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

This is a continuation of part one, so if you haven't read it check it out right here:

https://armchair4advent.blogspot.com/2024/07/reconsidering-penal-substitutionary.html

Now we shall continue to investigate whether or not the church fathers taught penal substitutionary atonement.

St. Augustine of Hippo

“Death comes upon man as the punishment of sin, and so is itself called sin, not that a man sins in dying, but because sin is the cause of his death. So sin means both a bad action deserving punishment, and death the consequence of sin. Christ has no sin in the sense of deserving death, but He bore for our sakes sin in the sense of death as brought on human nature by sin. The apostle boldly says of Christ, “He was made a curse for us;” for he could also venture to say “He died for all.” “He died,” and “He was cursed”, are the same. Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment which follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment. 

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, any more than He is praised by the Manichæans when they deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer real death… Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment. Now the punishment for sin cannot be blessed, or else it would be a thing to be desired. The curse is pronounced by divine justice, and it will be well for us if we are redeemed from it. Confess that Christ died, and you may confess that He bore the curse for us.”- Contra Faustum, Book XIV:3-4, 7

Justin Martyr 

“For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of this law to do them’ [Deut. 27:26]. And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, 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.” Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 95

St. Caesarius 

“This is what we believe happened. Christ, our Lord was without guilt or blame, was subject to the sentence of punishment, a sinless man was crucified… Christ's death profited man, for by taking death upon Himself Christ paid what Adam owed to God. Truly He became A sacrifice for the sin of men and their progeny, as the blessed Paul declares: ‘Christ loved us and delivered himself up for us as an offering and a sacrifice to God to ascend in fragrant odor’.”- St. Caesarius Sermons, Volume I, pp. 55-56

Ambrose of Milan

“He also took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgement, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death. Therefore nothing was done contrary to God’s sentence when the terms of that sentence were fulfilled, for the curse was unto death but grace is after death”(Ambrose of Milan, “Flight from the World,” in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 65, St. Ambrose: Seven Exegetical Works, trans. M. P. McHugh [Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1972], 314-315).

Gregory of Nazianzus 

“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.” He makes “our condition His own. Of the same kind, it appears to me, is the expression, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ He was in His own Person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes His own our folly and our transgressions….” 

(Gregory Nazianzen, “Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 7, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow [New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894], 7311).

Pope Gregory the Great

“The second Adam being made incarnate, had no sins of His own, and yet being without offence took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal” (Gregory the Great, “Morals of the Book of Job,” in Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, vol. 1 [London: Oxford, 1844], 148) 

John Chrysostom

“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” (“Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Second Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 12, Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, eds. Phili Schaff, trans. J. Ashworth and Talbot B. Chambers [New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889], 12335).

“In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law. To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment."- John Chrysostom, Homily to Galatians 3:13 

Finally, we shall conclude that the church fathers, while discussing the doctrine of the atonement, represent a very rich bag of different views and emphases. For some, the underlying theme is Christus Victor, for others, is recapitulation and theosis. Nevertheless, their writings reveal a very broad view of what the atonement is; how reconciliation between God and man happens. This study has shown how the church fathers were not reductionistic, and held to more atonement theories at once (in particular PSA+ other models), while not denying penal substitutionary atonement. Just because the emphasis of some fathers is on theosis or Christus victor does not mean they authomatically excluded a penal substitutionary view from their writings altogether as some want us to think today. The "penal" and "substitutionary" aspects of their writings are often neglected, ignored and not presented when an attempt is made to engage patristic theology on this issue. Here, we do not intend to give a bunch of proof-quotes from the fathers, but rather to shed more light on some aspects that are often neglected and these quotes are for further study and meditation. The idea of penal substitutionary atonement as we have first defined it, is clearly found in every church father that was quoted, and this has to teach us a lesson: if they held to more theories of the atonement, why can't we? Why is it that we have to reject the emphasis on recapitulation and theosis when we endorse penal substitutionary atonement? Or why is it that we deny penal substitution in favor of just some of the theories the fathers presented? My proposal is that we should endorse most theories, especially Christus Victor, Recapitulation, and Penal Substitutionary Atonement. These theories are absolutely complementary and not at odds with each other as we have seen. I hope this has been fruitful and might provoke you to enlarge your understanding of the atonement and be edifying to your faith.

May the grace of Jesus Christ our Lord, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all!