Reconsidering Penal Substitutionary Atonement: A Patristic Defense [part I]

Throughout Christian history, various models of the atonement have been expressed. Among some of the early models we might mention Christus Victor (G.Aúlen; the atonement is Christ's work of defeating sin, death and the devil), The Ransom Theory (Present in Origen, and subsequently pretty much all patristic authors till the 11th century; the idea that Christ paid a ransom to eliberate us from the bondage of the devil), Recapitulation Theory (Present in the majority of patristic literature, most notably in Irenaeus; the idea that by Christ's humiliation, human nature will be exalted and “deified”). The idea of theosis (partaking of the divine nature) is also very present and intimately connected with the church fathers theology of atonement. 

Throughout the Middle Ages, more theories of the atonement developed. The satisfaction theory (present in the writings of Anselm of Canterburry, the idea that Christ died on the cross to satisfy God's honor), and the Moral Influence Theory (present in Abelard, that Christ's death brought about a moral renewal in humanity) are a few examples. An even later theory, the so-called “Example Theory”, teaches that Christ died as an example for us to obey God as Christ rendered perfect obedience to the Father, a theory developped by the Socinians. What about penal substitutionary atonement? 

Penal substitutionary atonement is the idea that Christ paid the penalty that we deserved according to the condemnation of the Law in our stead. Sometimes, proponents of this theory might say “Christ experienced hell or the second death”, or “Christ satisfied God's wrath”, or in some cases employ language of “separation” between the God the Father and the Son. However, one must note that such language is not itself what constitutes the premises for penal substitution, but rather come naturally as a conclusions based on the premises of penal substitution. It is beyond the purpose here to engage with the dynamics and the language of penal substitution, nor will we discuss a biblical defense of penal substitution, but rather a patristic defense of this model. 

Sometimes, we hear the claim that penal substitution is a calvinist innovation, or at least one that proceeds from the Reformation in the 16th century. However, we will try to engage patristic literature and if possible, show that such claims aren't quite correct. Patristic literature is full of “penal” and “substitutionary” language which is what we will explore here. In affirming penal substitution, by no means do I say we ought to be reductionistic. On the contrary, we ought to affirm recapitulation, Christus Victor, satisfaction and other such models of the atonement on the basis of their biblical accuracy and historic continuity. Scripture portrays a broad view of the reconciliation between God and man, or as we call it, the atonement. It is as broad, if not even broader in patristic literature. 

The following quotes that I shall provide from the church fathers are not meant to be some kind of “proof-texting”, but rather are for further meditation and a possible historic reconsideration of the model. 

Cyril of Alexandria’s, Book XII- Commentary on John

He had undergone, for our sakes, though innocent, the sentence of death. For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law. For He became ‘a curse for us’, according to the Scripture: ‘For cursed is everyone’, it is said, ‘that hangeth on a tree.’ And accursed are we all, for we are not able to fulfill the Law of God: ‘For in many things we all stumble’; and very prone to sin is the nature of man. And since, too, the Law of God says: ‘Cursed is he which continueth not in all things that are written in the book of this Law, to do them,’ the curse, then, belongeth unto us, and not to others. For those against whom the transgression of the Law may be charged, and who are very prone to err from its commandments, surely deserve chastisement. Therefore, He That knew no sin was accursed for our sakes, that He might deliver us from the old curse. For all-sufficient was the God Who is above all, so dying for all; and by the death of His own Body, purchasing the redemption of all mankind.

The Cross, then, that Christ bore, was not for His own deserts, but was the cross that awaited us, and was our due, through our condemnation by the Law…He took upon Himself the Cross that was our due, passing on Himself the condemnation of the Law, that the mouth of all lawlessness might henceforth be stopped, according to the saying of the Psalmist; the Sinless having suffered condemnation for the sin of all (John 19:16–18).

For God’s anger did not cease with Adam’s fall, but He was also provoked by those who after him dishonoured the Creator’s decree; and the denunciation of the Law against transgressors was extended continuously over all. We were, then, accursed and condemned, by the sentence of God, through Adam’s transgression, and through breach of the Law laid down after him; but the Savior wiped out the hand- writing against us, by nailing the title to His Cross, which very clearly pointed to the death upon the Cross which He underwent for the salvation of men, who lay under condemnation. For our sake He paid the penalty for our sins. For though He was One that suffered, yet was He far above any creature, as God, and more precious than the life of all (John 19:19). 

Athanasius of Alexandria

"And Psalm 22…They pierced my hands and my feet- what else can that mean except the cross? And Psalms 88 and 69, again speaking in the Lord’s own person, tell us further that He suffered these things, not for His own sake but for ours. Thou has made Thy wrath to rest upon me, says the one; and the other adds, I paid them things I never took. For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, Himself bore our weaknesses. So in Psalm 138 we say, The Lord will make requital for me; and in the 72nd the Spirit says, He shall save the children of the poor and bring the slanderer low, for from the hand of the mighty He has set the poor man free, the needy man whom there was none to help."- Letter to Marcellinus

“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…”- On the Incarnation, chapter 9

Eusebius of Caesarea 

“In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own” (Proof of the Gospel book III, chapter 2). 

“And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: ‘Now ye are the body of Christ, and several members?’ And by the rule that ‘if one member suffer all the members suffer with it,’ so when the many members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labors of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labors by the laws of love…. Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf.” He then stated, “And the Lamb of God not only did this, but 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 upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us [Proof of the Gospel Book X, chapter 1]

To be continued...