Substitutionary atonement

In the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible or Tanakh), atonement was accomplished by the sacrifice of specified animals such as lambs to pay for one's sins.

[note 5] According to Pate, the Jewish scriptures describe three types of vicarious atonement: the Paschal Lamb although the Paschal Lamb was not a sin offering; "the sacrificial system as a whole", although these were for "mistakes", not intentional sins and with the Day of Atonement as the most essential element; and the idea of the suffering servant (Isaiah 42:1-9, 49:1-6, 50:4-11, 52:13-53:12).

James F. McGrath refers to 4 Maccabees 6, "which presents a martyr praying “Be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them.

Clearly there were ideas that existed in the Judaism of the time that helped make sense of the death of the righteous in terms of atonement.

Traditionally, this kerygma is interpreted as meaning that Jesus' death was an atonement or ransom for, or propitiation or expiation of, God's wrath against humanity because of their sins.

The traditional interpretation sees Paul's understanding of salvation as involving "an exposition of the individual's relation to God."

According to Krister Stendahl, the main concern of Paul's writings on Jesus' role, and salvation by faith, is not the individual conscience of human sinners, and their doubts about being chosen by God or not, but the problem of the inclusion of Gentile (Greek) Torah observers into God's covenant.

[17][18][19][web 8][note 11] Paul draws on several interpretative frames to solve this problem, but most importantly, his own experience and understanding.

[23] 'Dying for our sins' refers to the problem of Gentile Torah-observers, who, despite their faithfulness, cannot fully observe commandments, including circumcision, and are therefore 'sinners', excluded from God's covenant.

[24] In the Jerusalem ekklēsia, from which Paul received this creed, the phrase "died for our sins" probably was an apologetic rationale for the death of Jesus as being part of God's plan and purpose, as evidenced in the scriptures.

[note 2] According to Yeo, the ransom theory [...] views salvation based on the vicarious atonement of Jesus (Isa.

Many of the Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr, Athanasius and Augustine incorporate the ransom theory of atonement into their writings.

[38] Gustaf Aulén reinterpreted the ransom theory in his study Christus Victor (1931),[39] calling it the Christus Victor doctrine, arguing that Christ's death was not a payment to the Devil (Satan), but defeated the powers of evil, particularly Satan, which had held humankind in their dominion.

[40] According to Ben Pugh, "Ever since [Aulén's] time, we call these patristic ideas the Christus Victor way of seeing the cross.

The Western part of the Catholic Church incorporates it into Aquinas' satisfaction doctrine rooted in the idea of penance.