J. D. Meyer’s Atonement of God attempts several things: demonstrate the inadequacy of the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement, explore alternatives to penal substitution theory, and argue for Non-violent atonement theory, and demonstrate the benefits of this theory. The Atonement of God, for this reader who doesn’t hold to penal substitution atonement theory, fails to make the case, except in showing the benefits of non-violent atonement theory.
The Atonement of God is divided into two parts. Part 1 is the author’s presentation of four theories of atonement. Chapter 1 deals with three atonement theories. Though any one theory is only dealt with briefly and never on their own terms. The presentations of the theories of atonement function two fold, first o establish a need for the non-violent theory of atonement that Meyer’s wishes to argue for and to begin his argument in favor of non-violent theory of atonement. In the midst of these presentations of a few theories of atonement in order to argue for non-violent theory of atonement Meyers introduces a strange interpretation of God’s rejection of Cain’s fruit and vegetable offering, that is unsupported by the admittedly succinct Scriptural text. More or less both part two and part one of the First section of The Atonement of God is an extended argument for non-violent theory of atonement, and his most extensive Biblical argument for non-violent atonement is an idiosyncratic interpretation of the sacrifice of Cain.
The strongest section of the book is the second and final section of the book of the book on the benefits of non-violent theories of atonement. Yet even his presentation of non-violent theory of atonement is week. His scriptural interpretation is often idiosyncratic, more than once stretches the meaning of texts and doesn’t deal with Scripture or tradition that points to other theories. One striking omission of the book is his repeated reference to that Penal substitution theory of atonement was not preferred in the early church, and that what has been the preferred theory is closer to his presentation of non-violent theory of atonement. Yet, he never once references let alone quotes any writer or theologian from the first thousand years of the Church. He makes claims but doesn’t back them up. His presentation of non-violent atonement is dependent upon an idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture, use of only 20th and 21st century theologians, while claiming his pet theory (rightly so) is older than exclusive focus upon penal substitution, yet he never quotes a theologian from the early church or any Eastern Orthodox theologians.
If you are looking for an alternative to western Protestant views of the atonement one grounded in both Scripture and Tradition this isn’t the book. The author and the reader would do well to simply read the Rev. Dr. Alexander Schmemann’s For the Life of the World. While not technically a book on or a theory of the Atonement it does speak to the reality of the atonement and its effects, what the atonement intends to do, and the motivation of God to bring life to the world out of love for the world. If the reader want’s to study theories of atonement along the lines of J.D. Meyer’s book, reading the authors Meyer’s bibliography and for the life of the would be a better place to study than this book.
J. D. Meyer’s book is disorganized uses strawman arguments and shows only real knowledge of a few contemporary Biblical Scholars. The conclusion of his work presents positive reasons for someone uncertain about abandoning Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory for non-violent theory of the atonement. Perhaps, that should have been the book had Meyer had an editor the editor may have been able to direct the author to a more focused work with the modest goal of a positive presentation of non-violent atonement theories and why someone who has lived only with the belief that penal substitutionary theory was the only “orthodox” theory should, based on the Gospel and revealed character of God, consider other possible theories. But this book was not that book
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR,Part 255.