Theories of Atonement — Governmental Theory

Did Jesus pay Satan a hefty ransom for humanity’s redemption? Is the devil a spiritual ransomware terrorist who hijacks humanity, forcing us into calamitous situations from which we have no control?

Was Jesus a scapegoat? A victim of a Jewish lynch mob?

Whenever we read the word atonement in a hymnal or discuss it around Easter, we have a shared understanding of the term. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines atonement in four ways:

1. Reparation for offense or injury.

2. The reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ

3. Christian science: exemplifying of human ones with God

4. Obsolete: reconciliation

The beautiful nature of the atonement is in its ramification, namely, that we have the luxury of being reconciled to God. This pleasure affords us a bridge on which to connect with God. Almost as if there initially lay a chasm, a void of hopelessness between us and the Divine, and Christ’s efficacious work on the cross not only built this bridge of reconciliation but also carried us across it.

Atonement is a great thing. It’s a marvelous thing.

But which theory about Christ’s work on the cross is the right one?

Stephen D. Morrison lists seven of the most well-known theories surrounding the atonement and I will quote his explanations of each one.

He states the seven theories are: the moral influence theory, the ransom theory, Christus Victor theory, the satisfaction theory, the penal substitution theory, the governmental theory, and the scapegoat theory.

The Governmental Theory

Point 1

“The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in Methodism.”

Point 2

“In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath.”

Point 3

“The Governmental Theory also teaches that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment.”

Thoughts on the Governmental Theory

This theory is celebrated by Methodists, videlicet, adherents of John Wesley’s theological ideas and Arminians who synergism. Wesley held on to the Penal Substitutionary theory whereas his fellow theologians and adherents of the Methodist denomination took on to the Governmental Theory more.

Kevin Jackson of the Wesleyan Arminian states:

“The Governmental view is often held by Wesleyans, Charismatics, and Open Theists. It should be noted that Wesley himself did not hold to the view.”

Christians who adhere to this theory are willing to accept that its definition, at best, is rather ambiguous. Unlike the Satisfaction Theory, Governmental Theory does not promote that Christ is paying God the Father a ransom or fulfilling for us something we could not. There isn’t necessarily a transaction going on here.

And unlike the Penal Substitutionary Theory, this theory shies away from the idea that Christ would be punished or suffer God the Father’s wrath in our place.

It does away with the transactional aspect of the atonement where there is no satiation to fill in a gap nor is there justifiable punishment or wrath for sins.

There is, however, a linguistic substitution, where, instead of Christ being punished in our stead, he now suffers for us on the cross. The pain we had deserved or rather earned through our fallen nature was supplanted onto Christ.

J. Kenneth Grider, a Nazarene Christian, theologian, and former seminary professor was a staunch supporter of the Governmental Theory and in his exposition of it, he explains why there is a need for a terminological shift from ‘punished’ to ‘suffering’ and its benevolent consequences for the Christian.

“Whereas Calvinists teach boldly that Christ paid the penalty for us-that He took our punishment-and believe their view to be biblical, it is altogether opposed to the teaching of Scripture. Neither the Hebrew Old Testament nor the Greek New Testament ever teach this view. The NIV, translated by Calvinists in the main, renders the Hebrew musar in Isa. 53:5 with “punishment,” which is unusual. The KJV, even though translated by 54 Calvinists, does not once use any form of the English word for “punishment” to describe what happened to Christ. Always the word is “suffering” or certain synonyms of that word. Scripture teaches that Christ suffered for us, not that He was punished for us. Three versions state 28 times that Christ suffered for us: the KAVA [1] , the NASB [2], and the NIV [3] ; and the RSV says it 27 times. [4]

The reason Scripture teaches that Christ suffered for us in stead of being punished is in part, as mentioned earlier, because He was sinless and therefore guiltless. It is in part also because God the Father really does forgive us — whereas, if He punished Christ instead of us, He could not then have forgiven us. In Christ’s substitutionary punishment, justice would have been satisfied, precluding forgiveness. One cannot both punish and for give, surely.”

So in Anselm’s theory, Christ satisfied in us what was lacking, videlicet, a righteous and perfect life. He imparted His perfection onto us on the cross in the Satisfaction Theory. The transaction was made toward the Father as a gift to say, they have failed but I have not so please accept my life as the perfect offering.

In Luther and Calvin’s theory, namely, Penal Substitution Theory, the focus is placed on wrath, not satisfaction. It’s a legal court, someone committed high treason, and someone must be punished. Wrath and justice must be meted out and someone has to be the recipient of this Holy Justice.

This flaming arrow is then quenched in Christ’s bleeding heart on Calvary hill.

But the ambiguity, I admit, I am still somewhat at a loss regarding Governmental Theory, is that the focus is shifted from satisfaction and punished altogether. The cross and atonement focus on Christ’s suffering instead.

J. Kenneth Grider argues further that:

“Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach that what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition. Arminianism teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the Father could forgive the ones who repent and believe; his death is such that all will see that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs. This view is called the governmental theory of the atonement.”

I believe the primary focus within this theory is neither punishment nor satisfaction but it rests on God’s mercy and Christ’s selfless act of suffering on the cross for us.

“For God called you to do good, even if it means suffering, just as Christ suffered for you. He is your example, and you must follow in his steps.

He never sinned, nor ever deceived anyone. He did not retaliate when he was insulted, nor threaten revenge when he suffered. He left his case in the hands of God, who always judges fairly. He carried our sins in his body on the cross so that we can be dead to sin and live for what is right. By his wounds, you are healed. Once you were like sheep who wandered away. But now you have turned to your Shepherd, the Guardian of your souls.” Said Peter in his first epistle to a church facing persecution, torture, and death.

The focus is on Christ’s suffering.

Featured Image Alicia Quan.

Originally published at http://olivettheory.com on November 4, 2021.