It is no secret that H. P. Blavatsky, the main founder of the Theosophical Society, was ardently opposed to the Christian doctrine of vicarious atonement – which is, in a sense, the most fundamental and central of all Christian doctrines – for reasons which she deftly explains in “Isis Unveiled” Vol. 2, p. 541-545:

“With what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again” [Matthew vii. 2] neither by expression nor implication points to any hope of future mercy or salvation by proxy. . . .

“We have often wondered at the extraordinary ideas of God and His justice that seem to be honestly held by those Christians who blindly rely upon the clergy for their religion, and never upon their own reason. How strangely illogical is this doctrine of the Atonement. We propose to discuss it with the Christians from the Buddhistic stand-point, and show at once by what a series of sophistries, directed toward the one object of tightening the ecclesiastical yoke upon the popular neck, its acceptance as a divine command has been finally effected; also, that it has proved one of the most pernicious and demoralizing of doctrines.

“The clergy say: no matter how enormous our crimes against the laws of God and of man, we have but to believe in the self-sacrifice of Jesus for the salvation of mankind, and His blood will wash out every stain. God’s mercy is boundless and unfathomable. It is impossible to conceive of a human sin so damnable that the price paid in advance for the redemption of the sinner would not wipe it out if a thousandfold worse. And, furthermore, it is never too late to repent. Though the offender wait until the last minute of the last hour of the last day of his mortal life, before his blanched lips utter the confession of faith, he may go to Paradise; the dying thief did it, and so may all others as vile. These are the assumptions of the Church.

“But if we step outside the little circle of creed and consider the universe as a whole balanced by the exquisite adjustment of parts, how all sound logic, how the faintest glimmering sense of Justice revolts against this Vicarious Atonement! If the criminal sinned only against himself, and wronged no one but himself; if by sincere repentance he could cause the obliteration of past events, not only from the memory of man, but also from that imperishable record, which no deity – not even the Supremest of the Supreme – can cause to disappear, then this dogma might not be incomprehensible.

“But to maintain that one may wrong his fellow-man, kill, disturb the equilibrium of society, and the natural order of things, and then – through cowardice, hope, or compulsion, matters not – be forgiven by believing that the spilling of one blood washes out the other blood spilt – this is preposterous! Can the results of a crime be obliterated even though the crime itself should be pardoned? The effects of a cause are never limited to the boundaries of the cause, nor can the results of crime be confined to the offender and his victim. Every good as well as evil action has its effects, as palpably as the stone flung into a calm water. The simile is trite, but it is the best ever conceived, so let us use it. The eddying circles are greater and swifter, as the disturbing object is greater or smaller, but the smallest pebble, nay, the tiniest speck, makes its ripples. And this disturbance is not alone visible and on the surface. Below, unseen, in every direction – outward and downward – drop pushes drop until the sides and bottom are touched by the force. More, the air, above the water is agitated, and this disturbance passes, as the physicists tell us, from stratum to stratum out into space forever and ever; an impulse has been given to matter, and that is never lost, can never be recalled! . . .

“So with crime, and so with its opposite. The action may be instantaneous, the effects are eternal. When, after the stone is once flung into the pond, we can recall it to the hand, roll back the ripples, obliterate the force expended, restore the etheric waves to their previous state of non-being, and wipe out every trace of the act of throwing the missile, so that Time’s record shall not show that it ever happened, then, then we may patiently hear Christians argue for the efficacy of this Atonement.

“The Chicago Times recently printed the hangman’s record of the first half of the present year (1877) – a long and ghastly record of murders and hangings. Nearly every one of these murderers received religious consolation, and many announced that they had received God’s forgiveness through the blood of Jesus, and were going that day to Heaven! Their conversion was effected in prison. See how this ledger-balance of Christian justice (!) stands: These red-handed murderers, urged on by the demons of lust, revenge, cupidity, fanaticism, or mere brutal thirst for blood, slew their victims, in most cases, without giving them time to repent, or call on Jesus to wash them clean with his blood. They, perhaps, died sinful, and, of course, – consistently with theological logic – met the reward of their greater or lesser offenses. But the murderer, overtaken by human justice, is imprisoned, wept over by sentimentalists, prayed with and at, pronounces the charmed words of conversion, and goes to the scaffold a redeemed child of Jesus!

“Except for the murder, he would not have been prayed with, redeemed, pardoned. Clearly this man did well to murder, for thus he gained eternal happiness? And how about the victim, and his or her family, relatives, dependants, social relations – has Justice no recompense for them? Must they suffer in this world and the next, while he who wronged them sits beside the “holy thief” of Calvary and is forever blessed? On this question the clergy keep a prudent silence. . . .

“Away from us such an insulting conception of divine justice as that preached by priests on their own authority. It is fit only for cowards and criminals! If they are backed by a whole array of Fathers and Churchmen, we are supported by the greatest of all authorities, an instinctive and reverential sense of the everlasting and everpresent law of harmony and justice.”

Those are strong words but the philosophical logic and compelling ethical force in them is hard, if not impossible, to refute. HPB makes the same and similar points elsewhere.

However, something she does not mention is that the initial origins of the vicarious atonement doctrine are undeniably in several of the scriptures that comprise the New Testament of the Christian Bible, primarily the letters or epistles of the Apostle Paul (of whom HPB always expresses a very high opinion), but also several statements attributed to Jesus himself in the Gospels.

One cannot justifiably say that the whole idea is merely an “invention” of later theologians, although it was indeed they who formulated it into extensive and complex doctrines and dogmas, which are varied and numerous, seeing as the Bible is too vague and incomplete on the subject to allow for one single definite understanding of it to be arrived at and shared by all. But it also cannot be claimed that what St. Paul, St. Peter, St. John, and others had in mind when speaking in the New Testament epistles of the spiritually sacrificial and regenerative nature of Jesus’ death, was identical to – and as simplistic and unphilosophical as – what Christian fundamentalists of the past few centuries have in mind. Almost the whole of post-Lutheran Protestantism lacks the depth of philosophical and historical awareness needed in order to arrive at accurate and reliable assessments on such points. Never, until just a few centuries ago, did anything ever exist resembling the fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity of today.

Although she does not directly say so, the examples Blavatsky gives in her critiques of vicarious atonement can be seen to apply primarily to Protestant versions of the doctrine.

Protestantism’s vicarious atonement, originating with Martin Luther in the 16th century at the European Reformation, teaches (a) exemption for the converted from all consequences or after-effects of one’s misdeeds, salvation being “by faith alone” and “by grace alone,” one’s own works or acts bearing no real relevance provided one has accepted Christ, (b) “once saved, always saved” – the notion that because of vicarious atonement, a Christian who may go on to commit many horrific crimes or be a thoroughly wicked person will still go to Heaven for all eternity, whilst a truly pure and saintly non-Christian will burn in hell eternally.

Neither Christ nor the rest of the New Testament teaches such a thing and nor, for the most part, did the early Church Fathers; however, when Luther and then Calvin “threw out the baby with the [Catholic] bathwater,” they chose to institute their own personal interpretations of their scriptures and perhaps showed their philosophical unfitness to do so.

But the title of this article suggests there are some truths to the idea or principle of vicarious atonement. In what sense, if any, does such a thing as vicarious atonement actually exist? What, if anything, is its metaphysical and occult reality?

H. P. Blavatsky explains that if one pledges oneself to be a disciple of the Masters, one becomes “as one newly born” and undergoes a “new birth,” becoming a “new man.” (“The Key to Theosophy” p. 49) The exact same language is used in the New Testament by Jesus and the Apostles, particularly Paul, with regard to the inner transformation undergone by anyone who sincerely accepts Jesus Christ as their Master and the Lord of their life. For the early Christians – as also with many today, particularly Roman and Anglo-Catholics and Eastern Orthodox – becoming a Christian was synonymous with becoming a disciple of Jesus and embarking on a mystical-ascetical path of discipleship. Elsewhere, HPB adds that the pledged disciple’s past misdeeds or sins are viewed by the Masters as no longer existing, and they are excused from them in the Masters’ sight, although the individual will still have to face any inevitable karmic consequences of them.

This same principle constitutes the basic essence of the Christian doctrine of vicarious atonement (the seeds of which are, as said, found in some of Jesus’ own words in the Gospels and then worked into a basic theology of atonement by the Apostle Paul in his letters), especially in its Roman Catholic form, which emphasises that Christ’s forgiveness on the spiritual level does not extend to removing all material consequences of sin; the temporal consequences – called “temporal punishment” – on this plane for how one has “disturbed the harmony” of the “divine order” of things have to be experienced and atoned for by one’s own sufferings, which will naturally come about as the reaping from one’s sowing. Roman Catholicism maintains, however, that one can to some extent preempt this by consciously making “reparation” now, through time and energy spent in prayer (dedicated to a specific selfless intent of benefiting others), fasting, and charitable deeds . . . a description of what Theosophy would call “transmutation of karma.”

Further, HPB’s article “Practical Occultism” speaks of “the enormous, almost limitless responsibility assumed by the teacher for the sake of the pupil. From the Gurus of the East . . . down to the few Kabalists in Western lands who undertake to teach . . . disciples . . . one and all of these “Teachers” are subject to the same inviolable law. From the moment they begin really to teach, from the instant they confer any power – whether psychic, mental, or physical – on their pupils, they take upon themselves all the sins of that pupil . . . until the moment when initiation makes the pupil a Master and responsible in his turn.”

Although this is of course not identical to the Christian doctrine of vicarious atonement, it would be hard to deny that it is the same essential principle and idea.

The serious and sincere Christian – i.e. the disciple of Christ, even if for the most part a disciple in a purely “exoteric” sense – endeavours to avoid all further sins after becoming “newly born,” but believes that those they might commit will be forgiven and washed away from their soul if they repent to their Master . . . but also believes that there will come a time – whether in this life or the world beyond – that they – if following the example of the Mystics – will attain to Divine Union or Theosis (divinisation or deification), becoming thereby one of “the perfect” and an active member of the “Communion of Saints,” who although disembodied live primarily to help and assist those on Earth (i.e. the equivalent of a Bodhisattva/Nirmanakaya) . . . and that then one will be beyond all possibility of sinning and needing the spiritually atoning forgiveness of the Master.

It does not appear to be any of the above which HPB condemns and challenges in her critiques of vicarious atonement.

Further, the Esoteric Philosophy emphasises that just as our every misdeed and negative thought and feeling negatively impacts all beings and the whole of life to some degree or another, our every good deed and unselfish, benevolent thought and feeling has a helpful, elevating effect on the whole. In connection with this, it is said that we who are now evolving in the human kingdom have the task to “raise up the whole mass of manifested matter” to a higher level. Animal, plant, mineral, and elemental monads cannot raise and spiritually elevate themselves but – while they are still in an essentially helpless and inwardly dormant state – we can, and should, do it for them. Is that not a form of “vicarious atonement”?

And what about the “Guardian Wall” constituted of myriads of Masters of Wisdom and Compassion and the energy of Their immense personal sacrifices on behalf of all humanity? “The Voice of The Silence” says that this “wall” invisibly protects mankind, intercepting and eliminating some of the very worst karmic developments which would otherwise befall the human race. This can presumably only mean that in some mysterious, occult way, they vicariously take on, on our behalf, certain great suffering, so that we may avoid it. These are just a couple of examples regarding something which is a fact in Nature.

So let us be clear in our minds about what type of vicarious atonement it is which H. P. Blavatsky and her Adept-Teachers view as so harmful in its effects, and not unthinkingly dismiss or condemn the very notion wholesale, for, as Krishna repeats to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, the whole of life is built upon SACRIFICE.

To return, in conclusion, to the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ, it is worth being aware that HPB wrote these words to her relatives in Russia. Undoubtedly, the way it is worded may be deliberately for their benefit, seeing as they were devout Russian Orthodox Christians, but she would not have written this at all if it did not express something she personally held to be true:

“My only hope is that you will understand that my books are not aimed against religion, against the Christ, but against the heinous hypocrisy of those who murder, burn, and kill in the name of the Almighty Son of God, ever since the moment of his death on the Cross for the sake of all humanity, and especially the sinful, fallen men, the heathen, the fallen women, and those who have gone astray. . . .

“Jesus was chosen by the Divine Spirit, which descended into him instead of overshadowing him from a greater or lesser distance; and for the purpose of redeeming the human race, or rather to redeem forthcoming generations of men who had forgotten other Saviours, who had appeared in other times and countries.”

Asserted by her to be an Avatar – that is, a direct incarnation into this world of the Divine Logos or Eternal Word for some special purpose – the sacrificial death of the Master Christ in his long-foreseen and anciently prophesied martyrdom – nailed with brutality, mockery, and humiliation to a common Roman cross as a public spectacle – must surely have entailed and accomplished something profound on unseen levels, in the inner world. The life and death of any Avatar must surely achieve something sublime for humanity, but Jesus or Yeshua is the only Avatar known to have been martyred and died such a death. HPB is silent about this and we do not claim to be doing anything more than throwing out ideas as food for thought.

The most remarkable perspective into this comes from the Acts of John, a proto-Gnostic (i.e. not fully Gnostic but containing some Gnostic elements; it is classed as Apocryphal rather than Gnostic) account of the missionary travels of St. John, the Apostle of Jesus, possibly written as early as 130 A.D. What connection it genuinely has with the actual historical John is unknown and unverifiable at this point but we know it was dismissed by most as a fictitious and fantastical story from its first appearance. Nevertheless, it contains some deeply inspired and inspiring passages, such as the following, which are said to be John’s recalling of what was said to him by the spiritual entity of Jesus, who visited him in a nearby cave (which John had apparently retreated to so as to avoid the sight of the crucifixion) while Jesus’ body was dying on the cross. John is presented as saying:

“He showed me a cross of light set up, and a great multitude gathered around the cross. . . . the Lord himself I beheld above the cross, not having any shape, but only a voice.” Christ said: “It is necessary that one should hear these things from me, for I have need of one that will hear. This cross of light is what I have sometimes called – for the sake of my disciples’ understanding – the word (Logos) . . . mind . . . Jesus . . . Christ . . . the door . . . the way . . . bread . . . seed . . . resurrection . . . Son . . . Father . . . Spirit . . . life . . . truth . . . faith . . . grace. By these names is it called for the benefit of men, but what it is in reality . . . is the demarcating (circumscribing) of all things, and the firm uplifting of things fixed, out of things unstable, and it is the harmony of wisdom, and wisdom in harmony. . . . Therefore, my true cross [the one of light] is the joining of all things from all directions unto itself, by the Logos, and the separating (severance) of the things that are, from those that are below. And them, this single light streamed forth into all things. But this is not the cross of wood which you will see [on the hill of Golgotha or Calvary] . . . neither am I, whose voice you now hear, the one who is on that cross. . . . I have thus suffered none of the suffering which people will say was mine. . . . You hear that I suffered, yet I did not suffer; you hear that I did not suffer, yet I did suffer; that I was pierced, yet I was not pierced; that I was hung up, yet I was not hung up; that blood flowed from me, yet it flowed not. In essence, what people will say of me, I did not suffer that, but I did suffer that which they do not speak of. I will now indicate those things to you, for I know you will understand. See therefore in my death the sacrificial slaying of the Logos, the piercing of the Logos, the blood of the Logos, the wound of the Logos, the hanging up of the Logos, the suffering of the Logos, the nailing of the Logos, the death of the Logos. This is how I speak of it, putting aside the mortal, human aspect. Perceive in the first position the Logos [the Logoic aspect of what happened at the crucifixion], then you will perceive the Lord, and in the third place the man, and what he has suffered.” When he had spoken these things to me, along with other things which I don’t know how to put into words in the way that he would want me to, he was taken up without any who were in the multitudes below having seen him. . . . the Lord planned and orchestrated all things symbolically, and by a gracious kindness toward men, for their conversion and salvation.”

~ * ~

This article may have raised more questions about various things. Please make use of the site search function (the magnifying glass symbol at the top of the page) and visit the Articles page to see the complete list of over 400 articles covering all aspects of Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement. You may be particularly interested to read the other articles listed on that page under the heading “CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, ISLAM.”

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~