The Forgiveness of Sins in the Old and New Testaments: Divine Mercy, Sacrificial Atonement, and the Redemptive Foundation in Christ

The Forgiveness of Sins in the Old and New Testaments:

Divine Mercy, Sacrificial Atonement, and the Redemptive Foundation in Christ

Abstract

The forgiveness of sins is a fundamental theme throughout Scripture, revealing the character of God, the seriousness of human sin, and the divine provision for reconciliation. Nevertheless, the relationship between forgiveness in the Old Testament and the atoning work of Jesus Christ in the New Testament raises significant theological questions. How were the sins of Israelites forgiven under the Mosaic covenant? How did the inhabitants of Nineveh receive God's mercy without any explicitly recorded sacrificial offering? How were David's sins forgiven following his confession and repentance? Did Hezekiah receive forgiveness through prayer when God responded to his plea and extended his life? Do these accounts establish that forgiveness can be obtained independently of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, or should they be understood within the progressive revelation of God's redemptive purpose?

This article examines these questions through a biblical-theological study of forgiveness, arguing that the Old and New Testaments do not present competing systems of redemption. Although forgiveness was experienced within different historical and covenantal circumstances, its ultimate redemptive foundation is found in God's saving work through Jesus Christ. The Old Testament reveals God as the gracious source of forgiveness, employing covenantal provisions, sacrificial atonement, repentance, and divine mercy within His dealings with humanity. The New Testament provides the fuller apostolic explanation that Christ's death constitutes the decisive redemptive foundation for forgiveness, including the transgressions committed under the first covenant. Through an examination of the Mosaic sacrificial system, the repentance of Nineveh, David's confession, Hezekiah's prayer, and the apostolic teaching of Paul and Hebrews, this article establishes the theological continuity of forgiveness throughout the biblical narrative and demonstrates the centrality of Christ's atoning work.

Keywords: Forgiveness, Atonement, Sacrifice, Repentance, Old Testament, New Testament, Divine Mercy, Nineveh, David, Hezekiah, Jesus Christ, Redemption.

Introduction

The forgiveness of sins is not merely a religious concept concerned with the removal of personal guilt; it is fundamentally connected to the character of God, His holiness, His covenant relationship with humanity, and His redemptive purposes. Throughout Scripture, God reveals Himself as both righteous and merciful, unwilling to compromise His holiness while graciously providing a way for sinful humanity to be reconciled to Him. The biblical narrative consistently establishes that forgiveness originates in God's grace rather than human merit, yet it also presents sin as a serious violation of the divine order that requires more than human regret or religious performance. A significant theological question emerges when the Old Testament accounts of forgiveness are examined alongside the New Testament's explicit teaching concerning the atoning death of Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament, forgiveness is sometimes associated with prescribed sacrifices and covenantal regulations, while in other narratives it appears in response to repentance, confession, or prayer without any explicitly recorded sacrificial offering. The inhabitants of Nineveh repented following Jonah's proclamation, and God withheld the judgment He had announced (Jonah 3:5–10). David confessed his sin and received the assurance that the Lord had put away his transgression (2 Samuel 12:13; Psalm 51). Hezekiah prayed during a life-threatening illness, and God graciously extended his life by fifteen years (2 Kings 20:1–6; Isaiah 38:1–6). These accounts raise an important question: If God demonstrated His willingness to forgive and show mercy without an explicitly recorded sacrifice in these circumstances, why does the New Testament identify Jesus Christ as the one mediator between God and humanity and His sacrificial death as the basis of forgiveness?

The question becomes even more significant when one considers the apostolic declarations that redemption and forgiveness are obtained through the blood of Christ (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:13–14), that salvation is found in no other name (Acts 4:12), and that there is one mediator between God and humanity, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:5–6). A superficial reading might suggest that the Old Testament presents several independent ways of receiving forgiveness, whereas the New Testament introduces Christ as an additional means of reconciliation. Such an interpretation, however, confuses the historical circumstances in which forgiveness was experienced with the ultimate theological foundation upon which divine forgiveness rests.

The central issue is therefore not whether God genuinely forgave people before the incarnation of Christ; Scripture clearly establishes that He did. Rather, the more fundamental question concerns how those acts of forgiveness relate to the redemptive work accomplished through Christ. Answering this requires reading the Old Testament within its own covenantal and historical context while allowing the fuller apostolic revelation to explain the relationship between God's earlier acts of mercy and the definitive accomplishment of redemption in Jesus Christ.

The Character of God and the Old Testament Understanding of Forgiveness

The Old Testament consistently identifies God as the source of forgiveness, presenting His mercy as an expression of His character rather than a response earned through human achievement. One of the clearest revelations of this character appears in Exodus 34:6–7, where God describes Himself as compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in steadfast love and faithfulness, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin. Yet the same declaration affirms that He does not simply clear the guilty. The juxtaposition of divine mercy and justice is theologically significant because it establishes that forgiveness does not mean the denial of God's holiness or the trivialization of human wrongdoing. God is merciful, but His mercy does not make sin insignificant. This understanding is developed throughout the Psalms and prophetic writings. Psalm 103:8–12 celebrates God's compassion and His removal of transgressions as far as the east is from the west, while Psalm 130:3–4 acknowledges that no one could stand before God if He were to mark every iniquity, yet forgiveness belongs to Him. Micah 7:18–19 similarly celebrates God's delight in mercy and His willingness to cast the sins of His people into the depths of the sea. These passages establish that forgiveness originates in God's gracious disposition toward sinners. Nevertheless, the Old Testament does not leave the question of sin and forgiveness at the level of divine compassion alone. Within the Mosaic covenant, God established a sacrificial and ritual framework through which atonement, cleansing, and covenant restoration were administered.

Leviticus 4–5 provides detailed instructions concerning sin offerings for priests, the congregation, leaders, and ordinary members of Israel. The repeated declaration that atonement is made and forgiveness granted following the prescribed offering demonstrates the relationship between sacrifice and forgiveness within the covenantal arrangement (Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10). Leviticus 16 further establishes the Day of Atonement, when the high priest made atonement for the sanctuary, himself, and the congregation. The ritual involving the two goats, particularly the goat sent into the wilderness bearing the people's iniquities, symbolically demonstrated the removal of Israel's sins (Leviticus 16:20–22). These regulations reveal that sin was not treated as a minor ceremonial irregularity but as a serious violation requiring atonement and restoration. However, it would be incorrect to conclude that the Israelites believed the physical act of sacrificing an animal automatically secured forgiveness regardless of the worshipper's disposition or conduct. The prophets repeatedly condemned sacrifices offered by people who continued to practise injustice, oppression, and rebellion. Isaiah 1:11–17 challenges a community that maintained religious observances while neglecting righteousness, justice, and compassion. Hosea 6:6 declares that God desires steadfast love rather than sacrifice and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. These prophetic criticisms do not abolish the sacrificial system; rather, they expose the distortion of worship when ritual performance is separated from genuine covenant faithfulness.

The same principle appears in Psalm 51, where David declares that God does not delight in sacrifice as an independent religious transaction but accepts a broken and contrite heart (Psalm 51:16–17). Significantly, the psalm subsequently speaks of sacrifices offered in righteousness (Psalm 51:19), demonstrating that David's concern is not the rejection of sacrifice itself but the rejection of empty ritualism. Forgiveness under the Mosaic covenant must therefore be understood through the integrated relationship between divine mercy, sacrificial atonement, confession, repentance, faith, and covenant obedience. Sacrifice was a divinely instituted provision, but it was never intended to function as a mechanical means of obtaining God's favour while the heart remained unrepentant. The prophetic writings also anticipate the limitations of the sacrificial arrangement and point toward a more definitive provision for dealing with sin. The repeated sacrifices could not finally resolve the problem of human guilt or transform the human condition. This limitation becomes explicit in Hebrews 10:1–4, which explains that the law possessed a shadow of the good things to come and that the blood of bulls and goats could not ultimately take away sins. The significance of the Old Testament sacrificial system, therefore, must be understood in relation to the greater redemptive accomplishment toward which it pointed.

Forgiveness Beyond the Mosaic Sacrificial Framework: Nineveh, David, and Hezekiah

The account of Nineveh in Jonah 3 presents a particularly important example of divine mercy beyond Israel's institutional sacrificial framework. Nineveh was a Gentile city within the Assyrian world, and its inhabitants were not participants in the Mosaic covenant or its Levitical sacrificial arrangements. When Jonah proclaimed the impending judgment of God, the people believed the divine warning, proclaimed a fast, and clothed themselves in sackcloth as an expression of humiliation and repentance (Jonah 3:5). The king himself abandoned his royal garments, sat in ashes, and commanded the population to turn from their evil conduct and violence (Jonah 3:6–8). The narrative reaches its theological conclusion in Jonah 3:10, which records that God saw their works, particularly that they had turned from their evil ways, and withheld the judgment He had announced. The absence of an explicitly recorded sacrifice in this narrative raises an important question concerning the relationship between repentance and forgiveness. Nineveh did not possess a Levitical priesthood, did not offer sacrifices according to the Mosaic legislation, and was not participating in Israel's covenantal worship. Nevertheless, God responded graciously to its repentance. This account demonstrates that divine mercy is not confined to Israel's national or ceremonial institutions. God remains sovereign over the nations and is gracious toward those who humble themselves before Him. Jesus Himself refers to Nineveh's repentance in Matthew 12:41 and Luke 11:32, presenting its response to Jonah as a testimony against the unbelief of those who rejected the greater revelation present in His own ministry.

The theological significance of Jonah 3 must not be extended beyond what the text actually establishes. The immediate subject of the narrative is the threatened historical judgment against Nineveh and God's decision to withhold that judgment in response to the people's changed conduct. The passage does not provide a systematic explanation of the eternal justification of every inhabitant, nor does it explicitly identify the atoning basis of their individual forgiveness. Consequently, it would be inaccurate to use Nineveh as proof that people can obtain final forgiveness through a redemptive arrangement independent of Christ. The absence of a recorded sacrifice demonstrates that God's mercy can be exercised beyond the Mosaic sacrificial system; it does not establish that divine forgiveness operates outside God's comprehensive redemptive purpose. David's experience provides a more direct example because the biblical narrative explicitly declares that his sin was forgiven. Following his adultery with Bathsheba and his deliberate arrangement of Uriah's death, David was confronted by the prophet Nathan. His response was an unqualified confession: "I have sinned against the LORD" (2 Samuel 12:13). Nathan immediately replied, "The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die." The narrative does not record David presenting a sacrificial offering before receiving this assurance. Instead, the emphasis falls upon his acknowledgement of guilt and God's gracious response. Psalm 51 provides a deeper theological reflection on David's repentance. He appeals to God's mercy rather than his own merit, asking that his transgressions be blotted out according to the abundance of divine compassion (Psalm 51:1). He acknowledges the seriousness of his offence, recognizes that his sin is ultimately against God, and confesses that God desires truth in the inward being (Psalm 51:4–6). His appeal is not based on an ability to compensate for his wrongdoing or to restore himself through religious performance. He depends entirely upon God's mercy. David's declaration that God does not delight in sacrifices as a substitute for a broken and contrite heart (Psalm 51:16–17) must therefore be understood as a rejection of ritualism without repentance, not as the abolition of the sacrificial provisions of the Mosaic covenant.

The New Testament provides a particularly significant interpretation of David's experience in Romans 4:6–8, where Paul quotes Psalm 32:1–2 to establish the blessedness of the person whose sins are forgiven and whose transgressions are covered. Paul uses David as an Old Testament witness to God's gracious justification apart from human works. However, this passage must be interpreted within the larger argument of Romans 3:21–26, where Paul explains that sinners are justified freely by God's grace through the redemption accomplished in Christ Jesus. Romans 3:25–26 further explains that God demonstrated His righteousness in relation to previously committed sins. Thus, Paul does not employ David to establish a separate system of forgiveness operating independently of Christ; rather, David's experience demonstrates the gracious character of divine justification, which finds its definitive redemptive foundation in Jesus Christ. David did not possess the historical and theological clarity concerning the cross available to the apostles, but his limited understanding does not imply that his forgiveness was independent of God's ultimate redemptive provision.

The account of Hezekiah requires a different exegetical approach because it is frequently used to establish a theological conclusion that the narrative itself does not explicitly make. In 2 Kings 20:1–6, Hezekiah becomes seriously ill, and Isaiah announces that he should prepare for death. Hezekiah responds by turning toward the wall, praying to the Lord, and recalling his faithful conduct before God. The Lord subsequently informs Isaiah that Hezekiah's prayer has been heard, his tears have been seen, and his life will be extended by fifteen years. Isaiah 38 provides a parallel account, including Hezekiah's prayer of thanksgiving following his recovery. These passages clearly demonstrate God's compassion, His responsiveness to prayer, and His sovereign authority over life and death. However, neither passage explicitly declares that Hezekiah's sins were forgiven through this prayer. The primary subject is his illness, impending death, and the extension of his earthly life. It is therefore exegetically inappropriate to equate physical healing automatically with the forgiveness of sin. The distinction becomes clearer when other biblical passages are considered. In Mark 2:1–12, Jesus explicitly declares the paralytic's sins forgiven and subsequently heals him, using the healing as a visible demonstration of His authority to forgive sins. John 9:1–3 also rejects the assumption that every physical illness is the direct consequence of a particular personal sin. Similarly, 2 Chronicles 30:18–20 records Hezekiah's intercession for people who had not properly purified themselves before participating in the Passover. God hears his prayer and heals the people. The passage demonstrates divine mercy in response to intercession, but it does not establish a general principle that physical healing and eternal forgiveness are interchangeable categories. Hezekiah's experience should therefore be understood primarily as an example of God's gracious response to prayer and human vulnerability, rather than as evidence of an independent method of atonement.

These three accounts reveal different dimensions of God's dealings with sinful humanity. Nineveh demonstrates divine mercy toward a repentant Gentile community outside Israel's sacrificial institutions. David demonstrates that genuine repentance and confession are essential expressions of dependence upon God's grace and that forgiveness cannot be reduced to ritual performance. Hezekiah demonstrates God's compassion and responsiveness to prayer, although his healing narrative does not explicitly establish the forgiveness of his sins. The differences between these accounts are important, but none provides sufficient grounds for concluding that forgiveness has an ultimate redemptive basis independent of Christ.

The Redemptive Significance of Christ's Death for Forgiveness Under Both Covenants

The decisive theological explanation of how forgiveness before the incarnation relates to Christ's atoning work emerges in the New Testament, particularly in Romans 3:21–26 and Hebrews 9:15. Paul explains in Romans 3 that God's righteousness has been revealed apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it. This righteousness is received through faith in Jesus Christ, and believers are justified freely by God's grace through the redemption accomplished in Him. Romans 3:25–26 is especially significant because Paul explains that God presented Christ as a propitiation through His blood, received through faith, in order to demonstrate His righteousness concerning sins previously committed. The passage addresses a fundamental theological question: How can God forgive sinners and remain righteous? Paul's answer is that the redemptive work of Christ demonstrates the righteousness of God and establishes the just foundation upon which He justifies those who believe. Hebrews 9:15 provides an even more explicit connection between Christ's death and the forgiveness of sins under the first covenant. The writer identifies Jesus as the mediator of the new covenant and explains that His death redeems the transgressions committed under the first covenant, enabling those who are called to receive the promised eternal inheritance. This statement is essential because it establishes that Christ's redemptive work is not restricted to people who lived after His incarnation. His death possesses significance for the entire history of God's dealings with sinful humanity. The forgiveness experienced by Old Testament believers was genuine, but its ultimate redemptive foundation must be understood in the light of Christ's sacrifice. Hebrews 10:1–14 further develops this argument by contrasting the repeated offerings of the Levitical priests with the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The law possessed a shadow of the good things to come, but the blood of animals could not finally remove sins. In contrast, Christ offered Himself once for all and accomplished what the repeated sacrifices could never achieve definitively. The theological implication is that the Mosaic sacrificial system was not an independent means of salvation subsequently discarded in favour of Christ. It belonged to the progressive unfolding of God's redemptive purpose and anticipated the definitive atonement accomplished through the Son.

This understanding also explains why Old Testament believers did not need to possess the same degree of historical and theological knowledge concerning Christ's incarnation and crucifixion that became available after the resurrection. Abraham believed God's promise, and his faith was counted to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3). David celebrated the forgiveness of sins through divine mercy (Psalm 32:1–2; Romans 4:6–8). The prophets anticipated the suffering servant who would bear the sins of many (Isaiah 53:4–12). Their understanding was shaped by the revelation available to them within their historical circumstances, yet the New Testament identifies Christ's redemptive accomplishment as the fulfilment of God's promises. Progressive revelation therefore does not imply multiple independent methods of redemption. It means that God's one redemptive purpose became progressively clearer throughout history until its decisive accomplishment in Jesus Christ.

The Father, the Son, and the Apostolic Understanding of Forgiveness

The relationship between the Father and the Son is another important dimension of this discussion. It is entirely correct to affirm that God the Father forgives sins, because Scripture consistently presents forgiveness as an expression of God's gracious character. However, this affirmation must not be used to separate the Father's forgiveness from the mediatorial and sacrificial work of the Son. The New Testament does not present the Father and the Son as competing sources of forgiveness; rather, it reveals their united action within God's redemptive purpose. The Father sends the Son into the world (John 3:16–17), the Son willingly gives Himself for humanity's redemption (Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 5:2), and God reconciles humanity to Himself through Christ (2 Corinthians 5:18–19).

First Timothy 2:5–6 identifies one God and one mediator between God and humanity, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all. Ephesians 1:7 declares that believers have redemption through His blood and the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of God's grace, while Colossians 1:13–14 connects deliverance from darkness, redemption, and forgiveness with the Son. These passages do not deny the Father's authority to forgive; they explain the means through which His redemptive purpose is accomplished. Jesus Himself declares in John 14:6 that no one comes to the Father except through Him. Similarly, Acts 4:12 declares that salvation is found in no other name, and Acts 10:43 proclaims that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name. The distinction between the source of forgiveness and its redemptive foundation is therefore essential. The Father is the source of the saving purpose, the Son is the mediator who accomplishes redemption through His sacrificial death, and the Spirit participates in the application of God's saving work to believers (Ephesians 1:13–14; Titus 3:4–7). This is not a division of competing redemptive activities but the unified work of the triune God. Consequently, the question should never be framed as though affirming forgiveness through the Father diminishes the necessity of Christ, or as though affirming Christ's mediation excludes the Father's gracious action. The New Testament presents forgiveness as God's gracious gift accomplished through the Son.

Repentance, Faith, and the Redemptive Foundation of Forgiveness

A further distinction is necessary between the basis upon which forgiveness is granted and the response through which it is received. Repentance, confession, prayer, and faith are central throughout Scripture, but they are not alternative forms of atonement. They describe the appropriate response of sinners who acknowledge their guilt and depend upon God's mercy. David's confession, Nineveh's repentance, and Israel's repeated calls to return to the Lord demonstrate this principle in the Old Testament (Psalm 51; Jonah 3:5–10; Isaiah 55:6–7; Ezekiel 18:30–32). The New Testament continues the same emphasis. Jesus calls people to repent and believe the Gospel (Mark 1:15), Peter proclaims repentance in connection with the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), and Paul describes repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as central to his ministry (Acts 20:21). The continuity of repentance and faith across both Testaments does not mean that human repentance itself accomplishes atonement. Confession does not independently remove guilt, prayer does not become a substitute sacrifice, and religious observance cannot compensate for sin. Rather, these responses express dependence upon the mercy of God. A person who repents does not thereby provide an alternative payment for sin; the person acknowledges the need for divine grace. Similarly, the fact that God responded to prayer or repentance without an explicitly recorded animal sacrifice does not establish that His forgiveness operates outside His ultimate redemptive provision.

The distinction may therefore be expressed in three interconnected theological affirmations: God is the source of forgiveness because forgiveness originates in His grace and mercy; Jesus Christ is the mediator who accomplishes redemption through His sacrificial death; and repentance and faith are the appropriate human responses through which God's gracious provision is received. Confusing these dimensions leads either to an unnecessary separation between the Father and the Son or to the mistaken conclusion that different historical responses to God represent independent methods of redemption.

Conclusion

The biblical theology of forgiveness cannot be adequately understood by isolating individual Old Testament narratives from the larger movement of Scripture. The experiences of Israel, Nineveh, David, and Hezekiah reveal different historical expressions of God's mercy, but they must be interpreted within the comprehensive framework of His redemptive purpose. Israel received forgiveness within the Mosaic covenant, where sacrificial atonement, confession, repentance, and covenant faithfulness formed an integrated theological arrangement. Nineveh experienced God's mercy when its inhabitants responded to divine warning with repentance, although the narrative primarily concerns the withdrawal of threatened historical judgment and does not explain the ultimate basis of their eternal standing. David received explicit forgiveness following confession and repentance, demonstrating that God's grace cannot be reduced to ritual performance. Hezekiah experienced divine compassion through prayer, healing, and the extension of his life, although the relevant passages do not explicitly identify this experience as the forgiveness of his sins. These accounts demonstrate the breadth of God's mercy, but they do not establish independent redemptive systems operating outside His saving purpose.

The New Testament provides the decisive theological explanation through the apostolic teaching concerning Christ's atoning death. Romans 3:25–26 connects God's previous forbearance with the demonstration of His righteousness through Christ, while Hebrews 9:15 explicitly declares that His death redeems transgressions committed under the first covenant. These passages establish that the death of Jesus is not merely relevant to those who lived after the incarnation; it belongs to God's comprehensive redemptive purpose throughout history. The cross does not introduce an unrelated method of forgiveness but reveals and accomplishes the definitive provision toward which the entire biblical narrative moves. The Father is indeed the one who forgives, but the New Testament reveals that He accomplishes reconciliation through the Son, whose sacrificial death provides the decisive redemptive foundation for forgiveness. The Father's gracious action and the Son's mediatorial work must therefore be understood within the unity of God's saving purpose. Likewise, repentance, confession, prayer, and faith are not alternative methods of atonement but expressions of the sinner's response to divine grace. The historical circumstances in which forgiveness was experienced may differ, and the degree of revelation available to people before Christ was not identical to that available to the apostolic church; nevertheless, these differences do not establish multiple independent foundations of redemption.

Ultimately, the continuity between the Old and New Testaments lies in the one God, the consistent reality of human sin, the necessity of divine mercy, and the unity of God's redemptive purpose. The Old Testament reveals God's gracious dealings with humanity through covenant, sacrifice, repentance, and mercy, while the New Testament proclaims the definitive accomplishment of redemption in Jesus Christ. The forgiveness experienced by Old Testament believers was genuine, but its ultimate redemptive foundation is understood in the light of Christ's atoning work. Therefore, the fundamental theological conclusion is that God has always been the source of forgiveness, while Jesus Christ is the definitive mediator through whom God's redemptive purpose is accomplished. There are different historical expressions of divine mercy, but there is no independent redemptive foundation apart from God's saving work through Christ. The decisive question, therefore, is not whether God forgave David, showed mercy to Nineveh, or answered Hezekiah's prayer before the historical crucifixion. Scripture affirms these realities. The deeper question is whether these acts of divine mercy can be separated from the redemptive purpose that God ultimately fulfilled through His Son. The apostolic witness directs us to one answer: the cross of Christ stands at the centre of God's purpose to redeem sinful humanity and reconcile it to Himself.

References

1. Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.
2. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
3. Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
4. Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. God's Kingdom through God's Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology. Wheaton: Crossway, 2015.
5. Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology, Volume 2: Israel's Faith. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006.
6. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
7. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
8. Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.
9. Morris, Leon. The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance. Downers Grove: IVP, 1983.
10. Peterson, David. Atonement and the Death of Christ. Wheaton: Crossway, 2022.
11. Schreiner, Thomas R. The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
12. Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove: IVP, 1986.
13. Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
14. Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006.