A Critique of Aulen's Christus Victor

By GEORGE o . EVENSON

O NE of the most significant theological books published in

recent decades is Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulen. In it he
suggests that there are three main ideas or theories of the
atonement: the classic, the Latin, and the subjective-humanistic.
That which makes the book both significant and controversial is
the author's contention that the authentic Scriptural doctrine of
the atonement is the classic idea, that Luther was an exponent of
the classic idea, and that therefore the orthodox Lutheran doctrine
of the atonement differs markedly both from Scripture and from
Luther. Aulen asserts that "the doctrine of Lutheranism became
a very different thing from that of Luther." 1 The translator in
his preface informs us that "Dr. Aulen shows how sharp is the
contrast between Luther and the Lutherans" (p. ix). Hence
Christus Victor faces us with an insistent challenge to seriously
re-examine and re-evaluate the "traditional" Lutheran doctrine of
the atonement. That the question cannot be avoided is made clear
by Edgar Carlson's assertion that Aulen's view of the atone-
ment is in the main taken for granted in present-day Lundensian
theology (Seminarian, pp. 36 f.).
This article is only incidentally a defense of the doctrine of the
vicarious satisfaction. It is primarily a criticism of the methodology
and theology presented in Christus Victor. This critical position
does not mean that this reviewer finds nothing to commend in the
book. In it there is much for which to be thankful. It rejects the
subjective, humanistic views of the atonement. It stresses that God
is the Reconciler and the Reconciled. It stresses the reality of the
devil. It stresses the victory of Christ over the powers of evil.
Yet it is possible to overemphasize one aspect of truth to the
point of distorting the truth. This is the basic fault of Christus
Victor. It exaggerates one truth of Scripture to the neglect-
denial almost - of another truth of Scripture without which
Christ's "victory" would not be real.
This study will first consider Aulen's methodology in the
book, then his theology as it is presented there. To emphasize the

1 For a description of the works cited see the appended Bibliography. The
numbers in brackets refer to the 1945 edition of ChristuJ Victor.
738
A CRITIQUE OF AULEN'S CHRISTUS VICTOR 739

fact that this critique is not a lone voice, we made considerable

use of the findings of others.
The classic idea of the atonement is defined thus:
Its central theme is the idea of the Atonement as a Divine con-
flict and victory; Christ - Christus Victor - fights against and
triumphs over the evil powers of the world, the "tyrants" under
which mankind is in bondage and suffering, and in Him God
reconciles the world to Himself. . . . It describes a work of sal-
vation, a drama of salvation; but this salvation is at the same time
an atonement in the full sense of the word, for it is a work
wherein God reconciles the world to Himself, and is at the same
time reconciled. The background of the idea is dualistic; God is
pictured as in Christ carrying through a victorious conflict against
powers of evil which are hostile to His will. This constitutes
Atonement, because the drama is a cosmic drama, and the victory
over the hostile powers brings to pass a new relation, a relation
of reconciliation, between God and the world; and, still more,
because in a measure the hostile powers are regarded as in the
service of the \'Vill of God, the Judge of all, and the executants
of His judgment. Seen from this side, the triumph over the oppos-
ing powers is regarded as a reconciling of God Himself; He is
reconciled by the very act in which He reconciles the world to
Himself. (Pages 4 f. [20 f.} ) 2
To bring the problem into sharp focus, Aulen says that the
victory is the satisfaction, while "traditional" Lutheran doctrine
says that the satisfaction is the victory.3 According to Aulen's

2 Cf. also Aulen's book The Faith of the Christian Church, translated from
the 4th Swedish edition by Eric H. Wahlstrom and G. Everett Arden (Phil-
adelphia: The Muhlenberg Press, 1948), pp. 223 ff.
3 Leander S. Keyser defines it thus: "The evidence indicates that the Lu-
theran doctrine is, first, that Christ \vrought out a perfect righteousness for us
by His active keeping of the law, His fulfilling of it both in the letter and the
spirit; and this perfect obedience is the righteousness which is imputed to us
when we accept it by faith; second, by His sufferings and death, that is, His
passive obedience, He endured the punitive consequences of our transgressions
in our stead, and thus upheld and satisfied the law of eternal justice which had
been violated by man's sins; third, the whole gracious plan of atonement had
its origin in the paternal love of God, and was carried out in time through
the winsome power of His love. Christ did not make atonement for sin to
win for us God's love, for it was divine love that sent the only-begotten Son
into the world and that sustained Him in His atoning work; but the atone-
ment was meant to uphold God's moral universe founded in absolute right-
eousness, and thus prevent an antinomy between divine love and justice"
(pp. 28, 29).
740 A CRITIQUE OF AULEN'S CHRISTUS VICTOR

classic idea of the atonement, Christ died to defeat the powers of

evil and thus to secure for man del;"~r~nce from them; the "tradi-
tional" doctrine holds that Christ died to make satisfaction for man's
sin to the demands of God's holiness and thus to secure for man
forgiveness and eternal life. Two such radically different interpre-
tations of the meaning of the death of Christ involve far-reaching
consequences. Which interpretation is correct?
It is important to know not only what conclusions a research
scholar has reached but also how he has reached them. It is sig-
nificant that Aulen's methodology in this book is characterized by
several grave faults. In the first place, his book abounds in sweep-
ing, bold assertions without adequate proof. For example, he
asserts that the classic idea of the atonement dominates the whole
of Greek patristic theology from Irenaeus to John of Damas-
cus as well as the thinking of the Western fathers (p. 37, 39
[53, 55} ). Obviously space does not permit here an analysis of
the patristic writings; so the testimony of other scholars is brought
forward as evidence. \\7riting before Christm Victor appeared,
A. A. Hodge (pp. 273-282), Alfred Cave (p. 332), and George
Foley (pp. 15 ff.) deny that the church fathers taught primarily
the classic idea. Writing after its appearance, and taking cognizance
of it, Theodore Dierks (pp. 153 f.; cpo pp. 44 f.) and William
J. Wolf flatly deny Aulen's assertion. The latter declares that
"Aulen's Christus Victor theme is only one of perhaps four chief
themes that relate salvation and atonement to each other in this
period.... It is obvious that no one concept can be singled out
as 'the classic idea.' Aulen misleads us when he implies that it had
a definite content, with widespread agreement as to its nature"
(pp. 94, 102).
The foundation of Aulen's classic theory is the assumption that
it dominated the patristic period. His argument in his survey of
the New Testament is based on the a priori probability "that if
[italics in original} the classic idea of the Atonement dominated
the whole patristic period ... then [italics in original} it is alto-
gether likely that the classic idea will be found to be firmly rooted
in Apostolic Christianity. It would be in the last degree improbable
that an idea of the Atonement which was untepresented in the
Apostolic Age should suddenly emerge in the early church and
A CRITIQUE OF AULEN'S CHRIST US VICTOR 741

there win universal acceptance" (pp.77 [61 f.J). But that classic
idea did not dominate the patristic period; it did not win universal
acceptance. Is it unfair to use Aulen's own argument to conclude
that the further conclusions he reaches are much to be doubted?
A second example of Aulen's use of sweeping assertion is seen
in his attack on the "Latin doctrine." For instance, he asserts:
"Thus the implication of the Latin theory, that the work of God
in the Atonement is interrupted by an offering made to God from
man's side, is radically opposed to that which is the very centre
of Luther's thought-namely, that there is no way by which
man may go to God other than the way which God Himself has
made in becoming man" (p. 121 [137]). But in his defense of
Anselm, who according to Aulen first fully developed the Latin
theory, John McIntyre of Australia declares: "It is sola gratia that
is St. Anselm's theme, and only the most unsympathetic and super-
ficial reflection upon his argument could yield any other conclu-
sion. . . . For St. Anselm the Atonement was an outflowing of
Divine Grace, unmerited by man and granted as God's greatest gift
to him in Jesus Christ" (pp. 199, 203).
Both McIntyre (pp. 196 f.) and Leonard Hodgson charge that
Christus Victor presents a docetic Christology. The latter, who is
Regius Professor of Divinity at St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, affirms
that "Bishop Aulen succumbs to the besetting temptation of trans-
actionists, the temptation so to emphasize the godhead of the
Redeemer as to reduce the manhood of Christ to a passive, indeed
to a docetic, role. . . . The result is . . . a docetic Christology"
(p. 147).
A third example of the use of sweeping assertions by Aulen is
seen in his discussion of Luther, of whom he asserts that he "stands
out in the history of Christian doctrine as the man who expressed
the classic idea of the Atonement with greater power than any
before him. From the side-line of the Latin theory he bends right
back to the main line, making a direct connection with the teach-
ing of the New Testament and the fathers. Thus is his claim to
be regarded as, in the true sense of the word, catholic. But he is
a solitary figure. The doctrine of Lutheranism became a very
different thing from that of Luther" (pp. 121 f. [138}).
Aulen admits that generally Luther has been regarded until
742 A CRITIQUE OF AULEN'S CHRISTUS VICTOR

recently as an exponent of the "traditional" view of the atonement,

but he asserts th"t now it is being discovered that this is not true.
Hence it is significant that such recent writers as Sidney Cave
(pp. 179-184), Philip Watson (pp. 124 f.), and Edgar Carl-
son (Reinterpr., pp. 178-180), men who are sympathetic to
Aulen's view of the atonement, agree that it is not correct to hold
that Luther taught only the classic conception of the atonement.
Gordon Rupp takes a position contrary to Aulen by quoting with
approval the statement by Zeeden that "the orthodox view of
Luther in the seventeenth century did remain in an unbroken
tradition of faith, with the age of the Reformation. . . . With all
its one-sidedness, it comes fundamentally closer to the real Luther
than all the modern 'Luther Renaissance' with its many-sided source
criticism" (p. 16).
Aulen's method is seen in his extensive quotation from Luther's
exposition of Gal. 3: 13 (pp, 105 if. [121 if.}). In making the
quotation he omits the portions that speak of Christ as our Sub-
stitute, who makes satisfaction to the Father for us. It is a basic
principle of hermeneutics that a passage of Scripture is to be
interpreted in its context and in the light of the whole. This prin-
ciple is equally valid and necessary in the study of Luther's writings.
No one can read much of Luther's writings without discovering
that he speaks much of Christ's conflict and victory. But how,
according to him, did Christ gain His victory? Luther answers
in 1539:
Luther wants good works, but they are not to have glorious,
divine idiomata, so that they make satisfaction for sin, reconcile
God's wrath, and justify sinners. These idiomata belong to
Another, Whose name is "Lamb of God, that beareth the sins
of the world." Yea, verily these idiomata should be left to the
blood and death of Christ. (V, 231)
The pope ... should ... hold with us that even the good
works done according to God's commandments cannot help men
to righteousness, to the blotting out of sin, to the attainment of
God's grace, but that this can be done only by faith in Christ,
who is a king of righteousness in us, by His precious blood, death,
and resurrection, whereby He has blotted out sins for us, made
satisfaction, reconciled God, and redeemed us from death, wrath,
and hell. (V, 260)
A CRITIQUE OF AULEN'S CHRISTUS VICTOR 743

This emphasis is not lacking in his exposition of Gal. 3: 13. In

fact, it is so marked that the framers of that statement of orthodox
Lutheran doctrine, known as the Formula of Concord, conclude the
discussion of justification by directing everyone "for the proper
explanation of this profound and chief article" to "Dr. Luther's
beautiful and glorious exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the
Galatians" (FC, SD, III, 67).
A second characteristic of Aulen's methodology in Christus
Victor is his peculiar exegesis of Scripture. He dismisses such pas-
sages as Mark 10:45, Eph.1:7, and 1 Peter 1:18 with the remark
that they are variations of the idea of Christ's conflict and victory.
He declares that Hebrews teaches the classic idea of the atonement
because of 2: 14 ("that through death He might destroy him that
had the power of death, that is, the devil"), and because of the
fact that it presents Christ's sacrifice as God's act of sacrifice. He
ignores the fact that 2: 14 is only a passing reference and does
not express the dominant theme of Hebrews. The theme which
is emphatically set forth and developed in the letter is stated in
2: 17: "Wherefore it behooved Him in all things to be made like
unto His brethren, that He might become a merciful and faithful
High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for
the sins of the people" (ARV) .
A highly remarkable feature of Aulen's discussion of Paul's
teaching on the atonement is that he scarcely mentions, and that
only in passing, justification by faith. The same silence is found
in his discussion of Luther. Yet he asserts explicitly that Paul
and Luther regard atonement and salvation as one and the same
thing (pp.71, 119 [87, 135}).
Aulen makes it plain that one of the superior features of the
classic idea of the atonement is that in it God transcends, breaks
through, breaks in pieces, the order of justice and merit (pp. 71,
79, 113 [88, 96, 129} ). Therefore Rom. 3: 24 ff. gives him trouble.
He admits that it is a crucial passage, but argues that it does not
support the Latin doctrine of the atonement, because it lacks "the
idea that the Divine justice was to receive adequate satisfaction for
man's default, through the payment made by Christ on man's be-
half. According to that doctrine the offering is made to God from
man's side, from below; in Paul it is the Divine Love itself that
744 A CRITIQUE OF AULEN'S CHRIST US VICTOR

makes the redemption" (p.72 [88 f.J ). In a footnote he quotes

Wrede as saying that the passage contains nothing inconsistent
with the fundamental Pauline thought, that "it is God's own Love
itself that, the enmity being ended, brings to pass atonement and
peace." The point of that quotation is that something else has
brought to an end the enmity between God and sinners, and that
Christ's redeeming work follows upon that to bring to pass atone-
ment and peace. But the sin1ple sense of Rom. 3: 24 ff. is that it
was Christ's propitiatory sacrifice that effected the reconciliation.
The Anglican scholars Sanday and Headlam unequivocally affirm:
It is impossible to get rid from this passage of the double idea
( 1) of a sacrifice; (2) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory. . . .
And further, when we ask, who is propitiated? the answer can
only be "God." Nor is it possible to separate this propitiation
from the Death of the Son. Quite apart from this passage it is
not difficult to prove that these two ideas of sacrifice and propitia-
tion lie at the rout of the teaching not only of St. Paul but of the
New Testament generally. (Page 91)
How different this is from redemption by triumph. This crucial
passage does not support the classic theory of the atonement.
In discussing Paul's doctrine, Aulen asserts that the latter counts
the Law among the tyrants which hold mankind in bondage
(pp. 67 ff. [83 ff.]). Ragnar Leivestad pointedly comments:
The law is not in any respect on a level with sin and death. Paul
indignantly refuses to coordinate the law and sin (Rom. 7: 7) .
The law is certainly "the power of sin," "apart from the law sin
lies dead" (Rom. 7: 8), but what fully reveals the sinfulness of
sin is precisely the fact that it could cause the death of man by
means of that which is essentially good (Rom. 7: 13). It is exactly
when the law is seen in its aspect as "the power of sin" that its
holiness and righteousness are most emphatically stressed. . . .
It is an exaggeration to count the law as an essentially evil power,
allied with sin and the devil. Even as a tyrant the law represents
the justice of God. (Pages 153 ff.)
There are incidental statements in leivestad's book which are re-
grettable, but the primary material reveals solid and careful study.
His conclusions conflict strongly with Aulen's contentions. His
book is neither an examination of, nor an answer to, Christus
Victor. But on the basis of his detailed examination of Scripture
A CRITIQUE OF AULEN'S CHRISTUS VICTOR 745

he specifically declares that "this 'classic idea of the Atonement'

does not by any means play such a prevalent part in New Testa-
ment thinking as AuIen has contended in his famous study"
(p.302, n.).
Similar is the conclusion of another contemporary scholar, the
English Methodist Vincent Taylor: "The idea of a victorious con-
flict over hostile powers ... recently has found renewed expression
in the writings of G. Aulen and S. Cave. Each of these theories
represents only a part of St. Paul's teaching, and, as we have seen,
one which is not integrated with his main contentions, with the
result that their adoption, as the basis of a modern theory, entails
the neglect of the greater and more important part of his theology"
(pp. 100 f.).
The conclusion from the above evidence - and much more that
could be adduced-is that Aulen's methodology in Christus Victor
has been tried and found wanting. It is also the contention of
this review that the theology presented in d1e book is deficient.
One of the key statements of the book is here examined in more
detail. It reads thus:
It is important, above all, at this point to see clearly that this
work of salvation and deliverance is at the same time a work of
atonement, of reconciliation between God and the world. It is
altogether misleading to say that the triumph of Christ over the
powers of evil, whereby He delivers man, is a work of salvation
but not of atonement; for the two ideas cannot possibly be thus
separated. It is precisely the work of salvation wherein Christ
breaks the power of evil that constitutes [italics in original} the
atonement between God and the world; for it is by it that He
removes the enmity, takes away the judgment which rested on
the human race, and reconciles the world to Himself, not imput-
ing to them their trespasses (2 Cor.5:18). (Page 71 [87})
The decisive phrase in this statement is: "It is precisely the work
of salvation wherein Christ breaks the power of evil that constitutes
the atonement between God and the world." It is decisive, because
it poses the crucial question, "Why did Christ die?" "Traditional"
Lutheran doctrine and Aulen agree that Christ died to redeem man.
But why did man need to be redeemed? The former declares,
"Because he was a guilty sinner who has to face a holy God."
746 A CRITIQUE OF AULEN'S CHRIST US VICTOR

Aulen answers, "Because he was an unfortunate victim of the

powers of evil." The former affirms that atonement, redemption,
reconciliation, consists in this, that Christ died as man's Substitute
to make satisfaction to a holy God for man's sins. Aulen answers
that atonement, redemption, reconciliation, consists in this, that
Christ died to defeat the powers of evil. The former holds that
there is no triumph over the powers of evil apart from Christ's
satisfaction for man's sin and that this satisfaction is the triumph.
Aulen answers that no satisfaction for sin is needed but that the
triumph over the powers of evil is the atonement: "It is precisely
the work of salvation wherein Christ breaks the power of evil
that constitutes the atonement between God and the world."
Does it? Not according to Scripture. An integral part of the
Second Corinthians passage referred to by Aulen is verse 21. This
verse is Scripture's statement as to how God accomplished - that
is, what constitutes - the work of atonement and reconciliation.
Here is the statement: "Him who knew no sin He made to be
sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God
in Him" (RSV). Christ as our Substitute took our sins upon Him-
self that God might be able to reckon us righteous. This is the
reason why God is reconciled to the world and does not reckon
unto men their trespasses. Even word studies lead to this conclu-
sion. Herman Cremer states that
%u'tuAAuaaEtV denotes the New Testament divine and saving act
of &JtoM'tQ(j)()L~, insofar as God Himself, by His taking upon
Himself and providing an atonement, established that relationship
of peace with mankind which the demands of His justice had
hitherto prevented. . . . It practically includes, though not in
and for itself, the scripture tAaa%w{tm, to atone, to expiate; and
it signifies the reconciliation brought about by expiation. . . .
While tAaa%Ea{tm aims at the averting of God's wrath, %U'tUA-
AaaaELv implies that God has laid aside or withdrawn wrath....
In %u'tuAAuaaELv, stress is laid upon the truth that God stands over
against mankind as &V'dC\L1W~, and as such nevertheless established
a relation of peace. The subject of tAaa%Ea{tm is not God as
&V'tLC\L%O~ towards man, but man represented by Christ, God as
He in Christ represents the world. . . . Ku'taAAaaaELV denotes
the removal of the demands of God's justice; tAaa%Ea{tm, that
A CRITIQUE OF AULEN'S CHRIST US VICTOR 747

satisfaction of them whereby their removal is attained. (Pages

92 f.)4
Aulen's error is not his claim that Scripture lays great stress on
the triumph of Chtist over the powers of evil and on the believer's
triumph in Him. His error is his contention that this is the work
of redemption. Scripture does not teach that Christ redeemed us
merely by triumphantly overwhelming the forces of evil. It teaches
that Christ redeemed us by taking the guilt of our sins upon Him-
self and dying for us, by suffering for us the wrath of God's holi-
ness against sin. The problem was not the possibility that Satan
had replaced God as the almighty one. The problem was sin.
It was the sin problem that Chtist settled by perfectly fulfilling
God's Law on our behalf by His sinless life and by paying with
His death the penalty for the guilt of our sins, the wages of which
are death. Therefore when a sinner is united to Chtist by faith,
the holy God sees nothing to condemn, Satan has nothing to accuse
of, and death has no further claim. Luther does speak of God's
Law and God's wrath, together with sin, death, and the devil, as
enemies from which Chtist delivers mankind. Obviously they be-
long in the category of enemies, not because of inherent simi-
larities - how blasphemous such a charge would be - but because
of an external factor. This factor is man's sinfulness. Hence Christ
triumphs over these enemies by what He does with man's sin.
The substitutionary death of Chtist is the atonement.
Any explanation of the atonement that fails to emphasize the
fact that Christ by His death made atonement for our sins is not
a full doctrine of the atonement. Four principal answers have been
given to the question, "Why did Christ die?": (1) to atone for
the sins of men; (2) to defeat the evil powers to which men are
in bondage; ( 3) to reveal the incomparable love of God; and
( 4) to call men to repentance and to inspire them to noble living.
All these answers are found in Scripture. But anyone of them
apart from the others is incomplete. Sin is more than an evil power
to be defeated, for sin makes sinners guilty before God. Until that
guilt is atoned for, the triumph over evil powers is of no real value.
Sinners need more than a demonstration of God's love; they need

4 An excellent study of these and other salvation words is found in Leon

Morris, q. v.
748 A CRITIQUE OF AULEN'S CHRISTUS VICTOR

to be delivered from the guilt of their sins. Sinners need more

than a powerful inspiration to noble living; they need first of all
salvation from their sins. The full statement of the doctrine of
the atonement includes all these answers. But central and basic
is the truth that Christ died to atone for our sins.
1 John 4: 10 is a fundamental atonement passage. It reads:
"Herein is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us and
sent His Son to be the Propitiation for our sins" (ARV). This is
the reason why Christ came. Because He has made propitiation
for our sins, God for His sake forgives sins. This is the promise
of the Gospel as well as of the Sacrament: "This is My blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness
of sins" (Matt. 26:28). Rich in meaning is the word of dismissal,
as found in the Lutheran Hymnary and spoken to those kneeling at
the Communion rail: "Our crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ,
who now hath bestowed upon you His holy Body and Blood,
whereby He hath made full satisfaction for all your sins, strengthen
and preserve you in the true faith unto everlasting life" (p. 15 ).
The blood reminds us, too, of the heavenly scene: "These are they
who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed
their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb. There-
fore are they before the throne of God and serve Him day and
night within His temple" (Rev. 7: 14 f., RSV). "And they have
conquered him [Satan} by the blood of the Lamb and by the word
of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death"
(Rev. 12:11, RSV).
Certainly there is victory in the atonement, as the passages just
quoted indicate. With Paul we exclaim: "Thanks be to God, who
gives us the victory through our lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 15:57,
RSV). Insofar as the theme of victory has been slighted, let us
be thankful that Aulen has re-emphasized it. In a day when "en-
lightened" people regard the devil as a figment of the imagination,
let us be thankful that Aulen has reaffirmed his dread reality. Let
us be thankful, too, that he knows and proclaims the victory of
Christ over Satan and other evil powers. But the message of vic-
tory must not be given an exaggerated and improper place in the
doctrine of the atonement. The essential aspect in this doctrine is
that Christ took upon Himself the guilt and penalty of our sins,
A CRITIQUE OF AULEN'S CHRIST US VICTOR 749

as our Substitute, and by His death restored us to God's favor.

This is the doctrine of the vicarious atonement, or vicarious satis-
faction. This, and not the classic idea, is at the heart of the genuine
Christian faith. It can never be separated from it.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aulen, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Afain Types
0/ the Idea of the Atonement. Authorized translation by A. G. Hebert.
American ed. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956.
Carlson, Edgar. "Gustaf Aulen and the Atonement" in Seminarian, a J01<1"nal
for Theological Students, XLVIII (November 1956).
Carlson, Edgar. The Reinterpretation of Luther. Philadelphia: The Muhlen-
berg Press, 1948.
Cave, Alfred. The Scriptwral Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement. Edinburgh:
T. and T. Clark, 1890.
Cave, Sidney. The Doctrine of the Work 0/ Christ. Nashville: Cokes bury
Press, 1937.
Cremer, Herman. Biblico-Theological Lexico1~ of New Testament Greek. Trans-
lated from the German of the 2d edition by William Urwick, M. A. Edin-
burgh: T. and T. Clark, 1878.
Dierks, Theodore. Reconciliation and Justification. St. Louis: Concordia, 1938.
Foley, George C. Anselm's Theory of the Atonement. New York: Longmans
Green and Co., 1909.
Hodge, Archibald Alexander. The Atoneme1~t. c. 1867. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprinted 1953.
Hodgson, Leonard. The Doctrine of the Atonement. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1951.
Keyser, Leander S. 'The Lutheran View of the Atonement" in The Lutheran
Quarterly of April, 1916. Reprint.
Leivestad, Ragnar. Christ the Conqueror: Ideas of Conflict and Victory in the
New Testament. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1954.
Luther, Martin. "On the Councils and the Churches" in Works of Martin
Luther. The Philadelphia Edition. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1931.
Lutheran Hymnary, The. Published by authority of the Norwegian Evangelical
Lutheran Synod, et. al. [now ELC}. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
McIntyre, John. St. Amelm and His Critics. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1954.
Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Wm_
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.
Mozley, J. K. The Doctrine of the Atonement. London: Duckworth, c. 1915,
reprinted 1947.
Rupp, Gordon. The Righteousness of God: Luther Studies. London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1953.
Sanday, W. and A. C. Headlam. The Epistle to the Romans in The Interna-
tional Critical Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906.
Taylor, Vincent. The Ato1lement in New Testament Teaching. London: The
Epworth Press, reprinted 1950.
Concordia Triglotta: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Chwrch.
St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921.
Watson, Philip. Let God Be God. London: The Epworth Press, 1947.
Wolf, William]. No Cross, No Crown: A Study of the Atonement. Garden
City: Doubleday and Company, 1957.