The Atonement

Compelling voices charge that the theological notion of “sacrifice” valorizes suffering and fosters a culture of violence by the claim that Christ’s death on the Cross paid for human sins. Beneath the ‘sacred’ violence of sacrifice, René Girard discerns a concealed scapegoat-murder driven by a distortion of human desire that itself must lead to human self-annihilation. I here ask: can one speak safely of sacrifice; and can human beings somehow cease to practice the sacrifice that must otherwise destroy them? Drawing on Gregory the Great (ca. 540–604), I propose an understanding of sacrifice that both distinguishes Christian sacrifice from sacred violence and accounts for how to overcome the roots of the sacred violence identified by Girard.

I make four claims: First, Girard recognizes two kinds of sacrifice—one, the scapegoat murder, overcomes community rivalries by unanimous imitation of an accuser, shifting blame onto a third party who is collectively murdered; the other sort of sacrifice practices renunciation and forgiveness in imitation of God. These I respectively designate the “Satanic” (Girard’s term) and the “theomimetic” (mine). Second, I analyze the intrinsic instability that keeps the Satanic from sustaining the societal order and unity that it promises. Third, by a constructive reading of Gregory the Great, I posit that satanic sacrifice overlooks and indeed exacerbates the root of human covetousness—a failure to love. Fourth, Gregory’s teaching on the imitation of Christ enables us to expand on Girard’s account of the theo¬mimetic sacrifice of renunciation, to clarify how this latter might not only oppose but also systematically subvert the Satanic by healing the disorder out of which mimetic rivalry and scapegoating first take their rise.

https://doi.org/10.14321/contagion.27.2020.0177
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/contagion.27.2020.0177
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/757320
https://philpapers.org/rec/WALTSA-15

The gap between systematic theologians and biblical theology is often wide. Here is an attempt to apply principles of biblical theology and exegesis to the systematic theology of the atonement, especially in reference to the Arminian Baptist Thomas Grantham. This is a response paper to J. Matthew Pinson's presentation in New Orleans, 2008. The paper was published in this e-journal: http://www.baptistcenter.com/Documents/Journals/JBTM%208.1%20Spring11.pdf,  pp. 29-33.

We owe to Karl Barth's masterful treatment of the doctrine of reconciliation in the fourth volume of the Church Dogmatics a sketch that is at once beautifully clear and remarkably comprehensive. It is not without shortcomings, however. This paper contains in seminal form some of the ideas developed further (and somewhat differently) in Ascension Theology and Theological Negotiations.

General Theme - an attempt to explain "fittest" and "fitness" language with a nod toward evolutionary theory to note how Jesus Christ in his flesh flipped that understanding on its head. In essence, the fittest does not survive, but sacrifices and is sacrificed.

What is sacrifice? I give a five-part answer: it is (1) a voluntary choice (2) to forgo or lose or give away (3) something costly, perhaps supremely costly, (4) as an expressive action, where (5) what is so expressed typically is or includes devotion or loyalty to something exalted.
By examining their expressive force, I divide sacrifices into political and personal. I give 3 examples of each type. Examination of these examples suggests that political sacrifices typically express solidarity, protest, defiance, hope, and (where, as in my 3 examples, they are Christian) imitation of Christ. Personal sacrifices typically express love or the supremacy of justice, and also (where, as in my 3 examples, they are Christian) imitation of Christ.
So what is it to imitate Christ's sacrifice? To know that we need to know what Christ , and/or the NT authors, thought he was doing at the Cross. On the basis of an examination of Jesus' career as a preacher and prophet, I suggest that his sacrifice can be seen as, in my sense, a political sacrifice.
Can it also be seen as a personal sacrifice? Can we say, and mean literally, the words so revered in Christian tradition, that "Jesus died to save me from my sins"?
My answer is that we can't--UNLESS we accept the framework of sacrificial offering of the strictly ritual sort that the NT writers presuppose, and which is most clearly and fully spelt out in Hebrews.
Thus the traditional affirmation comes at a cost; it is only available on condition that we accept an intellectual background that is very foreign indeed to most modern people. The alternative, for anyone who wants to count herself a Christian but can't buy this foreign intellectual framework, is to stick with seeing Jesus' sacrifice as political, as an act of radical solidarity with us; or to see it as a luminously polysemous, but not entirely articulable, symbol, like an artwork--an "icon" as I call them. Neither of these options is simply *giving up on faith*. But both are clearly short of what the NT authors actually meant when they affirmed that "Jesus died for our sins".

A survey of primary texts showing the early recognition of resurrection as a necessary, saving effect founded upon Christ's universal atonement.

This paper is a copy of the pages from Piedmont International University's (now Carolina University's) journal: Aletheias 3:1 (Spring 2018):13-44, https://e4.carolinau.edu/sites/default/files/2019-10/Aletheias-2018.pdf.

Het is gebruikelijk geworden om verschillende soorten beelden voor verzoening te onderscheiden. Maar hoe kom je van die veelheid aan beelden die iets laten zien van de betekenis van het kruis bij een samenhangende verzoeningsleer? In dit artikel wordt onderzocht welke combinaties van beelden voorkomen in het Nieuwe Testament. Gebaseerd op deze inventarisatie worden conclusies getrokken die van belang zijn voor de ontwikkeling van de verzoeningsleer.

1. Justification of the universe (rationality and the value of the universe). 2. Nihilistic variant of "redemption" (Mainländer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Camus, Sartre). 3. Gnostic-idealistic variant of "redemption" (Hegel, Martinetti). 4. Gnostic-syncretic variant of "redemption" in the New Age. 5. Philosophical aspirations and theology of cosmic redemption.

I review Adam Johnson's contribution to the Bloomsbury Guides for the Perplexed series. Overall, I find it to be a helpful introductory book with a great bibliography. Its most intriguing aspect is also, unfortunately, its weakest in that he does not further develop a critical concept that may help us understand the atonement. Nonetheless, the genre of his book may constrain him too much from further exploration, so Johnson is not fully to blame.

The review was first published in the Journal of Analytic Theology here: http://journalofanalytictheology.com/jat/index.php/jat/article/view/jat.2016-4.100413221406a/316

Once saved, always saved - The plea for eternal security of believers.
1. We cannot know for sure who is saved or not.
2. Good work does not mean faith, even though faith implies good work.
3. Whoever drives away from faith did not fully – or even at all – come to Jesus.

Anselm’s “satisfaction” theory of atonement posits that Christ’s death on the cross functioned as a gift to God on behalf of humanity to restore the order of justice subverted by sin.  Especially in recent years, the theory has been criticized for obscuring God’s mercy.  If God’s forgiveness is only available after such a sacrifice has been offered, Anselm’s critics argue, it is not forgiveness at all. While this criticism is a compelling objection, it does not seem to apply to Anselm’s own thought as expressed in Cur Deus Homo. While many “Anselmian” theories posit Christ’s death as transforming God by way of propitiation, Anselm himself envisions satisfaction in the opposite way, as an act by which a changeless God mercifully transforms humanity to conform to creation’s proper order. But even if the criticisms of a merciless God are misplaced, the corresponding calls for considering alternative theories of atonement have warrant.  Not only is “satisfaction” an ambiguous symbol, given such widespread (albeit unfair) associations, but Anselm himself seems to grant little soteriological value to Christ’s life, ministry, and resurrection.  The most promising remedy is to situate satisfaction theory within a larger, “person-centered” framework for thinking about atonement, an underappreciated move made by Thomas Aquinas which remains worthy of our attention today.

This honours thesis explores the intertextual connections between Psalm 49 and Mark 8-10, focussing especially on the concept of ransom in each passage. It also explores the implications of Isaiah 53's substitutionary metaphor, also being present in Mark 8-10, for atonement theology.

ABSTRACT:
The purpose of this study is to examine whether Robin Collins’ atonement theory successfully overcomes the problematic elements found in Peter Abelard’s moral exemplary model(or Moral Exemplary/Influence Theory). The problematic elements of Abelard’s view have been pointed out as having two components: a ‘too subjective tendency’ and ‘Pelagianism.’

Collins’ chief aim is to overcome these possible problematic elements of Abelard’s view by proposing his own theory, namely, the Incarnational theory. This theory consists of two main notions: ‘subjectivity’ and the ‘Holy Spirit.’ In order to make up for the lack of objective atonement in Abelard’s view, Collins proposes the notion of ‘subjectivity.’ Also, for eliminating a possible critique with regard to Pelagianism in Abelard’s view, Collins emphasizes the role of the ‘Holy Spirit.’ Thus, Collins’ study will be explored by examining whether his two concepts—i.e., subjectivity and the Holy Spirit—successfully overcome Abelard’s problematic elements. This will be accomplished through a comparative exploration of these scholars’ thoughts; however, Collins’ attempt at overcoming Abelard’s problematic elements achieves half success; for, even though Collins’ emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit contributes toward erasing the element of Pelagianism in Abelard’s view to a certain degree, Collins’ subjectivity and its theological implication fail to overcome Abelard’s ‘too subjective tendency’—that is, lack of objective atonement.

For this study, therefore, after situating their theories within the current scholarship pertaining to the relationship between objective and subjective atonement (Section I), this paper will scrutinize Collins’ proposed solutions for overcoming the problematic elements found in Abelard’s view (Section II), evaluate Collins’ proposed solutions (Section III), and then make theological contributions and critiques based on this examination (Section IV).

한글 초록:
본고의 목적은 과연 로빈 콜린스의 속죄 이론이 피터 아벨라르드의 도덕 모범설(혹은 도덕 감화설)의 문제 요소들을 성공적으로 극복할 수 있는 속죄 이론인지 규명하는데 있다. 아벨라르드 속죄 이론의 문제 요소들은 크게 두 가지인데 ‘지나친 주관적 경향성’과 ‘펠라기우스주의적 성향’이다.

콜린스는 자신이 주창한 속죄 이론인 ‘성육신적 이론’을 통해 아벨라르드의 속죄 이론에 내포된 문제 요소들을 극복하려고 한다. 콜린스의 성육신적 이론은 크게 두 가지 개념으로 구성되는데 ‘주관성’과 ‘성령 하나님’이 바로 그것들이다. 콜린스는 아벨라르드 속죄 이론 속에 결여된 객관적 속죄 영역을 보충하기 위해 ‘주관성’ 개념을 도입한다. 게다가 아벨라르드의 펠라기우스주의적 성격을 제거하기 위해 ‘성령 하나님’을 강조한다.

하지만 아벨라르드의 속죄 이론을 극복하려는 콜린스의 노력은 ‘반쪽’ 성공이라고 평가할 수 있다. 그 이유는 속죄 속에서 성령 하나님의 역할을 강조함을 통해 아벨라르드의 펠라기우스주의적 성격을 다소 극복하긴 했지만 여전히 콜린스의 주관성 개념과 그 개념에 내포된 신학적 함의는 여전히 속죄의 객관적 성격을 뚜렷하게 보여주지 못하고 있기 때문이다.

본고는 크게 네 부분으로 구성되는데 먼저 객관적 속죄와 주관적 속죄와 관련된 현대적 논의 방향성을 살펴본 후(1장), 아벨라르드 속죄 이론을 극복하기 위해 고안된 콜린스의 성육신적 이론을 면밀하게 분석하도록 하겠다(2장). 그 후 콜린스의 이론의 신학적 기여와 문제점을 고찰한 후(3장) 전반적으로 글을 정리하며 마무리 짓도록 하겠다(4장).

Uses Social Identity Theory (SIT) to study the Didache community’s identity formation, including showing an instance of “group polarization.” The group holds on to a symbolic Jewish identity, but evinces its Christian identity in its practice of Eucharist, baptism in the name of the Trinity, and affirmation of Jesus as Messiah. Notably, however, there is no atonement teaching , nor any mention of Jesus’ death.

What metaphysical account of human nature must be given in order to make sense of T.F. Torrance’s doctrine of atonement? Here I argue the account which best makes sense of Torrance’s doctrine of atonement is one in which Christ instantiates an abstract universal human nature and the rest of humanity participates in an abstract universal human nature. In defending this thesis, I examine Torrance’s doctrine of atonement and his use of the anhypostasia–enhypostasia distinction. I conclude by defending the significance of the an-enhypostasia distinction for abstract universal theories of Christ’s human nature

الكفارة في العهد القديم الكفارة في نصوص العهد القديم الكفارة غطاء وطلاء للحماية الكفارة كفدية، أيْ حماية الكفارة تطهير وتقديس الكفارة محو ومغفرة الكفارة غطاء تابوت العهد  مراسم يوم الكفار مقدمة عن الأعياد يوم الكفارة العظيم ملاحظات عن يوم الكفارة سنة اليوبيل مَن الذي يكفر؟ لماذا الكفارة الكفارة وانجماع كل شيء في المسيح متى كانت الكفارة؟ ما أو مَن هو الكفارة الكفارة وشركة الطبيعة الإلهية

ABSTRACT: Within the methodological diversities regarding the study of the atonement of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), no one has paid particular attention to both aspects of atonement―viz., objective and subjective―for interpreting Edwards’ atonement, despite the fact that it has been regarded as an effective hermeneutic tool in the theological field of the atonement. In fact, it is not too much to say that the doctrine of atonement has been filled with either a sharp conflict or a harmonization between these two aspects from the patristic era to the modern era. Nevertheless, when comparing the theological continuity and discontinuity between Edwards’ and his successors’ atonement through many scholars, this dual hermeneutic tool, unfortunately, also has been paid scant attention. Thus, in this study, Edwards’ atonement will be investigated and evaluated by applying this dual hermeneutic tool in oder to figure out whether Edwards’ view of atonement is a one-sided view or a well-balanced view between the objective and subjective view. Also, in order to accentuate the characteristic of Edwards’ atonement based upon analysis by applying the dual hermeneutic tool, the atonement of Stephen West (1735-1819) will be examined within a comparative context to Edwards’. Throughout this study, the theological differences between Edwards’ and West’s atonement will finally be revealed. That is, whereas West’s atonement loses its balance between the objective and subjective atonement as having the irregular fusional form mingled between the penal and the moral Governmental or Grotian theory, Edwards’ atonement retains its balance between the objective and subjective atonement by respectively and purely holding the idea of satisfaction and penal substitution (as the objective aspect) as well as of unio cum Christo (as the subjective aspect).

국문초록: 다양성이 공존하는 조나단 에드워즈 (Jonathan Edwards, 1703-1758)의 속죄론 연구 방법들 가운데서, 아무도 에드워즈의 속죄론을 효율적인 해석학적 도구 (tool)인 “객관적 속죄” (objective atonement) 그리고 “주관적 속죄” (subjective atonement) 측면의 빛 아래서 연구하지 않았다는 것은 새롭다. 사실 교회 역사 가운데서 벌어진 수많은 속죄론 논쟁들은 “객관적 속죄”와 “주관적 속죄”의 관계성에 대한 의식 부재, 혹은 두 컨셉 사이의 상이한 대립, 혹은 둘 중에 하나를 불필요한 것으로 보는 불균형적인 시각에 의한 결과로 빚어졌다고 해도 과언이 아니다. 본고는 에드워즈의 속죄론을 “객관적 속죄”와 “주관적 속죄”의 해석학적 틀 가운데서 과연 에드워즈는 이 두 측면을 균형 잡힌 시각으로 보고 있는가 혹은 그 반대인가라는 질문을 상정하여 살펴볼 것이다. 특별히 에드워즈의 신학적 상속자들 가운데 하나인 스티븐 웨스트 (Stephen West, 1735-1819)의 속죄론과 에드워즈의 속죄론을 비교분석함으로써 에드워즈 속죄론이 웨스트의 속죄론과는 다르게 객관적, 주관적 속죄의 균형성을 잘 유지하고 있음을 살펴볼 것이다. 즉, 웨스트의 속죄론은 형벌론 (penal theory)과 그로티안적 도덕 통치설 (Grotian moral government theory)이 변칙적으로 섞임으로 객관적 속죄와 주관적 속죄의 균형이 깨지고 있음이 드러날 것이고, 이와 반대로 에드워즈의 속죄론은 객관적 속죄 측면으로 만족설 (satisfaction theory)과 형벌 대리설 (penal substitution)이 순수한 의미로서 존재하고, 주관적 속죄 측면으로서는 “그리스도와의 연합” (unio cum Christo)의 모티브가 그리스도의 속죄 가운데서 중요하게 작용함으로써 두 측면 간의 균형이 잘 이루어지고 있음을 보게 될 것이다.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to seek a proper answer about whether J. Denny Weaver’s criticism on satisfaction atonement and Joanne Carlson Brown’s “Divine Child Abuse” theme in the atonement is an ethically and theologically sound argument. Weaver and Brown think that the doctrine of atonement (specifically, the satisfaction and penal substitution theory) does permit a separation of theology and ethics. Weaver holds that since the satisfaction theory merely focuses on “ahistorical” or “abstract” aspects of atonement, it does not address believers’ real moral life. According to Brown, the atonement image in the penal substitution theory has a horrible image of “divine child abuse” and therefore, should be regarded as immoral. However, through this study, it will finally be shown that their arguments are ethically and theologically problematic, for (1) Weaver and Brown both confuse the scope of the atonement ethics; (2) Brown not only confuses the object and subject-matter of the atonement ethics, but also tends to neglect or misunderstand the notion of divine intentionality in the atonement; and (3) Weaver fails to see both aspects of atonement (i.e., objective and subjective atonement) with a balanced view.

국문초록: 본고의 목적은 데니 위버의 만족설에 대한 비판과 조안 브라운의 “신적 아동 학대” 모티브가 윤리 신학적으로 타당한 주장인지에 대한 대답을 추구하는데 있다. 위버와 브라운은 만족설과 형벌 대리설의 속죄 이미지는 결국 신학과 윤리를 분리시키는 결과를 초래한다고 역설한다. 위버는 주장하길, 만족설은 “초역사적”이고 “추상적”인 신적 관계에 초점을 맞추고 있으므로 그리스도인의 실제적 윤리적 삶과는 어느 정도 괴리가 있다고 주장한다. 브라운은 형벌 대리설 속에 나타난 이미지는 아들 예수를 잔인하게 죽이는 하나님의 “신적 아동 학대” 이미지의 표상이기 때문에 이러한 속죄론은 대단히 비도덕적인 교리라고 주장한다. 하지만, 위버와 브라운의 이러한 주장들은 윤리 신학적으로 볼 때 그 타당성이 재고될 필요가 있다. 그 이유는 첫째, 위버와 브라운 둘 다 속죄 윤리의 기준점의 범위를 혼동하고 있기 때문이며, 둘째, 브라운은 속죄 윤리의 주제와 대상을 혼동하고 있을 뿐 아니라, 속죄 과정 전체를 이끌고 가는 신적 의도성에 대한 인식이 간과 혹은 무시되고 있기 때문이며, 셋째, 위버는 그의 논지 속에서 속죄의 객관적 측면과 주관적 측면 둘 다를 균형 있게 보지 못하는 경향성이 있기 때문이다.

At what point did Jesus begin to save us? The Cross? The Resurrection? His ministry? Was it the moment Christ became incarnate in the womb of Mary? I will make the case that Jesus' saving work begins in the incarnation and not exclusively in the Easter weekend.

Atonement (kpr) as it is defined within the Levitical system is often conceived of in a manner which is roughly correct in terms of its gist, but quite mistaken in terms of its specifics.  It can more accurately, I believe, be summarised as follows.  (1)  The purpose of the sacrificial system is not, for the most part, to deal with ‘moral transgressions’, but to purify the Tabernacle (and those associated with it) when a very specific type of transgression occurs, namely an unintentional transgression or a transgression of a ceremonial nature.  (2)  The blood of OT sacrifices is not normally applied to ‘sinners’;  rather, it is applied to those who serve in the Tabernacle, or to the vessels or altar of the Tabernacle, or to the Tabernacle itself.  As mentioned above, its primary concern is the purification of God’s sacred space.  (3)  The sins of believers are completely forgiven in the OT;  hence, David can confidently proclaim, “As far as the east is from the west, so far does [the LORD] remove our transgressions from us”, and Paul can ground the doctrine of justification in David’s statements of his forgiveness (Rom. 4.7-8 cf. Psa. 32.1-2).  The OT believer does not obtain forgiveness through sacrifices (or even through ‘sacrifices infused with Christ’s power’).  He obtains forgiveness in exactly the same way as the NT believer, namely through faith in God insofar as God has revealed himself.  (4)  The sense in which the OT sacrificial system foreshadows the sacrifice of Christ is, therefore, as follows:  just as specific animal sacrifices put right specific ‘ceremonial issues’ in OT times, so now Christ’s sacrifices deal with all sin, be it ceremonial or moral, intentional or unintentional.  As such, Christ’s is a better sacrifice than the OT’s in every conceivable way.

In this paper, we seek to establish that evangelicals possess the theological truths needed to bring comfort, hope and truth to survivors of abuse, predicated on a proper understanding of justice as seen in the atonement and character of the Triune God. We examine the claim that penal, substitutionary understandings of the atonement are pictures of abuse and argue that, properly understood, these understandings of the atonement instead provide a basis for rejecting the power dynamics that underlay all forms of abuse.

В данной статье рассматривается вопрос о масштабах совершенного Христом искупления. Исторический обзор в начале статьи демонстрирует, что взгляд «неограниченного искупления» преобладал в кальвинистском богословии до начала XVII века и стал уступать место «ограниченному искуплению» лишь в так называемом схоластическом кальвинизме. Обзор богословской литературы напоминает, что в данном вопросе необходим баланс между утверждениями, что Христос умер «за всех» и «не за всех», при этом нужны уточнения и оговорки с обеих сторон.

Исследование двух ключевых текстов Нового Завета, имеющих отношение к данной теме, – 2 Пет. 2:1 и 1 Иоан. 2:2, – показывает, что есть веские библейские основания считать, что умилостивительная жертва Христа имеет отношение ко всем людям без исключения. Это признают многие кальвинистские толкователи, в том числе те, кто исповедует ограниченное искупление, – предлагая различные варианты объяснения. Одно из часто встречающихся объяснений заключается в том, что, в то время как Христос заплатил Своей смертью за грехи всех людей, эта плата не вменяется конкретному человеку, пока он не уверует.

Вслед за этим в статье анализируется часто встречающийся аргумент, что «за один грех не платят дважды». Наш анализ демонстрирует, что этот аргумент некорректен с библейской точки зрения, поскольку не учитывает фундаментального для христианского богословия понятия – вменения. Хотя плата за грехи состоялась две тысячи лет назад, конкретному человеку эта цена вменяется лишь тогда, когда он обращается к Господу. Вменение праведности Христовой ведет к оправданию перед Божьим судом. Соответственно, если какой-то человек не обратится ко Христу, вменение не произойдет и оправдание не состоится. Следовательно, его грехи будут продолжать засчитываться ему, несмотря на то, что за них заплачена цена жертвы Христовой. Это не сделает Бога несправедливым или жертву Христову неэффективной, потому что замысел Божий в отношении спасения проходит через обязательную ступень вменения и связанного с этим оправдания.

Обсуждение терминологии указывает на распространенную проблему: часто люди спорят о масштабе искупления, не давая себе отчета, что на самом деле имеют в виду разные вещи. Если говорить об искуплении как об избавлении от ада и вхождении в жизнь вечную (т.е. спасительном результате), то оно ограниченное. Если же под искуплением понимать заплаченную цену (т.е. спасительное средство), то вполне можно сказать, что оно неограниченное. Ключевые кальвинистские исповедания веры подчеркивают неограниченный размер заплаченной цены, даже когда они же указывают на ограниченный результат в виде спасения избранных.

Вопрос о том, как неограниченное искупление может сочетаться с ограниченным спасением, помогают прояснить лапсарианские теории. Одна из лапсарианских схем, сублапсарианство, позволяет логически согласовать, что Христос умер за всех, но спасены будут лишь избранные. Эту точку зрения иногда называют «неограниченное искупление с ограниченным применением».

В заключительной части статьи рассмотрены цели совершенного Христом искупления. Предлагается точка зрения, что искупление преследует для избранных – заместительную цель, для всего человечества – умилостивительную, для живой и неживой природы – восстановительную, и для всей вселенной – примирительную.

Explores how C.S. Lewis drew from early Christian theologians Irenaeus (130 - 200 AD) and Athanasius (297 - 373 AD), especially on the doctrine of the atonement.  Also explores how Lewis drew together theological statements to fit like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

How does the death of the Lord Jesus Christ result in our salvation? It's like this: 

The worthiness of the Son ( His love for His Father, and His obedience, faithfulness, humility, endurance, etc.) is demonstrated and tested in the context of trials and sufferings.  God delights in His worthy Son and then rewards His worthy Son with resurrection, a throne, a kingdom, and all power in heaven and on earth.  The Son then uses that power and authority to judge, save, and redeem.  A redeemed creation then praises and honors its Savior and Lord.

There are five main points in this process that are repeated over and over in scripture in various ways.  These are the five main points:

1) Worthiness. The worthiness of the Son especially as that worthiness is tested, and
                        demonstrated in the context of trials and suffering.
2)  Delight.  The delight of the Father in His worthy Son.
3) Reward.  The Father rewards His worthy Son in Whom He delights with Power, Authority, a
                      kingdom, a throne etc.
4) Judging, saving, redeeming, etc.  The Son uses His power and authority to
                    save, judge, redeem, etc.
5) Praise and Honor.  Every knee bows and every tongue confesses to praise and honor Him.


                                                        The example of Joseph

1) Worthiness:
      -God was with him. (Gen 39:2; 21) A man in whom is the spirit of God.(Gen 41:38)
        The spirit of God in man is the very cause and foundation of his worthiness.
      -Everything he did prospered (Gen 39:3;23) 
      -He was a faithful, and wise administrator of Potiphar's household and
        of the prison.
      -He resisted the temptation of Potiphar's wife.
      -He was discerning and wise(Gen 41:39)
2) Delight, Favor
      -He was a delight and found favor in Potiphar's sight (Gen 39:4) and the Keeper of the
        Prison.(Gen 39:21)
      -He found favor and wisdom in Pharaoh’s sight (Acts 7:10)
3) Reward
      -Joseph's worthiness is rewarded when He is "resurrected" out of slavery and prison and
        exalted to the highest position in Egypt just under Pharaoh.  All power and authority in
          Egypt became his.  Joseph found favor in Potiphar’s eyes and so Potiphar rewarded
        Joseph with the highest position of authority in his household.  Joseph also found favor
        in the eyes of the keeper of the prison and was rewarded with authority over the prison.
        And finally, just as Jesus taught that those who are faithful in little will be rewarded with 
        authority over much(Matt 25:23), Joseph finds favor and wisdom in the eyes of Pharaoh and
        is rewarded with authority over all of Egypt.

4) Judging, saving, redeeming, etc.
      The worthiness of Joseph becomes not only the foundation of blessing for himself, but
        also for all of Egypt.  Joseph uses his power and authority to save Egypt from famine and
        death. When the people no longer have money to buy food from Joseph, then Joseph uses
        the food to buy the people themselves and their land for Pharaoh and all the Egyptians
        become Pharaoh's servants and belong to Pharaoh. (Gen 47:13-22)

5) Praise, Honor and worship.  Even before his trials and sufferings came upon him,
        Joseph has two dreams in which his parents and brothers bow before him and
        honor him. (Gen 37:5-11) Since Joseph became known as an interpreter of dreams,
        these dreams/promises no doubt comforted him and gave him hope within his trials. 
        Joseph is honored with Pharaoh's ring, fine clothes, a gold chain, and Pharaoh's
        second chariot (Gen 41:42,43).  All of Egypt bowed before Joseph (41:43).
        Joseph's brothers bowed before him (Gen 42:6).

This study investigates Paul's atonement theology in Romans with particular emphasis on Rom. 3:21-26 and concludes that a representative-participatory model best explains Paul's atonement concept. "Representative" denotes Christ's function as the new Adam, the federal head of a new humanity freed from sin. "Participatory" denotes that, just as Christ entered into our humanity and shared in our death, so we must participate in his death if we are to enter into the new humanity founded by his resurrection. Aspects of Rom. 3:21-26 that are analysed include the plight (Rom. 3:23), δικαιο-terminology, the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate, redemption, the meaning of ἱλαστήριον and the πάρεσις of former sins. It is argued that, while Rom. 3:21-26 is concerned more with the "that" of the atonement than the "how," it does offer hints of a representative-participatory model, which are further developed in other texts, especially Rom. 8:3-4, Gal. 3:13 and 2 Cor. 5:21. Paul's interpretation of the atonement was multivalent and it is not claimed that the model offered here exhausts it. However, it is argued that Paul's thought is inconsistent with a penal substitution model of atonement, particularly in its understanding of the relationship between Jesus's death and God's wrath.