A SOTERIOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVE:

THE REPRESENTATIONAL MODEL

Martin Weber

“Soteriology” conveys an apparent oxymoron. How is salvation logical in asserting

that the Logos though divine became incarnate, though killed was resurrected—and
somehow in the process secured eternal life for the entire human race? To demystify the
gospel for skeptical society, pioneer apostles and later apologists employed creative
teaching metaphors.1 Succeeding theologians through the centuries have homogenized their
favorite metaphors into soteriological models.2
Long before Seventh-day Adventism existed, two major models competed for
Christian faith: the Satisfaction and the Subjective paradigms. Both have evolved
somewhat through the past millennium, but basically Satisfaction soteriology presents
Christ’s death as paying a price that appeases divine wrath and restores God’s honor, while
the Subjective model regards Jesus primarily as God’s demonstration to influence saving
trust and love. Despite considerable strengths, both models also suffer weaknesses—
particularly regarding the relational privileges and imperatives of soteriology. My thesis
here is that a Representational alternative3 maximizes the assets of the other models while
minimizing their liabilities and also contextualizes more fittingly into today’s society;
moreover, this Representational model is superbly supportive of Adventist fundamental
beliefs.
To determine the proper content of soteriological models, I begin by sampling
Scripture’s numerous salvation metaphors. With these I will critique the Satisfaction and
Subjective models and then introduce a Representational option. Space limitations
necessitate a superficial survey of biblical metaphors to enable a brisk assessment of the
1
I use “metaphor” in the broad sense of nonliteral theological language. Fritz Guy asserts that everything
said about God, directly or indirectly, is to some degree metaphorical in the sense of being nonliteral. Thinking
Theologically: Adventist Christianity and the Interpretation of Faith (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University
Press, 1999), 185. This carries over into God’s dealings with humanity in soteriology in different times and settings.
Among salvific metaphors, some are logically prior to others. Guy notes that slavery precedes ransom, sickness
predates healing, defilement comes before cleansing and rebellion before justification (129). Such interaction among
metaphors is complex: “While the various metaphors are properly understood as complementary, they are not
simply cumulative, but dialectical: in some respects they are mutually reinforcing, but in other respects they are
mutually limiting” (129).
2
Such models, though useful, are necessarily flawed. Their component metaphors, being earthly and
visible vehicles, can transport sinners only partway to the celestial and invisible Savior. Even when biblically
accurate and culturally contextualized, metaphors and their models suffer mechanical breakdowns and also
become rusty as time rolls on. This presents a challenge for evangelism. Adventism has a particular dilemma
because its soteriology must come in a model supportive of its unique message and mission.
3
My version of Representational soteriology owes much to five sources, whose works are cited in
my reference bibliography: Douglas John Hall, Gustaf Aulen, Stanley J. Grenz, John W. Webster, and
Richard Rice, plus others hereafter quoted. Hall’s view of representation, which I judge anemic regarding the
divinity of Christ, is balanced by Aulen’s Christus Victor concept, which among other flaws fails to
sufficiently regard Christ’s humanity. Webster, Rice and Grenz have through their lectures helped me see the
importance (respectively) of proactive grace, community, and ecclesiology, which I regard as essential to
Representational soteriology.
 2

soteriological models.

I. Soteriological Metaphors
A. Message of the metaphors
God’s confrontation with our newly fallen parents introduced various interplaying
metaphors (e.g., seed vs. serpent, covering skins vs. fig leaves).4 These illustrate the death
that God declared would immediately result if humanity sinned. And what type of death
happened that selfsame day? Not physical but relational demise, evidenced in humanity
hiding from God (loss of vertical community) and arguing with one another (loss of
horizontal community). This dual alienation is the defacing of imago Dei—likeness to the
God who is love and thus necessarily relational, living in triune community. So here is the
core problem of sin that soteriology in its metaphors and subsequent models must resolve:
fatal alienation requiring revitalizing reconciliation.
God Himself suffered from sin’s alienation. He describes Himself as jealous (Exo.
34:14), a relational term for the bitterness of a deprived lover.5 Indeed, adultery is a frequent
metaphor for apostasy in both testaments (Hosea 2:1-2; James 4:4). Divine jealousy over the lost
relationship with humanity rouses orge expressed in condemnation and judgment upon the cause
of alienation: sin and the rebellious human race that propagates it—like physicians who
instinctively react in anger against anthrax and its producers, or like a caring father who wants to
destroy deadly rattlesnakes in the back yard to preserve his children’s lives. God’s dilemma is
that His beloved children have themselves morphed from imago Dei into the likeness and
behavior of serpents: "The poison of asps is under their lips, whose mouth is full of cursing and
bitterness” (Rom. 3:13-14). Like many abused children who themselves become vicious abusers,
all of us are both victims and aggressors. Thus our lives cry out both for pity and for judgment.
“Mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:13), but this does not mean God has given up
on fairness or justice.6 Jesus, as Son of Man, received the just wrath of a jealous Father against
alienating sinners so that “we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Rom. 5:9). Thus He
reconciled Deity to sinful humanity and rescued us from condemnation.7 In His counterpart role

4
Even when viewed in a composite picture, these metaphors and the many others in Scripture but dimly
represent salvation in Jesus. In fact, Christ’s own metaphors suffer limitations, being confined to imperfect human
language and imagery. For example, He portrays Himself as both shepherd and door through which the shepherd
calls the sheep (John 10:9-11). But such a logical inconsistency only doubles the value of symbolism by illustrating
the manifold nature of Messiah’s salvation.
Each of Christ’s metaphors is exquisitely crafted and contextualized: To a Gentile woman thirsty for more
than water in the noontime heat He offers salvation’s living water (see John 2). The next chapter portrays Him with
a patron of the Pentateuch—an audience as different from the Samaritan woman as night is from noon. But Christ’s
soteriological metaphor rises to the occasion, citing Moses’ serpent on the pole as a striking symbol of the cross.
5
Jealousy also is metaphorical—an anthropomorphism, actually, since genuine divine jealousy
involves a holy love that destroys only to protect, whereas human “righteous indignation” is hateful and
vengeful. Divine orge mingles with grief (Mark 3:5). God describes Himself as jealous to persuade us in
language we understand that He is not apathetic but profoundly passionate about those who bear imago Dei.
6
Fairness is not cast out through the gospel but given new life. True, nobody deserves anything, yet
salvation depends upon the reception—and then fair-minded sharing—of God’s undeserved grace and its gifts.
7
Condemnation of the fallen human race since Adam is deserved: although we do sin inevitably we
also sin gleefully (Grenz)—simultaneously the victims and propagators of sin.
 3

as Son of God, He revealed the truth about His Fathers’ loving character and purpose to reclaim
His alienated children, thus reconciling humanity to Deity. To accomplish this dual
reconciliation, soteriology must be not just Christocentric but cruciform—since at the cross God
expressed His holy jealousy against the alienating damage of sin and sinners, and also through
the cross prodigals see God’s sacrificial love and are drawn home to His heart (2 Cor. 5:14-20).8
This reciprocating reconciliation at Calvary through Christ’s divinity and humanity is the core of
soteriology—but not the extent of it.
B. Scope of the metaphors
As noted, sin causes alienation among people, thus soteriology models must include
human interrelations. Here again we gain insight from salvific metaphors.9 The Old
Testament sanctuary and its numerous symbols, traditionally associated with sin
purification, were fundamentally relational: “Let them build Me a sanctuary, that I may
dwell among them” (Exo.25:9). Through the worshipers’ common participation in divine
relationship; annual sacrificial festivals became grand communal events of worship,
repentance, or celebration. Mosaic metaphors extended to the larger soteriological cycle
(e.g., jubilee and agrarian sabbaticals), which mandated wide-ranging socio-economic
justice and stewardship of the land. Accordingly, prophetic calls for repentance far
transcended personal guilt resolution by denouncing communal injustice and social
oppression.10 Salvation did not accomplish its purpose until shalom had transformed the
entire community, asserts C. Norman Kraus.11
8
Our task is to discover new metaphors that communicate Calvary to twenty-first century culture. There is
no shortage of societal maladies, all of which are potential harmatological teaching tools that construct a foundation
for salvation metaphors and ultimately models. Consider AIDS. Everyone is born with spiritual Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome—a disease at least as needful as ancient leprosy for healing from the Great Physician.
Computer viruses beg for soteriological solutions, as do anthrax and other tools of terrorism.
9
The compelling power of a soteriological metaphor is seen in the history of African Americans.
Exodus imagery with its redemption from bondage motif was so significant to slaves that their tormentors’
religion became more appealing than native beliefs. Slavery is less an issue now, which has diminished the
power of the Exodus metaphor and perhaps contributed to the decline of Christianity in favor of Islam among
many younger Blacks. And thinking about Islam—evangelizing Muslims effectively will depend largely upon
finding metaphors that might unlock their hearts and minds for Christian soteriology. The Qur’an itself
replicates many Old Testament narratives and metaphors that can illustrate the need of salvation in Christ.
A contemporary yet Scriptural metaphor with potential appeal to some Muslims and others who are
sports fans is Christ as “captain of [our] salvation” (Heb. 2:10) who defeated the foe by scoring the winning
goal as the team representative. His accomplishment is shared by all alike. Thus soccer and other team sports
contrast dramatically with individualistic games such as professional golf, where players politely work their
way around the course in a foursome of pseudo-community—tracking personal scores in competition with
“partners.”
10
Righteousness in the Old Testament is by definition both relational and ministry-oriented. To
Bruce K. Waltke, righteousness means “behavior that serves the community according to God’s norms.” In
Genesis: a Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 242.
11
“According to the prophets, peace reigned in Israel when there was well-being, health, justice,
equity, prosperity, and good will. Then the smile of God’s favor was on the land.” C. Norman Kraus, The
Community of the Spirit (Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1993), 134. This relational and societal scope of shalom
must interpret the New Testament eirene rather than the individualized view of peace that became prevalent
in Greco-Roman culture. Kraus concludes: “Peace is not simply relief from guilt feelings, serenity, or
individual peace of mind” (135).
 4

New Testament metaphors also extend soteriology beyond an individual’s guilt

relief. Christ’s salvation symbols creatively and compellingly foster relationality. In the
epistles, too, koinonia displaces an idios mentality. Charles Scriven persuasively suggests
that community, not personal guilt, is the overarching Pauline concern.12 Even Galatians is
profoundly relational. Although superficially a stronghold of forensic justification through
confronting circumcision legalism, relationship reigns throughout the epistle, from its
initial dinner table narrative to its underlying soteriological metaphor: the fidei commissum
covenant of Roman testamental law, in which disenfranchised aliens are adopted by grace
into familial inheritance.13
The apostle James echoes all Scripture by viewing faith and faithfulness
relationally: “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans
and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).
Pure religion also involves keeping the earth unspotted from us, as good and faithful
stewards of God’s creation.14 All this is envisioned by the communal soteriological
mandates of koinonia and shalom.
Having assessed salvific metaphors, we now evaluate the salvation models
constructed from them.

II. Soteriological models

A. Satisfaction model
This model builds primarily upon expiatory, legal and financial metaphors. Christ is
the savior-substitute whose merits of shed blood satisfied divine wrath by paying the price
of human salvation, thus honoring the demands of God’s law. But Satisfaction proponents
seem to forget that metaphors by nature are not literal. Jesus was purchased by the Jewish
leaders (through Judas), not by His Father. God paid no literal price to Himself or to the
devil or to His own impersonal justice.15 The notion of spreadsheet merits does not address
the reality of jealous grief and wrath suffered by a robbed lover. And a God who cares
about reconciliation would not be motivated by royal self-honor, as in Anslem’s feudal
society.
Also problematic is the moral mandate of Satisfaction soteriology. The Catholic
version mingles merits of believers with Christ’s performance so that any lack of infused

12
Charles Scriven, AGod=s Justice Yes; Penal Substitution, No,@ Spectrum, October 1993, 32-33.
13
For the fidei commissum concept as a soteriological metaphor, I am entirely indebted to Greer M. Taylor,
"The Function of Pistis Christos in Galatians," Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. LXXXV, part I, 58ff.
14
That God dislikes waste of physical resources is evident from Christ’s admonition: “Gather up the
fragments that remain, that nothing be lost” (John 6:12). Such concern logically includes the waste of fossil
fuels and the pollution of the creation He entrusted to us before sin’s despoilment. Even more than preserving
inanimate creation is relieving socio-economic suffering—a constant Old Testament theme carried over into
the New, vividly so in the messianic manifesto of Luke 4 that Christ claimed. He proceeded in His ministry to
liberate human suffering on every level as He proclaimed the kingdom of God.
15
The organic wrath of a loving God is completely different from the Satisfaction model’s quantified
wrath. Justice and fairness endure as intrinsic elements of Yahweh’s holy character, but since no sinner can deserve
divine reconciliation, God restores us to Himself freely in Christ as a gift of grace. Our judgment test concerns what
we do with saving grace.
 5

righteousness not supplemented by the superfluous merits of saints must be satisfied in

purgatory. The Reformers revolted against such legalism by teaching that Jesus our
substitute paid sin’s ransom and fulfilled the law in our stead; thus saving righteousness is
alien and forensic. What then of the believer’s own subjective obedience? Are we saved to
live as we please? Of course not, insist Protestant Satisfaction proponents—yet they can
provide no inherent warrant for human obedience since “sanctification”16 is separated from
salvation itself and thus by definition optional to soteriology—at least logically. This leaves
a “yes, but” inconsistency regarding imperatives: “Yes, we are saved by grace, but …”
Obedience here is simply not an integral element of soteriology.17
The ultimate shortcoming of Satisfaction soteriology in both Protestant and Catholic
versions is its allowance of individualism.18 This model offers nothing to debunk the delusion
that one can become a believer without accepting the privileges and responsibilities of
incorporation into Christ’s body. The Bible is relentlessly communal in requiring that we freely
give what we have freely received (Mat. 10:8)—at the risk of salvation itself. According to Jesus,
forgiveness kept in isolation is forfeited (Mat. 6:15; 18:33-35), mercy must be passed along
(Mat. 5:7), and grace remains only with those willing to become stewards of its gifts—including
socio-economic blessings, which are explicitly linked to one’s sentence in the final judgment
(Mat.25:33-46). This communal stewardship required of all disciples is not legalism, since they
have nothing of themselves they can share—only God’s undeserved favor.
B. Subjective model
Subjective soteriology employs healing and relational metaphors and narratives,
such as the prodigal son parable. This is both biblically valid and culturally relevant,19 so
the Subjective model offers much. Yet serious shortcomings remain. For one thing,
relationality here tends to be more vertical than horizontal. Subjective adherents are freed
from concerns about personal merit to become friends of God. From an individual’s
perspective this is great, but in the larger view, so what? How does the concept of personal
friendship with God translate into communal praxis? With this unanswered, how can the
Subjective model speak to postmodernism? Where is the mandate for koinonia and
shalom?20
16
Sanctification is commonly defined as “setting apart for holy use.” This definition is circular,
since “to make holy” and “sanctify” are equivalent in both Testaments. Sanctification is essentially the act of
setting apart for God and His purposes—not primarily purification of character, which is derivative and
secondary.
17
The substitutionary approach inherent in Satisfaction theology leaves an ethical vacuum, suggests Hall.
He recommends an alternate soteriology in which the Spirit “incorporates” us into the representative life and work
of Jesus, giving us “a distinctive ethical direction and calling. With and in the Christ, we are to live out of a
redeemed creaturehood, a new humanity, that lives not for itself but for others—lives, that is to say,
representatively.” In Hall, Professing, 525. More on this shortly.
18
For Catholics, it would be the “holy loner” treasuring up merits so as to avoid Purgatory. For
Protestants, it would be privatized forgiveness. Community is optional—or at least not organically involved.
19
Metaphors are meaningless if they fail to connect with contemporary culture, bridging from the
known to the unknown. And so we have the “functional metaphor”—“a direct means in itself of presenting a
truth incommunicable by other means.” Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 11, 196.
20
Hall perceives a lack of moral mandate inherent in Subjective soteriology. It “lacks the concreteness of
participation in the human condition, which belongs to the concept of representation.” In Professing, 468.
 6

Subjective soteriology also suffers logically in interpreting Calvary. Why did Jesus
have to die? If basically for revelational/motivational purposes, then we might conclude
that since people managed to get saved before Christ’s revelation then He did not really
need to die for humanity’s salvation. Thus Subjective soteriology apparently undermines
Christian faith.
By contrast, the Representational model avoids the inconsistencies of both the
Subjective and Satisfaction models while expanding their strengths. To it we now turn.
C. Representational model
Representational soteriology is based on Christology’s reciprocal connection
between Jesus as Son of God and Son of Man.21 As the eternal Logos who created the
world, He alone could represent heaven to earth as Emmanuel. His victorious life, death
and resurrection then qualified Him to represent earth at heaven’s throne as our glorified
high priest.22 Historically and corporately, all were adopted into Christ’s new humanity by
His salvation accomplishments: victorious life, atoning death, vindicating resurrection and
royal glorification. Presently and personally, believers activate their position in the body of
Christ by faith. This brings them out of alienation into relationship—not only with Jesus
but with fellow members of His body. Thus they are saved from Adam’s corrupted and
condemned humanity and incorporated by faith in Christ into a new human race, the
church.23
The “in Christ” motif is the overwhelmingly dominant New Testament metaphor
21
By comparison, the Subjective model regards Jesus as supreme teacher and loving exemplar, and
the Representational model fully affirms this but sees His work as Savior being much more than merely
didactic and motivational. So does the Satisfaction model, in fact. But whereas the Satisfaction model views
Jesus as the price-paying substitute, the Representational model sees Him primarily as victorious
representative–although it would concur that Christ is our substitute within the bounds described here by
James Packer: “A representative discharging the obligations of those whom he represents is their substitute.”
James I Packer, an untitled lecture at Tyndall House. In Alister McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader
(Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1995), 205. Ultimately, the scope of the representative role that the Bible gives
Messiah may include more than Packer envisions.
22
Christ’s victory not only for humanity but as humanity is integral to the Representational model,
and it was cherished in the church long before Anselm and Abelard proposed their rival medieval alternatives.
Gustaf Aulen shows that the dominant soteriological construct of the New Testament and the patristic
theologians (particularly Irenaeus) was that Christ “recapitulated” the history of Adam, except He succeeded
at every point at which Adam failed. Christus Victor (New York: Macmillan, 1969), 46. Thus Adam’s
disobedience is matched by Christ’s obedience and all that was lost in Adam was regained in Christ.
Unfortunately, Iranaeus in the second century was not sufficiently clear about how Christ ransomed humanity
from the devil; from this ambiguity Origen and other patricians taught that God overcame Satan with
deception, hiding deity within humanity. Thus ransom soteriology became unnecessarily problematic. See
Stanley J. Grenz, Created for Community (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996), 138. The Representational model
proposed here incorporates the Christus Victor concept without the fanciful and dubious notions that
undermined it during the millennium preceding Anslem and Abelard.
23
At the core of the Representational model is the fact that Jesus as the corporate Son of Man is the
second Adam. As humanity was lost through the first Adam, we now find salvation through Christ our
representative. Karl Barth notes this: “The activity of the second Adam who took the place of the first, who
reversed and overthrew the activity of the first in this place, and in so doing brought in a new man, founded a
new world and inaugurated a new aeon—and all this in His passion.” Jesus fully identified with humanity’s
condition, “making their lost cause his own.” In Church Dogmatics: the Doctrine of Reconciliation, Vol. iv,
Part 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), 254.
 7

for salvation.24 God “has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in
Christ,25 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:3-4).26 The
goal of this original, proactive plan to place humanity in Christ is to “make all see what is
the koinonia of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God
who created all things through Jesus Christ” (Eph. 3:8-9). Thus in positive terms, the
Representational model views the challenge of the gospel as reconciliation with God and
one another, restoring the original purpose of our creation. Viewed negatively, the gospel
resolves alienation from God and from one another that is the essence of sin and the cause
of death on every level–physical, emotional, relational, and societal—finally eternal loss.
Representational soteriology is not just a theory inviting cerebral assent but a
transformative lifestyle mandating relational obedience.27 Although faith is an individual
choice, Representational believers do not remain individualistic free-lancers but become
members of Christ’s communal body with profound responsibilities. The incarnation of
Jesus must be reflected in the incarnation of the church (John 20:21). Thus the believers’
vacation from condemnation involves a lifelong vocation of service both within the church
and society.28
Such Representational soteriology supports fundamental Adventist beliefs as no other
model can. Jesus is our representative high priest, a truth that forms the foundation of our
unique sanctuary doctrine. We in turn are called to represent Him in the world through our
priesthood of spiritual gifts—one of which is prophecy, another Adventist hallmark.29
24
“In Christ” soteriology is found approximately 164 times in Pauline epistles. See George Knight,
A Pharisee's Guide to Perfect Holiness (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1992), 101. The same frequency was noted
two years later in Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 38. The
scope of being “in Christ” is remarkably expansive. According to Kraus, it “supercedes all the old categories
that depersonalized and collectivized men and women.” In Community, 51. Salvation “in Christ” is inherently
relational and representational. Kraus views our identification with Christ as completing the Old Testament
covenant imagery: Jesus “represents the new Israel, the true children of Abraham” (50).
25
While “in Christ” lingo may seem somewhat mystical, it is not to be confused with hyper-mystical
New Age metaphysics. The infinite Grand Canyon between humanity and divinity is not denied. God remains
the Wholly Other Whom we worship and have community in fellowship—not unity in substance.
26
This proactive quality of the Representational model transcends the reactive nature of its rivals.
The Satisfaction model teaches that the gospel rescues us from condemnation through the doing and dying of
Christ so that we have eternal life. The Subjective model sees the gospel as reclaiming us from alienation
caused by sin and recreating us through a renewed connection with the Life giver. The Representational
model welcomes all these remedial elements of the gospel but grounds itself in God’s eternal purpose for
creation rather than in the sin problem.
27
Representation obedience flows smoothly within the model, bridging Christology with
ecclesiology: “The inner logic of representation can provide precisely what is required by way of a
nonreligious linguistic vehicle for the necessary theological interface of Christology with ecclesiology …
without an artificial shift of metaphor.” Hall, Professing, 522-23.
28
Hall argues: “The moment of this grace is also the moment of our initiation into the discipleship it
assumes. To be given the gift of representation—to be there ‘with’ and ‘for’ others—and not to use this gift is
the essence of disobedience. The work of the community that is liberated from self-preoccupation is to be
occupied with the representation of others.” In Professing, 525-26.
29
I acknowledge help in representational soteriology from Ellen G. White, who often frames moral
exhortations in the context of community righteousness—an important fact typically and tragically
 8

Representational soteriology, as we have seen, is inherently communal, which is integral to

Sabbath keeping. Even our Adventist understanding of death is relational; we do not enter
God’s eternity individually as disembodied spirits. We meet Jesus in glorious community at
His second coming. Ultimately we look forward to an earth made new, completely unspoiled
and unpolluted. Even now, we seek to live holistically as stewards of shalom originally
entrusted to us.
While supporting Adventist doctrine, the Representational model also offers hope for
unity between warring factions. “Liberals” tend to take social action seriously (even though
their Subjective model does not necessarily compel it), whereas “conservatives” have always
valued obedience to God’s law (even though the Protestant version of Satisfaction
soteriology contains no intrinsic mandate for obedience other than to believe and be saved).
But the koinonia of Representational soteriology intrinsically satisfies the need of both
groups by teaching that agape for widows and orphans fulfils God’s law of compassionate
love (Rom. 13:10; James 1:27). Thus the apparently incompatible values of both liberals and
conservatives may be resolved without compromise on either side. At last Adventism can
find peace in partnership, fulfilling the mission of the gospel message.

Conclusion
I trust it is evident that Representational soteriology not only harmonizes with but
enhances the entire Adventist enterprise. I offer it in the spirit of ongoing dialogue. Future
studies might explore the application of this model to each of our fundamental beliefs.
In final summary: The sinfulness that salvation resolves is fundamentally alienation
needing reconciliation, with the outcome being faith operating in loving relationality with
God and the surrounding community. This is drawn from Scriptural metaphors that portray
salvation as:

• God being reconciled to alienators

• The alienated being reconciled to God
• Koinonia among those reconciled
• Shalom in a society of reconciliation.

In light of this, models based upon salvation metaphors must be not only broader
but also more transformational than traditionally envisioned. Eternal life “in Christ”
involves more than a celestial heart that never stops pumping; it is life “more abundantly”
here and now, overflowing in ministry as representatives of Christ—living epistles of the
theology that is now too exclusively our own. I suggest that only Representational
soteriology will accomplish this by propelling the church from its pulpits and pews onto the
highways and byways of human need. Then we will love not only in doctrine but in praxis,
not just as friends of God but His servants and priests as well.

overlooked by Adventist fundamentalists. Consider her famously fearful statement: “Christ is waiting with
longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly
reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.” Christ’s Object Lessons
(Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1900), 69. The communal nature of this perfection is open for all who
have eyes to see it. Finally Adventists are coming to realize that Ellen White’s perfection is usually relative in
nature rather than absolute; now we must take the next step and realize that perfection for her is often (but not
always) a community goal, which removes much of the personal fear factor and also places obedience in the
relational context where it belongs. Jesus said: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15).
 9

Reference Bibliography

Aulen, Gustaf. Christus Victor. New York: Macmillan, 1969.

Banks, Robert. Paul’s Idea of Community. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: the Doctrine of Reconciliation, CD IsV/1. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1956.

Bilezikian, Gilbert. Christianity 101. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.

Grenz, Stanley J. Created for Community. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.

Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994.

Guy, Fritz. Thinking Theologically: Adventist Christianity and the Interpretation of Faith. Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1999.

Hall, Douglas John. Professing the Faith. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993.

Knight, George. My Gripe with God. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1990.

Kraus, C. Norman. The Community of the Spirit. Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1993.

McGrath, Alister. The Christian Theology Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1995.

Packer, James I. “What did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution.” Tyndale Bulletin,
25 (1974).

Peter Abelard. Expositio in Epistolam ad Romanos; in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina. 178.832C-D;

836A-B.

Rice, Richard. Believing, Behaving, Belonging. Loma Linda, CA: unpublished manuscript, 2000.

Robinson, H. Wheeler. Redemption and Revelation in the Actuality of History. London: Nisbet,
1942.

Scriven, Charles. “God’s Justice Yes; Penal Substitution, No.” Spectrum, October 1993.

Taylor, Greer M. "The Function of Pistis Christos in Galatians." Journal of Biblical Literature,
Vol. LXXXV.

Waltke, Bruce, with Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: a Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2001.

Webster, John W. Salvation/Incarnation–The Second Mode of the Adventus Dei.. Unpublished

paper, August 2000.

White, Ellen G. Christ’s Object Lessons. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1900.