What is the Atonement in the Bible? (Thoughts on Atonement from Dr. Michael S. Heiser)
Michael Heiser understood Christ’s atonement as a multifaceted reality best described as a kaleidoscope, where various theories—Penal Substitution, Ransom, Moral Influence, Governmental, Recapitulation, Christus Victor, and potentially others—each offer legitimate insights into the work of Christ without needing to be synthesized into a single system. He affirmed substitution as biblically essential while rejecting the notion that God’s wrath was poured out on Jesus in a punitive sense. Heiser emphasized biblical theology over systematic formulations, preferring to let the text speak in its own diversity. Among the models, he notably favored Christus Victor, seeing Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension as the defeat of spiritual powers and the beginning of cosmic restoration.
A note from the author: I have appreciated Dr. Heiser’s work for over a decade. If you’ve followed my teaching or read The Gospel is Bigger than You Think, you’ll unmistakably see Heiser’s Deuteronomy 32 worldview (Divine Council Worldview) operate within the framework of my own thinking. But it’s not the giants and gods stuff I was attracted to. I was initially attracted to Mike’s “big tent” thinking as my own diverse theological background has kept me from tribalism and a willingness to consider and comingle competing theological ideas. So, a big thanks to Dr. Heiser for inspiring a similar sentiment in others and to Drenna Heiser and the Michael Heiser Foundation for continuing his legacy.
“...systems…gravitate to one side or one aspect of a subject over another, and then they try to…explain away the things they don't want to gravitate to…systems typically try to find a balance or maybe try to make things work, some people just end up redefining things they don't like so…that they don't really resemble plain statements in the text anymore…They typically do that to defend this position that they prefer. That’s just what happens in systems.”
(Michael Heiser, Q&A 3, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, June 13, 2015, Episode 53, 19)
Time and time again, people have asked Dr. Heiser to settle disputes regarding the atonement and to point them to a particular atonement theory. That’s not surprising as the atonement is central to the Christian faith. This line of questioning hasn’t ceased since Dr. Heiser’s passing, so it seems some kind of work needs to be done to bring light to his views of the atonement. Heiser has hardly said little about atonement. However, he also hasn’t provided a clear or systematic explanation of his views. This may be intentional. The above quote makes clear that systematic theology works, at least to some degree, off of presuppositions. Heiser considers himself a biblical theologian, a field of study that stems from the natural inferences of the biblical text; thus, he rarely approaches topics of systematic theology, and when he does, he does so with caution. (You’ll notice similar sentiments if you explore Heiser’s views on eschatology.) What follows is an analysis of his views of the atonement, but the reader should know upfront that a systematized perspective on the atonement will not (can not) be provided based on Heiser’s ideas.
Atonement Theories as a Kaleidoscope, Mosaic, or Matrix
Dr. Heiser speaks of biblical theology as a mosaic that “gives coherence to the pieces of the Bible” from an “ancient biblical worldview” (The Unseen Realm, Lexham Press, 2015, 20). Regarding the work of Christ, he sees the Bible as a “messianic mosaic,” built “out with lots of different words and concepts and events and incidences in the Old Testament that…all contribute something to the profile or the mosaic” (Paul’s Use of the Old Testament Series: “Messiah,” Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, February 13, 2022, Episode 412, 7). Heiser didn’t intend to produce original research in this regard but considered himself a “dot-connector” (Q&A 36, Part 1, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, November 30, 2019, Episode 300, 16). He evaluated the ideas of other scholars in order to see if they make sense of the passage in question, but more so, to see if they fit into the “bigger matrix” of biblical theology (ibid.)
The center of the biblical theology matrix is the work of Christ, more formally referred to as the atonement. The atonement–its nature and extent–is one of the most disputed doctrines in historical theology. Scholars have proposed countless theories throughout history as to the meaning and telos of Christ’s work. However, few have seen the atonement in quite the same light as Dr. Heiser: “I see all views of the atonement as contributing something to understanding the atonement. I feel no compulsion at all to pick one” (Q&A 43, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, January 9, 2021, Episode 358, 5). In Heiser’s assessment, all atonement theories contain biblical elements. To reject one atonement theory in favor of an exclusive theory creates a “false dilemma” (Ibid.) Instead of choosing a system, Heiser saw the various views as contributing, at least, something to a fuller understanding of Christ’s work.
Heiser explains his view of the atonement as a ‘kaleidoscope.’ He explains, “The atonement means many different things, one of which is substitution. The other views of the atonement do contribute something—they’re different aspects, different ways of thinking about what the atonement means and what the sacrifice of Christ means” (Hebrews 9, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, December 16, 2017, Episode 194, 18). Regarding the propensity to dismiss the ever-so-controversial doctrine of substitutionary atonement, Dr. Heiser notes:
“Look, I’m a big tent guy—I’m a kaleidoscope guy—when it comes to the atonement”...The propensity has been, “Let’s pick another view of atonement so we don’t have to have this substitution idea, because that just sounds awful. We don’t want to hear about violence. We don’t want to hear about an innocent dying for the sins of somebody else. That’s just icky. Our culture just doesn’t tolerate that.” Well, too bad. That’s a legitimate part of what the atonement means, and you do have passages like this one and others that use pretty clear substitution language. That’s not the only thing that atonement means—not the only thing—but it’s part of what the atonement means. So my advice would be to not try to jettison or excise out of our atonement talk an idea that is clearly there in certain texts, but to include other ideas that can derive from other texts. That’s why I’m a kaleidoscope guy when it comes to the atonement. (Ibid., author emphasis)
Dr. Heiser’s ‘kaleidoscope’ view of the atonement came up at ETS in a conversation with Ronn Johnson and Carl Sanders. Heiser and Sanders agree that the atonement is like a kaleidoscope. However, they accuse Ronn of making the same mistake as Millard Erickson, who, in their estimation, tries to cram every other atonement motif into Penal Substitutionary Atonement, except Johnson tries to bring all atonement theories under “the umbrella of sacred space” (ETS Conference Interviews, Part 2, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, November 23, 2017, Episode 188, 25). Heiser is clear in the podcast that ‘kaleidoscope’ doesn’t mean he has systematized every view, subordinating the many under another, but that he doesn’t “need to pick one” to the dismissal or subordination of others (ibid., 21). Johnson argues that if they give him “the kaleidoscope images,” he “can get it back to sacred space” (ibid., 25). Note how Johnson “gets” substitutionary atonement into sacred space; his process is not rooted in biblical theology, but, as he states, he is “opposed to it because of theological problems,” namely, he believes that “It destroys”–i.e., it doesn’t lack biblical representation but creates a “theological problem” (Ibid., 30). His theological problem is based on rationale regarding assumptions of God’s character rather than originating in the biblical text. Johnson’s position is theologically justifiable, but his approach belongs to the field of systematic theology, not biblical theology, which is why Heiser and Sanders disagree with, but still respect, the approach–and so should all. Heiser always speaks well of Johnson and his work as a friend, peer, and scholar, but regarding the atonement, Johnson utilizes a systematic perspective that sets him at odds with Heiser’s biblical-theological approach. Note Heiser’s above emphasis on passages of Scripture containing “clear substitution language.” Further, he criticized the rejection of the biblical text on the grounds that it “just sounds awful” (see above). For Heiser, clear language in the text cannot be dismissed because it doesn’t fit a paradigm palatable to the interpreter.
Note, Heiser doesn’t necessarily agree with every detail of each atonement theory and rightly criticizes many of the inferences of Penal Substitutionary Atonement particularly, but he does see each theory as making valid observations of the biblical text. As will be seen, he rightly does not agree with every idea that comes under the tent of Penal Substitution, or any other view for that matter. The next section quickly reviews a list of theories mentioned by Dr. Heiser, which will frame a more detailed discussion of each in the following sections.
An additional warning should be given. It is not this author’s understanding that Heiser’s views of the atonement are altogether consistent across the plethora of resources available–podcast transcripts, blog posts, books, etc–created over a period of many years. So, again, any reader hoping to understand the atonement systematically (as most have been taught to do) based on Heiser’s approach to the atonement may be disappointed. Yet, this proves to be a fruitful discussion that attempts to broach the topic of atonement through the late Dr. Heiser’s eyes. Please read to the end. Where many readers will be interested to see Heiser’s approach to Penal Substitutionary Atonement near the top, Heiser’s development of the Unseen Realm through the Christus Victor motif near the end will be well worth the time.
What are the Prominent Atonement Theories?
This is not an exhaustive list of all the atonement theories throughout Christian history. Further, there are benefits (or ends) of Christ’s work, such as glorification and theosis, which interface with but are differentiated from atonement. However, these are the primary theories discussed by Heiser in his body of work. The following theories are mentioned by name in Heiser’s Brief Insights on Mastering Bible Doctrine, Chapter 66, except for the Christus Victor model of atonement, which is discussed elsewhere. Each is briefly described, though not extensively treated. They will be handled in greater detail in the following sections, whereas this section aims to demonstrate the potential cohesion and potential conflicts between the various theories.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement emphasizes that Christ died in the place of sinful humans, bearing the penalty for sins. Heiser stated, “I believe in the concept of penal substitution, but I’m going to question that terminology…I believe in it if what is meant is that ‘we have redemption through his blood’ (i.e., that the cross event was about our redemption, saving us from a fate that we could otherwise not avoid)” (Some Random Thoughts About Substitutionary Atonement, Naked Bible Blog, July 7, 2018). This view emphasizes substitution—Jesus takes on the punishment humans deserve–and presumes a penal aspect of sin where a debt is incurred that must be settled to be restored to God.
Ransom Theory, traditionally, “argues that the death of Christ was a ransom paid to Satan. Since Satan is lord of the dead in biblical theology, and all humans die, Satan had a legal claim to every soul. The sacrifice of Jesus paid the price—the ransom. This view usually offers ‘ransom’ language found in several verses as support (Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:6). Although there was a price to be paid for sin (Rom. 6:23), the Bible never specifically says that Satan was owed that price” (Brief Insights on Mastering Bible Doctrine, Zondervan, 2018, 165). In the Ransom Theory, Christ’s death serves as a ransom payment, traditionally thought to be paid to Satan–though not necessarily in every version of the theory.
Moral Influence Theory “asserts that the death of Christ was…an example of suffering to demonstrate God’s love” (Ibid., 165-166). The theory emphasizes the transformation of the individual through witnessing Jesus’s sacrifice and is primarily not about satisfaction of any kind as it is about the development of the individual’s moral character.
Governmental Theory explains that “what happened on the cross simply shows God’s hatred of sin and satisfies God’s demand for justice” (Ibid., 166). This view decentralizes the emphasis on substitution or satisfaction, reducing Christ’s sacrifice to a moral example of the consequences of sin in order to motivate righteousness.
Recapitulation Theory claims that “Jesus repeated (‘recapitulated’) in his life and death all the stages of human life and death. The purpose was to live a life counter to Adam’s disobedience to illustrate the way our lives must be transformed” (Ibid.) Essentially, it is a reenactment of the stages of Adam’s life, but in obedience, showing the path of transformation from disobedience to obedience.
Christus Victor “attempts to reinstate the so-called ‘classic’ view of the atonement. This interpretation…envisages the cross as God’s mighty act of triumph over powers of evil hostile to his will” (J. B. Webster, “Aulén, Gustav” in New Dictionary of Theology, InterVarsity Press, 2000, 64). While much of the discussion regarding Christus Victor now revolves around the idea that Jesus conquered sin and death, Heiser asserts that early Christology “sets up the entire reason for Christ to come and vanquish the demonic host and rid God's people of…false idolatrous teachings so that they might come to learn what it means to be a holy person” (SBL Conference Interviews, Part 2, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, November 23, 2018, Episode 247, 24). Gustav Aulén shares this sentiment.
What must be understood from Heiser’s partial validation of these theories is not that he affirms every tenant of the doctrines–as indeed, no two proponents of any view agree in every detail–but that Heiser sees all of these views as contributing, at least in part, to a greater mosaic that cannot be constrained to any individual system.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)
Penality (Punishment)
Typically, penality refers to God’s justice in punishing people for sin. Sin is seen as a moral offense against God that requires some kind of retributive justice. Regarding God’s justice, Heiser appeals to the deaths of Ananias and Saphira, stating, “God is the one who is actually directly judging the people who are involved at this point. So I don't think that the atonement guarantees that God does not judge, [that] God does not chasten” (Acts 4&5, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, March 27, 2015, Episode 42, 14). In context, Heiser uses chasten in the archaic sense of discipline or punishment. He certainly seems to think God is just in his enacting of punishment on Ananias and Saphira. So, there is room in Heiser’s teaching for God to be just in punishing sin.
This can be seen in Heiser’s view of the relationship between Old Testament and New Testament atonement. When asked if “Jesus' blood sacrifice was a decontaminating sacrifice for us to approach and be able to be in direct relationship with God living within us?” Heiser responds in part, “there certainly are laws that are pointed at a direct offense toward God himself” (Live from Denver, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, November 24, 2018, Episode 248, 14). Therefore, in Heiser’s view, though there is much to the atonement, God is concerned with personal offense and made an account through the law for the Israelites to deal with their offenses towards God.
Further, in the context of the hardening of Pharoah’s heart, Heiser states, “God is allowed to judge sin. He is not morally suspect if he decides to judge sin” (Exodus 7:1-13, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, April 14, 2019, Episode 67, 20). But he sees the hardening of Pharoah’s heart as a special circumstance where Pharoah, after hardening his own heart, receives a “special act of grace,” noting, “he’s not obligated to do that for everybody because that would mean that God is not allowed to judge evil” (Ibid.) Many who deny PSA do so on the grounds that a God of love does not punish for sin. Heiser replies, “For us to judge God is, frankly, arrogant. It’s hubris in every way” (Ibid., 21). Without compromising the purpose or character of God, Heiser believes, “We can have a God who decides to judge and sets up circumstances whereby judgment will happen” (Ibid.), by which he formally means judgment resulting in punishment for sin.
Many will acknowledge God’s wrath for sin but deny that God’s wrath has anything to do with Christ’s death on the cross. Heiser critiques the common evangelical understanding of penal substitution, particularly the idea that God's wrath was poured out on Jesus as a necessary condition for forgiveness. For Heiser,
“the issues needing attention are: Is penal substitution consistent with the character of God? I’d agree with Dr. Johnson that it’s a mistake to say that the point of the sacrifice of Christ was that God was angry at the sinner. That’s a common way to talk about penal substitution, but the NT articulation of the cross doesn’t really approach it that way. We might say that God is angry with the sinner instead of at the sinner. He’s angry because the sinner is forfeiting what he could have in relationship with God, or that sin is self-destructive.” (Some Random Thoughts About Substitutionary Atonement, Naked Bible Blog, July 7, 2018)
Notice his distinction. To be angry with the sinner has to do with the effects of sin on the person. To be angry at the sinner is to be angry with the actual person. Heiser clarifies, “God hates what sin does to people” (Ibid.) It should be noted, however, that “rather than denying penal substitution, maybe we should do a more careful job of explaining it in other ways besides wrath and hatred” (Ibid.) Heiser's warning regarding PSA here is that Christ’s death cannot be about appeasing God’s wrath or hatred of sinners if it is not sinners that God is ultimately angry about.
Substitution
Though Heiser is usually careful to speak of PSA in a way that does not place the Father’s wrath on the Son, he no less believes Jesus’s death to be a substitution. Heiser writes, “Jesus died in our place. As sinners we deserved death (Rom. 6:23). But incredibly, Christ died on our behalf (Rom. 5:5–8)” (Brief Insights on Mastering Bible Doctrine, Zondervan, 2018, 163). He further emphasizes that “Any view of the atonement that excludes substitution ignores the direct statements to the contrary in Scripture and neglects comparisons between Jesus’s death in New Testament and Old Testament sacrifices” (Ibid., 164).
Heiser notes that the language of Hebrews 2:14 “establishes the rationale of the incarnation. Jesus became a human because we, the object he intended to redeem, are human” (Hebrews 2, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, September 16, 2017, Episode 177, 18). Numerous voices today want to argue that Leviticus has no room for substitution within the Levitical sacrifices. But for Heiser,
…in Leviticus…sacrifice meant conceptually…that God will accept the blood of another life, in this case an animal, on behalf of the blood that he could exact from you. It’s in lieu of your life that God will accept this other life…within evangelicalism, and views the atonement of Christ, it amazes me how so many scholars and people try to rid the theology of atonement from substitution, substitutionary atonement has somehow become offensive in our culture, probably because it involves blood. (Leviticus 17-18, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, December 20, 2015, Episode 177, 10-11).
It’s easy to see here that, for Heiser, Jesus’s death does in some way deal with death penally and substitutionarily, though Heiser is rightly hesitant of the terminology due to how these observations are systematized in Evangelical theology (cf. Heiser’s discussion of expiation and propitiation, Hebrews 9, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, December 16, 2017, Episode 194, 7-8).
Ransom Theory
Heiser largely agrees that humanity is in bondage of some kind, even as we consider the character of Satan.
The obvious point here [in Hebrews 2:14-15] is that human death had to be overcome. Less obvious is the related thought that the devil also had to be overcome because he had the power of death over humanity. The idea is that, without redemption, Satan’s power over humans—his “legal” ownership of every human, estranged from God in the wake of what happened in Eden—would remain intact. But Scripture nowhere endorses the notion that angelic sin resulted in this sort of bondage to Satan. (Angels, Lexham Press, 2018, 155–156)
After the fall, Satan seems to have had a “legal” claim over the souls of humankind, though, as Heiser notes, humans are not in ‘bondage to Satan.’ Some theologians equate the Leviticus 16 goat for Azazel with a ransom being paid to Satan. To this, he responds, “The point of the goat for Azazel was not that something was owed to the demonic realm, as though a ransom was being paid” (The Unseen Realm, Lexham Press, 2015, 177–178).
Arguably more controversial than Satan’s relationship to humankind is the idea that Christ’s death is a ransom payment to secure human freedom. Scripture teaches that Jesus offered his life as a ransom (Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:6), satisfying the conditions required to liberate humanity from Satan’s dominion. But it’s not because Satan has a rightful claim to human souls that contractually supersedes God’s ability to redeem humankind. Heiser explains:
The Earth is the place that God isn’t, especially after the fall. Before the fall, he was there. After the fall, he’s not. And the rest [of] the biblical story is about God reclaiming the Earth, reinstalling his kingdom, getting a foothold on the Earth and spreading the good rule of God's presence all over the planet. But on its own, it's not where God is. It’s the realm of temporary-ness, the realm of death, and it's this place where Satan is cast down. So he’s the Lord of the dead. He was the first rebel and he basically has ownership of every human being because every human being will die, again…excepting the Lord’s return in our context and that sort of thing. So the solution to that is that you have to have membership in the other kingdom, in the kingdom of God, which we now call the body of Christ. (Q&A 2, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, April 24, 2015, Episode 46, 8)
It could be argued on these grounds that Heiser does indeed believe the ransom is paid to Satan in that he acknowledges Satan as the ‘Lord of the dead’ over the ‘realm of death,’ which is the earth. Jesus, then, rescues sinners out of the domain of death and into the Kingdom of God. Perhaps this is what is meant by the ransom being paid by Jesus’s life. But this would be to miss the point of Heiser’s view of the biblical storyline. For Heiser, Satan’s lordship is ‘excepted’ by ‘Jesus’s return’ and ‘membership in the kingdom of God.’ That is to say, the devil isn’t paid off so that humans could escape his realm; rather, the exception to Satan’s lordship is that Jesus’s governmental authority supersedes his lordship so that Christ has authority to grant humans entrance into God’s kingdom.
Moral Influence Theory
Christ’s death demonstrates God’s love through a perfect act of suffering. “...but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). On the Naked Bible Podcast, Ben Witherington asserts,
…it cost God the life of his only Son so that forgiveness could be possible. And so this is not cheap grace. This is not superficial love. This is a profound love that is in sync with all the other attributes of God’s character. And there was only one way for that to happen and that’s through the death of his Son, according to the scriptures.” (Dr. Ben Witherington III, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, May 9, 2020, Episode 323, 9)
Heiser affirms this claim, responding, “God wants a relationship. He wants a family” (Ibid.), emphasizing, “If God is love, then no wonder a holy God is also righteously angry about our sin and must do something about it if we are to be reconciled to him” (Ibid., 5). Though Heiser seems to be pointing beyond Moral Influence in this statement, he nonetheless sees God’s love as motivating the eradication of sin and reconciliation to God, which is what makes the Moral Influence Theory a theory of atonement.
Heiser further suggests that God’s love is expressed to humankind through “covenant” or “exclusive relationship” (Loving Loyalty and Believing Loyalty, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, November 15, 2020, Episode 350, 4). He illustrates this through the calling of Abraham this way:
He [God] makes promises to Abraham. But Abraham can’t just look at God and say, “Alright. That’s great. It’s awesome. I believe it. I believe it,” and then the next day turn around and say, “You know, I’m going to go off and worship this other god.” (Ibid.)
Heiser sees Abraham’s relationship with Yahweh as one of ‘believing loyalty’ (Ibid.), where his belief is such that he will no longer go after other gods but will express his belief in Yahweh through loyalty, including moral obedience. Here, Heiser does not explicitly point forward to the cross to demonstrate the love of God as demonstrated through Christ’s death, nor does he directly state that God’s love motivates moral obedience, but you can anticipate the ways he may turn the kaleidoscope to see the cross through the lens of Moral Influence Theory. Where Heiser likely diverges from Moral Influence Theory is in the suggestion that the primary purpose of the cross is to influence human behavior. Many will appreciate the focus on changing hearts rather than addressing legal or penal demands. However, Heiser’s non-exclusive approach to the atonement would prevent him from creating a false dichotomy here, especially since there are other theories on the table.
Governmental Theory
Hugo Grotius’s Governmental Theory of Atonement sees Christ’s death on the cross as a demonstration of God’s displeasure with sin and a means to uphold moral government. Christ’s death was a substitute for the penalty of sin, not the penalty itself, serving to deter future sins and motivate righteousness. Heiser may be thought to engage Governmental Theory in the following:
I think this is a normal human impulse. When we believe…if we’re grateful…We feel bad when we disappoint God because we feel grateful to him for what he’s done, and so we don’t do what we know he would want us to do, we feel bad. We have to remember that before you would have ever had even a thought…Think about before you became a believer. You didn’t have any thought about disappointing God. You couldn’t have cared less. It never even popped into your head. Well, it was while you were in that state—while that was you—Christ died for you. In other words, the fact that Christ would have gone to the cross on your behalf doesn’t matter in any way on your disappointing of him. Because everybody disappoints him. Everybody regularly, habitually, unfailingly disappoints him, but he still did what he did. (Hebrews 4:13-5:10, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, October 28, 2017, Episode 183, 14-15)
There is a sense in which the atonement is not related directly to individual human sins but broadly deals with the penalty of sin, in a corporate sense, so that anyone can come under the atonement by ‘becoming a believer.’ The mechanics of this theory, therefore, operate not on the level of substitution but as a means of transforming people from unrighteousness to righteousness through the demonstration of God’s justice at the cross. In its most basic framework, then, it differs little from Moral Influence Theory, except that the moral influence stems from God’s characteristic justice rather than his characteristic love.
Again, Heiser does not see a reason to choose between the two and sees the core motivation for obedience as the product of believing loyalty, not merely an act of love or justice. Therefore, there is no reason to reduce God’s motivation in allowing the death of Jesus to an act of love or justice since the effects of Christ’s sacrifice are far more comprehensive than either theory allows for. Still, Heiser agrees that Christ’s death on the cross prior to caring about sin changes something so that believing people ‘feel bad’ when they sin and ‘feel grateful to him for what he’s done.’
Recapitulation Theory
The Recapitulation Theory of Atonement could be seen as merely symbolic patterning rather than an atonement theory. This theory posits that Christ, as the ‘Second Adam,’ recapitulated or repeated all stages of human life to reverse the effects of Adam’s disobedience in the garden. This process is seen as a reversal of the course on which Adam’s sin set humanity, with Christ becoming a new transformative influence in human life. The theory suggests that Christ’s obedience compensates for Adam’s disobedience, communicating immortality to those united with him by faith and effecting an ethical transformation in their lives.
Where Heiser likely appreciates the recapitulation of the narrative, the problem he would likely have is regarding the suggestion that something changed metaphysically when Adam sinned, specifically regarding the concept of inherited guilt. As Heiser writes,
I haven’t rejected original sin. There was an original sin. That’s plain from the text. What I am rejecting is the idea that Adam’s GUILT was transmitted to all humans (the “federal headship” view), or that all humans were “in Adam” in the garden when he sinned (the “seminal headship” view). In other words (and I can’t imagine how much clearer I can make this), I am rejecting interpretive explanations of the original sin of Adam, not the fact of his original sin. (Back to Romans 5:12 — Replies to Reader Comments, Naked Bible Blog, July 11, 2009)
Fundamentally, Heiser teaches that “The result of the fall is being a mortal human” (The Evolution of Adam: Additional Thoughts, Naked Bible Blog, June 2, 2012). This may seem to contradict the assertion that nothing metaphysical happened at the fall–where Heiser rejects inherited guilt of any kind, he affirms this narrative as teaching why “humans are mortal…unlike the gods” (Ibid.) But Heiser does not insist upon the historicity of the Genesis 3 narrative (i.e., he perhaps does not entirely see Adam’s original sin as a fact, but a detail of the origin myths). He further states, “Immortality is an attribute foreign to humans, so that must be explained in the ancient epics,” and illustrates, “Do we need Job to be a historical person to know that the righteous can indeed suffer and we must trust God for why that happens?” (Ibid.) So Heiser sees “Spiritual deadness…[as] the condition of being estranged from God” (Q&A 25, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, March 24, 2018, Episode 208, 3), which is a natural consequence of Adam’s sin, not a metaphysical issue that must be reversed through Christ’s compensation so that people can turn away from sin. (It should be noted at this point that the Recapitulation Theory of Atonement fails at the same point as Governmental Theory and Moral Influence Theory in that the telos of the theory is moral correction, where Heiser rightly centers atonement on recommunion with God.)
One last thing should be said about the Recapitulation Theory: where Heiser, speculatively, might reject it overall as a theory of atonement, there is still something to explore from a biblical-theological perspective. Emphasizing that “God’s point in inspiring the Gen 3 account was to tell us these things through a story that had no historical reality,” Heiser asserts that there is “still the new (second) Adam. He is the person who reverses the problems we learned we all have through the Adam story” (Comments on the Four Views of the Historical Adam Reviews, Naked Bible Blog, January 18, 2014). Jesus lives out Adam’s narrative as a historical reality but without falling for the Devil’s schemes, as seen in Jesus’s temptation narratives. So, from a narrative perspective, Jesus is still the new Adam, even if there is no historical reality to the former Adam (which is not a distinction all biblical theologians find necessary to make). Thus, Heiser seems to appreciate the recapitulation aspect of the theory, though he denies a metaphysical change took place with his denial of the historicity of Genesis 3.
Christus Victor Atonement
Anyone familiar with Gustaf Aulén’s Christus Victor (Wipf & Stock, 2003) will immediately see connection points with Michael Heiser’s work. Heiser may not explicitly frame his theology solely within this model, but many of Aulén’s key concepts are deeply embedded in biblical theology as exposed through Heiser’s works. It could also be argued that Heiser favored this atonement model. As he states, “You do have comments, especially in the epistles, referencing back to the crucifixion and even to Jesus on the cross as a warrior, a victorious warrior, the divine warrior and the cross event being a victory because it was. It's the linchpin idea for the whole plan of God to work” (Q&A #2, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, April 24, 2015, Episode 46, 11).
The Christus Victor model of Atonement portrays a cosmic conflict between God and cosmic evil. Heiser consistently emphasizes a supernatural battle against the powers of darkness when he writes, “the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ address the three supernatural rebellions” (Demons, Lexham Press, 2020, 262): the Garden rebellion (Genesis 3), the transgression of the sons of God (Genesis 6, cf. 1 Enoch 1-36), and the judgment at Babel (Genesis 10-11, Deuteronomy 32). Christ’s defeat of these rebellious powers and the consequent reversal of the rebellion are central to Heiser’s work.
Further, Heiser discusses Christ’s ascension as the nullification of the authority of the rulers and authorities and the principalities and the powers who illegitimately gained rule over the nations after Babel. Heiser states,
…this language of eschatological judgment is a nod to the notion of the already but not yet notion of eschatology in the New Testament of what the Messiah is doing. The ultimate retribution means the judgment of the nations. It means the restoration of the entire people of God from every tribe of Israel and from every nation held in honor under dominion by the forces of darkness, the fallen sons of God. To get a genuine Jubilee fulfillment it all has to come back. Everything has to be liberated. That means the powers have to be defeated. And you get this language in the New Testament…you get this language about Jesus conquering the powers and being seated at the right hand of God above all the principalities, Satan falling like lightning from heaven. It has all been put in motion and the motion will never cease. It is inexorable. It inches forward on a continuing unstoppable basis. (Leviticus 23-25, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, January 17, 2015, Episode 83, 19)
So Heiser sees the cross, the resurrection, and Christ’s ascension as an already-not-yet victory over rebellious powers, which will be fulfilled in the consummation of the Kingdom. Christ’s death is “not the ultimate reset back to Eden, but it begins it. It’s the inauguration of all of this” (Ibid.) Since Christus Victor is described as Christ’s conquering of sin, death, and the cosmic powers, you can see Heiser’s trajectory from the cosmic powers as the inspiration for sin and death to the consummation when sin and death are done away with.
Christ’s incarnation is also essential to this atonement theory. Heiser posits that God entered the world in Christ to personally engage in and win this cosmic battle. Citing Hebrews 2:14 (Jesus “partook” of “flesh and blood”), Heiser states, “The obvious point here is that human death had to be overcome. Less obvious is the related thought that the Devil also had to be dealt with because he had the power of death over humanity” (Hebrews 2, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, September 16, 2017, Episode 177, 18). So, Jesus must have victory over death and cosmic powers.
Further, it is Christ’s victory that reconciles God and the world. Though he believes every individual must express ‘believing loyalty’ to be saved, Heiser discusses reconciliation in broad, cosmic terms. He cites Colossians 1:20, which speaks of God reconciling all things to himself. He writes:
Most readers presume that this language refers to the forgiveness of sins, but that is not the case. The idea of reconciliation is multifaceted. For example, the work of Christ is connected to the renewal of creation. That has nothing to do with forgiving sins. Creation did not sin—it committed no moral offense against God. Its “reconciliation” (creation is, of course, included in “all things”) means something different than forgiveness of sins. (Q&A 54, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, June 4, 2022, Episode 428, 6)
In the voice of God, Heiser says, “What I want to do with my world is more than give humanity a cure for what ails them (the problem of death). I want everything restored to its original pristine, orderly state. I want my household restored because, ultimately, I’m going to make the whole earth (not just a garden) my household. So this is a lot bigger than you” (Ezekiel 32, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, February 19, 2017, Episode 146, 9). As discussed, Heiser sees Christ’s victory over the powers of darkness as the means by which this cosmic restoration of the household of God occurs.
A final aspect of the Christus Victor model of Atonement is the Holy Spirit. Heiser explains that after Jesus's resurrection and ascension, the Holy Spirit was sent to empower believers to resist depravity (a consequence of Genesis 6) and to reclaim the nations (reversing Babel). According to Heiser,
Why does Paul connect those two things [Christ’s victory over death and depravity] in his head? Because the messiah rose from the dead, ascended, and that nullified their [cosmic powers] authority. How does this work? Well, we know that the resurrection, of course, fixes the death problem. That's the one everybody sees because that's the one that’s preached all the time. How does it address depravity? Because that's the lingering problem from Genesis 6. How does it fix that? I'm of the opinion that this is where the talk of Jesus in his relationship to the Holy Spirit really matters, because Jesus rises from the dead, he ascends...Why does he need to ascend? Yes, he needs to be on the throne. That's part of it. But he needs to ascend so that the Spirit will come. (Live from Denver, Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, November 24, 2018, Episode 248, 10)
In short, the ongoing work of the Spirit demonstrates that Christ’s current reign continues in the life of the Church and in the world as the Gospel is proclaimed and people are brought into the Kingdom of God, displacing the illegitimate rule of the hostile powers with the children of God.
In the end, what is clear through Heiser’s treatment of the atonement is not a desire to systematize or resolve every tension but to remain faithful to the biblical text in all its complexity. For Heiser, the doctrine of atonement is not a puzzle to be pieced together but a mosaic of divine intent, cosmic conflict, and covenantal reconciliation. His kaleidoscope approach does not dismiss the value of clarity; rather, it seeks coherence by honoring the diverse ways Scripture speaks about the cross event. Each theory, though limited on its own, contains parts of a greater whole. To reduce the atonement to a single formula, therefore, is, in Heiser’s estimation, to miss the bigger picture of what God has accomplished through Christ. Instead of choosing a system, we are invited by Dr. Heiser to turn the kaleidoscope again and again, letting the light of Scripture reveal the depth and beauty of Christ’s work.
