Understanding atonement

Lent 2024 – Part 7, The Moral Government View

This Lent, I reflect deeply on the profound significance of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, exploring the various theories embraced or historically cherished by Christian churches. This journey reveals a rich tapestry of beliefs and interpretations. It’s important to acknowledge that there is more than a single perspective, and for those who have engaged in discussions about them, there are way more than the two you have argued over.

Changing what you believe about atonement is not denying Jesus. The gospel is not a description of how Jesus’ death (and resurrection, ascension, and enthronement) rescues the world, but that it does so. The gospel is not a theory or advice; it is news.

This is one of six theories that look at Jesus paying a ransom, which developed over time.

• The ransom was paid to Satan
• The ransom was paid to God
• Satisfaction
• Penal Substitution
• Governmental
• Christus Victor

The Moral Government View, often referred to as the Governmental Theory of the Atonement, emerged in the period following the Reformation, a time of significant change and uncertainty. With the influential figures of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli having passed, it is important to recognize that three key developments in the late 16th and early 17th Centuries contributed to the formation of this perspective, reflecting deep considerations of faith and morality during a tumultuous time.

1. Jacobus Armenius (born Jakob Hermanszoon), from the Netherlands, studied at Leiben University in Austria, which, despite being Calvinist, also embraced the teachings of Luther, Zwingli, and the Anabaptists, fostering hopes to unite the four strands of Protestantism. Armenius, with his insightful approach, presented his perspectives that diverged from some of Calvin’s teachings, inspiring a vibrant movement that carried his name. Rather than merely uniting the existing strands, this dynamic movement gave rise to a fifth strand, promoting a rich diversity of thought within Protestantism. (Asside: If we concentrate of the diversity of thought rather than opposing each other for being different we could go a long way in promoting God’s Kingdom.)
2. Socinianism was spreading, formed around the teachings of Italian theologians Laelius and Faustus Socinus (born Lelio and Fausto Sozzini). They did not believe in the Trinity and denied the deity of Christ.
3. There was a trend of people translating their names into Latin to sound authoritative.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. ² Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.

Romans 13:1-2 ESVUK

The Governmental Theory has much in common with the earlier Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories and, like Penal Substitution, holds to the assumption that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus. All these three theories are substitutionary. The main difference between them is that Satisfaction is about God’s honour, Penal Substitution is about God’s justice, and the Governmental view is about God’s mercy. A key word in Governace is equivalence.

For classical Governmental Theory theologians, the cross represents a profound substitutionary act where Jesus willingly bore the weight of our shortcomings—not necessarily the specific punishments we each deserve, but an equivalent sacrifice that resonates deeply with our human experience. In doing so, He harmonized God’s overwhelming love with His unwavering justice, creating a path for forgiveness that honors His holiness and righteousness while embracing our need for grace.

The view emerged from the Arminian tradition, developing in opposition to the beliefs of Socinianism. It holds a significant place in the hearts of those within Methodism and the Salvation Army. Interestingly, neither Arminius nor John Wesley directly advocated for this perspective; Arminius passed away prior to the contributions of Hugo Grotius and John Miley, who popularized this understanding. Meanwhile, John Wesley embraced a blend of Penal Substitution and Eastern Orthodox interpretations of the Atonement, revealing a rich tapestry of theological thought that reflects our ongoing journey in faith and understanding.

Like Calvin, Grotius was a lawyer, and he presents a compassionate perspective on God’s nature. He beautifully articulates that God is a Moral Governor, emphasizing that God’s justice does not call for a full payment for our sins, as this justice is not essential to His being. Instead, Grotius suggests that, akin to a wise human judge, God has the authority to relax the law’s demands and forgive us through His boundless mercy. However, it’s important to remember that God does not simply dismiss our sins; He governs the world with fairness, understanding that sin represents a profound miscarriage of justice. This is where Christ’s cross plays a transformative role, upholding the moral governance of the universe and enabling God to forgive us without requiring complete payment for our transgressions. At the same time, it powerfully demonstrates God’s deep aversion to sin, urging us to seek repentance and embrace the hope found in Christ.

God’s main motive in the cross is not anger or retributive justice but twofold: love and desire to uphold his righteousness and moral government of the universe.

---

< Previous | Next >