7 Cambridge – Love and Truth in Atonement
Cambridge – Love and Truth in Atonement
The focus of Leon’s research rested on his belief that the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible, the canonical Scriptures, were the written word of God. Consequently, he expected the Bible to make sense, and he expected that a careful researcher could uncover that sense.
Leon also believed that the meaning of words was tied to their context. Furthermore, he held to the view that when people are communicating, the majority want the hearer to clearly understand what they are saying. He understood better than most that readers draw their own conclusions from written material, but he kept searching for the intended meaning of the words of Scripture. Rather than opting for rigid literalism or a sea of relativity for meanings, he chose to carry out robust, intelligent research.
Set within this framework was Leon’s profound gratitude for his personal salvation through God’s work on the cross. He recognized that the loving nature of God was most clearly on display in the events of the cross, and he was passionately committed to spreading this truth.
His passion was evident in the research topic chosen for his PhD: ‘Expiation and Propitiation: The Doctrine of Atonement’.1 Cambridge took a month to find a supervisor, by which time Leon had already begun his research. His supervisor was Revd C. Bowles, vice-principal of Ridley Hall. Bowles laid no great claims to scholarship in Leon’s area and Leon briefly considered abandoning Cambridge. Instead, he asked Bowles to help with his German, knowing full well Bowles did not claim proficiency in it; this gave Bowles the opportunity to graciously withdraw. After further negotiations, Dr Robert Newton Flew, a Methodist theologian and principal of Wesley Hall, replaced Bowles. After meeting Flew, Leon dubbed him the ‘seraph’ after Isaiah 6 and ‘those that flew’.
Flew was more liberal than Leon but a kindred academic spirit. Leon respected Flew and enjoyed their discussions and debates. Furthermore, while Flew did not agree with Leon’s aggressive evangelicalism he did not inhibit it.2 Leon, for his part, treated genuine churchmen of whatever persuasion with honour, both publicly and privately. This attitude explains why Leon was so effective at working alongside scholars of differing theological beliefs.
With regards to his research, Leon took a strategy few others adopt. Most students and ministers record their own conclusions after consulting random commentaries and theologically relevant books. Leon, in contrast, would carry out his research and form his own conclusions. Only then would he read other sources and, if necessary, correct mistakes in his work. He showed a remarkable courage to trust his research before heading for the experts. In Leon’s words, ‘My method has always been to write straight away out of my head … this approach puts my stamp on it, and when I am finished it’s my work.’3
Work Begins
Although a vast array of studies and commentaries referred to the cross of Christ, sometimes extensively, Leon believed that ‘people who wrote before hadn’t gone into any detail as to a lot of the terms they used’.4 While we can appreciate various aspects of the atonement, the more precisely each aspect is described, the clearer our benefit will be. Leon therefore took great pains to understand the meaning of key terms surrounding the atonement. In doing so, he took the study of the cross to new depths. Later, he explained his process of investigation using the term ‘ransom’ as the example:
What [for example] was a ransom in the first century AD? How does that apply to what Jesus did? There’s a chapter in that! Then I was able to move on to another way of looking at it, the making of a ‘new covenant’, and so on. It’s not so much that I felt that the lads who’d been in before me had loused it up or anything. It was simply that it seemed to me that there were a number of important terms used to interpret what Christ had done which people kept on quoting but which nobody took the trouble to examine closely.5
Ransom and Redemption
Leon began his research at Cambridge in January 1950 by focusing on the Greek word for ransom, lutron, a foundational term in his studies. He had the resources of the university’s library at hand, which he described as a ‘glorious freedom … of having every reference book on tap’.6
His first priority was to learn German, necessary for his higher studies. He found his progress was good, if not as fast as he had hoped. In further early research he uncovered what he believed might be an omission in the voluminous references of Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, and also in Hatch and Redpath’s Septuagint Concordance. Neither made mention of the Hebrew root as being the equivalent of lutron (ransom) in Zephaniah 3:15. He could not be sure if he was correct in his discovery: ‘I alternate between elation and feeling that I must be wrong somewhere.’7 Nevertheless, he still ordered a Kittel set for £25, more than Mildred’s weekly wage.
The word ‘ransom’, now part of the meaning of the word ‘redemption’, remains in modern use. But what does the word mean when applied to the cross, in the context of redemption? Leon tackled this very question.8
Although there are a bewildering number of meanings for a word like redemption in the modern world, it was not used widely in antiquity or in the Bible in particular. When it was used in the Greek language, it had a more precise meaning than today. Leon argued that the early Christians did not use this term because it already had a religious meaning. Rather, they used it because the non-religious world already understood the importance of redemption in other spheres of their life.
To capture the original meaning of redemption, one has to begin with the basic word of the word group, ‘ransom’. Originally the word meant ‘loosing’, ‘releasing’ or ‘freeing’ – for example, when releasing prisoners of war in exchange for a payment. By tracing the development of this word group, Leon found the meaning of ‘ransom’ changed to the ‘payment for loosing’ – that is, a ransom price. In his words, ‘It is important to realize that it is this idea of payment as the basis of release which is the reason for the existence of the whole word group. Other words were available to denote simple release.’9 Leon therefore maintained that the word ‘ransom’ meant release by payment, and this was its intended meaning in the original language. So it is used to refer to prisoners of war released by payment, or to slaves buying their freedom by saving up small amounts to eventually secure their release.
Leon then returned to explore the word ‘redemption’ in more detail, the compound word found in non-biblical literature with its roots in the word ‘ransom’. Outside the New Testament, he found only ten uses of the word, and ‘in every passage, without exception, there is a payment of a ransom price to secure the desired release’.
Moving his focus to Old Testament contexts for using ‘redemption’ or its derivatives – he considered the verb lutrow or its derivatives g’l, pdh and then the related noun kopher – again the idea surfaced of a ransom price paid to gain release from a death sentence (Exod. 30:12). According to Leon, ‘Wherever the verb is used with a human subject, the deliverance is always by payment of ransom.’ The only time when a ransom price was not required in the Old Testament was when the term was used with God as the subject: God is not required to pay us a ransom price. Leon discussed many examples of God redeeming or delivering his people without the need for a ransom price. Nevertheless, even when God is the subject, his effort is equivalent to a ransom price, which is perhaps why the term is used. Therefore, ransom and its derived words are properly applied to redemption by payment of price.
When Leon looked at the rabbinic writings, he concluded the terms were generally used in much the same way. So if the Greek, Old Testament and rabbinic writings used ‘ransom’ and the compound ‘redemption’ similarly, what did the New Testament do?
Leon found the word ‘ransom’ in only one saying in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28. Leon defended Matthew 20:28 as authentic despite some scholars suggesting it was not originally from Jesus’ mouth. After looking at the word meanings and usage, he concluded that whichever way a scholar jumped, the intended meaning of the ransom reference was that Jesus gave his life as a payment price instead of us, or in exchange for us having to do so.
He then moved on to the related words ‘redeem’ and ‘redemption’ (for example, lutrow and lutrosis) as they appeared in the New Testament. Leon understood the significance of using these and related words in important passages like Titus 2:14, where Christ ‘gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity’ (KJV), as they referred to a ransom and pointed in the direction of substitution. He argued that it was not just that Jesus proved his obedience to God and that this obedience benefits sinners, but that the life of Jesus was given up to ransom them. With regards to the most typical word for redemption used in the New Testament, apolutrosis, Leon located ten occurrences in the New Testament with the three clearest passages being Romans 3:24, Ephesians 1:7 and Hebrews 9:15. He noted that a redemption price was mentioned in each case. With regards to the other occurrences of ‘redemption’, some of which referred to a future redemption, he observed a similar basic meaning: redemption, even without a price specifically mentioned, directly looks back to a price that was paid.
Thus, the early Christians understood the atonement as a process of ransoming. They believed they were under a sentence of spiritual death, but Christ had freed them by ransoming them for a price. The New Testament idea of ‘ransom’ therefore focuses on one aspect of the atonement: the payment of a price, and the price is the death of Christ. Instead of our death, there is his: a substitution.
By clarifying the meaning of redemption as understood by the Christian writers, Leon was able to critique the increasingly muddled view of redemption that had arisen over time.
To use a sports analogy, when the Australian swimming champion, Kieren Perkins, competed in the Atlanta Olympics 1,500 metres swimming event, he was out of form and his reputation in the pool was sinking. He limped into the final in eighth place. The gun sounded and Perkins led through the 1,000-metre mark. Surely he would blow up? But delighted viewers stood on chairs as Perkins claimed his second Olympic gold medal. He pumped his arms triumphantly. He had redeemed his reputation in his own strength. Although many apply this self-earned redemption to religion, Leon reminded us that the cross shows that only God’s love can redeem us.
In his conclusion, Leon identified three aspects of the process of atonement that emerged from his study of redemption terminology:
1. The state of sin: our situation is likened to slavery, a captivity where we cannot redeem ourselves.
2. The price that is paid: the terminology used means that Christ has paid the adequate price of our redemption; he took what we should have paid and paid it.
3. The resultant state of the believer: we who are redeemed are brought into a state of real freedom to do the will of God.
Progress
By March 1950, Leon was close to completing his first chapter on redemption. Through his rigorous efforts, he was refining the meanings of words according to the most precise scholarly critique he could bring. If the evangelicals had reservations about scholarship in theology, here was Leon using scholarship to win the day. Through his research, Leon was exposing the uncomfortable truth that redemption was costly for God. We cannot offer a loving, holy God what is required to restore a broken relationship with him. Leon explained what the New Testament taught: in his great love, Christ died for us, offering us new life if we accept his act of redemption.
Leon’s research was challenging some of the views of the well-known Professor C.H. Dodd, the leading English proponent of atonement views at that time. During one of their meetings about Leon’s progress, Flew told Leon that he agreed with Dodd but he could see some validity in Leon’s substitutionary idea of the atonement. While Flew had earlier suggested Leon restrict the scope of his investigation, arguing that he could not hope to cover as much as he proposed, he subsequently commended Leon for the manner in which he tackled the first chapter.
In addition to his research, Leon attended weekly lectures to take advantage of the only theological study he would do under the direction of recognized teachers. There were fine minds in the divinity faculty, including the New Testament scholar Charlie F.D. Moule, and Michael Ramsey, who later became the Archbishop of Canterbury. He took lectures from both of them and they reacted with interest to his groundbreaking research. He soaked up every possible opportunity to learn and talked to people high and low. Each day there was some researching and writing, some in the Tyndale library and some at the university. He loved being able to put up an argument to the various divinity lecturers and letting them try to knock it down: ‘It was tremendous.’10 Over the years he expressed his gratitude for this valuable opportunity.
Propitiation
On his thirty-sixth birthday, Leon began research on the Greek verb hilaskomai, the word for ‘propitiation’, and related words in the word group. Although propitiation was not the focal point for Leon’s interest throughout his ministry, he believed it was critical to understanding God’s character and actions, in the light of God as a God of love. What concerned Leon was the lack of clarity and scholarly precision surrounding this term as applied to God and us, which he felt needed to be addressed.
It is worth emphasizing that Leon passionately taught God’s love, a love coming to us when we did not deserve it, and bringing God’s way of forgiveness and restoration for a new way of living. He lived out this new life in his personal dealings with people. Early sermons and talks going back to the 1940s showed him teaching that the basic New Testament view of what God is doing through Christ on the cross proceeds from the fact that God is love and his love acts for the benefit of the human race. He regularly spoke on God’s love11 in talks and sermons throughout the years, including those on the atonement.12
He also correctly sensed a hesitation to teach on wrath or punishment because it seemed to contradict the prevailing view that emphasized God’s love and an individual’s wellbeing. Leon felt that the biblical evidence did not support this prevailing view of God, which glossed over humanity’s predicament and God’s response to the situation. He not only had a strong view of the love of God in these matters, but also understood the impact of human sin as placing people in a desperate spiritual situation, a situation which he often pointed out was downplayed.
By early November of his first year in Cambridge, he had come to the realization that his understanding of wrath and propitiation was different from that of current scholars in this area and that the evidence supported his view. Leon found himself defending the unpopular and counter-cultural view that God put Christ forward as a ‘propitiation’ by his death on the cross.13
Others shared aspects of Leon’s viewpoint but differed at critical points. It was clear from Ramsey’s lectures that he saw the atonement as definitely penal14 in nature, and some of the language he chose came close to the idea of substitution.15 In one lecture, however, Ramsey argued that the idea of propitiation was absent in Romans 3. The theological significance of the book of Romans meant that writings and discussions on meanings were prolific and conclusions were influential in forming faith and practice for Christians.
And because Romans 3 contains the epicentre of Christian truth on God’s response to human need, it has been deeply considered by scholars. Leon worked out an argument based on his analysis of Romans 1 – 3 where he showed the inevitability of the reference to propitiation in Romans 3:25ff. His initial research had already revealed that the word ‘propitiation’ was connected to wrath in half of the Old Testament references. Leon approached Ramsey to question him on this issue. Privately he later explained to Ramsey that Dodd was wrong in eliminating propitiation from the New Testament. Leon recalled: ‘It was a most interesting session and the old boy was most interested. I think he’s more than half convinced but he wants me to submit to him the thing written out, which I will now do. Or at least I will after I’ve had my little session with Flew on Saturday.’16
Leon drew up a long screed to explain his view, which Ramsey encouraged him to send to the Expository Times. The article on propitiation, based on the frequently found biblical present infinite verb ílaskesthai, ‘The Use of ílaskesthai etc. in Biblical Greek’, appeared in the Expository Times in May 1951.17 Leon’s literary career had begun18 and Leon recalled feeling that his ‘cup of joy was filled to the brim’.19 Soon after another controversial article followed on ‘The Wrath of God’.
Leon learned from Flew that Ramsey stated to the degree committee that he was impressed by Leon’s case, although Moule at that stage was not impressed. Flew realized the importance of Leon’s work and encouraged Leon to say that he was trying to modify Dodd’s work, not abolish it.
Romans 3
The related noun ilasterion, Romans 3:25 (‘Christ Jesus [NB: v. 24]: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood …’, RV) is translated in various ways, but Leon argued that the correct meaning was ‘propitiation’. He maintained that the New Testament concept of propitiation was key to interpreting the death of Christ. Leon was of the view that any attempt to empty the word of the concept of turning away the wrath of God misunderstood God, the cross and the sinful nature of humanity.
Leon’s view was based on his exhaustive analysis of the use of the term in the non-biblical Greek. In these ancient sources, did the term mean simply ‘making amends for a wrongdoing’ or ‘making amends in turning away the righteous anger of God’? His research led him to the conclusion that when a first-century Greek heard a word from this group, he would think of appeasing a person.
He also investigated how the term was used in the Old Testament and what it meant for our understanding of God. C.H. Dodd20 and other scholars had already shown that the way the term was used did not indicate that God was a being who needed to be propitiated like some unpredictable and unreliable pagan deity. It was wrong to think of God as subject to uncontrolled outbursts of passion.
While Leon agreed with this aspect of Dodd’s scholarship, he felt that Dodd and others went too far in emptying the term of the need to deal with God’s appropriate anger over human sin which thereby also misunderstood God’s nature. Leon objected strongly to the view that the ‘wrath of God’ was an ‘archaic’ phrase, arguing that it was often misunderstood as irrational outbursts like heathen gods were reputed to have.
Proving his position from the texts and context of the Old Testament, he maintained that the God of the Old Testament was merciful but expressed an appropriate anger directed towards wrongdoing. Mercy and righteous anger were both aspects of the divine nature. Because God is merciful, he provided a way to soothe his appropriate anger and avoid the consequences of sin. Thus, propitiation involved the turning away of God’s righteous anger by the payment of a price. Leon further argued that God’s wrath is actually ‘his strange work’ (Isa. 28:21, RV). The action of God described in Isaiah showed God judging his own nation, which was alien to expectations but had become necessary because of persistent disobedience.
In his own conclusions on the Old Testament meaning of propitiation, Leon summarized:
the wrath of God pervades the entire corpus of the Old Testament. The concept may need to be understood carefully … if we ignore it … we cannot possibly enter into a proper appreciation of the Hebrew view of God or mankind. Above everything else the wrath of God stresses the seriousness of sin … [and that] … the God of the Old Testament is One who loves righteousness.21
He then reflected:
Modern people find a difficulty with this aspect of the Old Testament teaching, in part at least because they have so well learned that God is love. But it is important to notice that this was a truth known and valued by people of Old Testament times. They apparently did not find it insuperably difficult to combine the ideas that God loved them and that he hated all evil and would punish it severely.22
Leon demonstrated that divine wrath was just as real for people of the New Testament as for people in the Old Testament. He noted that of the two words used in Scripture to denote divine anger, the one used in the New Testament portrayed a more controlled emotion than the one used to describe passionate anger. Furthermore, the New Testament writers including Paul connected the idea of anger or wrath with the personal activity of God.
He then argued strongly that the context of the very important Romans 1 – 3 chapters demanded such an interpretation – that is, these chapters’ description of human sin and its effect on us shows why ilasterion or propitiation needs to be understood as the turning away of God’s righteous anger against us. According to Leon, this section of Romans made it clear that whereas once sinners – that is, all humanity – were responsible to suffer the wrath of God, Christ suffered for them so that they could go free. He therefore asserted, ‘But to say this is to say substitution.’23 In doing so, he indicated that the way God helped us was to send Christ to die in our place, to deal with God’s wrath and take the punishment for our sins.
Among scholars, there was also discussion about whether propitiation in Romans 3:25 could be understood as God providing a place, like a mercy seat, for the sprinkling of blood, or whether the term actually refers to a means by which God’s rightful anger at our sins is turned away. This matter continues to be debated. For example, Graham Cole, in his excellent God the Peacemaker, accepts Leon’s major evidence about God’s wrath and propitiation but treats the mercy seat references differently to Leon by admitting an expiatory aspect, or impersonal removal of sin, to the Romans 3 material.24
After much analysis of the word ‘propitiation’ in Romans 3, Leon carefully concluded:
While this examination of the evidence shows that it is difficult to give a final proof either way, yet it is contended that the balance of probability is strongly in the direction of seeing in propitiation (‘ilasterion’) in Romans 3 a general reference to the removal of the wrath of God rather than a specific reference either to the mercy seat or to the Day of Atonement ceremonies.25
It was around this matter that Leon’s Cambridge colleagues wrestled. For example, Moule saw the idea of wrath as applying only to God’s attitude whereas Leon’s argument stressed that it applied to the sinner and the sin.
Leon continued his line of research by examining the other New Testament passages – Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10 – which supported his view that God’s settled wrath has to be dealt with and Christ is the ‘propitiation for our sins’.
Finishing Up
The outcome of Leon’s two years of research at Cambridge was his conclusion:
That God is love, a clear basic truth. Without it Christianity becomes meaningless. Nevertheless the fact must be faced that the Bible in both Old and New Testaments speaks often of God’s wrath … It may be that wrath is not a perfect word to describe such an attitude, but no better has been suggested, and we must refuse to accept alternatives which do not give expression to the truth in question.26
God can greatly love people but he is also rightfully angry at human sin. He does not make us do what we cannot do in this situation – that is, try and atone for our sins and deal with his rightful anger. Rather, he provides the atonement for us in Jesus Christ. Leon’s presentation of this truth would very quickly bring him to the attention of the scholars around the world.
Don McLellan, who studied a revised version of The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, Leon’s published thesis summary, as part of his doctoral research (which also analysed other terms Leon studied such as ‘covenant’, ‘the blood’, ‘reconciliation’ and ‘justification’) made the following observation regarding Leon’s research into word meanings:
My review of Morris’s word studies shows that he has not at any point failed semantically or committed any of the errors outlined. Insofar as word studies are useful tools (and I have already suggested that there are limitations) there is little to criticize here. If anyone disagrees with Morris’s atonement theology, it is unlikely to be because he has committed a string of faux pas semantically.27
The importance of Leon’s early work on the atonement is more than a reiteration in greater depth of good theology. Through his contribution to the biblical understanding of the cross as taught and preached by the apostles, he showed that an evangelical could be a rigorous scholar, faithful to the Bible and a fruitful Christian. In his second year at Cambridge, Leon was invited to speak at the Christian Union despite their concerns about scholarly pursuits in theology. According to Taylor:
I well remember toward the end of Leon’s time in Cambridge that the Union had a Bible study for about two hundred people. One Saturday the speaker fell through and they were so desperate they turned to Leon and asked him if he would do it. I remember him giving the most classically superb Bible study ratcheted up several notches. Well we were purring at Tyndale House – at last Leon has been recognized. The Union loved it.28
For his part, Leon noted that a girl who wandered in got converted.29
By the end of April 1951, after sixteen months, Leon had finished the first draft of his thesis. By 16 August he had completed its revision and made arrangements for it to be typed professionally. He then laboriously inserted the Greek and Hebrew words. The eight-hundred-page thesis30 was lodged on 1 October and Leon then prepared for his orals:
I had my oral today when I faced Dr M. Ramsey and Sydney Cave31 … I was kept waiting for a few minutes. Evidently they weren’t able to concoct a plan of campaign for they proceeded one at a time. Ramsey read me back a series of statements in my thesis and asked whether I thought this? … how would I defend it? … didn’t I think? … and so on. I remember he thought my refusal to ask to whom the ransom was paid in Mark 10:45 indicated metaphor and thus missed my point … when it came to Sydney Cave he had a list of things in the thesis he objected to and he simply went through his list pointing out where I was wrong. All I had to do was sit and listen no questions being asked. As an examination it was delightful. I was tickled when he pointed out that there are many things which could be quoted by Intervarsity Fellowship though of course he didn’t impute to me IVF views. Finally the gentlemen asked whether there was anything I would like to say which gave me an opening … We finished up with a mutual thanksgiving.32
Taylor recalls Leon working:
assiduously at his thesis, permanently aware that anything remotely approaching a doctrine of substitutionary atonement would receive short shrift in the Cambridge Divinity Faculty. When eventually his work was completed and he faced the examiners for his viva, he came home with that wry smile still on his face as he reported how they had commented that even though they were unconvinced as to the truth of the doctrine, Leon did appear to have shown that it was held by the Apostle Paul.33
On 5 December Leon recorded:
Just about 6.30 pm came the phone call we were looking for and the bloke in the Board of Research Studies handed me the glad tidings that my thesis has been approved for the degree of PhD. So that is that. Spent the evening writing letters … Had wanted an early night but Peter Schneider wanted to celebrate at half past nineses, so that was that. He produced the remnant of the Christmas cake from the Garden tea on Monday which was very kindly of him.34
Around this time a new version of the Bible, the Revised Standard Version, came out and there was debate about the use of ‘expiation’, the impersonal removal of sin, or ‘propitiation’, dealing with God’s rightful anger at our sin.35 The RSV used ‘expiation’ to translate ilasterion in Romans 3, which did not account for the rightful anger or wrath of God. This event may have accelerated the exposure of Leon’s already published articles to other scholars before his research was distilled into The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross.
In 1951, Leon became the first Australian scholar to be elected to the membership of the International Society for New Testament Studies.36 His degree was awarded on Australia Day, 26 January 1952.
At this stage Leon was not sure whether Melbourne or another place might be the end result of his study. He had applied for a job in Africa but also wondered whether he would be asked to consider the position of principal of Ridley as Baker was about to retire. Within a period of four days he heard that his application for the African job had been unsuccessful and he had no chance of getting the top Ridley job: ‘I have the pleasant feeling that the uncertainty is ended or it is clear now I return to Ridley but there is at the same time an unpleasant feeling that I will be called to work under somebody else.’37
After leaving Cambridge, Leon and Mildred made their way to Israel by the cheapest transport they could find and squeezed in six weeks away. They then travelled to Glasgow for the ship bound for Australia. Leon appeared in the 1952 Ridley College photo with the creases in his PhD robes in the right places. Those around him witnessed the emergence of a scholar of world standing.