One of the refutations against the idea of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is that it is a new doctrine. Some (Brian Zandh, for example) claim that it was invented during the sixteenth-century Reformation by leaders such as John Calvin.
The idea, of course, is that if the origins of PSA date back only about eight hundred years, it is obviously a manmade construction and not a trustworthy doctrine. So, should we throw out the doctrine of penal substitution because it is a latecomer to atonement theory? I think the clear answer is “no,” for the following reasons.
Note: You can watch my video of this subject below.
1. Penal substitution is in the Bible
As we embark on a historical quest to determine the truth of this claim, we cannot ignore the elephant in the room—the Bible itself. After all, if a doctrine is clearly delineated in Scripture, church history becomes irrelevant.
The good news is that penal substitution is, indeed, in the Bible. Not only does it appear, but the fact that Jesus offered Himself as the substitute to take our penalty serves as the central purpose of the atonement. Not only did Isaiah speak of it seven hundred years before Jesus, but it was the driving force behind the Old Testament sacrificial system.
2. The church fathers were focused on other issues
Christians have debated theology as a system for two thousand years. Because trust in the death and resurrection of Jesus is the litmus test for Christianity, the atonement has always been accepted. However, the early Christians did not set out to develop a well-rounded atonement theory because they were focused on other matters, such as the identity of Jesus Himself. One of the most heated debates of the fourth century centered around Arianism (the belief that Jesus was created by God and not of the same substance as the Father). Such disagreements had to be resolved early. After all, an atonement theory is worthless if Jesus was simply an ordinary man.
3: Many church fathers did accept penal substitution
While the early church fathers did not use the term “penal substitution” when referring to the atonement, neither did they use terms like “satisfaction theory,” “ransom theory,” or “Christus victor.” They simply described the atonement in various ways. As we have seen, they were focused on other matters, but as we read their writings, we cannot miss many aspects of penal substitution.
Of course, allusions to PSA are often mixed in with aspects of the other theories of atonement. This is because, as we have seen, there are many facets to the atonement. Highlighting one aspect does not mean rejection of the others.
We do the same thing today. For example, on Easter Sunday I may focus on the victory Christ had over death in His resurrection. However, that does not mean that on Good Friday I wouldn’t speak of Him taking my penalty on the cross. We cannot, therefore, extricate a single statement from one’s writings and claim it represents the whole of the writer’s theology. What we are looking for is whether the early fathers did see within the atonement the idea of penal substitution.
The lack of a well-thought-out defense of PSA among the church fathers may actually serve as a defense of the doctrine, as it may have been accepted without controversy. If no one is arguing against it, why argue for it?
Now, let’s consider a few examples from the writings of early church fathers to determine if they saw a penalty and substitution within the atonement.
Justin Martyr (110-165 AD)
In Dialogues with Trypho, Justin relates a conversation with Trypho (a Jew). While discussing how the whole world is under a curse because of its sin, he says this:
If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all . . . why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not practice piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed, we have done no wrong.[i]
In other words, don’t say that you (the Jews) did a good thing to kill Jesus because His stripes healed many. It was still wrong.
Justin pulled in an obvious reference to Isaiah 53, a passage that clearly teaches penal substitution. Jesus was innocent, but took the curse owed by humanity on Himself.
Epistle to Diognetus (end of 2nd century)
Not only do we not know who wrote the Epistle to Diognetus, but we also do not know the identity of Diognetus. However, the epistle is believed to have originated at the end of the 2nd century and was discovered in the 16th century among writings attributed to Justin Martyr. Notwithstanding the questionable authorship, we find the author’s view, at least in part, of the atonement.
The epistle is in answer to the question of why Jesus came at the time He did. In chapter nine, the author answers that question in part with the proposition that God allowed sin to go on for a period of time to make it plain to us how unrighteous we are and how much we deserve “chastisement and death.”
2. But when our unrighteousness had now been fulfilled, when it had been made completely manifest, that its retribution was awaited in chastisement and death . . . He did not hate us or reject us or take vengeance upon us, but showed His longsuffering and forbearance; in His mercy-He Himself took up the burden of our sins, He Himself gave His own Son as a ransom on our behalf, the holy for the lawless, the innocent for the guilty, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal.
3. What else could cover our sins but His righteousness?
4. In whom could we lawless and ungodly men be justified but in the Son of God alone?
5. O sweet exchange! O inscrutable operation! O unexpected blessings, that the lawlessness of many should be hidden in one righteous person, and the righteousness of one should justify the lawless many![ii]
This is the heart of penal substitution. We deserve the penalty of “chastisement and death,” but Jesus took it for us.
Eusebius (275-339)
While his most well-known work is Ecclesiastical History, he is responsible for other writings.
In his Proof of the Gospel, he wrote this:
And the Lamb of God . . . was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our souls? And so the oracle says in our person: “By his stripes we were healed,” and “The Lord delivered him for our sins”…[iii]
Hilary of Poitiers (300-368)
In his Homily on Psalm 53 (our Psalm 54), Hilary describes how New Testament believers can escape the curse of sin. The answer is through the sacrifice of Jesus, who was made a curse in their place.
It was from this curse that our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed us, when, as the Apostle says: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made curse for us, for it is written: cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. Thus He offered Himself to the death of the accursed that He might break the curse of the Law, offering Himself voluntarily a victim to God the Father, in order that by means of a voluntary victim the curse which attended the discontinuance of the regular victim might be removed.[iv]
This is penal substitution, plain and simple. Christ took the curse in our place, releasing us from taking the curse ourselves.
Athanasius (300-373)
In his discussion of how Jesus is better than anything in the Law (in Against the Arians), Athanasius says this:
Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all.[v]
In his work On the Incarnation of the Word, he describes how man’s sin has corrupted him. Jesus came and observed
how all men were under penalty of death: He took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death might have the mastery . . . He takes unto Himself a body . . . [B]ecause all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father—doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone…[vi]
According to Athanasius, Jesus died “in the stead” of all. That is substitution.
In the next section, he goes on to further discuss this. The Word perceived that there was no way to undo man’s corruption of sin, so He took on a body so He could suffer death (He couldn’t do it otherwise). Having the Word in the body allowed the body to die instead of all others.
For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which was come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. Whence, by offering unto death the body He Himself had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from any stain, straightway He put away death from all His peers by the offering of an equivalent.[vii]
Athanasius clearly saw Jesus as a substitute for mankind who took the penalty “death” on their behalf.
Gregory of Nanzianzus (329-390)
In his Fourth Oration, Gregory argued for the equality of Jesus in the Godhead (a common theme in the fourth century due to Arianism). Some were claiming that because Jesus was subject to the Father, He was a lesser being. Gregory made the case that the subjection of Jesus was according to the Father’s will and only temporary until He delivers all He has saved to God. In his explanation, he says this:
But look at it in this manner: that as for my sake He was called a curse, Who destroyed my curse; and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called disobedient on my account.[viii]
According to Gregory, Jesus had done no sin to deserve a curse, but He took it in our place.
Ambrose of Milan (339-397)
Ambrose, in his Flight from the World, says this:
And so then, Jesus took flesh that He might destroy the curse of sinful flesh, and He became for us a curse that a blessing might overwhelm a curse, uprightness might overwhelm sin, forgiveness might overwhelm the sentence, and life might overwhelm death. He also took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgment, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death.[ix]
“He also took up death” – that is a description of substitution.
“The curse placed on sinful flesh” – that is a description of a penalty.
Ambrose also said this in his Exposition of the Christian Faith:
53. My will, therefore, He took to Himself, my grief. In confidence I call it grief, because I preach His Cross. Mine is the will which He called His own, for as man He bore my grief, as man He spake, and therefore said, “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” Mine was the grief, and mine the heaviness with which He bore it, for no man exults when at the point to die. With me and for me He suffers, for me He is sad, for me He is heavy. In my stead, therefore, and in me He grieved Who had no cause to grieve for Himself.
54. Not Thy wounds, but mine, hurt Thee, Lord Jesus; not Thy death, but our weakness, even as the Prophet saith: “For He is afflicted for our sakes”—and we, Lord, esteemed Thee afflicted, when Thou grievedst not for Thyself, but for me.
55. And what wonder if He grieved for all, Who wept for one? What wonder if, in the hour of death, He is heavy for all, Who wept when at the point to raise Lazarus from the dead? Then, indeed, He was moved by a loving sister’s tears, for they touched His human heart,—here by secret grief He brought it to pass that, even as His death made an end of death, and His stripes healed our scars, so also His sorrow took away our sorrow.[x]
Ambrose quotes here from Isaiah 53, which explains clearly why Jesus suffered—for our transgressions. Why did Jesus take our wounds? Because we deserved the wounds as punishment for our sin.
Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
Peter Abelard is noted for being an inspiration behind the Moral Influence theory. William Lane Craig points out that modern scholarship is recognizing that Abelard did actually present a more robust theory of the atonement than traditionally thought and the “influence” part was more of a facet of the atonement rather than the whole purpose.[xi] This is what Craig quotes Abelard as saying:
He [Christ] is said to have died on account of our transgressions in two ways: at one time because we transgressed, on account of which he died, and we committed sin, the penalty of which he bore; at another, that he might take away our sins by dying, that is, he swept away the penalty for sins by the price of his death, leading us into paradise, and through the demonstration of so much grace. . . he drew back our souls from the will to sin and kindled the highest love of himself. [xii]
Craig points out here that in the first part of this statement, Abelard comes close to penal substitution.
John Chrysostom (347-407)
John earned the nickname “Chrysostom” because of his eloquence in preaching. It comes from the Greek word chrysostomos, which means “golden-mouthed,” and was sometimes applied to great orators.
In his Homilies on Second Corinthians, he discussed II Corinthians 5:21…
…we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:20b-21)
John proposed that if God had done nothing other than giving His Son to be sin for us, that would be enough to prompt us to be reconciled to Him.
For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He hath both well achieved mighty things, and besides, hath suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong.[xiii]
Here he clearly stated that Jesus was punished for us. He did no wrong, but He suffered punishment.
John then gave an illustration of a king who transfers death and guilt from a criminal to his own son:
And that thou mayest learn what a thing it is, consider this which I say. If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude?[xiv]
John’s point was that we should respond to God’s offer of Jesus with gratitude. However, in making that point, he used an illustration of a criminal who was “under punishment” that was freed because the king “transferred the death and the guilt” from the criminal to his son.
That is exactly what happens in penal substitution. We are under punishment and Jesus takes it for us.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
Augustine wrote Against Faustus to refute the claim of Faustus that Moses was guilty of blasphemy because he too quickly pronounced that everyone who hangs on a tree is cursed (Deut. 21:23). This would be blasphemy because Jesus was hung on a cross. In his explanation, Augustine gave an undeniable statement of penal substitution:
The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment . . .[i]
We could look at other patristic writers, but we will stop here. What we have seen is that while the early church writers may not have developed a comprehensive “theory of atonement,” they did have an understanding of the multi-faced aspects of what Jesus did on the cross. Our sin brought upon us the penalty of the curse and death, and the subsitutionary sacrifice of Jesus took it in our place.
[i] Augustine, Against Faustus, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. I, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), Book 14, Section 7, p. 209 (357).
[i] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, XCV, p. 400.
[ii] Epistle to Diognetus, 9:3-5, Trans. L.B. Radford, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, New York: E. S. Gorham, 1908, downloaded from https://ia800502.us.archive.org/9/items/epistletodiognet00just/epistletodiognet00just.pdf, 75-76.
[iii] Eusebius of Caesarea, Proof of the Gospel, vol. 2, trans. And ed. W.J. Ferrar (London: SPCK; New York: Macmillan, 1920), Book 10, ch. 1, p. 195-196.
[iv] Hilary of Portiers, Homily on Psalm 53 (54), in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. II, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1976), sect. I, p. 243 (537).
[v] Athanasius, Against the Arians, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. II, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1975), sect. 60, p. 341 (880).
[vi] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. II, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1975), sect. 8, p. 40 (268).
[vii] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. II, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1975), sect. 9, p. 40 (269).
[viii] Athanasius, Fourth Oration, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. II, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1975), sect. V, p. 311 (626).
[ix] Ambrose of Milan, Flight from the World, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 65, trans. M. P. McHugh (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1972), ch. 7, sect. 44, pp. 314-315. Copied from Pierced for Our Transgressions, 175.
[x] Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Christian Faith, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. II, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1975), Book II, Ch. 7, p. 230 (512).
[xi] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-christ/doctrine-of-christ-part-16#_ftn4
[xii] Peter Abelard. Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Ed. Steven Cartwright. Fathers of the Church. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2011, Bk 2., on https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-christ/doctrine-of-christ-part-16#_ftn6.
[xiii] John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. I, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1969), Homily XI, sect. 6, p. 335 (582).
[xiv] John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. I, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1969), Homily XI, sect. 6, p. 335 (584-585).
