Atonement theories are a hot topic for debate. In some circles a particular view of the atonement is a shiboleth for orthodoxy. In a few extreme cases, a particular view of atonement has become conflated with the Gospel itself (to understand the difference between atonement and the Gospel see here, or here). Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA) theory is a particular view of how Jesus’ crucifixion deals with human sin, which has adamant supporters, and very vocal critics. In some circles, to reject, or even challenge penal substitution is to reject Christian orthodoxy. Obviously not all PSA advocates take such an extreme view, and I certainly don’t want to attack the whole of those who hold this view because of the wrong-headedness of some of its advocates. But I do want to engage critically with a view which is common in my “tribe” (both specifically Canadian Baptists, but also more broadly, those who identify as “evangelical”- a term with complicated associations and debated relevance).
I am not a fan of penal substitution theory. But I need to clarify what I mean by that. This isn’t to say that I believe it’s completely unbiblical. A case can be made. However, I don’t think PSA can claim exclusivity, or even predominance, and I see a lot of tensions coming from how PSA has been used and articulated, since several Reformed notions became increasingly dogmatic. PSA as it was initially understood can be helpful, but cannot hold absolute sole place, or primary place in our soteriology. While his critique of modern usage of PSA doesn’t go far enough in my mind, Patrick Franklin provides this helpful warning:
penal substitution is a legitimate and relevant representation of the biblical doctrine of atonement. The problem with this metaphor is not primarily its formulation (although certain qualifications need to be made), but its application. In particular, problems arise when the penal substitution metaphor is viewed in isolation from other atonement metaphors, when it becomes a dominant or controlling metanarrative, or when it is converted mechanistically into a methodology for evangelism.
PSA can be helpful in articulating a particular facet of soteriology, but it ought not become definitive of the Gospel proclamation. It is one “metaphor” of atonement, but is it the only, or even the central one? Like all metaphors, PSA can be pushed too far, and clear problems emerge. When expressed in its best ways, by its best advocates it can be relevant tool (or to use the analogy in McKnight’s lecture on atonement linked to above, it can be one golf club in our bag). But it cannot be imposed on everything as some have done. The reason I say this is because within popular articulations of PSA the inherent limitations of even the best arguments become more clear. So as I critique, it can easily be argued by those who disagree with me that I’m attacking the weakest versions of PSA not their best. That is not my intention. Instead I am warning what can happen when PSA is worked out as the sole atonement theory, and the defining hermeneutical lens for reading all salvation texts.
Personally, I find the Christus Victor (CV) atonement theory (especially as expressed in the thought of Athanasius) to be far more convincing (which isn’t to say it’s the only or even the best theory, but simply that it makes sense of a large bulk of the relevant soteriological texts, particularly the Pauline ones; e.g. Rom. 3-8, Phil. 2:5-9, Eph. 2, Col. 1, 1 Cor. 15). I am also quite intrigued by the work of Michael Gorman on this front (his new book on atonement focuses on the covenantal notions, and his Inhabiting the Cruciform God touches on atonement theory stuff among other things; arguing for a participation/union New Covenantal form of atonement, which I think has a lot going for it), and also the cosmic reconciliation view of J.R. Daniel Kirk who tweeks CV to tidy up some issues and expand it’s scope. Athanasius argues that in the incarnation, Christ and humanity are brought together, as Christ as fully God and fully man participates in and possesses both divinity and humanity (the hypostatic union). In the person of Christ as representative, the sinful human nature is put to death, nullifying the powers (sin, evil, death, Satan) which enslave humanity, and the impassible God enters death and thus dispels death as light introduced to a dark room dispels the darkness. As Christ is raised from death, all powers, even death itself are subject to his victory. Thus, sin is expiated and the Spirit pours into us so that the sin nature might be healed. The CV view, as expressed by Athanasius and others focuses not just on the penalty for sin, but the condition of enslavement sin and its consequence, namely death. We are not just declared righteous, but we become righteous by participating in, and being united to the Righteous One (2 Cor. 5:21).
In PSA, the key issue is not the power of sin but the penalty of sin. We, as sinful people, are under condemnation and wrath because we have sinned against God. That penalty must be paid in full or we remain under God’s condemnation. On the cross, our sin is imputed onto Christ as our representative, who suffers our punishment, bearing the wrath of God and God imputes to us the righteousness of Christ (double forensic imputation). We are declared “not guilty” because Christ’s blood covers our sin, and he has borne our penalty in himself.
So the question becomes “can’t atonement be all of the above” (PSA, CV, and the rest which I don’t have space to really engage with here)? Yes, it can. We are under condemnation because of sin (Romans 3). We are guilty. And we have a sin nature which is enslaved to the power of Sin (Romans 5-7). PSA is not cast out of the conversation if we say CV makes more sense, and encapsulates the broad sweep of the New Testament better. There are a host of other theories, all of which capture some truth in a metaphorical way, but can become problematic if pushed too far. So when we come to atonement theories we are often placing the emphasis on different aspects as the most true or only true aspect. The separate atonement theories, therefore, are different explanations as to how Jesus deals with the thing one sees as the key problem. When I read the New Testament, the problem I see jumping off the page is that man is “subjected to futility” along with the creation because sin has usurped God’s reign, and is destroying God’s good creation. Humanity was made in God’s image, and we have corrupted that nature, and live according to sin not according to the likeness. Atonement, therefore, has to do with restoring and healing the image of God to humanity, and reconciling us to God (2 Cor. 5:18-19).
This is the assumption I work from, but I am open to be led by the text where it is trying to get me. But, as I read PSA arguments, problems arise. God’s great act in the Christ event is the solution to one aspect of the problem, and in turn can skew or bias our understanding of God and his salvation. This is meant to summarize some of this issue in a very non-comprehensive way.
What are we Saved From?
In the Christus Victor view, we are bound in sin and death. It enslaves us, and reigns over us, but Christ’s death and resurrection breaks the power of sin, and places all things under Christ’s reign (see esp. 1 Cor. 15, Eph. 1-2). In the penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) view, Christ pays the penalty for our sin. Our sin is imputed to Jesus, so that the wrath of God and condemnation against sin falls on Jesus on the cross. This immediately raises the question, is guilt transferable? But we’ll come back to that. The bigger issue with imputed sin punished in the person of Jesus, is that it suggests that Christ, who is fully God, is receiving the redirected wrath of God onto himself. This means that (and I admit that this is an oversimplified caricature, but still in an important sense reveals an important issue) in essence, God is saving us from God (or at least from the anger/wrath/judgment of God). It is God who has the sticking problem, not us. He wants to save us, but he requires blood. He can’t forgive or release or save people without pouring out wrath on someone. The debt has to be paid from somewhere, and his wrath has to be poured out on someone or else his wrath won’t ever go away. He has to save us from his own fury and condemnation. In this case, the legal requirements trump God’s preference, unless he allows his Son to suffer in our place. Penal substitution atonement is thus a way of sidestepping or finding a loophole in the cosmic forensic requirements which God has to subvert. While PSA rightly articulated does not fit the common accusation that the Father is a “cosmic child abuser” who violently punishes either us, or Jesus in our place, that exaggerated accusation is a caricature of a very real tension in PSA.
PSA misses the fullness of atonement by focusing on the issue of guilt and the punishment due. When we dig into soteriological passages, particularly in Paul, we see far bigger things to salvation than a transfer of guilt to Jesus, who is crushed by the Father’s wrath (Calvin certainly saw this, and articulated an incredible understanding of union with Christ, while still presenting PSA as one part of the ordo salutis). E.P. Sanders, Michael Gorman, Daniel Kirk and others have noted how many soteriological texts focus on this idea of participation. That Christ’s death for all (2 Cor. 5:14) invites all to participate in that death, so that our sin nature may die, and we live now in Christ, and live in hope and confidence we will participate in Christ’s resurrection, and be raised with Christ (see for e.g. Rom. 8:9-11, Gal. 2:19-20, Phil. 3:7-11).
Dependence on a Particular Understanding of hilasterion
PSA advocates often put a large emphasis on Romans 3:25, “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” (NIV). The phrase “a sacrifice of atonement” is the key here. In Greek it is hilasterion, which is a tricky word. In other translations (e.g. KJV, ESV) it is translated as “a propitiation”. The best translation is still somewhat debated (hence the NIV, NRSV leaving it somewhat ambiguously as “a sacrifice of atonement” without further specification). In classic Greek literature hilasterion often refers to a sacrifice offered to cover the person(s) from the wrath of the deity, to hide/cover their sin(s), or to placate an angry god (that is, to “propitiate”). In this reading Jesus, as a propitiation, is said to have died in sinners’ place, in order that those covered by his death would not receive the wrath and penalty due to them, which has been received by Christ on the cross. This is one possible reading of hilasterion. However, the verb form is hilaskomai which means to have mercy on or forgive. So it is certainly possible to read Romans 3:25 in a different way.
We must note that it is God who presents the hilasterion. Thus, God is the one offering the sacrifice; he is the subject. In a propitiation, like the one suggested by PSA advocates, the sacrifice is offered by the sinner to the angered deity. The person who needs propitiation presents something of cost to him/herself (thus the deity is the object of the hilasterion and one seeking to placate is the subject). In Romans 3:25 the roles are reversed. God presents Jesus (or Jesus in obedience to the Father offers himself) as an atoning offering, without an object specified (ie. to whom is the offering given?). By offering Jesus, who is fully God and fully man, God is somehow doing something to deal with our sin, but how is that working? Is this God offering Christ to appease his own wrath (making God both subject and object)? This would seem very strange indeed. This means that it is God who kills Jesus on the cross (or at least who hands him over to execution) to avert his own rage against mankind’s sin which forced God to bring about the execution of his own Son. And somehow this satisfies God’s wrath, and reveals his justice/righteousness?
This is part of the reason the translation of hilasterion as propitiation is much debated. When reduced to it’s simplest (not necessarily its best) form, God is simply trying to avoid inflicting his wrath on humanity by performing a transaction within the godhead. In the early Church, it was not read that way. It was read not as propitiation, an act not of covering sin, so that wrath would be poured out onto a substitute, but an act of compassion and mercy; of removal of the sin nature and healing of sinful mankind. In some Eastern Orthodox theology, the term expiation (God performing a sacrifice so that our sin is removed and we are healed, thus God is subject and the object is left somewhat unclear) is preferred (in some cases, folks aren’t even completely comfortable with that). In this sense, the cross becomes an altar where the sacrifice is killed, not to placate a vengeful deity, but as facilitating a liturgical act, into which we are invited to participate and receive healing and reconciliation. This is not without its own problems, but makes better sense of the Old Testament imagery which Paul is steeped in. Because, when we approach hilasterion, we must remember that Paul is not a classical Greek thinker, but a Jewish one. Although certainly familiar with Hellenistic culture, and swimming in that cultural pool, Paul is steeped in the Jewish tradition, and the literature which defines his terminology is primarily the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint.
The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) used the Greek word hilasterion to depict God’s act or place of mercy, and more specifically, frequently it was used in the way it is used in Hebrews 9:5 (the only other place hilasterion is used in that form in the New Testament; the related word hilasmos is used twice in 1 John 2:2 & 4:10). There hilasterion refers to “the mercy seat”, where God and man meet and are reconciled, the lid of the ark where the blood of the sacrifices on Yom Kippor are sprinkled. So when we see hilasterion in Romans 3:25, it is far more complicated than PSA advocates might see. Should we understand hilasterion in the way it is used in classical Greek texts, or the way it used in the Septuagint and the only other place it is used in the New Testament? Maybe Paul is using hilasterion to mean propitiation. But it makes more sense to conclude otherwise. And unfortunately Paul doesn’t clarify for us. But if, as would make sense, Paul is using hilasterion the way the translators of the Septuagint do, Christ’s death cannot be understood to be a sacrifice of propitiation (at least not in Romans 3:25).
This brings us to another important point.
Confusion of the Old Testament Imagery of Sacrifice
Often, PSA advocates draw attention to the Old Testament sacrificial system to explain how Jesus dies in a substitutionary way, dying vicariously having taken on himself the penalty and guilt of sin. But, in many cases there has been a bit of a bumbling of the imagery from the Old Testament sacrificial system. A couple of examples which stand out are:
1) Jesus is described as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Does this point to penal substitution? Is Jesus a substitution bearing the guilt of humanity and thus the “Lamb of God”? Well, no. For more than one reason, this is a problematic reading of that epithet. First, lambs are not used as atoning sacrifices. Goats and bulls were the prescribed offering for sin. The sacrifice of lambs were used for liturgical acts which had nothing to do with atonement. On the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippor) the atonement liturgy uses two goats. Onto one, the priests would lay hands, and “transfer” the guilt of all of Israel (so, yes, there is some basis for believing sin and guilt can be imputed to a substitute). But that goat who bore the sins of Israel was released into the wilderness (Lev. 16:1-22). Sin is not brutally punished in the substitute but sent away. It was the other, spotless, unblemished animal which was killed and had it’s blood sprinkled on the mercy seat (hilasterion in Hebrews 9:5). Above the ark is where God’s glory was said to dwell. The blood which was presented to God there was not the blood of the one onto whom the sin was laid. The blood presented in the holy of holies was from an offering without blemish. That place of meeting with God is not hidden behind the curtain in the holy of holies anymore, but was displayed in public view as Jesus was crucified. The hilasterion, the place of God and man meeting in reconciliation, is no longer the lid of the ark, behind the curtain away from view, but the Lamb, looking as if slain, but who is the Lion of Judah who has triumphed over death and sin, which is now cast out to perish in the wilderness (Rev. 5).
2) What is the purpose of sacrifice in the Old Testament? When sacrifices are offered, is it an animal dying in place of the person offering it? And is it propitiatory? This doesn’t really seem to line up. Sacrifice has multiple purposes, but propitiating is seldom (if ever) part of that. Eastern Orthodox priest Patrick Henry Reardon argues:
in those places where Holy Scripture does speak of propitiating the anger of God, this propitiation is never linked to blood sacrifice. When biblical men are said to soften the divine wrath, it is done with prayer, as in the case of Moses on Mount Sinai, or by the offering of incense, which symbolizes prayer. Because blood sacrifice and the wrath of God are two things the Bible never joins together, I submit that authentic Christian theology should also endeavor to keep them apart.
I would say there is one possible exception- the final plague against Egypt, the death of the firstborn, is an act of judgment. But in that case, it is “judgment on all the gods of Egypt”, not against sin. Also, death came not to all those under sin, but only the firstborn. The blood on the doorposts was to distinguish Israelite from Egyptian, and was not for the purpose of substitutionary atonement.
In other words, God’s wrath against sins is not assuaged by the blood of substitutes (see for e.g. Psalm 51, Hos. 6:6). Forgiveness of sins is not achieved through sacrifice. A few quick thoughts from N.T. Wright in this video are helpful on this front. This of course leads to the next point.
The Problem of Forgiveness
The New Testament tells us that by the blood of Christ, our sins can be forgiven. If our punishment/debt is paid, forgiveness is no longer required. In the Christus Victor view, Jesus’ incarnation, death and resurrection defeats the power of sin, and the Father’s forgiveness is able to do its work in us, releasing us from the guilt of past sin. In PSA, forgiveness becomes something which looks quite strange to someone on the outside looking in. In PSA our sin was imputed onto Jesus and the punishment and wrath was poured out in fullness on Jesus as he suffered on the cross. The punishment due, and the debt owed, are both provided for. Thus, our sin has been dealt with. So how can we say God forgave sin? If the penalty has been paid, there is nothing to forgive.
Let me use an analogy; recently I “purchased” a new vehicle. By “purchased” I mean I borrowed from a bank, and will over the next 6 years pay that money back. I have incurred a debt. Now, if someone else were to give to the bank what I owe, my debt would be paid in full. If I were to claim the bank “forgave” my debt, I would be misspeaking. The bank forgave nothing. They received exactly what was due, just from another source. If Christ’s death pays the penalty for sin, my debt is paid, and need not be forgiven. To forgive is to loose or release. It recognizes the debt is outstanding, but will be erased with no further obligation.
Consider Mark 2:1-12. In this pericope, a paralyzed man is brought to Jesus, but the crowds prevent the man’s friends from getting to Jesus, so they make an opening in the roof (vandalizing personal property! Gasp!) and lower their friend in front of Jesus. Jesus, admiring the dedication decides to heal the man. 2:5 is the key: “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.'” This man is released from his sin. His guilt is declared gone. He will not bear the punishment for his sin. No atonement has been made. No penalty paid. No blood shed. The debt is simply cancelled. God is perfectly capable, and willing to forgive past sins (see also Luke 7:36-50). To insist that God cannot forgive sin without consequence is to put restrictions on God which the text of Scripture doesn’t. This notion that God cannot tolerate sin in his presence is an odd assertion, since all things are in his presence. And Jesus intentionally sought out sinners and had fellowship with them. Yes, he challenges sinners to leave their sin. But we really need to be careful not to push beyond the text. We must remember that when Jeremiah describes the new covenant he declares that all will have personal knowledge of God, God will write the Torah on their hearts, and they will be his people, “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” (Jer. 31:34) The realities of the new covenant are available because sins are forgiven. No mention is made of substitutionary atonement.
At the Last Supper, Jesus took the cup, and declared “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:25). Forgiveness of sin is declared by Jeremiah to come as God initiates a new covenant. Blood was used as the seal of the new covenant. In a mirrored fashion, in Exodus 24, the covenant with Israel is confirmed;
Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the Lord. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he splashed against the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.”
8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
Notice a few things: a) the bulls are sacrificed as fellowship offerings, not meant for propitiation. b) it marks the people as belonging to the covenant, thus Jesus’ blood is meant to declare the person as belonging to God’s forgiven people. c) Half the blood is splashed on the altar (which needs no propitiation certainly), thus designating this act as a liturgical act. Liturgical acts (sacrifice in the OT, baptism and eucharist in the new) draw us into participation in spiritual realities. In baptism, we participate in the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:3-4). In the eucharist, we participate in Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). And we participate in covenant.
The Depiction of God as Bloodthirsty
According to PSA, all people are guilty, and a punishment must be brought against those who have transgressed God’s law. God’s hands are bound. This presents a problem for the view that God is sovereign and certainly able and willing to forgive sin, and release the prisoner. In Paul’s thought, as I read his writing, the issue I see isn’t just the guilt under the law for sins, but the power of Sin which holds people in bondage. The sinful nature seems to be a much bigger concern for Paul than the wrath against individual sins. It is the sin which dwells in us which places us under condemnation. This isn’t to reduce the seriousness of sins, but to realize their source. When our focus is directed at the sins committed in our past which require severe punishment, either to us, or Christ as our substitute, the picture of God can become skewed, making God look more like a shrewd debt collector, or bloodthirsty tyrant than a compassionate father. As I read arguments for PSA, however graciously worded, I can’t help but ask, what kind of God demands blood as the only means of making things right? Is this what God the Father does? Does the God who died for his enemies do so because his wrath is such that someone must die? Does God look at humanity with such fury that he has to inflict suffering and pain and shed blood, and he no longer cares whose blood? He will accept the death of his own, innocent Son as satisfaction for the requirements of justice?
Jesus’ death is meant to be the outworking of God’s justice (Romans 3:25). But is it justice if an innocent man dies for the sins of others? Yes, most PSA advocates will say that Christ, as fully God, is setting himself in our place as an act of mercy. But why has the Father so arranged things that such a situation is required? Why has God bound himself to needing bloodshed?
The focus on the Crucifixion to the degradation of the Resurrection
PSA focuses on the cross. This is not entirely problematic, unless the adherence to PSA leads one to play up the penalty being paid on the cross to such an extent that the incarnation and resurrection are played down. When we look to the Gospel summation texts (e.g. Acts 2:14-36, Romans 1:1-6, 1 Cor. 15:1-8, 2 Tim. 2:8) the resurrection is not just there, but I would argue is the focal point. It is Jesus’ resurrection which makes our redemption from sin possible (1 Cor. 15:17). If our soteriology, and our Gospel proclamation is cut off at the point of Christ’s death, our soteriology is incomplete. While I don’t think any responsible advocate of PSA would declare the resurrection irrelevant or unimportant, in the preaching and writing of some PSA minded folks, the resurrection “takes a back seat”. For instance, in Matt Chandler’s The Explicit Gospel (an unashamedly pro-PSA book), in the chapter on Christ, the resurrection is not mentioned at all. Salvation, and the Gospel, is made up of Christ being the one who receives in himself the full wrath and punishment of God on the cross. Any temptation to do this must be resisted.
The Problem of Historical Theology
What many people forget is that PSA is a relative newcomer in the historical discussion of atonement. It was not until the Reformation that the Church began to think in this way. While we obviously appeal to Scripture and not tradition as the authority, and I hold to more than one doctrine which is not the majority opinion in tradition (e.g. believer’s baptism and conditional immortality) in those cases, there is considerable evidence of those views in the Early Church Fathers. With PSA there are few (if any) signs of it anywhere before the 16th century (a few references to satisfying the demands of the law are dropped in Tertullian, Augustine, and Gregory the Great which may be precursors for PSA, and of course PSA owes much to Anselm’s notion of satisfaction). It seems to me, that the rise of PSA is heavily influenced by the shifting of eras in Western Europe, away from feudal hierarchies towards constitution based law. After all, the Eastern Orthodox Church never adopted PSA, with many of its adherents under Ottoman or Imperial Russian rule while the Reformation was taking place in Western Europe. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the first real advocate for a fully developped penal view of atonement which focuses on legal, penal, forensic language was, prior to becoming a preacher and theologian, a practicing lawyer. In much the same way that many have critiqued Anselm’s satisfaction theory as being rooted in the assumptions of medieval feudalism, it may be worth our while to further investigate the connections between the rise of early modern constitutionalism as well as Calvin’s legal background as formative on PSA.
Tensions Created for Systematic Theology
PSA creates some problems for systematic theology, as it creates some difficult to maintain dynamics within the Trinity. How does the Father’s wrath and Son’s death relate to one another? How can the Father killing the Son, who shares his own nature, appease wrath? The righteousness of the Son imputed to the believer is said to create a situation in which the Father looks upon us and sees his Son’s righteousness. So has the Father worked with the Son to created a means of self-deception?
Further, if Jesus’ death pays the penalty for sin- in other words Jesus receives the full punishment we deserve- and in the mind of most PSA advocates (but not all), the final punishment for our sin will be eternal torment, how can that be? Jesus suffered for a limited time only, and died for our sins. If our sin will lead to an eternity in hell, then Jesus did not receive the penalty we are to receive, because he did not spend an eternity in torment in hell. And if it is Jesus’ death which pays the penalty, then the penalty must be death, not torment. Of course, the notion of eternal conscious torment in hell is one I reject. But in my opinion, PSA is incompatible with ECT. That tension is somewhat smoothed over in the conditional view of final punishment, because “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).
PSA has it’s place. The notion that Christ received in himself the punishment for sin is one metaphor used by the New Testament authors to convey some sense of what Christ’s death means (e.g. Rom. 8:1-4). Jesus in a very real sense “died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). He certainly shared in our lot, represents us in death, which comes as a result of sin. Yes, I affirm this. But, is Jesus’ death solely or primarily about paying a cost incurred by our sin? Is it propitiation? Do the New Testament authors speak in this way? Or, are PSA readings the result of PSA being assumed before reading the text? The same could be asked of all doctrines. Do we allow the meaning to come out of the text, or do we find confirmation of our preconceived notions because we’ve read the text through a PSA filter?
Even if PSA can be drawn from a handful of verses, should it become our guiding hermeneutical principle, and our Gospel proclamation? I would argue no. PSA has significant limitations, especially when it becomes too big and too central. There are holes in this conception of what has taken place in Christ. We need a more expansive and rounded view of atonement, justification, salvation, and union with Christ. I like Christus Victor, but not in a rigid, dogmatic way. I think it captures a broader vision of what God has accomplished in Christ, but even that view is still limited in some ways. As we read the broad sweep of Scripture we see a description of humanity created in God’s image, corrupted by sin, and in need of healing, deliverance, forgiveness, and resurrection. This has come to us in Christ.
 Patrick Franklin.”Penal Substitution in Perspective“. MJTM, 10 (2008) 22.
 See for e.g. E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977. 463-468; Michael J. Gorman. Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. 49-69.
 Patrick Reardon. “Expiation, Blood and Atonement”. Journey to Orthodoxy. (blog) June 5, 2010. Retrieved Feb. 4, 2015.
Greg Boyd. “The Christus Victor View of the Atonement” ReKnew (blog). Jan. 8, 2008.
Bruxy Cavey. “We Believe, Episode 5: Soteriology 1” Sermon, The Meeting House, Oakville, ON. July 6, 2014.
Patrick Franklin.”Penal Substitution in Perspective“. MJTM, 10 (2008).
Michael J. Gorman. The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant: A (Not So) New Model of the Atonement. Eugene: Cascade, 2014.
— Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Stanley Grenz. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1994.
J.R. Daniel Kirk. “Cosmic Reconciliation” (lecture). Fuller Seminary, What Did Jesus Do?: The Atonement Symposium. November 7, 2012.
— Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Scot McKnight. “Gospel and Atonement” (lecture). Fuller Seminary, What Did Jesus Do?: The Atonement Symposium. November 7, 2012.
— The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977.
John R.W. Stott. The Cross of Christ. Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1986.