The Atonement

On an earlier attempt to blog (on another platform), I created a post entitled, "The Atonement: One Theory Alone Is Not Enough." I saved my posts from that earlier platform, and I am going to include it below.

However, here is a link to a much better writer than me. His Post is entitled, "Not a Binary Choice: Recovering the Full Picture of the Atonement." I think he says things much better than I.

Here is the link:
https://johndaniels.substack.com/p/not-a-binary-choice-recovering-the

Below is my post from another attempt to blog on another platform attempting to say why THEOLOGY IN FIVE (ON SUBSTACK) says.

.

.

.

The Atonement: One Theory Alone Is Not Enough

INTRODUCTION

The at-one moment. God takes the initiative to repair the relationship between himself and humankind; to eliminate the distance created by sin between his created being and himself.

How can a death on a cross explain reconciliation between God and man? In a word, I don’t think it can (we are in the realm of the inexplicable, and yet we try). So these next sentences are going to sound trivial (because I just dive in and recite the standard orthodox doctrinal answer; and is it not dangerous to sound trivial regarding the seminal event of all human history?).

Yes, I believe all of the following:

God saw sin in the garden paradise and chose to redeem humanity despite our deliberate and wilful rebellion against him.

God acted in history to choose a people, and via those people, God chose to step inside of creation. God became man in the person of Messiah Jesus. Jesus was the only sinless man who ever lived. The penalty for sin is death. God arranged in Jesus a public and humiliating execution to pay the penalty of sin for all to see. On the cross, Jesus paid the price for sin because we could not rescue ourselves. Jesus descended to the realm of the dead. On the third day, he arose again, conquering death.

Does that really (fully?) (adequately?) explain how a death on a cross reconciles man to God? Yes. But also no (and yet I can accept no because I presuppose that we are in the area of inexplicable ways of the holy God). So, in some ways, I find the above explanation satisfactory and amazing, and I find it somehow . . . . incomplete (searching for the right word here).

Maybe it’s just that the explanation of it makes it sound less world-shaking than I know it is (has familiarity made me less appreciative of the amazing God?).

What’s missing in the narrative is this other inexplicable thing. There is this baffling, incomprehensible thing called love (and yes, I see the love in the above, but I want to draw it out somehow, more). The opposite of love is selfishness. In showing love to his creation, God was not selfish and chose to repair his broken experiment rather than eliminate it and start over. In this act of unselfishness, God made a conscious choice. He knew that he would have to pay the price for sin (all of humankind was no longer able to pay the price, as humans were now stained with sin). So, the crown of his creation — humankind —has marred his beautiful handiwork (mind you, this was the one and only species he chose to bear his image). And God sought to repair the damage done.

SCRIPTURAL CONTEXT

Before we jump into the atonement theories, a little scriptural context.

Leviticus 16

This is the chapter that describes the rituals Israel was to follow for the Day of Atonement (יוֹם כִּפּוּר‎ [Yōm Kippūr]), the Most Holy day in Jewish ritual. It follows ten days dedicated to repentance; all this follows Rosh Hashanah (רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה [the new year]).

Trying to keep it short in my description here, this day is the only day anyone would ever enter the Most Holy Place. The High Priest, on this day, would enter it three times. He would enter first to fill the room with burning incense (and back out never turning his back to the Mercy Seat). He would enter a second time with the blood of a bull following a ceremony in which he confessed his sins and ritually placed those sins on the bull before sacrifice. He would enter a third time with the blood of one of two young goats (from the two, one is chosen by lot). The other goat (the one not sacrificed) would have the sins of the people ritually placed upon it (this is the one for Azazel (לַֽעֲזָאזֵל, whose meaning remains quite mysterious; most translations choose “scapegoat”), and then that goat (with the people’s sins on it) would be driven out into the wilderness (with a red twine wound upon its horns). This day is preceded by, full of, and completed by prayer, fasting, and solemn reverence. God gave these instructions to give Israel a sense of wonder and mystery regarding the Holiness of God as well as the great danger of sinful man approaching the Holy God. Yet, God gave this as a way to show that God provides an avenue for sinful man to come into reconciliation with the Holy God.

There are multiple references to the Day of Atonement ideas found in the New Testament.

John 1:29 and 1 John 1:7

One can do a study of the Gospel of John simply looking for Temple fulfillment (it was Jesus. The Temple was the Type, Jesus was the True). In the opening of John, John the Baptist proclaims, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”

In 1 John 1:7, the Apostle says, but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

Hebrews 9

Hebrews is all about Jesus as the better way. In the 9th chapter, the author differentiates between the Hebrew High Priest and Jesus as the ultimate High Priest. Hebrew 9:11-14

But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the holy place, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!

Romans 3:21-26 (more on this later)

In Paul’s development of the thought of The Righteousness of God, he is fully dependent upon the image and understanding of Day of Atonement themes, yet he applies all of the Old Testament rituals to the sacrifice of Jesus our Messiah.

But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed and is attested by the Law and the Prophets, the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to demonstrate at the present time his own righteousness, so that he is righteous and he justifies the one who has the faith of Jesus.

ATONEMENT 'THEORIES'

Before I jump in, …… Why are these called “theories”? I have no idea; I’ve never seen this explained yet every systematic theology book I have seen refers to these as “theories” (on the other hand, what else can you call them?). I think that this is evidence that we are diving into the depths of the heart and mystery of God. We are trying to explain the inexplicable. Thus the language “theory.” (Isn’t this evidence that just one theory is not enough?).

I want to explain why I am going to tackle these theories in the order that I chose. I want to begin with theories that are not adequate (Moral Influence, Governmental, and Scapegoat) and find that they have something to say, even though they cannot explain the amazing at-one moment when Jesus died.

After covering three inadequate theories, I want to make a little historical analysis. Beginning with a very early theory, called the Ransom Theory, I want to trace how that theory morphed into the Satisfaction Theory much later during the Middle Ages (via a very interesting Medieval Theologian). This paved the way for the Protestant Reformation, and the theory we hear about most - the Penal Substitution Theory.

However, even though I do this in historical order (because I want to compare two theories), historically, I am going to skip over a very important theory, and I’ll have to pick it up later. This is probably the majority theory of all theologians up until the time of the Protestant Reformation: the Christus Victor theory.

So it won’t be until the very last that I will discuss the theory which is all we hear about in conservative evangelical circles — the Penal Substitution theory.

The survey will reveal, I believe, that in this beyond-us thing called the Atonement (the at-one moment), no one theory is enough. Perhaps all of these theories, together, are not enough. We are diving into deep mysteries, and only in eternity will we comprehend the fullness of God’s love in arranging the at-one moment of history. So then, why do we evangelicals limit ourselves to just one theory (it’s as if we are afraid to talk of anything other than Penal Substitution)? Do we think that speaking of Jesus as anything other than our substitute would move us away from orthodoxy? If I had to pick just one theory, I’d pick Penal Substitution. But I do not believe we should be limiting ourselves to just one portion of the amazing banquet set before us.

Because it is so intimately related to the idea of atonement, I also want to examine Romans 3:25 (included in the larger quote of Romans 3:21-26, above). In Romans 3:25, below, I have made a change (to isolate the translation). Where the Greek reads ἱλαστήριος (hilastērios), I used all capital letters in translation “ATONING SACRIFICE.”

whom God put forward as an ATONING SACRIFICE by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance, he had passed over former sins;

Paul is describing in detail the very moment of mystery. Paul is describing the atonement, and I think there is much to be learned from this word and its history, usage, and translation to English.

So now that the background is set, we are ready to look at language and usage at the end. Before we fully dive in, there is just one more thing. I have unfolded this as a somewhat misleading analysis. It was Anselm of Canterbury who developed what we would today call “a theory of atonement.” Before that, this was simply how it was explained in letters, teachings, and sermons. Why did Christ die? The explanation was simpler and less developed than what we today call an articulated theory of atonement (none were ever fully articulated as such until the time of Anselm [1033-1109 CE]).

INADEQUATE ATONEMENT THEORIES

The Moral Influence theory (again, not yet a theory as we define them, but the earliest somewhat systematic explanations [primarily to those not steeped in Jewish background as the church became more Gentile]) simply says that Jesus’ death brings positive influence to all of humanity. His life and teachings paved the way for his death to be the event of influence. Primarily in reaction to Marcion, the Moral Influence teaching was an attempt to present the cross and Jesus’ loving sacrifice as coming from God’s own heart. God showed us the way to love — by self-sacrifice. Certainly, we are called to live our lives out as if we are followers of Christ.

There is scriptural support for this such as Philippians 3:8-21; 1 Corinthians 1:11; 4:16; Matthew 16:24; John 8:12; and John 15:13-14 — No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.

And yet is it not clear that this is by itself not enough?

As the Moral Influence theory was early one late inadequate theory is the Governmental theory. God arranged it so that Christ could suffer for humanity so that God could forgive humanity (without compromising his justice and perfection). God is publicly displaying his displeasure for sin, by sending his perfect and sinless son as a substitute. This is primarily found in Methodism (earliest forms) and it was a reaction to extreme Calvinism (with a complicated history too convoluted to describe in a summary) which emphasized God simply overlooked sins by looking at Jesus instead (see the Substitutionary Penal theory in this essay, yet to be explained). The emphasis was on God as governor of the universe who maintains a just rule of law (and would not simply overlook sin). I include this here as I want to say it has something to offer in balancing some extreme and bad teaching. God does not simply overlook sin. It costs God much (and the cross is only a portion of that cost) to redeem all of creation, and we are a part of that process as the agents of God in the current age. Nevertheless, this theory is not adequate.

In this inadequate atonement theories section, there has been one very early theory and one from the time of the Reformers. So now, let’s examine the Scapegoat theory which is fairly modern. There is a concept of a scapegoat in the Old Testament Day of Atonement rituals (the sins are cast on the goat sent into the wilderness - the scapegoat). Yet this seems quite disjointed from this modern Scapegoat theory. In summary: Jesus is killed by the violent crowds who believe him guilty. Jesus, however, is proven innocent in that he is the true Son of God, and therefore the crowd is guilty. Jesus is the scapegoat. In this theory, the one acted upon is reversed. In most other theories, the one acted upon is God (there is a sense in which Penal Substitution, Ransom, and Satisfaction theories [all to be explained later] all have the atonement making a payment for a debt). In this theory, Jesus is not the sacrifice but the victim. In a sense, God is overcoming our violence (a long form of this theory traces a history of man’s violence and the consequences all the back to Cain and Abel) by substituting himself as a willing victim.

There is some scriptural support, and God is overcoming man’s violence, and yet this theory also seems inadequate (and as it’s originated in a psychologist rather than a theologian, I believe this shows through).

Enough of the theories that are only somewhat plausible as to their scriptural basis.

Next, moving from the earliest church history to Anselm, Ransom, and Satisfaction Theories.

Even though I am attempting to do a historical linking of Ransom/Satisfaction, I am skipping over a large swath of time between them. I am skipping over (to return to it in its own section) the most widely accepted, written about, and most common theory in church history up until the Reformers.

RANSOM THEORY

The Ransom Theory is quite old (Origen, approximately in the early 200s CE). The Ransom theory essentially says that Christ paid a ransom for our sins. It has scriptural support: Mark 10:45 For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many. (Note the full context of that passage is Mark 10, beginning in verse 35 where two disciples ask for special privilege. Note also the parallel in Matthew 20:20-28).

A ransom is a price paid for deliverance. Christ paid our ransom. Origen articulated the Ransom theory in the following manner: Adam and Eve sinned and created a debt of sin. That debt had power over them as well as power over all humanity (who were present within Adam and Eve but also sinned in the same manner). That debt and the power over humanity were paid by Christ at the cross. The payment of the ransom released the debt and the power of the debt.

Over time, the Ransom theory began to morph. Origen did not originally say to whom the debt was paid (he left the metaphor incomplete). Yet, as happens, others came to finish his metaphor. The Ransom theory came, in time, to say that the debt was to Satan, and therefore God paid a ransom to Satan to free mankind.

SATISFACTION THEORY

The Satisfaction Theory has its beginning in the Ransom Theory. But Anselm of Canterbury (one of the great thinkers in the history of the church) examined how the Ransom theory was misapplied. Where the Ransom theory had come to be stated such that God was paying a debt to Satan, Anselm stated, “What does God owe Satan?” and articulated this as a great flaw in the reasoning of his time. From this reasoning, Anselm created, instead of the Ransom Theory, the Satisfaction Theory.

Summing up the Satisfaction theory is as follows:

Jesus’ death satisfies the justice of God.

Jesus’ death makes restitution; it mends what is broken and pays the debt for sin (returning to the debt as a general metaphor without finishing the metaphor as medieval scholars had).

Note that this is the first theory that specifically states that the atonement affects the very nature of God (God’s justice is satisfied).

It was Anselm’s restatement of Ransom into Satisfaction that paved the way for the Reformers to articulate the Penal Substitution theory. Before diving into penal substitution, however, the one theory I skipped over (in time) was very influential from the early church fathers all through medieval times as well as having great influence over the Eastern or Orthodox churches.

The Atonement Theory I skipped over (chronologically speaking) - Christus Victor

CHRISTUS VICTOR

Christus Victor (the translation here is “Christ the Victor”) is the most dominant theory of the atonement of the majority of Christian history. I earlier stated that early church fathers didn’t have an idea of atonement that can be stated as we do now — a theory of atonement. They explained the mystery of God’s atoning work in multiple ways. So, while Ransom Theory is dominant, it’s also not exclusive. Christus Victor is not dependent upon the Ransom Theory (as some have stated), but it is intertwined with the idea that God liberates man. The early church fathers emphasized that Jesus died to defeat the power of evil (sin and Satan and death). Jesus also died to liberate humanity from bondage. Rather than emphasizing a transactional event (i.e. paying the price so that the hostage will be handed over), the early fathers emphasized the liberation of man via the blood of the Saviour (It’s a fine distinction when you try to describe it, but isn’t is a huge distinction in terms of the emphasis?).

When we dive deep into the mysteries of God and see how simply God takes on the problem of sin (I am not satisfied with this sentence; it’s not simple, and yet for us, God makes it simple). In all of this, there is a tendency to make it transactional; an exchange. In essence, when we make it transactional, it sounds cheap. God does this. We, in turn, do this. And salvation is the result. Like making a simple purchase at the corner store. And yet, our salvation is not transactional. God pays everything and we simply receive his Mercy and Grace.

The Christus Victor theory is also bound up in the Eastern Orthodox church. In the West, the church has described the atonement as a legal proceeding (especially in the Penal Substitution theory yet to be expounded in this essay), but the East has made a very different emphasis. The whole life of Christ, beginning with the incarnation is an ongoing war against the powers of darkness. The atonement is the victory in the decisive battle. Now, with the outcome decided, the battle continues with us (the church) fighting as God’s stand-in (with the Holy Spirit empowering us to victory). The West caught up with this idea fairly late with the widespread adoption of Inaugurated Eschatology.

The East also has a concept of ἀποκατάστασις (apokatastasis) — a theology of the restoration of all of creation (sometimes used to teach universalism in the West, though not so much in the East). This concept likely kept the East from getting caught up in transactionalism as did the West (that assertion likely needs proof; I’ll just throw it out there for thought).

And finally, the theory we hear about in Evangelical churches - Penal Substitution

PENAL SUBSTITUTION

Outside of a seminary classroom, I have never heard of any other description of atonement except Penal Substitution (however, the word Penal is not used; it’s just the substitutionary atonement of Christ).

The Penal Substitutionary theory is rather simple:

Jesus is punished (thus, penal).

Jesus is punished in the place of the sinner (thus, substitutionary).

It was Anselm who paved the way for this theory by pointing out the flaw of the Medieval scholastic theologians who had God paying a debt to Satan. It was Erasmus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and probably some credit should be given to all the Reformers collectively who developed this theory as stated today.

God is the one who is harmed by sin; the debt is paid (it’s a debt of sin; it’s a blood debt). The blood debt is paid by God himself in the person of the Second Person of the Trinity (the λόγος [logos]), the Son, our Messiah, Jesus.

The Reformers put a courtroom metaphor on top of the thoughts of Anselm. In the courtroom metaphor, God is the Judge. We are on trial. God must pronounce a just verdict. All who have seen the trial know that we are guilty. In a twist, Jesus steps in as representative (this is possible only because of his complete humanity). He is sinless, and he becomes our representative. God, at the moment in which he is speaking judgment, and knowing that we are guilty, looks away from us and looks upon Jesus. Looking at Jesus rather than at us, He speaks the judgment. God sees Jesus and pronounces “not guilty.” (Note that theologians get into further deep debates here. We are actually guilty. Does God’s pronouncement make us guiltless? Are we guilty though pronounced guiltless? The most satisfactory answer seems to be that what God speaks is so [Genesis 1]).

Propitiation vs Expiation

This is tangential, but it’s so intertwined with atonement; I think it must be addressed.

Let’s return to Romans 3:25 (as above with ἱλαστήριος [hilastērios] replaced).

whom God put forward as an ATONING SACRIFICE by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance, he had passed over former sins;

The word, ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). This word appears just two times in the New Testament. Here and in Hebrews 9:5. Here is all of Hebrews 9:1-5 (with ἱλαστήριον highlighted in bold, all caps).

Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. For a tent was constructed, the first one, in which were the lampstand, the table, and the bread of the Presence; this is called the holy place. Behind the second curtain was a tent called the holy of holies. In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing THE MERCY SEAT. Of these things we cannot speak now in detail.

ἱλαστήριον is translated as Mercy Seat in this context (matching the most common use in the Old Testament where the Hebrew ( כָּפַר , kaphar) is translated in the Septuagint as Mercy Seat (most of the time it’s describing the seat or cover of the Ark of the Covenant). Here, the writer of Hebrews returns to the Old Testament and proves (his common theme for the whole book) that Christ is better by contrasting the Old Testament, temporary sacrifice with the better and permanent sacrifice of Messiah Jesus.

Where ἱλαστήριον is translated as Mercy Seat, there is no question. It’s Paul in Romans 3:25 that gives pause and has created a historic translation debacle. Again, I never heard this outside of a seminary classroom (I suspect because of the possibility of being called liberal).

PROPITIATION AND EXPIATION

The RSV translates Romans 3:25 as follows:

whom God put forward as an EXPIATION by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance, he had passed over former sins;

Most translations choose to use PROPITIATION rather than expiation.

What is the difference between Expiation and Propitiation?

Propitiation is an appeasement of an angry God (or gods). Pagan sacrifice is the background and context. God took the practices of the Ancient Near East and changed or perhaps adapted them to communicate His meaning. Note how this is common (see Genesis 15, the covenant ceremony with Abram).

Expiation, on the other hand, is the removal of the guilt of sin. Those who dislike the use of expiation emphasize that the word change was made to minimize emphasis on God’s anger (maybe that was so, I cannot say). But expiation is legitimate, and perhaps we need both words explained in sermons.

I believe that guilt removal is just as important to the atonement as the appeasement of God’s anger. CH Dodd thought so as well. (Dodd, often ignored as a "liberal" is fascinating and shouldn’t be ignored).

My Point: We need both sides to make this equation balance. God is angry at sin, and Jesus’ atoning sacrifice soothes his anger (propitiation). Jesus’ atoning sacrifice also removes our guilt (expiation) because God pronounces us not guilty, and what God says, is so because God’s speaking makes it so (Genesis 1).

In Christ Alone (Song by Adrienne Camp and Geoff Moore and The Distance). (Note that I simply Googled the lyrics and thus the link above.)

In Christ alone,/ who took on flesh / Fullness of God in helpless babe / This gift of love / and righteousness / Scorned by the ones He came to save / 'Til on that cross / as Jesus died /The wrath of God / was satisfied / For every sin / on Him was laid / here in the death of Christ I live, I live

God’s election solves the problem. The wrath and the love of God are both satisfied in Messiah Jesus.

So, every other time you sing this chorus (see the line above I made bold), you should sing this: The love of God was satisfied. (Hat tip to NT Wright for this point, on some unknown episode of “The Ask NT Wright Anything Podcast.”

CONCLUSION

Since I above credited the “Ask NT Wright Anything Podcast,” I will do so again. Again, in some episode (I cannot now name), Dr. Wright told a short story about a student in a theology program. This nameless student attended a class where the instructor spent a long time outlining all of the Atonement theories. After the lecture ended, the student asked, “How much of this does someone need to know to be saved?” The instructor said, “Maybe about 1%.” My point? I write to study and think and make my thinking more clear (and I kinda love this stuff). I do not assert that this is necessary for salvation. What then is necessary for salvation? Trust in the work of God in Messiah Jesus confessing “Jesus is Lord.” (Romans 10:9).

It is often this way with deep theology. God makes it simple enough that a young child can understand and thus in simple faith become a child of God. God also (and at the same time) makes it fascinating, intricate, and complex enough that you can spend a lifetime learning more and never learn enough.

Here is the point of this post: we need multiple atonement theories. Simply stated, one is not enough. We should not just teach substitution (we should not quit teaching it, but we should also teach Christ as Victor using us as his vessels until he returns.

One More Thought - individual and collective

Could it be that we must each (individually) accept Christ’s atoning sacrifice as our substitute? This is Penal Substitution.

And then after we have joined the community of saints, we can turn and understand Christ at work via the Holy Spirit in all the saints (Christus Victor).

To restate. Christus Victor in the collective after salvation. This cannot be seen or understood until we enter the body of Christ. Then, however, after salvation, we are a part of the body of Christ. Now we can see God’s work in our lives along with God’s work in all the members of the Ekklesia. This can only be seen or understood after we have experienced Penal Substitution — Christ’s work in our individual lives bringing us into the collective body of believers.

All that I can say for certain is that I believe one theory of atonement is simply not enough to explain the mysteries of God at work.

God reverses the curse of Genesis 3. God eliminates the distance between the crowning species of his glorious (though marred by sin) creation. God uses the redeemed as agents to bring about his will in restoring all of creation.

Multiple ways (theories) are needed to explain so much that happens in the glorious and amazing and inexplicable at-one moment.

FOOTNOTES

There is so much to say here. Atonement in Hebrew is Kippur ( כִּפּוּר ) means in one sense to repay a debt and in another sense to purify. See this extended video for an excellent overview (Overview at only 1 hour 14 minutes? I might need to learn the meaning of words). I remember in Systematic Theology with the venerable James Leo Garrett (affectionately called “machine gun Garrett” due to the speed at which he gave lectures full of information to be retained). We were on the topic of atonement. I think we had already covered the Hebrew ( כָּפַר the root word given above) and (ἐξιλάσεται with its root, εξιλασκομαι) which is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew. We had already traced out meanings: [the following copied from Strong]: figuratively, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel:—appease, make (an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile(-liation). But Dr. Garrett asked a simple question, what is the meaning of atonement? We as a collective group, seemed dumbfounded (were we to repeat all we had just covered in Biblical word studies?). Dr. Garrett, said, “In English — the word atonement where does IT come from?” And he went on to tell us to atone, in English, comes from “at-one”. This is the moment when God restores the distance created in Genesis 3. God makes us at-one. This is the “at-one moment.” That simplicity found in the English word has stuck with me ever since.

There is a book that is controversial for evangelicals: Smith, Hannah Whitall. The Unselfishness of God and How I Discovered It. Tentmaker Ministries & Publications, Inc. Kindle Edition. Note that I’m not here endorsing Smith’s universalism.

Presumably, the Potter could take the clay which is not forming as intended (i.e. it “spoiled in the potter’s hand”), and gather the lump of clay back together. Then the potter could take the new lump of clay, and throw it again to the wheel, simply starting over. Jeremiah 18:1-4.

I must confess that I have not researched this statement out as I’d like, yet I feel confident in Marcionism (circa 150 CE and after) as a cause for the early explanation of atonement as Moral Influence. Marcion presented an Old Testament ANGRY God and contrasted that God as different than the the BENEVOLENT and loving God of the New Testament (you are not wrong to call Marcon a dualist). Marcionism is somewhat related to Gnosticism (the Old Testament angry God was a Demiurge; a favorite term of Gnostics). Marcion completely rejected the Old Testament and here we can simply say that as the early church spread, already false teaching was a challenge.

Anselm also wrote the ontological argument for the existence of God.

See the book, Aulen, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement (p. 6). Wise Path Books. Kindle Edition. See also this essay by Greg Boyd. See also Boyd’s essay (or all of them to get an overview of Atonement from many perspectives) in the book, The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views.

With this, I will end the description of the Christus Victor theory of atonement. I’m aware I’ve made some contradictory statements. Was Christus Victor the dominant theory for much of church history or was the Ransom Theory? I’ll resist the urge to tease that out and leave the contradiction standing with this caveat. I don’t think in the West we emphasize Christus Victor, and I think it deserves attention. I will return at the end of this essay to emphasize about its place as I see it.