Christians view the atonement as the greatest event in human history. Planned by God from before the creation of the world, the atonement offers all people – or all but those who insist on rejecting what is offered – a life characterised only metaphorically as a new heaven and a new earth, in which God and humans will dwell together in full awareness and presence, in a condition of glory beyond meaningful description. As a precursor to this future life, the present life will also be augmented; light will emerge in the present life of the believer through the power of the resurrection as the old life of darkness is erased. In the words of the great rabbi, “whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
An in depth understanding of the atonement is not needed in order to benefit from it. Christ can and always has come to dwell in the hearts of countless men and women who have no knowledge of academic Christian theology. But developing a framework that works for the individual can deepen their understanding of God and even increase their felt experience of God’s presence. Hence, from the earliest days of Christianity, humans have sought a fuller explanatory structure for the central mystery, leading to over 2000 years of development of atonement theories. The following are some examples, which we will outline very briefly, before continuing in more depth across the rest of the article.
Ransom theory – The atonement tricked the Devil into giving up the rights to man that sin had given him.
Moral Influence theory – The atonement illustrated the extent of God’s love for the world and provided an appeal designed to melt the hearts of men and women so that they would willingly turn to God. The life and death of Christ provided an example of how they should live.
Satisfaction theory – The atonement set right the dishonour that sin had done God.
Penal Substitution theory – The atonement switched a punishment that was intended for humans onto a substitute who volunteered to take the punishment.
Thomistic theory – The atonement solved the issue of human guilt: by enabling the ultimate good in the lives of all individuals, the atonement (among many other things), allowed humans to forgive themselves for the wrongs they had done others.
Christus Victor theory – The atonement broke the hold that the powers of darkness had over the earth and the universe, enabling humans to grow into their full potential, which had previously been held back.
Participation theory – The union of Christ with other Christians in the mystical body, divine reason, Godhead, etc, meant that the atonement of Christ was made or shared in or by every individual.
Subjective theory – Humans atone for themselves by growing into God-consciousness.
As we shall see, the theories intertwine and overlap, and are rarely viewed in complete isolation from one another. In terms of historical trends, across the twentieth century and into the twenty first, individual scholars across all major denominations have increasingly come to express ideas related to Christus Victor and moral influence. The satisfaction theory and penal substitution theory remain something like official status in the Catholic and Reformed churches respectively, but individual scholars within those traditions have increasingly embraced Christus Victor and moral influence, either as an alternative or by incorporating comprehensive elements from these lines of thought.
Ransom theory
The ransom theory was the dominant view in ancient times. According to the ransom theory human sin gives the Devil ownership rights to humanity. As a result Satan subjects humans to eternal death – which God does not want. Christ was a ransom paid to Satan in return for man’s freedom. The theory certainly finds scriptural support, such as Mark 10:45, “The Son of Man came to give His life as a ransom for many.” The ransom theory is also the usual interpretation of the Kerygma in 1 Corinthians 15. It was largely discarded during the middle ages, but has made a comeback through the related Christus Victor theory more recently, which maintains both the “dramatic” core of the theory (see below), and the theme of “divinisation.”
The ransom theory is long gone as the most prominent theory of the atonement. The notion of a gentlemanly agreement between God and the Devil, in which the Devil is paid what he is owed in order to leave mankind alone, has lost favour. Particularly in the Eastern church, some components of the ransom theory remain very influential. The idea that the ransom was a trick, and through it Christ won a victory over the powers of darkness (sometimes known as the “dramatic view”) and the idea that the victory enabled “divinisation,” are both still prominent ideas in atonement theology.
Dramatic view
The dramatic view is strongly related to the ransom theory and was also commonly held in the patristic period. The dramatic view shifted the emphasis away from Christ paying a price to the Devil, towards Christ entering into active combat with the Devil and triumphing. Christ is here fulfilling the trope of the “mighty man,” the “man of war,” described in Isaiah 42. This position is considered “dramatic” as Christ is the cosmic warrior who takes on the powers of darkness and wins, liberating humans and the entire universe from the clutches of these powers which have been holding back their development. The motif is epic and legend-like, its style of art and literature strongly realist. It was often held in the patristic period that the Devil “took the bait” in attacking Christ, who he assumed to be an ordinary man. The ransom was never intended as payment – it was a trap. In this way the Devil accidentally entered into cosmic combat with Christ on the cross. The Devil took Christ down to the realm of the dead but was defeated there – Hell (the underworld), was “harrowed” – the good souls were liberated – and Christ then returned to the earth to give instructions on the continuation of the liberation of the earth through the spread of the Christian message. What the Devil took to be the ransom offering was an invitation to combat in which he was defeated.
Above: Fra Angelico’s 14th Century painting of the Harrowing of Hell (Hades). Having defeated Satan, Christ – traditionally carrying a banner of the cross – frees the virtuous souls imprisoned in Hades.
Above: A somewhat more “grotesque” styled representation of the Harrowing of Hell in a medieval manuscript, typical of the artistic style that backed the dramatic view.
Divinisation and healing
The theme of divinisation and psychological healing was also strong in the patristic period and was related to the ransom theory and dramatic view. This was strong in the Greek church fathers and influences Eastern Orthodox theology to the present day. The actions of Christ enabled the flourishing of human spiritual potential. There was a cosmic theme to this – the flourishing of the entire universe was enabled; all beings and all processes were freed from the suffocating effect of the powers of darkness. Once the ransom was paid, or the victory of Christ was won (depending on the framing), the spiritual powers which held back the psyche were removed, and humans was freed to assume their natural alignment towards God, and come to participate in the divine life. Christ enters human form in order to divinize human form. This is the “participation in the divine nature” of 2 Peter 1:4. Hence, as St Athanasius phrased it, “Christ became man so that man might become God.” Human development had been held back and humans could not cure themselves without the intervention of Christ. This theme was also strong in Origin, Gregory of Nyssa, and even Augustine. Christ becomes a representative of humanity – what he did developmentally, became possible for all. Divinization and healing of the psyche remain very strong themes in Eastern Orthodoxy. The theme of divinisation reappeared prominently in Christus Victor. It was also an important part of Thomistic theory.
Satisfaction theory
Satisfaction theory is the most influential theory. It is associated with Anselm of Canterbury, though it had existed in prototype forms going back to the fathers, notably in Tertullian and Cyprian, though never as the dominant view. Since Anselm’s formulation of the theory in his book Why God Became Man written in the final decade of the 10th century, all other theories have been a reaction to satisfaction theory, either supporting it, or suggesting some alternative.
According to the satisfaction theory something is owed to God as a result of the dishonour that sin does him. In order for man and God to be reconciled the debt which is owed must be paid. God’s attribute of justice is key here. God is able to forgive the debt, but cannot or will not do it as doing so would be contrary to justice. Justice means that either the debt that sin produces must be repaid or humans must be punished for the sin.
The solution is for God to pay the debt himself. God becomes man, and pays the debt to himself. He satisfies the principle of justice through the sacrifice of Christ (who is himself). His own infinite nature is more than enough to pay for the sin of every finite human. This solution, according to Anselm, is also an infinitely merciful solution – God places the burden of repayment on himself. Thus the debt is paid without any harm coming to humans, and the divine attributes which demand justice to be fulfilled are satisfied without any burden being placed on man. In this manner, God both fully forgives all human transgressions, and fully satisfies the principle of justice.
This is a very medieval notion of justice and satisfaction. In medieval times, when a Knight was dishonoured by a vassal, restitution was required. This feudal notion of honour is used as the basis for understanding the transgressions against God and their solution. The lack of a Biblical basis for this principle has often been noted by critics, as well as some inconsistencies with other aspects of Christian theology. For example, if the full punishment is eternal separation from God, does Christ really suffer this? Clearly not. So the punishment has been changed as well as who is punished. Nonetheless, the satisfaction theory has been the most commonly held theory of the atonement across history.
Above: Hubert and Jan van Eyck’s, Adoration of the Mystic Lamb, 1426–32, a representation of the sacrificial offering.
Moral influence theory
Developed by Peter Abelard, a somewhat contentious and unstable contemporary of Anselm, who made many enemies. His ideas were condemned by church authority, and he survived a poisoning attempt by monks of his own monastery. He nonetheless made lasting contributions to philosophy and Christian exegesis. Condemnation of his work turned to respect after his death, and he is even credited with coining the term “theology.”
Abelard proposed an alternative to the satisfaction theory, which he believed gave an uncharitable account of God. He felt that the satisfaction theory lacked any real role for forgiveness: if the debt to God was paid, then was anything really forgiven? Moreover, in demanding a payment for honour, God became too easily caricatured as a tyrant. For Abelard, God was loving: the life and death of Christ was an attempt to reach out to the hearts of men, rather than to satisfy the desire for satisfaction of an unmerciful God.
Above: The Pietà or "The Pity" (1498–1499) by Michelangelo: Associated with the Abelardian / Thomistic view – the outreaching of love by God to man, that would melt a billion hearts.
Hence, for Abelard, the life of Christ set a moral example concerning love. It provided both an example to follow and, by demonstrating the love of God for man, served to turn man towards God. Abelard also held that the crucifixion had a transformative influence over people in the present, enabling the “true heart conversion” of the sinner, though he was vague about this aspect of his atonement theory, and it is the moral example aspect for which he is best remembered.
The crucifixion was a voluntary act of love by God, designed to appeal to man as a sign of his love. It was something that man could not ignore – an outreaching which aimed to melt the most obstinate hearts, move entrenched sinners towards repentance, and inspire good souls to give more of themselves to God. As Paul writes in Romans 5:8, “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” The crucifixion did not do anything to attain God’s forgiveness. It was an outpouring of the love that was already present – a sign that the sins of men and women had already been forgiven.
Penal substitution
Penal substitution is related to the satisfaction theory in that something is offered to God in exchange for mankind, but the nature of the transaction is distinguished. Penal substitution emphasises punishment; satisfaction theory avoids this kind of language, speaking instead of a transaction which occurs to restore the honour of God from the dishonour that sin does him. Penal substitution draws strongly on Isaiah 53:5, “he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.”
Above: Law and Gospel, by Lucas Cranach the Elder, representing the Luther’s vision of Christ redeeming mankind (right-hand side) from the tyranny of the Law (left hand side), by taking the place of man and satisfying the retributive justice of God (penal substitution.)
Penal substitution is generally considered to be barely visible in the work of the fathers. There are some hints of it, though none of them made it their central position or developed it in much detail. It only became prominent in reformation times and is most strongly associated with Calvin and the reformed tradition.
Calvin’s take
A lawyer by profession, Calvin interpreted Christianity in explicitly legal terms. His work was littered with expressions taken straight from sixteenth century legal nomenclature. His approached was largely differentiated from Anselm’s satisfaction theory in terms of perspective. Anselm framed his theory as a feudal transaction to restore honour, Calvin as a legal court process demanding punishment. “In short, Christ was offered to the Father as a propitiatory victim, and as it was by the shedding of his blood that expiation was made, his death was a sacrifice to appease God” (Institutes II.16.6). Calvin characterised God as a wrathful creature demanding punishment. The punishment that was demanded was inflicted on Christ instead: God’s wrath was expressed on Christ instead of man.
Luther’s take
Calvin’s influential predecessor, Martin Luther, focussed more on the victory of Christ. Although penal substitution became the most prominent position within Protestantism, it did so largely from the later Lutheran authors rather than from Luther himself. For Luther the Devil was carrying out the punishment of God on God’s behalf. The Devil was both the enemy and agent of God, but on this occasion the Devil was tricked into taking an innocent man, on whom he could get no purchase. He was tricked into combat directly with God which he would never have attempted if God had not disguised himself as a man. Christ was therefore able to defeat the Devil in cosmic battle. This battle extended into Hades in which souls held there were liberated from the realm of the dead. The atonement completely overcame all sin. The only weapon the Devil subsequently had left was to use conscience to produce guilt and convince people they were not worthy of grace – and this is the tactic the Devil continues to use to this day. The cosmic element is present in an interesting way in Luther: as well as victory over the Devil, the God of Love who manifests as Christ and the New Testament teaching, triumphs over the God of Wrath: grace triumphs over the Law, and forgiveness over retributive justice. It is here that penal substitution shows up in Luther: Christ took the punishment dealt out by the God of Wrath, which was deserved by us. The crucifixion brings about a cosmic shift in the nature of God: the God of love now comes to the fore as the basis for interactions between mankind and God. (Although the Lutheran tradition which stemmed from Luther’s work is associated with penal substitution, there is clearly a strong influence of Christus Victor on Luther himself, which was largely lost on later Lutheran thinkers.)
Participation theory
Participation theory emphasises the identity of Christ with other Christians – through some mediating factor such as the Godhead, Logos, Divine Reason, etc. Christ and his followers become connected or joined, so that Christ taking the punishment is the same as individual Christians being punished. This process of unification also influences the individual transformation of the Christian; as well as sharing in Christ’s atoning work through spiritual union they experience ongoing transformation in an experiential or mystical manner.
Participation theory finds strong support from the Pauline the Johannine literature: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:19–20), “if you remain in me and I in you” (John 15:5), “we were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” (Romans 6:4), “we were baptized by one Spirit into one body” (1Cor. 12:13). Participation theory is sometimes criticised for apparently ignoring core Biblical principles of the substitutionary and representative nature of Christ’s sacrifice.
The theme of participation in the divine being is most commonly found in the Orthodox Church, where it forms an unbroken line from the Eastern fathers to the present day. But it is an idea which is also strongly present in the Catholic mystical literature as well as finding analogues in Luther, Wesley, and other prominent Protestant thinkers.
Above: The Transfiguration of Christ from St Catherine’s monastery, Mount Sinai, Egypt. The transformation of Christ is seen as metaphor for the transformation of the soul through divinization and participation.
Above: The Ladder of Divine Ascent: A motif which has influenced both the Eastern and Western Christian mystical traditions. It depicts ascent up a ladder of stages of contemplation, understanding, and virtue, as taught in some versions of the participative and divinising approaches. Twelfth century depiction from St Catherine’s monastery, Mount Sinai, Egypt.
Thomistic theory
Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the master architect of Catholic theology and one of the most influential of all Western religious thinkers, combined elements of Anselm, Abelard, and the Eastern fathers, along with his own theological insights. As with all of Aquinas’s ideas his theory of the atonement has been highly influential. Proponents claim that the issues of guilt and shame which past sin produces are more comprehensively dealt with by Aquinas than by other theories.
For Aquinas sin is a disorder of the will in which the individual turns away from God, fails to respond to God, fails to be drawn to love, and fails to want to reflect love – sometimes to such an extent that they fail to acknowledge the very existence of God at all. The atonement reorders the human will from within. The processes of “operative” and “cooperative” grace, which correspond to the stages of justification and sanctification, work to firstly produce a desire for orientation towards God, and then to cooperatively work with God in order to bring about that orientation. Reflecting Catholic leanings, works are more active in the process than grace, as the individual does something in order to reconcile themselves with God.
The crucifixion enabled a bond between God and man in various ways. Christ experienced what it is like to commit every sin in human history while on the cross (“he made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him,” 2 Corinthians 5:21). In this way, God comes to man more fully, now able to deeply empathise with guilt. The crucifixion is an act of love which melts human hearts (“if I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw many people to me”) – this was the influence of Abelard on Aquinas.) Resistance is melted, and those who accept Christ get the infusion of the Holy Spirit, through which they know him further.
In true Anselmian manner, the crucifixion satisfied the justice of God. For Aquinas the crucifixion was superabundant. It was much more than enough to provide satisfaction. It was done out of love, voluntarily, by God to himself. In fact – and here is where Aquinas departs from Anselm – the crucifixion was not strictly necessary for forgiveness. God could have forgiven human transgressions anyway; but the crucifixion was the most suitable means, as it provided the act of love which served to draw a great number of people to Christ.
God living the life and death of an ordinary man was the best way to draw souls to himself. It wasn’t necessary for atonement, but it was necessary to maximise the chances of as many souls as possible freely choosing Christ. If the sin had been forgiven without personal transformation we would not really have participated in it ourselves, and so Aquinas says that this is the greater mercy: the guilt of sin is dissolved as well as the eschatological consequences. Through the mystical body we participate in the atonement and resurrection (Col 1:24). Through the change that occurs when we turn to love willingly we have made recompense on a more profound level than if the atonement had been made by another on our behalf and we had done nothing.
For Aquinas suffering enables deeper meeting with God. “Tribulations are necessary for our salvation”, says Aquinas, “for they lead us to seek God and detach from temporal things” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.97). By suffering to extremes, we can appreciate more deeply the love God has for us as we understand more of what Christ went through to draw us to him. God can also meet us in greater degrees of suffering, drawing us out of suffering. Through suffering we can meet God on deeper levels. Suffering produces virtues. It produces experiences which move us closer to God’s attributes: broken pride produces humility, physical and emotional pain produce compassion and love for others (though whether or not suffering achieves this for a particular individual depends on their heart’s response).
We can also interface this with the whole of biology. In meeting with the depths of human suffering God is meeting with all biological life, as all biological life experiences suffering. Man is the means through which God meets with and redeems the entirety of life through suffering. “The whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth… waiting for the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:22–23). The cosmic scope of this redemption leads us to Christus Victor.
Christus Victor
Cristus Victor is a reworking of the ransom theory. It claims to be the true characterization of the ransom theory as presented by the church fathers. The crucifixion was not a payment to the devil, but his defeat. There is a cosmic scope to the victory that is little emphasised elsewhere. Christ defeated the Devil in every way. His entire life was a series of victories over the powers of darkness, and his death was the ultimate victory. (In some versions of the theory the crucifixion itself was unnecessary strictly, and was just the way things happened to play out. But the victory would have been won anyway.)
The classic imagery of Christ as Victor portrays a battle with the Devil. Christ overcomes, and descends into Hades to free the souls imprisoned there. These vivid, epic, legend-like images, are often taken as metaphor, or as personification, for a process between forces. Christ won a victory on an organic or even evolutionary level, breaking the bondage of humanity to the powers of darkness, which had previously dominated the world. The cosmic victory over the forces of darkness is objective as it frees all people from those forces. Once freed they can better establish and move through their own personal spiritual transformation. The decisive victory having been won over the Devil, all other victories will follow.
The theory differs from the ransom theory in that nothing was paid to the Devil. This was a victory – a resounding one – and not a deal. The principle of cosmic victory also separates Christus Victor from satisfaction and penal substitution approaches. Nothing is paid to God to satisfy justice – God comes down to earth, takes the fight to the powers of darkness, and wins a victory for the good of mankind. Yet this is still an atonement: through his victory Christ does indeed take away judgement from the human race. He takes away the condemnation which comes from the Law and from humans’ inability to follow it. Hence, as Romans says, “the very commandment intended to bring life actually brought death.” The Law is a holy thing, but its main purpose was to highlight the failings of men, who inevitably fell short of its standards. The atonement ushered in a new relationship with God and removed judgement on the terms of the Law.
Critics claims Christus Victor does not fully account for everything that scripture has to say about the atonement. But it is certainly an insightful complement to the other theories, and has regained much interest in recent times.
Above: Carolingian period carving from Genoels-Elderen. A Christus Victor motif – Christ tramples the lion, dragon, asp, snake and basilisk, all of which were symbols of the Devil.
Subjective theories
The subjective aspect of atonement refers to what man does in order to atone for himself rather than, or as well as, what Christ does for man. This has become an increasingly popular perspective in modern times. The subjective aspect, however, has very ancient roots, and has been recognised since the patristic period.
The notion of theosis, which has remained an important part of Eastern Christianity, was very strong in the patristic period. But the overwhelming assumption during this time was that Christ had objectively released some blockage to human growth. Hence the atonement achieved an objective liberation from forces that were preventing human beings from following their natural progression towards the image of God. The Cappadocian model, for example, regarded Christ as the psychological and spiritual healer of all humans. Humans must engage with the process, engaging with grace through prayer, ascetic practices, and virtue, but the process is enabled and directed by Christ’s victory over sin and death, which would otherwise be holding us back.
The change of emphasis to one of personal responsibility for growth and change began with Abelard. Aquinas maintained objective aspects, but also strongly emphasised the effort made by the individual to change. There was now more emphasis on earnt merit rather than on merely consenting to Christ, grace, and the Spirit to take over and do their work.
The subjective component has grown in influence considerably across the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Schleiermacher shifted the emphasis completely onto subjective aspects of the individual and the work that the individual did in the present. For Schleiermacher the natural state of human beings is God-consciousness. Sin disrupts our awareness of this. Christ is perfectly realised God-consciousness and it is up to man to find him through the teachings of religions. The emphasis is decidedly on the work of mankind in the present. Atonement is the change in behaviour that ensues as the person’s consciousness of God augments. Christ’s work was completed in the past, the emphasis is now on us to follow.
This is where Christianity comes to interact interestingly with other religions and other virtuous individuals. If the role of Christ is reduced in the atoning work taking place in the present then the door more easily opens for virtuous non-Christians to receive Christian benefits. Among the fathers there was an awareness that Christ enlightened all hearts to some degree. As Justin Martyr put it, “Those who lived with reason are Christians, even if they were thought to be atheists.” The best Pagan insights from philosophy and mysticism were seen as forerunners to the light of Christ. (There was an awareness that not all none Christian religions were on equal footing: the cults of Baal, Molech, Asherah etc in the ancient near East, over whom Yahweh triumphed in the Old Testament, had very little in common with the Christian ethic, and could be considered false religion, diametrically opposed to Christianity, entirely incompatible, and hence “you shall worship no other gods but me” was the appropriate instruction in this context. The Platonic religion and ethical systems of Greece came much closer to Christian consciousness.) The middle ages in generally became more exclusivist. Influenced partly by persistent secular military conflicts between people of different faiths, other religions were more likely to be viewed as fundamentally flawed, as mistakes, or as works of the Devil, and their adherents in need of deliverance.
In more recent times much of Protestant and Catholic thought increasingly opened again to the idea of God rewarding the heart, rather than an individual’s religious membership status, though Christianity generally continues to resist the idea that all religions are equally valid as transformative paths and vessels of grace. The atonement of Christ had significance. It was the most significant event in history, and its significance is wide and broad based, stretching beyond the formal members of the churches. Most Christian denominations and thinkers still maintain that the commandment given in Matthew 28 to go out, teach, and make disciples of all nations is there for a reason, and evangelism has been maintained as a core Christian precept throughout the ages. God’s concern and blessings may extend to good people of all religions (as demonstrated in Acts 10), but to receive the full extent of the blessings, conversion to the Christian path is still considered necessary.
The relevance to the subjective view then, is this. If Christ’s work was primarily completed in the past as subjective views hold, joining with the body of Christ is still necessary for the subjective spiritual growth of the individual to unfold to its fullest and most complete extent. A radical inclusiveness and equivalence of all spiritual paths is still rejected by almost of modern modes of Christian thought.
Conclusion
The New Testament provided the prototype atonement ideas which were developed more substantially in the work of later thinkers. All of the main theories find strong support from scripture. Scriptural evidence for the theories of atonement began in Old Testament prophecies which started to characterise the nature of the event before it had even happened. The New Testament ideas offered fuller interpretations, as the writers made initial attempts to build frameworks that would aid the understanding of the people at the time, as they attempted to comprehend history’s greatest event.
As always, the strongest inspiration was with scripture. As the scriptural writings were closest in time and place to the miraculous events surrounding Jesus’ life and death, it is reasonable to assume that the inspiration God provided to the understanding of those around at the time was also immense, and hence the New Testament literature has always been given the greatest theological authority. In the same way that the miracles around at the time were greater and more plentiful than at any subsequent time, so, it is held, was the inspiration behind the written works of the New Testament authors.
Yet the scriptures are also open to further interpretation and unpacking as time goes on. Following the principle given in the Gospel of John that “the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth,” the interpretation of scripture gradually flowers over millennia. Unlike natural science or philosophy, Christian theology is not something that any one person radically alters. Spreading what is already established – what was established from the beginning – is more important than contributing micro-changes. Nonethless Christian theology does develop, the mainstream views undergo refinement, and alternative well supported viewpoints arise and co-exist on most theological points. The emphasis is always on correctly interpreting the ideas that were given under the inspiration that was present in Biblical times, even though that interpretation undergoes distillation as the centuries pass by. Hence the seeds of all the theories of atonement are found in the Word, though the detail, depth, and context of the expositions has flowered as time has passed.
***************
Articles in Christianity series:
Theories of the Atonement: from Ancient to Modern
Religious pluralism and monotheism in the Bible: From Genesis to Jesus