Incarnation and Atonement

In the previous section, we surveyed our need for salvation—why Christ needed to come—by exploring the topic of sin and suffering. In contrast, this section focuses on the question of how the coming of Christ—including his incarnation, death, and resurrection—actually accomplish this salvation. In many systematic theologies, this topic has been treated under the heading of the “work of Christ,” as distinct from the “person of Christ.” This division can be helpful insofar as it draws specific attention to how the narrative of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, but we must also remember that the work of Christ is integrally related to his person.

Broadly speaking, eastern patristic theologians tended to focus more frequently on the importance of the incarnation and resurrection in human salvation. One of the guiding principles of patristic Christology and soteriology is captured in the Latin phrase Quod non est assumptum, non sanatum (“What has not been assumed has not been healed”). This phrase was originally coined by Gregory of Nazianzus in his response to the Christology of Apollinaris of Laodicea, who denied that Christ possessed a human mind. In its immediate context, the significance of the phrase was clear: if Christ had no human mind, then the human mind remains unhealed from its sinful corruption. Applied more broadly, however, this phrase is also a helpful synopsis of the eastern patristic approach to the incarnation. Christ became human to heal and transform humanity. Or, as Athanasius put it, “The Son of God became man so that we might become God.” This doctrine is sometimes referred to as deification (“being made divine”). And as a framework for understanding salvation, it primarily addresses the problem of the corruption and death brought into the world by sin.

Western theologians have tended to focus more frequently often on the problems of guilt and alienation from God and, in so doing, have given more attention to the salvific role of Christ’s suffering and death. This attempt to articulate how the death of Christ contributes to human salvation has given rise to a number of different “atonement theories.” Two of the most influential proponents of such theories in the Middle Ages were Peter Abelard and Anselm of Canterbury. Abelard thought that the main purpose for Christ’s death was to serve as the greatest possible demonstration of love, a demonstration so powerful that it could transform the human heart from incurved pride to grateful love. Anselm, however, thought that the primary aim of Christ’s death was not simply to effect a change in the human heart, but rather to offer satisfaction on behalf of humanity to God for the dishonor of rebelling against its Creator. These two theories—often referred to as “moral influence theory” and “satisfaction theory”—were highly influential, but they were not alone. Other significant theories for understanding Christ’s death have included the ransom theory, penal substitutionary theory, and Christus victor theory. While these theories have differed in the complementary, and sometimes competing, proposals that they have made for understanding the role of Christ’s death, they have all proceed from a common assumption—that the suffering and death of Christ has brought life and forgiveness to a broken and sinful world. That the cross of Christ has brought atonement and peace to those who were once guilty and alienated from God.

Candidates for ordination need not be able to offer a comprehensive survey of the history of Christian thought on salvation, nor a detailed explanation of all the various atonement models, but they should be able to give a clear and cogent answer to the question of how the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ have resulted in human salvation.

Recommended Reading

Athanasius of Alexandria. On the Incarnation .

Anselm of Canterbury. “Meditation on Human Redemption” in The Prayers and Meditations of St. Anselm with the Proslogion . Translation Sr. Benedicta Ward. London: Penguin Publishing, 1973.

Homilies XII and XIII of the Second Book of Homilies : “Of the Nativity” and “Of the Passion for Good Friday”.

John Stott. The Cross of Christ . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Resources for Further Study

Thomas F. Torrance. Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ . Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.

Fleming Rutledge. The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.

Joel Green and Mark Baker. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts . 2nd edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.

Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume IV.1: The Doctrine of Reconciliation . Study Edition 21. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2010.

Patrick Henry Reardon, Reclaiming the Atonement, Volume 1: The Incarnate Word . Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2015.

James Cone. The Cross and the Lynching Tree . Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2011.