Atonement Theories & 4 Aspects of Christ’s Work

Even the youngest Christians are usually aware that Jesus was born a baby to save us, lived a holy life, died on the cross for our sins, and rose again from the dead. However, if you ask many Christians to explain why it is that Jesus’s birth, death, and resurrection save us, they may struggle to offer a clear response.

The doctrine of the atonement articulates such an explanation for the purposes of evangelism, apologetics, and instruction in the faith.

Table of contents

Introducing atonement and its theories
1. Incarnation and transformational aspects of atonement
2. Crucifixion and the transactional aspects of atonement
3. Resurrection and triumphant aspects of atonement
4. Jesus’s ministry and tutorial aspects of Christ’s work
The atonement and systematic theology
The atonement and pastoral theology
Conclusion

Introducing atonement and its theories

The English word “atonement” was coined by combining “at” and “one-ment.” This second word was an older way of signifying reconciliation or reunification.¹ The theology of atonement thus explores how it is that “God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ” (2 Cor 5:19).

Typically, the theology of the atonement explores different “models” or “theories” for explaining what Christ’s death on the cross accomplishes—and how. Though denominational statements of faith sometimes favor particular accounts of the atonement, no ecumenical council determined an official explanation for the church universal. Thus, modern theology commonly speaks of atonement “models,” either as competing or complementary theories of how Christ secures salvation.

However, a model’s approach may wrongly imply that there is no established orthodoxy and little consensus concerning what counts as a “model” or even how many models there are.² It is better to admit that the many ways of thinking about Christ’s work arise from variety within the biblical text. This variety expresses the many dimensions of sin that Christ must overcome and the multiple means he did so.

This article will explore four aspects of Christ’s work while deflating the concepts of theories and models. In so doing, we will address questions like:

• Why did Jesus have to die in each theory of the atonement?
• What problem does this theory of atonement solve?
• What are the biblical and theological arguments for and against each atonement theory?

Finally we will move to consider systematic and pastoral implications of Christ’s work.

In the end, we will see that many theories contribute to an accurate picture, but we must properly balance the various aspects involved to have a strong theology.

1. Incarnation and transformational aspects of atonement

Some aspects of Christ’s work are transformational, meaning that they enable Christians to be “born again” (John 3:3) as a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17) so that we may “share in the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4).

Theologians have offered a variety of explanations for how the work of Christ enables such transformation.

Recapitulation

The New Testament is full of what is commonly called “Second Adam Christology.” For example, Paul describes Adam as a “type of the Coming One” (Rom 5:14). Adam brought sin, condemnation, and the reign of death to all (Rom 5:12, 15, 17–18), but Jesus brought the gift of grace, life, and justification (Rom 5:15–17). Paul writes, “Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor 15:49). While these are the two most explicit examples of Jesus being depicted as a new Adam, more subtle imagery is found across the New Testament canon.³

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202) has been called “the first to work out comprehensive theories both of original sin and of redemption.”⁴ He famously developed his concept of recapitulation, a word drawn from Ephesians 1:10 (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι). The term recapitulation taken literally refers to establishing a new head of humanity (e.g., Eph 1:22–23; Col 1:18). For Irenaeus, the term includes a wide range of concepts, including repetition, perfection, redemption, victory, and a change in human nature.⁵ In his book Against Heresies, Irenaeus identifies the following dimensions of recapitulation:⁶

• The incarnation establishes a new manner of humanity in the restored image of God after that image was lost by Adam (Adv. Haer. III.18.1).
• The incarnate Son, who bears the Spirit, imparted this Spirit to us that we might be united to God (Adv. Haer. V.1.1; V.12.2–4).
• Christ’s obedient life reverses the disobedience of Adam (Adv. Haer. III.18.6).
• Jesus “passed through every stage of life, restoring all to communion with God” (Adv. Haer. III.18.7).

Irenaeus’s most famous saying is this:

The Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving adoption, might become the Son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be turned into incorruptibility and immortality unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons? (Adv. Haer. III.19.1)

“Physical” theories

Irenaeus’s basic perspective continued across the patristic period, which tended to emphasize the significance of the incarnation for the Son’s saving work, downplaying some of Irenaeus’s emphasis on the life of Christ. For example, Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) uses words similar to Irenaeus: “He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God.”⁷ Theories that emphasize how the incarnation enables this exchange are sometimes called “physical” theories because of the exchange between natures (Greek φύσις, physis).

Sometimes, physical theories are presented metaphorically. Athanasius uses various metaphors in his On the Incarnation:⁸

• The Son’s taking on flesh honors all humanity similarly to the way a king brings honor to the entire city by entering it (De Inc. §9).
• Just as a king who founds a city enters it to protect it from robbers, so Christ entered humanity to save it from death (De Inc. §10).
• When a portrait is damaged, the artist invites the subject of the portrait to sit again and repaints the portrait. So, too, the incarnation restores in us the image of God (De Inc. §14).

Perhaps because some “physicalist” perspectives are expressed metaphorically, they can be accused of being overly mechanistic. However, closer readings of many key figures reveal an emphasis both on Christ’s incarnation and atoning death, such that the incarnation does not automatically save all.

Evaluating transformational models

While there is a case to be made for a strict usage of “atonement” that excludes the incarnation and life of Jesus, there is also reason to consider the incarnation as part of the atonement. Ivor Davidson explains that doing so connects the atonement with the doctrine of God through the incarnation, helping avoid imbalances in atonement theology.⁹

There is a clear biblical basis for Irenaeus’s theology of recapitulation, but the approach does have limits. For example, it does not fully explain why Jesus had to die by the brutality of the cross (e.g., Luke 9:22).¹⁰ Furthermore, recapitulation does not sufficiently address the guilt associated with our actual sins. For such reasons, even Irenaeus himself allowed space for a propitiatory dimension of the atonement.¹¹

Granting these limitations to recapitulation, it is important to note that recapitulation serves as a necessary foundation for the transactional aspects of atonement considered in the next section. As Joshua McNall explains, “If all of humanity is somehow bound up in and with the Son, then the cross … involves the judgment of sin of the entire human race in the body of the one person who really does (somehow) contain us all.”¹²

Search Logos’s library to get answers from trusted resources.
Try Study Assistant for free!

2. Crucifixion and the transactional aspects of atonement

I classify as transactional those aspects of Christ’s atoning work that depend on some exchange between Jesus Christ and God. This may involve the Spirit-filled Son accepting some punishment from his Father or the Son offering something to the Father in the Spirit.

This section will briefly survey the transactional aspects of Christ’s saving work.

Atonement and sacrifices

How does Jesus’s atonement relate to the Old Testament sacrificial system? This is a complicated question worthy of a full article of its own. However, several basic features can be named here:¹³

1. Like the Passover lamb in Exodus 12, Jesus our Passover lamb (Isa 53:7; John 1:29; 1 Cor 5:7; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev 5:12) died that we might escape the judgment of God.
2. Evoking the bloodiness of Old Testament sacrifices, the blood of Christ is itself essential to our reconciliation with God (Acts 20:28; Col 1:19–20; Heb 9:22).
3. The Day of Atonement features the sin offering and the scapegoat (Lev 16:11–28). Each of these animals has some similarity with Christ, who was both an offering and the one who bore our iniquities (Isa 53:6, 10; perhaps also 1 Pet 2:24).
4. The death of Christ serves to restore our relationship with God, both through expiation (the removal of guilt) and propitiation (the restoration of good relationship with the Father). Detailed accounts of this process must navigate debates about the meaning of the ἱλασμός word-group (e.g., 1 John 2:2; 4:10).

Sacrificial models are those that especially center accounts of how the work of Christ relates to the Old Testament sacrificial system. Many of these discussions are concentrated in biblical studies. Systematic theology draws on sacrificial concepts while focusing more on corresponding ideas of God, sin, and justice to explain Christ’s death.

Ransom theory

Ransom theory emerges from biblical texts in which Jesus speaks of being a ransom (λύτρον) (e.g., Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45).

Yet we must wonder to whom Christ paid a ransom. One answer from the early church was that a ransom was paid to Satan, who had tricked us into sinning (Gen 3), such that we were now his property. Through Christ’s death, a ransom was paid and Christians were freed.

One version of this theory, seen in Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–394), considers the incarnation a means of deceiving the devil. Satan had no right to claim the Son and kill him, so when he did so, his rightful claim on sinful human beings was forfeited and we were free.

It is unusual to see a defense of ransom atonement today, and it often serves as a foil for other transactional theories.

Satisfaction theory

Perhaps the most famous transactional theory is satisfaction theory, which emerges from the famous text Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man)¹⁴ by Anselm of Canterbury (1033/34–1109). Note that this approach is also incorporated in Protestant theology. For example, satisfaction features in the theology of Reformed figures like Zacharias Ursinus (1534–83) and Francis Turretin (1623–87).¹⁵

Anselm’s satisfaction theory centers the ways in which human sin dishonors God, and dishonoring God requires that we not only stop sinning but offer something in restitution or recompense (Cur Deus Homo I.11). The problem is that we cannot give our Creator anything that he has not already given us (Luke 17:7–10; Rom 11:35–36), and it would be unjust for the eternal Judge and King to not require the fulfillment of justice (Cur Deus Homo I.12).

In response, the Son was incarnate, so that he could represent fallen humanity, who are obligated to repay (Cur Deus Homo II.6). The Son also voluntarily accepts death (John 10:17–18), becoming incarnate and refusing to use his power to protect himself from crucifixion (Matt 26:53). Because “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23), and Christ has not sinned (1 John 3:5), Christ did not have to die. Jesus was killed for speaking truthfully about God and for fulfilling his will. In voluntarily doing so, he offered something to God of supreme value (Cur Deus Homo II.14, 18)—the life of the God–man. Christ’s voluntary death is therefore a gift to God, honoring God. This is how Anselm implicitly interprets biblical language of Christians being “bought at a price” (1 Cor 6:20) and “purchased” (Acts 20:28) since Jesus “erased the certificate of debt” through the cross (Col 2:14).

The principle of justice applies again here. Christ’s gift of his life is so significant that it not only pays our debts but also earns a reward. Since Jesus already has everything the Father has, being a member of the Trinity, he grants his reward to the humans he represents (Cur Deus Homo II.19), which is the grounds of our justification through the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Penal substitutionary atonement

Penal substitutionary atonement emphasizes retributive justice, which claims sin requires punishment. The New Testament frequently describes Jesus as dying “for the people” (John 11:50), “for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3), “for the ungodly” (Rom 5:6), and “for us” (Rom 5:8). Penal substitutionary atonement interprets this substitution in terms of Jesus bearing the punishment for sin that fallen humans deserve. Since Christ bore our punishment, we can be freed of the eternal consequences of sin.

Penal substitution is often especially linked with John Calvin (1509–64). Calvin draws on Scripture’s language of Jesus becoming sin (2 Cor 5:21), of sin “condemned in the flesh” (Rom 8:3), and the language of Jesus being “cursed” on a tree (Gal 3:13–14) to argue that Jesus is specifically our substitute in bearing our punishment for sins. Our sins were “transferred to him by imputation” such that he bore its curse, “that by enduring it, he repressed, broke, annihilated all its force.”¹⁶

Evaluating transactional atonement theories

The transactional theories of the atonement are often criticized for “divinely sanctioned violence,”¹⁷ under the concern that such violence promotes further violence, perhaps as the people of God model criminal justice systems after the cross.¹⁸ This is an important concern, though space only permits a brief response. Within Scripture, God has reserved vengeance for himself (Deut 32:35). Substitutionary atonement suggests that violence culminates in the cross, a once-and-for-all event that we should not expect to be repeated (Heb 10:10). Perhaps the cross is best seen as God redirecting violence toward himself as a means of resolving and ending creaturely violence.

Satisfaction theory faces several additional objections. Some object that it is unreasonable to suggest that God could not forgive without satisfaction, but this objection pits God’s infinite goodness against his infinite justice. Better to accept a transactional theory that accounts for both. Others reject Anselm’s theory of justice as overly feudal, but concepts of honor and shame have predominated throughout history and continue to do so today, especially in the Eastern Hemisphere.¹⁹

Penal substitutionary atonement has been criticized on the grounds that Old Testament sacrifice includes many themes beyond punishment. Defenders of penal substitution tend to grant this claim.²⁰ The better question is whether there is any aspect of biblical teaching that suggests some punitive consequence for sin, which is resolved through the cross. The answer here is a clear yes.²¹

There are also pastoral concerns with the violence of transactional theories. These will be addressed below.

3. Resurrection and triumphant aspects of atonement

Thus far, we have considered how Christ’s atoning work transforms humanity and serves as an offering to the Father, resolving our guilt before the perfect, sinless God. Yet, humans also need saving from the power of Satan and from the physical, spiritual, and eternal death to which we are captive. Therefore, no account of Christ’s saving work is complete without attending to Christ’s triumph through his resurrection, ascension, and second coming in glory.

While many theological explorations of Christ’s saving work include some dimension of triumph, in this section I will center one theory that especially highlights this view: christus victor atonement.

Christus victor

Perhaps the most famous discussion of atonement as triumphant victory is found in the work of twentieth-century Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulén, whose book Christus Victor explored what Aulén called the “classic idea” of the atonement. This classic idea emphasized Christ’s victory over evil powers to which humans are captive (Eph 6:12), including death (1 Cor 15:26), sin (Rom 7:23), and the devil (2 Tim 2:26).

Aulén emphasized that the classic idea was a “continuous” theory, where God wrought salvation from beginning to end. In Aulén’s view, transactional models like satisfaction or penal substitution were “discontinuous” theories that downplayed divine action to focus on “an offering made to God by Christ as man and on man’s behalf.”²² In many cases, Aulén fails to attend to how transactional theories include divine agency from start to finish.

In christus victor atonement, Jesus is triumphant over sin by not succumbing to temptation (Matt 4:1–11). He is triumphant over death through the resurrection, which also defeats the devil who has the power of death (Heb 2:14). When we are united with Christ, we participate in his victory.

Evaluating christus victor atonement

Christus victor atonement captures an essential dynamic of Christ’s work. Christus victor explores how Christ’s work includes spiritual warfare and incorporates the resurrection in ways other models often do not.

Yet, we must be careful not to reduce atonement to christus victor. To do so would be to ignore the personal and corporate guilt that human beings have which must be resolved for our salvation.

4. Jesus’s ministry and tutorial aspects of Christ’s work

A final aspect of Jesus’s work is tutorial. Christ is called “teacher” (Luke 18:18), “prophet” (Mark 6:4, 14–15; John 4:19), and he regularly interprets the law. These teaching elements technically lie outside of atonement, strictly speaking. Yet, they are worth naming insofar as Jesus’s ministry is necessary for atonement because:

• Jesus’s obedience to and fulfillment of the law (Matt 5:17) is necessary for his being a sinless offering (1 Pet 1:19).
• Jesus’s ministry included predictions of his death that help us understand its purpose (e.g., Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34).
• Jesus’s death was brought about through the particular details of the historical life he led that prompted opposition from those in power.

Furthermore, the cross itself serves some tutorial purpose, revealing truths about God’s loving character (1 John 3:16), for example.

No account of atonement that is reduced to these elements does justice to Scripture, but arguably an account that ignores these elements misses important secondary aspects of Christ’s work on the cross.

Moral influence and moral exemplar

A moral influence view rightly understands the cross to reveal the depths of God’s love (1 John 3:16). When this love is revealed, sinful humans are moved to repentance. However, we cannot do so without the empowering work of the Holy Spirit, so moral influence theory requires the transformational aspects of atonement.

A moral exemplar approach emphasizes the need we have for a moral role model to follow. In a world where all have sinned (Rom 3:23), no one can serve as a pattern except the sinless Son of God, who is our moral example.

Here again, since we are saved by grace, not works, other dimensions of atonement are more central.

Governmental

Governmental theory, particularly associated with Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), understood the cross to be preserving God’s moral governing of the universe. It objectively revealed the gravity of sin, an important teaching aspect of the cross.

Yet, where Grotius treated Jesus’s death as merely a token offering revealing the justice of God, he wrongly rejected transactional dimensions of the cross.

The atonement and systematic theology

While theological discussions of atonement tend to focus on the various aspects and theories of the atonement, it is also important to connect these theories with the full scope of systematic theology. Numerous points of contact are worth naming:

• Doctrine of God: Our understanding of divine attributes like justice, mercy, and immutability will shape our understanding of atonement. For example, classical theists who say God is immutable must be careful when discussing whether or how Jesus could be a propitiation toward God.
• Trinity: Modern accounts of penal substitutionary atonement often depict a rupture between the Father and Son that is not compatible with the Trinitarianism of the Council of Nicaea. We must be more careful not to break the Trinity in our discussion of how Jesus is forsaken or bears the wrath of God on the cross.
• Hamartiology: The dimensions of Christ’s atoning work call us to a holistic doctrine of sin that understands sin to be individual acts, original sin inherited from Adam, a social phenomenon, and a spiritual power to which we are captive.
• Covenant theology: The question of how Christ’s work relates to the law, covenants, and eternal plan of God has prompted detailed discussion of the framework we use to think about God’s covenants with humanity.

The atonement and pastoral theology

Our understanding of the atonement also has important implications for pastoral theology.

This section will consider two further pastoral applications of the atonement, focusing on preaching and ministry in the context of abuse.

Atonement and preaching

Preaching the good news immediately raises the question of atonement because we must ask what work of Christ we are to proclaim. Carefully thinking through atonement is therefore a prerequisite of evangelistic preaching.

The contextual nature of preaching is also worth noting.²³ What dimension of sin is especially relevant for the audience, and which aspect of Jesus’s work best targets this dimension? For example, those suffering under addiction or grieving death might benefit from focus on the transactional or triumphant dimensions of Jesus’s work. Meanwhile, those aware of (or needing to be prompted on) their guilt can receive Jesus’s transactional work as the good news of grace.

Our preaching can never be merely determined by the sermon’s audience, though. The relative emphases of passages selected for expository sermons, as well as the balance of the canon’s overall treatment of atonement, will necessarily center some aspects of Christ’s work over others in our preaching.

Atonement and abuse

If we are not careful, our teaching on atonement theories can increase abuse.²⁴ Christ as moral exemplar means that the cross is consistently a pattern for Christian life (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; Phil 2:5–8). This may encourage those suffering abuse to feel their only option is to bear it. Similarly, penal substitutionary atonement may seem to vindicate violence as a good thing, a risk noted above.

In light of these concerns, those who teach the atonement would do well to consider how to teach the atonement in a manner that protects the abused. Some preliminary thoughts include:

• The fact that Jesus offers a one-time redemption for the world suggests important differences between his suffering and ours.
• For example, while Jesus is omnipotent God (John 1:1) who voluntarily accepted the violence of the cross (John 10:17–18), abuse victims are neither.
• Even though Jesus accepted the violence of the cross, there were other times when he refused to let violent crowds harm him (Luke 4:28–30; John 10:31–39). Understanding Christ as a moral exemplar can include rejecting harm from others.
• The New Testament appeals to Christ as a pattern for the strong to sacrifice for the weak (Mark 9:35; Eph 5:25). Using the cross to justify the strong’s abuse of the weak harmfully reverses that pattern.
• The governmental theory shows us the severe gravity of sin. Abuse would be one such sin worthy of condemnation.

Conclusion

As we’ve seen, a robust doctrine of the atonement will refuse to reduce the richness of Christ’s saving work to just one dimension. Rather, the atonement is transformational, restoring humanity’s union with God through the incarnation; transactional, resolving the guilt and punishment owed for sin through the cross; triumphant, defeating sin, death, and the devil through the resurrection; and tutorial, teaching and forming us through Christ’s life and example. Rather than treating the different theories as competing explanations, we do better to recognize each as highlighting a different aspect of humanity’s need and a different dimension of what Christ accomplished.

This more comprehensive picture matters. It shapes how we preach the gospel to people in different circumstances, how we understand God’s own character and the life of the Trinity, and how we minister carefully and truthfully to those who have suffered abuse.

Share your thoughts

How would you explain the atonement? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Glenn Butner’s suggested readings

Related content

• What Is Penal Substitution? A Just & Justifying Atonement
• Did God Forsake Jesus on the Cross? | Tom McCall on Matthew 27:46
• The Incarnation: Why God Became Human | Graham Cole
• He Is Risen—So What? 20 Things Jesus’s Resurrection Accomplished
• Is Your Definition of Salvation Too Small? The Bible’s Full Teaching

1. James William McClendon, Jr., Systematic Theology: Doctrine (Abingdon, 1994), 199.
2. See further critique in Khaled Anatolios, Deification Through the Cross: An Eastern Christian Theology of Salvation (Eerdmans, 2020), 7.
3. One of the best recent treatments of this is: Brandon D. Crowe, The Last Adam: A Theology of the Obedient Life of Jesus in the Gospels (Baker Academic, 2017).
4. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978), 170.
5. Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge, 2004), 97–98.
6. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Eerdmans, 1956), 309–567.
7. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. Religious of C.S.M.V., Popular Patristics Series 3 (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), 93.
8. Note that Athanasius has non-metaphorical explanations as well.
9. Ivor J. Davidson, “Atonement and Incarnation,” in T&T Clark Companion to Atonement, ed. Adam J. Johnson (Bloomsbury, 2017), 38–39.
10. Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Christ (Eerdmans, 2015), 549.
11. Joshua M. McNall, The Mosaic of Atonement: An Integrated Approach to Christ’s Work (Zondervan Academic, 2019), 109–10.
12. McNall, Mosaic of Atonement, 82.
13. Some basic sources on this question reaching slightly different conclusions include: Simon Gathercole, Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul (Baker Academic, 2015); Steve Jeffrey, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Recovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Crossway, 2007), 34–66; Rutledge, Crucifixion, 214–83.
14. Anselm of Canterbury, Why God Became Man, in Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, ed. Brian Davies and G. R. Evans (Oxford, 1998), 357–89.
15. For a more detailed explanation, see D. Glenn Butner, Jr., The Son Who Learned Obedience: A Theological Case Against the Eternal Submission of the Son (Pickwick, 2018), 102–7.
16. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Hendrickson, 2008), 2.16.6.
17. See J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, 2nd ed. (Eerdmans, 2011).
18. For example, Dominique DuBois Gilliard, Rethinking Incarceration: Advocating for Justice that Restores (InterVarsity, 2018), 137–49.
19. For a more extensive treatment, see D. Glenn Butner, Jr., Christological Dogmatics: A Theological Witness to the Person and Work of Christ (Baker Academic, 2026), 204–10.
20. For example, McNall, Mosaic of Atonement, 129.
21. See McNall, Mosaic of Atonement, 127–48; Jeffrey, Ovey, and Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions, 33–99.
22. Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor: A Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement, trans. A. G. Herbert (SPCK, 1950), 20–22.
23. Matthew D. Kim, Preaching with Cultural Intelligence: Understanding the People Who Hear Our Sermons (Baker Academic, 2017).
24. For a typical accusation of this sort, see Rosemary R. Reuther, Introducing Redemption in Christian Feminism (Sheffield Academic, 1998), 99.