part that I quoted, I come to the contemplation that Christ's obedience to the Law, the Eternal Law that emanates from the Father, has really this twofold meaning: Christ fulfilled the Law firstly in virtue of his holy life, out of love to the Father, but secondly, because man sinned, and the punishment of sin is the spiritual death (i.e. eternal separation of God), and because sin requires atonement according to this Law, then, in obedience to this decree of the Father and out of love for us, Christ provided in himself this atonement on our behalf, through His passion and consequently death on the cross. Now, because of the second part that I quoted (and rest), I have the impression that the article was pointing to the view of atonement by penal substition, which is contrary to the Catholic theology (at least, to the consensus of the Church). **My first question is**: According to Catholic theology/teaching, is my reading of the first part wrong, valid or there is no saying on this particular view. Again, my reading is not of penal substition, but on this reflection of the twofold aspect of Christ's obedience. **My second (and main) question is**: What are the main theological opinions within the (Catholic) Church about the nature of the obedience of Christ? It was obedience to the Law of the covenant of Moses? To the Eternal Law of the Father, the Divine Justice? To, specifically, the plan of human redemption of the Father? Every of these at once? I apologize if this question appears to be too simple (I have not completed my catechism yet, if this can serve as an excuse), but what I'm really searching is how to run away from the simplistic view that "he was obedient fulfilling the Father's redemption", or something like that, and to go more deeply in this mystery. God bless.

When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that he may be punished on our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the Offended something that He loves equally or even more than He hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of humankind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general terms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He, being God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why is it that Christ's sacrifice needs to be in the sense of Christ giving His life to suffer and die on the cross, instead of just an offering of Himself in a less bloodshed way? I know that God could save us in any other way, for He is omnipotent, and that He chose the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I came to another facet of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Gethsemane He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how can the Father is pleased in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven by feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I want a way to resolve this. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.

The term 'substitutionary atonement' has been used within Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed Baptist circles for some time, and it is those I wish to examine in this question. But the word 'substitute' does not translate a Greek word found in scripture, nor does the term 'atonement'. The word 'atonement' is found once in the KJV, Romans 5:11, but it is a clear mis-translation of the word καταλλαγην, *katallagen*, in all other places rendered 'reconciliation'. Both words are vague in meaning. Nor does 'substitute' or 'substitution' convey a concept that the apostolic epistles express, the emphasis of the doctrine of Christ being union with Christ (in his sufferings, in his death and in his resurrection) rather than some kind of 'exchange' (another word never found in Greek except μετηλλαξαν, *metellazan*, in Romans 1:26). The word 'atonement' has a weak etymology and an ill-defined concept, its meaning a loose 'at-one' derivation and its application being a very general and overall term for the both the sufferings and death and resurrection of Christ that is never found in the greater precision of the apostolic writings. What exactly is being conveyed by the term ? When was the expression first coined ? What error was being resisted by the introduction of this couplet ? Again, I am looking for a response in regard to Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed and Baptist usage of the terminology. -------------------------- EDIT upon comment : I believe that 'Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures'. I believe that 'Christ gave his life a ransom for many'. I believe that 'He bare our sins in his own body on the tree'. I believe that 'he was made sin for us, who knew no sin'. But the scripture never uses the word 'substitute' to express that. I am questioning the terminology, not the doctrine of Christ. Further explanatory EDIT : My concern has always been the *emphasis*. If I have no relationship with Christ, if I am not in union with Him, if I know not his presence before my face when I pray, then *the facts* of his sufferings, death and resurrection are just that - historical facts. The terms 'substitute' and 'exchange' are distant terms. But kinsman-redeemer, for example, (*gaal* in Hebrew) conveys a relationship that exists *before the redemption takes place*, (see the book of Ruth, on this). And one is chosen 'in Christ' (not apart from him) before the foundation of the world. These are my concerns and the reason for my question.

(the question title isn't quite right; I welcome any better phrasing - it is not intended to sound inflammatory) This is a genuine question, that regularly occurred to me during my youth, and was recently reminded to me by an answer fragment: > ... However, the death of Christ on the Cross is such an infinite payment... I *always* had trouble with this. It is *honestly* not intended to dismiss the suffering of someone being tortured to death, but in the context of Christ as an infinite being in the Trinity, capable of miracles, healing, resurrection and immortal heavenly life, this seems... quite a minor event. And indeed, many many people have suffered similar treatment on all sides of religious quarrel (or non-religious, for that matter). Likewise, the sacrifice of God in "giving up" the Son - again, in the context of a being that is either many thousands of years, or ageless (in that time cannot be applied), a 30-something year stint on the earth (where God is omnipresent anyway) before re-ascending seems... an inconvenient errand rather than truly *giving something up*. It is probably way too late to save my wondering, but what is (/was) the reasoning that I missed on this?

In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul says: >"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (ESV) As someone who affirms the full divinity and sinlessness of Jesus, I’m trying to understand how He could be said to "become sin" without that implying any corruption in His nature or character.

Considering the language of 1 John 1, this passage is clearly not addressed to believers, yet is widely mistaught in Christendom. 1 John 1:9 KJV >If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The mainline Protestant idea of Atonement is, as Luther himself put it, this: > Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again > for our justification (Romans 3:24–25). He alone is the Lamb of God > who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29) Eastern Orthodox speak about theosis, and about sin as a "disease." But what does the atonement, the death on the cross, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ mean for Eastern Orthodox? What does Eastern Orthodoxy understand about Christ being "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1:29)? Did Christ die for my sins? Was he raised again for my justification?

Hebrews 10:4 states that 'it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins'. However, the book of Leviticus introduced sin offerings for the purpose of atoning for sins (be they unintentional). How can these two statements be reconciled? I've read another thread on the same subject , but the answer provided simply seems to say that this problem is cleared up by the fact that the nature of the sin offering was a temporary removal of sin, while Jesus' sacrifice resulting in atonement was a *permanent* sacrifice. While this is of course true, Hebrews 10:4, in all translations I have seen, declares that the blood of animals cannot take away sin***s***, plural; this implies no sin whatsoever can be atoned by the sacrifice of animals.

Obviously, we can't say for sure; all these theories float around and from what I can tell, the Church has no concrete position on the matter. I find Girard's scapegoat theory of atonement highly compelling, and I'd like to discuss it more with others. But first, I'd like to have some confidence that it's not in any way heretical or malformed. So, is the scapegoat theory of atonement compatible with Catholic teaching and rule?

It's been said that there is no biblical basis for the assumption that Jesus ever took on the sins of mankind, before, during or after his death. What is the biblical proof that Jesus did take on the sins of mankind? There's been some really great answers here but I'm looking for some more firsthand proof, such as Matthew 5:17–18 > Christ Came to Fulfill the Law > > 17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Here Matthew quotes Jesus. Jesus fulfills the mosaic laws which also includes the sacrificial laws. The one perfect sacrifice that would forgive the sins of mankind past, present and future.