Page 64 - Christology - Student Textbook

Payment-to-Satan Theory
This theory was perpetuated by Origen and taught by other early Fathers. It holds that Christ’s
“death was paid to Satan as a ransom to deliver man from any claims which Satan might have upon
him.”
152

Recapitulation Theory
This theory was championed by Irenaeus and it maintains that:

Christ in His life and death recapitulates all phases of human life, including being made sin in His
death on the cross. In so doing, He does properly what Adam failed to do. Irenaeus also
regarded the suffering of Christ on the cross as satisfying the divine justice of God but
considered this only one phase of the total picture.
153

Commercial or Satisfaction Theory
This theory was offered by Anselm and it maintains that:

The necessity of the atonement arises in the fact that God’s honor has been injured by sin. God
could satisfy His honor by punishing the sinner or by accepting a suitable substitute. Being a God
of love and mercy, God provided through His Son the satisfaction that was required. Christ in His
life on earth perfectly kept the law of God but, as this was required of Him in any case, it did not
constitute a satisfaction of the honor of God on behalf of sinners. Christ went further and died
on the cross for sin which He did not need to do for Himself. As this was in the nature of a work
of supererogation, the benefits of it were applied to sinners who had fallen short of attaining the
righteousness of God. God’s honor was thus vindicated, and the sinner saved from the penalty
of sin.
154

Moral Influence Theory
This theory was introduced by Abelard in opposition to the commercial theory of Anselm. It states
that:

God does not necessarily require the death of Christ as an expiation for sin but has rather chose
this means to manifest His love and to show His fellowship with them in their sufferings. The
death of Christ primarily demonstrates the love of God in such a way as to win sinners to
Himself. The death of Christ does not constitute a satisfaction of divine law, but rather
155
demonstrates the loving heart of God which will freely pardon sinners.

The Biblical view is the substitutionary atonement as it accounts for the satisfaction of God’s holy
character as the ground for the need of Christ’s atonement. It finds support throughout Scripture.
The Payment-to-Satan theory is not valid. There is nowhere in the Scriptures where it is written that
Satan needed payment in order for man to be delivered from his claims. The Recapitulation theory
also fails to satisfy scriptures as it suggests that Christ could have sinned. Christ’s death did not
happen to only satisfy God’s honor. Indeed, Christ’s death is the demonstration of God’s love for us
and demonstrated God’s demand that blood be shed in death to pay the penalty for sin.

152 Ibid.

153 Ibid., 158.
154 Ibid.

155 Walvoord, Jesus Christ our Lord, 158-59.

63