1. Atonement History Of The Church
21 March 2014
Understanding this topic is critical to knowing which Gospel is correct as heard from today's many
pulpits. "Substitutionary Atonement" of Jesus Christ has come under attack by some Internet critics.
In particular, some Christians completely deny the concept of a “substitution” of Christ for sinners.
Instead, many in history have taken the Divine Work of Jesus on the cross to be a object lesson. It is
from this “object lesson” which sinners should be inspired to take notice and repent their sins daily.
Are such views Biblical and complete? Are the attacks credible? Are the complaints against it rooted in
Scripture or rooted in traditions of Church history? What does the Bible say? Shouldn't the Bible be
our Authority for defining Truth?
Atonement - Definition
"The word 'Atonement' is one of the few theological terms which derive basically from Anglo-Saxon. It
means ‘a making at one,’and points to a process of bringing those who are estranged into a unity. The
word occurs in the Old Testament to translate words from the kpr word group, and it is found once in
the New Testament (KJV), rendering 'katallage' (which is better translated 'reconciliation' as in the
RSV). Its use in theology is to denote the Work of Christ in dealing with the problem posed by the sin of
man [humanity], and in bringing sinners into right relation with God."
Source: Morris, L. L. (1996). Atonement. In (D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer,
& D. J. Wiseman, Eds.) New Bible dictionary. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity
Press.

2. Atonement was specified in the Old Testament as a means to restore sinful individuals into the
blessings and favor of God. Atonement was accomplished by using some sort of animal blood sacrifice.
There is the sense in which sin requires a payment (as a ransom cost) if attending consequences of
punishment are to be adverted, thereby restoring peace and favor between the sinner and God.
The Early Church (0100-0500 AD) and Middle Era (Medieval) Church (0501-1500) had, surprisingly, a
very un-Biblical view regarding New Testament Atonement of Jesus Christ. Their views, we might
suppose, were shaped by incomplete access to the full teachings of Jesus and His Apostles. We must
remember that Christianity of those ancient times was primarily advanced by word-of-mouth, not by
adherence to a cohesive collected set of written records we now know as the Bible. This means it
would be very possible for immature theological understandings to form among individuals and the
majority.
While the “Church Fathers” existed before the formation of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox
Christian denominations, this doesn't mean their views couldn't be errant in some degree. We might
even say that the “Denominations” in those ancient times existed as the specific leaders themselves
(confirmed in 1st Corinthians 1:10-13). If Apostle Paul had this same problem regarding errant or
immature teachings, then we can be certain this same problem also permeated much of the Early Era
and Middle Era Christianity (Galatians 1:6, 1st Timothy 1:19/20, 1st Timothy 6:3-10, and Titus 1:10-
13). Therefore, it is a dangerous philosophy, as we're about to observe, to suggest that whatever the
“Church Fathers” (Patristic Leaders) had to say in the distant past is always to be taken as sacrosanct,
holy, not to be question. We need to, instead, be reliant upon the Bible for Truth. This isn't to say all
Church Traditions are to be dismissed, but those regarding doctrine shouldn't contradict the Bible.

3. Types Of Atonement
Preference: These various theories of atonement were created by specific individuals, some as Church
Fathers (hence some views are “Patristic”). This was their attempt to explain their understanding of the
“Work of Christ” on the cross, thereby reflect their understanding of the Gospel and redemption. It
wasn't uncommon for one view to become mixed with another atonement theory while Church history
progressed and diversified. Some branches of Christianity would embrace a certain newer view while
others held onto other older views as holy tradition. Once a specific Church tradition became the
majority view, and was widely accepted, it wasn't easy for it to be corrected or dismissed. The risk of
being expelled from the Church for disagreeing with the status-quo of the Church political elite was
simply an action most intelligent Christian peasants didn't wish to risk.
Ransom Theory (0200-1200-present)
Also known as: The Devil Ransom Theory, The Classical Theory, Fishhook Theory, or The Atonement
As Victory Theory. This has patristic origins. It is often associated with Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45,
1st Timothy 2:5-6, 1st Peter 1:18, 1st John 3:8, and Revelation 5:9.
Origins: This view was originated by Origen Adamantius (0185 AD to 0254 AD). In one form or
another, his view dominated much of the first thousand years of the Church history (often in modified
forms; e.g., Christus Victor). Augustine (0354-0430 AD) taught this view in some of his writings, but
mixed it with "The Moral Influence View." In the 11th century, Anselm of Canterbury rejected
Augustine's teaching on the “Ransom Theory” of atonement.
What is says: This theory holds that the “Price that Jesus paid” on the cross was made to Satan. It is
based on a reduced contextual understanding of Scripture to the exclusion of all other Scriptures on the
subject. Origen wrote: "The payment could not be [made] to God [be]cause God was not holding
sinners in captivity for a ransom, so the payment had to be to the Devil."
Rejection: Origen was eventually rejected by the Early Church Councils.

4. Variants: There are modified versions of the Ransom Theory: Christus Victor, including the views of
Gregory of Nyssa - 0372 to 0376 AD.
Proponents: This view, and variations of it, are taught by Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Benny
Hinn, Robert Tilton, and others in the “Word Of Faith” movement. The view was held by the
Anabaptists. It is also taught in the Eastern Orthodox Church; the latter have developed a concept
called "Theosis” wherein the Believer can “Work” their way into deification. Other variations are
taught in the Roman Catholic Church; example, Jesus had to suffered in Hell. This is a
misapprehension of Matthew 12:40, since being in the “earth” can be a euphemism for being dead in
the grave, and it would contradict Ecclesiastes 12:7 regarding the spirit of Jesus.
Commentary: This theory represents poor logic. It was based upon flawed assumptions which ignored
the role of God in absolute reality (Romans 8:20 in particular). The theory doesn't seriously focus on
the broken relationship problem between God and humanity. Since the theory doesn’t recognize the
substitutionary aspect of Jesus for sinners, it then results in a “Works Righteousness” pragmatic
Gospel for attainment of Salvation in a progressive manner; alias “Progressive Salvation.” The
Biblical concepts of “Imputed Righteousness” and “ Grace” are ignored by this theory.
The truth is that the “ransom payment” was made to God because sin is against God. How? It is due to
His own standards requiring perfect holiness, His allowing rebellion to happen by Design, and His
stated punishments for rebellion; hence His "Wrath" needed to be ended or "Satisfied” in an equable
manner to His Holiness. God created the circumstances whereby sin came to exist with damning
consquences, therefore only God can grant mercy/grace as a means of reconciliation between Himself
and humanity; those willing to “Believe” Him. See Ephesians 5:1/2, Ezekiel 18:4, Habakkuk 1:13,
Proverbs 15:26, and Romans 8:20.
Conclusion/Summary: The “Ransom Theory” is a case where the patristic Christian majority was
wrong. Origen and the other second century Christians obviously didn't have a complete written
reference to for gaining clarity about doctrine, therefore some errant traditions formed which were
passed into future generations. In the first thousand years of Christianity, the Bible was still NOT
widely available to Church leaders in their own languages; and the laity certainly didn't have access to
it! This is why error correction took so many centuries.
Recapitulation Theory (0150-present)
Also known as: Reconstitution (as advanced by N.T. Wright; Anglican, circa 1948). This theory is
often associated with Romans 5:12-21.
Origins: This theory of atonement has patristic origins. It originated with St. Irenaeus (0130-0202
AD), Bishop of Lugdunum. St Irenaeus is commemorated by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern
Orthodox denominations.

5. What is says: “Recapitulation means 'Summing up, ' and if you were reading Ephesians 1:10 in the
Greek New Testament, you would find the word 'anakephalaiosasthai.' 'Ana' is the equivalent of the
Latin prefix 're' (again), and 'kephale' is the equivalent of the Latin 'caput' (or head). If your lawyer has
made a case, and then he sums up the argument for the jury by going over the key points (the
argument’s main headings), we call that 'recapitulation.' So Paul says that in Christ, God’s plan is 'to
bring all things in Heaven and on earth together under One Head' (Ephesians 1:10). Other translations
use 'sum up' instead of 'bring together.' One way that Jesus 'sums things up' is by getting right what
Adam got wrong. Adam was supposed to be the head of the human race, but he bungled it and sent the
race off course. And so we need a new humanity headed by a New Adam; so think of Paul’s
comparison and contrast of Adam with Christ in 1st Corinthians 15; and remember Paul calls Adam
“the figure of Him that was to come” in Romans 5.” - David Neff
“Irenaeus and the early Church saw Christ as the new or second Adam, who reversed the work of the
First Adam, being obedient where Adam was disobedient. Where Adam disobeyed God, which led to
humanity’s death, Jesus obeyed the Father as unto death to bring Life to humanity. So, Christ
recapitulated the life and choices of Adam, and thus He was the final expression of true humanity or a
summing up of humanity. Our Salvation, then, depends upon which humanity we identify. If you are
in Christ, then you become a new kind of human, sharing in the Divine Life; but if you remain in
Adam, then you have only death.” - by Ryan M. Mahoney.
Rejection: This view is not widely embraced by modern day Protestant or Evangelical Christianity. It
is also rejected by the Roman Catholic denomination (which represents 53% of Christianity).
Variants: The Greek and Eastern Orthodox denominations have extrapolated the concept of “Theosis”
from this theory in connection to their understandings of the Ransom Theory and Moral Influence
Theory. “Theosis” is where the Believer has been given the means to “Work” their way into Union
with Jesus Christ, to eventually have deification, since Christ has undone the “Damage” of the “First
Adam.”
Proponents: This theory remains influential in the Greek Orthodox denomination and among some in
the Eastern Orthodox denomination. Some modern independent groups are trying to popularize this
theory once again. It has, of course, been embraced to varying degrees by some Church Fathers;
examples: Athanasius, Augustine (to incorporate aspects into his own theories), and Clement of
Alexandria.
Conclusion/Summary: Ultimately, the “Recapitulation Theory” leads to a “Work Righteousness”
understanding about Salvation in connection with the theory of “Progressive Salvation.” What the
Bible says regarding why Jesus went to the cross is essentially ignored. There is no real sense of
“Imputed Righteousness” to the Believer as the New Testament declares (Romans 4:16-25 and 2nd
Corinthians 5:19). This theory confuses the differences between the performance of
righteousness/repentance in daily Sanctification with instantaneous Salvation gained as part of the New
Birth (John 3:3-8 and John 5:24).
The Moral Influence Theory (0380-1600-present)
Also known as: The Subjective View Theory. It has a patristic founding. This theory is often
associated with Luke19:10, John 18:37, and 2nd Corinthians 5:19.

6. Origins: This ancient theory gained influence during the third century of the Early Church. Toward the
Middle Ages, Peter Abelard (1079-1142) popularized this view, however Augustine (0354-0430)
initially advocated it while he mixed it with his own views about the "Ransom Theory." Due to the
influence of Augustine, other Believers took to this view during the early Middle Ages (including some
Roman Catholic Popes). This view shares some overlap with “Ransom Theory.”
What is says: This view says that God did not need a payment for our breaking His Law, and that the
death of Christ was an example of how much God loved us and hated sin. The “Moral Influence
Theory” focuses on the need for moral change in people, supposedly leading to a positive final
judgment by God based on the efforts of people to appease (please) God by sufficiently repenting of sin
and doing good deeds; meaning, “If a person is good enough, then they can reach Heaven.” However,
there is no way to determine the threshold for when successful “appeasement” is accomplished for
reaching Salvation. This is because successful appeasement must exist as relative subjective human
reasoning sense it is unable to reckon its own justification with an infinitely moral and holy God. This
view fails to take into account the many passages about WHY Jesus died for our sins. Here are some
examples: Galatians 1:4, 1st Corinthians 15:3, and 1st Peter 3:18.
Rejection: Once the Protestant Reformation (1517) began, “The Moral Influence Theory” came to be
rejected by most in the Protestant movement.
Variants: During the Reformation, “The Moral Influence Theory” was still held by some Protestants
choosing to retain Church tradition of that era. This includes the Socinian, as Socinianism, which was
the early form of the Unitarian cult. The “Declaratory Theory” (or “Example Theory”) is an example
of a modern variation of the “Moral Influence theory.” This is where Christ is said to have died to
show men how greatly God loves them. This view originated with Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889).
Proponents: During the Reformation (1517), a large segment of the Protestant movement adopted their
own view of atonement called, "Penal Substitution" (or "Forensic Theory" - a Calvinist category of
"Substitutionary Atonement"). Many in the Eastern and Greek Orthodox denominations continue to
teach “The Moral Influence Theory” in connection with the “Recapitulation Theory.” This view also
continues to be popular among German theologians, “Emergent Church” groups, and liberal Protestant
thinkers (Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians). This view has been defended in recent
times by Hastings Rashdall in “The Idea of Atonement” (1919).
Conclusion/Summary: Once again, it would appear what the Bible has to say on this topic has been
widely ignored throughout all of older traditional Christianity. This theory leads to a "Works
Righteous" view of Salvation; thusly rendering the Work of Jesus on the Cross to be of no real meaning
while restoring the flawed Old Covenant "Works Righteousness" perspective. Sadly, this dangerous
view of atonement is held by much of older traditional Christianity (Eastern Orthodox in particular, but
it it has spread into many independent Christian church groups and cults).
The Satisfaction Theory (1100-present)
Also known as: The Commercial Theory and Compensation Of Honor To The Father. This view of
atonement is also sometimes referred to as “Scholastic Anselmian.” This theory is often associated
with Luke 19:10, John 18:37, and 2nd Corinthians 5:19.

7. Origins: This theory originated primarily from the works of Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury (1100
AD). Anselm greatly objected to the Ransom Theory.
What is says: This view holds that Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humanity, satisfying the
demands of God's honor by Christ’s infinite merit. Anselm's theory was a precursor to the refinements
of Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, which introduced the idea of punishment to meet the demands of
Divine Justice. The word "Satisfaction" is in the alternative sense, meaning "To make Restitution" for
an offense.
Rejection: This view is largely rejected in mainline Protestant and Evangelical churches. These hold to
the “Penal Substitution” view of atonement instead.
Proponents: “The Satisfaction Theory” is popular among Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and in some
Reformed (Calvinist) groups.
Conclusion/Summary: This is the first time “Substitution” has been posited as key component in the
Church understanding of the atonement by God for sinners. Since “Justice” is one of the characteristics
of God, then offenses to that justice must be atoned and satisfied by God Himself, as The Son; God
Incarnate. Anselm's theory or view of atonement established a foundation for the Protestant
Reformation, specifically the understanding of the Biblical doctrine “Justification by Faith.”
The Governmental Theory (1600-present)
Also known as: Moral Government Theory or Demonstration Of Divine Justice. This view of
atonement is “Arminian” in biases from the Medieval Period of Church history. This theory is often
associated with Isaiah 42:21.

8. Origins: This theory was created by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)
What is says: Hugo sought to demonstrate that the atonement of Jesus appeased God:
"God loves the human race. Although He has the right to punish it for its sin, it is not necessary or
mandatory that He do so. He can forgive sin and absolve humans of guilt. He has chosen to [forgive
sin] in such a way that it manifests at once both His clemency and severity. God can forgive sin, but He
also takes into consideration the interests of His moral government. It is possible for God to relax the
Law so that He need not exact a specific punishment or penalty for each violation." *
* Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd Edition, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), 806-7.
Rejection: Widely rejected by most Christians.
Proponents: This view is popular among Arminian Protestants: Methodists (John Wesley) and Church
Of The Nazarene.
Conclusion/Summary: The bottom-line is there is no sense of payment or forgiving of sin by Jesus on
behalf of sinners. This theory applies poor human sentiments upon God while it ignores His infinite
holiness and demand for perfection. In this theory, Christ died not as a substitute for sinners but as a
substitute for punishment. This is in obvious contradiction with Scripture. This theory also leads to
“Works Righteousness” pragmatism regarding Salvation since the Work of Jesus on the cross is ignored
or not properly understood by those holding to this view.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement (1600-present)
Also known as: Vicarious Atonement, The Forensic Theory, or Propitiation Of Divine Wrath Theory.
This theory of atonement is considered to be “Scholastic” and “Reformed” in its underlying biases. It
is often associated with Isaiah 53, John 1:29, Romans 3:25/8:3/8:32, Ephesians 5:2, Colossians 1:20,
Hebrews 9:29; and 1st Peter 3:18-22.
Origins: This theory is an extension and modification of Anselm's “Satisfaction Theory.” The reason
for this is that Protestants are mostly the product of the Reformation Movement, therefore Protestant
denominations and independents often embraced some of the Reformational traditions. The theory
developed in the Middle Ages during the Reformation (1517).

9. What is says: This theory says that Christ, by His own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalized) in
the place (substitution) of sinners (what death they otherwise deserved); thusly satisfying the demands
of justice so God could justly forgive sins. Since God created the circumstances leading the demise of
Humanity, then only God could become the Means to bring Restoration. God's response is one of total
unconditional sacrificial love. This view need not be taken to be a Calvinist view regarding Election; it
is more broad in scope than as taught among those holding to Calvinism.
Proponents: This view is taught among many Protestant Christians, including Evangelicals,
Charismatics, Pentecostals, Baptists, and Independents.
Commentary: The Reformers (many as Calvinists) agreed with Anselm that sin is a very serious matter,
but they saw it as a breaking of God's Law rather than as an insult to God's honor. The moral law, they
held, is not to be taken lightly. "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23), and it is this which is the
problem for sinful man. They took seriously the Scriptural teachings about the wrath of God and those
that referred to the curse under which sinners lay. It was clear to them that the essence of Christ's
saving Work consisted in His taking the sinner's place. This means Christ endured the death that existed
as "the wages of sin." He bore the curse that sinners should have borne (Galatians 3:13).
Conclusion/Summary: The penal aspect of the atonement is often a stumbling block in modern
theology. Some would say "it is the dominant atonement imagery used in the Bible." By way of
contrast, those who hold to “The Governmental Theory” of atonement not only deny the penal aspect
of the atonement but also substitution in the normal sense of the word. To such people, Christ died not
as a substitute for sinners but as a substitute for punishment.
Modern Substitutionary Atonement Sub-Categories
Limited Atonement Theory (1550-present)
Also known as: Particular Redemption.

10. Origins: This view is based upon the assertions of Calvinism (1509). It developed during the
Reformational period of Church history (1517).
What is says: This view teaches that humanity is too depraved (wicked) to recognize a good choice
when it appears, therefore God must pro-actively influence sinners to grasp the Gospel as given by His
Son. This concept asserts that God doesn't choose to reach all sinners, only some. This, then, makes
atonement applicable ONLY to those God has chosen for redeeming.
Rejection: This view is rejected by most of Christianity. Those holding to Arminianism also reject this
view.
Proponents: It is held by a very small percentage of Protestant Christians as Calvinists. This view is a
supplemental understanding of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Overall, this view is only held by a
tiny percentage of Christians.
Conclusion/Summary: This view contradicts the patristic Augustinian concept of Prevenient Grace.
This view also fails to recognize that the Election of God can occur, in the Present-Tense, through
Power of God in His Scriptures (Hebrews 4:12, Romans 10:17, Romans 1:16, 2nd Timothy 3:16).
According to many, this view also contradicts the plain meaning of many Scriptures, especially John
3:16, 1st John 1:29/2:2, Romans 1:16/3:23, Galatians 3:22, Hebrews 7:27, 2nd Corinthians 5:14, and
1st Timothy 2:4/4:10.
Unlimited Atonement Theory (1600-present)
Also known as: General Atonement or Universal Atonement.
Origins: This view came through Moses Amyraut (1596-1664) as part of the Amyraldism movement
during the Reformation (1517). It is variant of Calvinism known as “Four-Point Calvinism” (drops the
notion of “Limited Atonement”).
What is says: This view teaches that the purpose of Christ's Atonement was universal; meaning that
Jesus died on behalf of all people (John 3:16), not just the Elect. This view includes the belief that God
provides a degree of grace (Prevenient Grace) to all sinners to understand the Gospel, to then accept or
reject it. While God died for all sinners, only those who choose Him receive Salvation. Those who
reject Him simply remain in their originate state of spiritual death; therefore, there isn't a "Double
Payment" - as the death Christ first for all sinners, then the sinner again if the sinner rejects Christ.
Rejection: Calvinists (Five Point), John Wesley (Methodists), Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Eastern
Orthodox reject this view. Those holding to pure Arminianism also reject this view.
Proponents: This view is held by Moderately Reformed Protestants, both denominational and
independent. This view is a supplemental understanding of Penal Substitution Atonement. Overall,
this view is only held by a tiny percentage of Christians.
Conclusion/Summary: This view is appealing to those who agree with the overall sentiments of
Calvinism, but reject that God chooses, in Predestination (Romans 8:29/30), some people for Salvation
while choosing some people for damnation (indirectly by refusing to Enlighten them). This view
accommodates the Prevenient Grace concept (that God limits “Total Depravity” among all humanity to
some degree). Most Christians accept the patristic Augustinian concept of Prevenient Grace.

11. Redemption - Definition
Redemption is the act of buying something back, or paying a price to return something back into your
possession. The price of redeeming something can be view as a ransom which needs to be paid. Why
a ransom? Because it is burdensome, a sacrifice upon the buyer, to "buy back" that which is filthy,
damaged, ruined, contaminated, or wicked. Doing so could be viewed as an act of mercy motivate by
intense love by the Buyer, God in this case. There is a real sense in which this type of redemption is
permanent and not earned.
We see an example of this in the Old Testament narrative where Hosea is instructed to marry a sinful
prostitute (she represents sinful Israel according to the narrative; we might view her as sinful humanity
in a New Testament context). Gomer (as humanity) eventually betrays her husband (God). Hosea sends
her away: back into slavery. After a time, God tells Hosea (acting like Christ) to buy back Gomer
(humanity). We might suppose he would rather not, but he is obedient to God to pay the ransom price
of thirty pieces of silver (the same price paid by humanity to betray Jesus). According to the Torah,
Hosea could have demanded Gomer be put to death for her betrayal. Hosea 3:1-4.
Mark 10:45 - “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his
life a ransom for many.”
Redemption, as through being a “Ransom,” is the English translation of the Greek word "agorazo,"
meaning "to purchase in the marketplace." In ancient times, it often referred to the act of buying a
slave. Jesus Christ, through His sacrificial death, purchased Believers from the slavery of sin (spiritual
death consequence). This act set us free from that bondage which had prevented us from having peace
with God relationally.
Another Greek word relating to this term is "exagorazo." Redemption always involves going from
something to something else. In this case, it is Christ freeing us from the bondage of the Law [as
understood through the Old Covenant requirements] to the Freedom of a New Life in Him.
The third Greek word connected with redemption is "lutroo," meaning "to obtain release by the
payment of a price." The price, was Christ's precious blood, obtaining our release from sin. The price is
death for sin (Romans 3:23 and Romans 7:11). Only Jesus was in the position to pay it as the original
Authority which created the Law and its attending consequences.
Galatians 4:4–7 - "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born
under the Law [Torah], (5) to REDEEM those who were under the Law [Old Covenant], so that we
might receive Adoption as sons. (6) And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into
our hearts [Galatians 2:20], crying, 'Abba! Father!' [Romans 8:16] (7) So through God you are no
longer a slave [of the Law] but a son, and if a son then an heir."
Purpose of Redemption:
Titus 2:11 thru 14 - "For the Grace of God that brings salvation [rescue] has Appeared to all men [John
3:16]. (12) It teaches us to say 'No' to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled,
upright and godly lives in this present age [material temporality], (13) while we wait for the blessed
Hope [Resurrection]: the glorious Appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, (14) who gave
Himself for us, to REDEEM us from all wickedness, and to purify for Himself a people that are His
very Own, eager to do what is good."

12. Redemption by Whom?
Mark 10:45 - "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His
Life a ransom for many [hence to redeem them]."
1st Timothy 2:3 thru 6 - "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men [people] to be
saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (5) For there is one God and one Mediator between God
and men [humanity], the man Christ Jesus, (6) who gave Himself as a ransom [or redemption] for all
men [people]; the Testimony [Gospel] given in its proper time [in history].