Scripture & Lay Readers

February 22 – Ash Wednesday; Mark 1:9-15; in just six verses Mark gives his usual abbreviated account of Jesus’ baptism, hearing the voice of God, temptation in the wilderness, John’s arrest and Jesus’ first sermon: “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the good news.”

February 26 – First Sunday in Lent; Mark 10:35-45; The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan.

March 4 – Second Sunday in Lent; Romans 5:12-21; The Recapitulation Theory: Originated with Irenaeus (125–202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God’s edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as “recapitulating” or “summing up” human life.

March 11 – Third Sunday in Lent; Col. 2:8-19;The ‘Christus Victor’ or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879–1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ’s victory over evil.

March 18 – Fourth Sunday in Lent; John 3:1-21; The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God’s love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079–1142) partially in reaction against Anselm’s Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768–1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802–1876).

March 25 – Fifth Sunday in Lent; 2 Cor. 5:17-21; The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm’s Satisfaction theory. Anselm’s theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ’s work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God’s honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man’s place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man’s sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.