I. Introduction and Overview
The doctrine of atonement stands at the very heart of Christian theology, addressing the fundamental question of how Christ’s death and resurrection reconcile humanity to God. This comprehensive analysis examines two significant contemporary perspectives on atonement theology: Rutledge Fleming’s modified Catholic view as presented in “The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ,” and William L. Hess’s Classical View as articulated in “Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God Punish Jesus?” Both scholars reject the traditional Protestant doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), yet they arrive at their positions through different theological paths and with distinct emphases.
Fleming, writing from within the Anglican tradition with strong Catholic influences, presents what she calls a “modified Catholic view” that maintains the concept of substitution while firmly rejecting the idea that Christ was penally punished by God the Father. Her approach is characterized by a sophisticated integration of multiple biblical motifs, including the Passover, blood sacrifice, ransom, the Great Assize (divine judgment), Christus Victor, the descent into hell, substitution, and recapitulation. Fleming argues that these motifs should not be viewed in isolation but rather as interwoven themes that together present a comprehensive picture of Christ’s saving work.
Hess, on the other hand, advocates for what he terms the “Classical View” of atonement, which he argues was the predominant understanding in the early church before being displaced by later medieval and Reformation developments. His position strongly emphasizes the Christus Victor model, wherein Christ’s death and resurrection constitute a decisive victory over the powers of evil—specifically Satan, sin, and death. Hess completely rejects any notion of God punishing Jesus, viewing such ideas as distortions that misrepresent the character of God and the nature of Christ’s salvific work.
Both authors share a common concern: they believe that Penal Substitutionary Atonement, particularly as developed during the Protestant Reformation and refined in Reformed scholasticism, presents serious theological problems. They argue that PSA creates an unacceptable division within the Trinity, portrays God as requiring violent satisfaction for sin, and fails to adequately account for the full biblical witness regarding Christ’s saving work. However, while united in their rejection of PSA, Fleming and Hess diverge significantly in their constructive proposals for understanding the atonement.
II. Fleming’s Modified Catholic View of Atonement
The Foundation of Fleming’s Approach
Fleming’s theological method is deeply rooted in biblical exegesis combined with careful attention to the church’s liturgical and theological tradition. She begins with the premise that the New Testament presents multiple images and metaphors for understanding Christ’s death, and that any adequate theology of atonement must take all of these into account rather than privileging one over the others. In her introduction to Part 2 of her work, “The Biblical Motifs,” Fleming explicitly states her intention to “identify the various themes and motifs used by the New Testament to expound the crucifixion of Christ and to locate them within the biblical narrative so as to avoid forcing that narrative into one narrow theoretical tunnel.”
Central to Fleming’s approach is her understanding of sin not merely as individual moral failures but as a cosmic Power (which she often capitalizes) that holds humanity in bondage. This understanding shapes her interpretation of Christ’s work on the cross. She writes extensively about how “the Son of God invades the territory of Sin, Death, and the devil” and engages in cosmic warfare on humanity’s behalf. This cosmic dimension of sin and redemption forms the backdrop against which Fleming understands all the various biblical motifs of atonement.
Fleming’s treatment of the Passover motif illustrates her integrative approach. She doesn’t simply note the connection between Christ and the Passover lamb; she explores how the Passover narrative functions as a foundational story of deliverance that shapes the entire biblical understanding of salvation. She writes: “The exodus story functions in one way in one community at one time, and in another way in another community at a different time.” This dynamic understanding allows Fleming to see the Passover not as a static type but as a living narrative that continues to interpret God’s saving action in Christ.
The Role of Blood Sacrifice in Fleming’s Theology
Fleming dedicates significant attention to the biblical theme of blood sacrifice, defending its importance against modern critics who find such imagery distasteful or primitive. She quotes theologian George Hunsinger’s assertion that “The motif of Christ’s blood, as derived from the New Testament, is unsurpassed in its metaphorical range, complexity, and richness.” Fleming argues that the blood of Christ functions on multiple levels simultaneously: it cleanses, it protects, it marks God’s people, and it establishes a new covenant.
Importantly, Fleming distinguishes between blood as payment for sin and blood as the means of cleansing and purification. She emphasizes that in the biblical worldview, blood represents life (citing Leviticus 17:11), and Christ’s blood therefore represents the giving of his life for the life of the world. This is not primarily about satisfying divine wrath but about defeating the powers of death through the power of indestructible life.
Fleming also addresses the controversial “binding of Isaac” narrative (Genesis 22) and its relationship to Christian atonement theology. She notes that while this story has traditionally been read as prefiguring Christ’s sacrifice, it must be interpreted carefully to avoid suggesting that God desires human sacrifice or that God the Father is cruel. Fleming sees in this narrative not a demand for violent satisfaction but rather God’s provision of a substitute, pointing forward to God’s ultimate provision in Christ.
Substitution Without Penal Substitution
One of Fleming’s most significant contributions is her defense of substitutionary language while rejecting penal substitution. She argues vigorously that the motif of substitution—that Christ died in our place—is thoroughly biblical and was present in the church’s teaching from the earliest times. She provides extensive documentation from the Church Fathers, including Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Melito of Sardis, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom, all of whom used substitutionary language without embracing what would later become penal substitution theory.
Fleming makes a crucial distinction: “Christ died not only on our behalf but also in our place” does not necessarily mean that God punished Christ instead of punishing us. Rather, Christ entered into our condition of bondage to sin and death, taking our place under these powers in order to defeat them from within. She writes: “The theme of substitution properly arises out of the biblical narrative, where it appears in various contexts as part of an organic whole. It appears as a theme wherever the Greek words huper (for) and peri (on account of) are used to declare the meaning of Christ’s death.”
Fleming’s interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 (“God made him to be sin who knew no sin”) exemplifies her approach. She connects this mysterious utterance to the cry of dereliction (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), understanding both as expressing Christ’s complete identification with humanity’s condition under sin. However, she interprets this not as God punishing Jesus but as Christ voluntarily entering into the depths of human alienation from God in order to overcome it. “We cannot plumb the depths of this cry,” she writes, “for truly it comes as Christ descends into the hell from which he delivers us.”
The Descent into Hell and Christus Victor
Fleming gives substantial attention to the often-neglected credal affirmation that Christ “descended into hell.” She sees this not as a minor addendum but as crucial for understanding the completeness of Christ’s victory. The descent into hell represents Christ’s invasion of Death’s own territory, his confrontation with the powers of evil at their strongest point, and his triumphant emergence with the keys of death and hell.
This connects directly to Fleming’s embrace of the Christus Victor motif, which she sees not as an alternative to substitution but as complementary to it. Christ substitutes himself for us precisely in order to fight our battle against the powers that hold us captive. Fleming writes: “The increased prestige of the Christus Victor theme in our day is partly related to its effectiveness as an alternative to the formerly widespread, now much-reviled, ‘penal substitution theory.’ More important for our argument here is that the strong preference today for the Christus Victor theme, often to the exclusion of the others, is related to the distaste in the mainline churches and in liberal theology for the gravity and power of Sin and God’s judgment upon it.”
The Great Exchange and Recapitulation
Fleming develops the patristic concept of the “great exchange”—that Christ took our place in death so that we might take his place in life. This exchange is not merely forensic or legal but ontological and transformative. Through union with Christ in his death and resurrection, believers actually participate in his victory and share in his righteousness. This is not simply a matter of imputed righteousness (as in Reformed theology) but of real transformation through participation in Christ’s life.
The theme of recapitulation, drawn especially from Irenaeus, features prominently in Fleming’s synthesis. Christ as the new Adam succeeds where the first Adam failed, not simply by obeying where Adam disobeyed, but by reversing the entire trajectory of human history. Fleming quotes John Donne’s poem: “We think that Paradise and Calvarie, Christ’s Crosse and Adam’s tree, stood in one place. Looke, Lord, and finde both Adams met in me; As the first Adam’s sweat surrounds my face, May the last Adam’s blood my soul embrace.”
III. Hess’s Classical View of Atonement
The Historical Argument Against PSA
Hess begins his work with a strong historical argument against Penal Substitutionary Atonement. He contends that PSA, far from being the biblical or traditional view, is actually a relatively late development in Christian theology, emerging primarily during the Protestant Reformation. While acknowledging that some scholars like William Lane Craig argue for earlier roots of PSA, Hess maintains that when the Church Fathers use terms like “substitution,” “payment,” and “debt,” they mean something quite different from what Reformed theologians would later mean by these terms.
According to Hess, the early church’s understanding was dominated by what Gustaf Aulén called the “Classical” view of atonement, centered on Christ’s victory over evil powers. Hess argues: “It is my position that PSA was primarily developed in its current form during the Reformation and thus is the perspective I will be writing from.” He sees PSA as arising from a combination of Augustinian theology (particularly regarding original sin and predestination), Anselm’s satisfaction theory, and the particular legal and political context of the Reformation era.
Hess traces the development of PSA through key figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin, showing how they transformed earlier concepts of satisfaction and substitution into a specifically penal framework. He quotes Luther’s shocking statement that on the cross Christ became “the greatest sinner, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer that ever was or ever could be in the whole world” because “he being made a substitute for us all, took upon him our sins.” Calvin went even further, Hess argues, in systematizing the idea that God’s justice required punishment and that Christ bore this punishment in our place.
The Nature of God and the Trinity
One of Hess’s primary objections to PSA concerns its implications for understanding God’s character and the unity of the Trinity. He asks pointed questions: “How can the Trinity remain unified if one Person acts against another? Why does God need to be satisfied in order to forgive us, while we are called to forgive freely as He forgave us? If God does not change, how does PSA reconcile us to Him without implying a change in God?”
Hess argues that PSA presents God the Father as wrathful and demanding violent satisfaction, while portraying Jesus as the merciful one who protects us from the Father’s anger. This, he contends, creates an unacceptable division within the Godhead and contradicts Jesus’s statement that “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). If Jesus reveals the Father’s character perfectly, Hess reasons, then the Father cannot be the angry deity demanding punishment that PSA seems to require.
Furthermore, Hess points out that PSA seems to make God subject to an abstract principle of justice that even He cannot override. If God must punish sin as a matter of necessity, then He is not truly sovereign but is bound by some higher law. This contradicts the biblical portrayal of God as the one who freely forgives and whose mercy triumphs over judgment.
Satan and the Powers of Evil
Central to Hess’s Classical View is the restoration of Satan and the demonic powers to the atonement equation. He argues that modern Western Christianity has largely ignored or demythologized these biblical realities, leading to an impoverished understanding of Christ’s work. Hess writes: “It is often this dramatic backdrop and mystical reality of the atonement that is missing in people’s view. However, usually when explained, eyes seem to light up as they begin to understand the magnitude of what Christ accomplished.”
Hess presents Satan not as a medieval caricature but as a biblical reality—”the accuser of the brethren” (Revelation 12:10) who holds legitimate claims against sinful humanity. Through sin, humans have placed themselves under Satan’s dominion, and he uses the law itself to accuse and condemn them. Christ’s work, therefore, must address not only human sin but also Satan’s claims and power.
The victory over Satan is achieved not through payment to him (as some patristic writers suggested) nor through divine deception (as others proposed) but through Christ’s perfect obedience, sacrificial death, and triumphant resurrection. Hess explains: “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was the victor over the evil forces of this world… In His perfection, He overthrew Sin; in His conquest, He crushed the head of the great serpent.”
The Incarnation and Identification
Hess places great emphasis on the incarnation as central to understanding the atonement. Christ became human not primarily to be punished in our place but to identify with humanity and to fight our battle from within the human condition. Hess makes a helpful distinction between “identification” and “transferal” views of Christ’s work:
Identification View: “The idea that someone is a representative of someone else in their absence. This is done to serve someone else on their behalf. Example: There is a business meeting regarding some accounts I own. I am unable to attend, so I ask someone to go and represent me in my stead. In this sense, they identify as myself and act on my behalf. However, they are not held accountable for my accounts, nor do they transfer to him.”
Transferal View: “The idea that someone is a complete and literal replacement for someone in their place. This is done to receive the sin guilt of another and act as a substitute. Example: There is a business meeting regarding some accounts I own. I am unable to attend, so I give my accounts to someone else, and they go as my replacement. In this sense, they identify as themselves but act as my substitute. The substitute now is held accountable for my accounts, and they are transferred to him.”
Hess argues for the identification view, seeing Christ as our representative who acts on our behalf without having our guilt literally transferred to him. This preserves both Christ’s sinlessness and the justice of God, who does not punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty.
Blood as Cleansing, Not Payment
Like Fleming, Hess emphasizes that blood in the biblical sacrificial system was primarily about cleansing and purification, not about satisfying divine wrath. He writes: “blood cleanses and purifies; it does not satiate justice.” The life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11), and Christ’s blood represents the power of his indestructible life overcoming the corruption of sin and death.
Hess explains: “Man’s life blood has been infected with sin and therefore is corrupted. We must receive the lifeblood of something that is perfect and pure – to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). This is what the atonement does: Christ’s blood is applied to us as the perfect sacrifice in the New Covenant (Hebrews 9:12-14). Not to appease God’s wrath or justice, but because ‘love covers [cleanses] a multitude of sins’ by cleansing us and reversing the corruption of sin (1 Peter 4:8).”
The Descent into Hades and the Resurrection
Hess gives significant attention to Christ’s descent into Hades (which he distinguishes from hell as a place of torment). This descent was not to suffer punishment but to proclaim victory and to free those held captive by death. Hess quotes Melito of Sardis’s powerful Easter homily: “The Lord clothed himself with humanity, and with suffering on behalf of the suffering one, and bound on behalf of the one constrained, and judged on behalf of the one convicted, and buried on behalf of the one entombed, rose from the dead and cried out aloud: ‘Who takes issue with me? Let him stand before me. I set free the condemned. I gave life to the dead. I raise up the entombed.'”
The resurrection is not merely the vindication of Christ’s death but the actual defeat of death itself. Death could not hold the Author of Life, and in rising, Christ broke death’s power over all humanity. This is why Hess can say that “Jesus defeated death with death, conquering Satan with his own weapon.”
IV. Major Points of Agreement
Despite their different approaches and emphases, Fleming and Hess share substantial common ground in their understanding of the atonement. These agreements are significant and demonstrate that their rejection of Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not leave them without robust theological alternatives.
Rejection of Divine Punishment of Christ
Both authors firmly reject the idea that God the Father punished Jesus on the cross. Fleming explicitly states that while Christ died as our substitute, this does not mean he was punished by God in our place. She carefully distinguishes between Christ bearing the consequences of sin and being punished for sin by the Father. Similarly, Hess argues that the idea of God punishing Jesus contradicts the unified will of the Trinity and misrepresents God’s character as revealed in Christ.
This rejection is not merely semantic but theological. Both authors see PSA as creating an unacceptable rift within the Godhead, portraying the Father and Son as having opposing wills or purposes. They insist that the cross represents the unified action of the Trinity for human salvation, not the Father’s wrath being satisfied by the Son’s suffering.
Emphasis on Christus Victor
Both Fleming and Hess give prominent place to the Christus Victor motif, though Hess makes it more central to his overall system. They agree that Christ’s death and resurrection constitute a decisive victory over the powers of evil—sin, death, and the devil. This victory is not merely a byproduct of Christ’s work but is central to understanding what the atonement accomplishes.
Fleming writes extensively about Christ invading the territory of the hostile powers and defeating them through his death and resurrection. Hess similarly emphasizes that “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was the victor over the evil forces of this world.” Both see this victory as liberating humanity from bondage to powers that held them captive, not merely forgiving individual sins.
The Importance of the Incarnation
Both theologians stress that the atonement cannot be understood apart from the incarnation. Christ’s becoming human is not merely a prerequisite for his death but is itself part of the saving action. Fleming emphasizes that Christ’s “whole life was an offering, an assuming of our sinful human nature in order that we should be delivered from it into righteousness and life.” Hess similarly argues that “at the center of this victory over evil is the incarnation, where God met man (like the Mercy Seat).”
This emphasis on incarnation prevents the atonement from being reduced to a transaction or legal fiction. Instead, it becomes about God entering fully into the human condition to heal and restore it from within.
Multiple Biblical Motifs
Both authors insist that the biblical witness to Christ’s saving work is rich and multifaceted, and that no single theory or model can capture its full significance. Fleming explicitly structures her work around eight major biblical motifs, arguing that they must be held together in creative tension. Hess, while emphasizing Christus Victor, also incorporates elements of ransom theory, moral influence, and recapitulation.
This methodological agreement is significant. Both authors resist the tendency toward reductionism that they see in PSA, which tends to subordinate all other biblical images to the penal-legal framework.
Sin as Power, Not Just Transgression
Fleming and Hess both understand sin as more than individual moral failures. Fleming frequently capitalizes “Sin” to indicate its character as a hostile power that holds humanity in bondage. Hess writes about sin as a corrupting force that has infected all of creation and placed it under Satan’s dominion.
This understanding shapes their view of what Christ’s work accomplishes. It’s not merely about forgiving individual transgressions but about defeating the power of Sin itself and liberating humanity from its dominion.
V. Critical Differences in Theology
While Fleming and Hess agree on many fundamental points, particularly in their rejection of PSA, they diverge significantly in their constructive proposals. These differences reveal distinct theological emphases and methodological approaches.
The Role and Meaning of Substitution
Perhaps the most significant difference between Fleming and Hess concerns the concept of substitution. Fleming vigorously defends substitutionary language, arguing that it is thoroughly biblical and was present in the church’s teaching from the beginning. She writes: “We will attempt to show that the motif of substitution, rightly understood, is present behind and in all the other motifs. Moreover, it has features that we cannot do without.”
Hess, by contrast, is much more cautious about substitutionary language, preferring to speak of Christ as our “representative” rather than our substitute. He makes a careful distinction between Christ identifying with humanity and acting on our behalf (which he affirms) and Christ taking our place as a substitute to receive punishment (which he rejects). For Hess, the language of substitution is too closely tied to penal concepts and risks being misunderstood in a PSA framework.
This difference is not merely terminological but reflects different understandings of how Christ’s work relates to humanity. Fleming sees Christ as literally taking our place—under the powers of sin and death, in the experience of godforsakenness, in death itself—in order to deliver us. Hess sees Christ as representing humanity before God and defeating the powers that held humanity captive, but not as taking our place in a substitutionary sense.
The Role of Satan and Demonic Powers
While both authors acknowledge the reality of Satan and demonic powers, Hess gives them a much more prominent role in his atonement theology. For Hess, Satan is not merely one of the powers Christ defeats but is the primary antagonist in the drama of redemption. He writes extensively about Satan as “the accuser” who has legitimate claims on sinful humanity and uses the law itself to condemn them.
Fleming, while acknowledging the devil’s role, tends to speak more abstractly about “Powers” (Sin, Death, and the devil) and focuses more on the cosmic and systemic dimensions of evil rather than on personal demonic beings. Her treatment is more influenced by modern biblical scholarship that sees the “principalities and powers” as including but not limited to personal spiritual beings.
This difference affects how they understand Christ’s victory. For Hess, it is specifically a victory over Satan, “crushing the head of the great serpent” as his title suggests. For Fleming, it is a broader victory over all the powers that hold humanity in bondage, with Satan being one among several.
The Interpretation of Old Testament Sacrifice
Both authors discuss Old Testament sacrifice, but with different emphases. Fleming gives extended attention to the various types of sacrifice and their fulfillment in Christ. She sees the sacrificial system as providing multiple images and patterns that help interpret Christ’s death—the Passover lamb, the Day of Atonement offerings, the peace offerings, and others.
Hess focuses more specifically on refuting PSA interpretations of Old Testament sacrifice. He argues at length that the laying on of hands in sacrifice was not about transferring guilt but about identification and dedication. He emphasizes that blood in the sacrificial system was about cleansing and purification, not about bearing punishment. His treatment is more polemical, aimed at dismantling PSA readings of these texts.
The Descent into Hell/Hades
Both authors discuss Christ’s descent after his death, but with different understandings. Fleming speaks of Christ descending “into hell,” which she understands as the place or state of godforsakenness and separation from God. For her, this represents Christ entering fully into the human experience of alienation from God in order to overcome it from within.
Hess makes a careful distinction between “Hades” (the realm of the dead) and “hell” (the place of final punishment). He argues that Christ descended to Hades to proclaim victory and free the captives, not to suffer punishment. This is part of his broader emphasis on Christ as victor rather than as victim.
Theological Method and Sources
Fleming’s theological method is more rooted in the Anglican tradition of scripture, tradition, and reason. She draws extensively on patristic sources, medieval theologians, and modern biblical scholarship. Her approach is more systematic and comprehensive, attempting to weave together various theological strands into a coherent whole.
Hess’s method is more directly biblical and polemical. While he does engage historical theology, particularly in refuting the historicity of PSA, his primary focus is on biblical exegesis. His work has more of an apologetic character, aimed at convincing readers to abandon PSA in favor of the Classical View.
VI. Biblical Interpretation and Key Verses
The interpretation of specific biblical passages reveals both the common ground and the distinctive approaches of Fleming and Hess. Their handling of key texts demonstrates how the same verses can support different theological frameworks while still rejecting PSA.
| Biblical Passage | Fleming’s Interpretation | Hess’s Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Isaiah 53:4-6 “Surely he has borne our griefs… he was wounded for our transgressions” |
Fleming sees this as supporting substitution but not penal substitution. Christ bears our condition and its consequences, not punishment from God. She notes the relative silence of the NT on this passage and warns against using it to construct a thoroughgoing penal model. | Hess argues this describes Christ’s empathetic identification with human suffering, not a transfer of guilt. He emphasizes that “bearing” sin means carrying its weight and consequences, not being punished for it. |
| Romans 5:12-21 The Adam-Christ parallel |
Fleming emphasizes the “great exchange”—Christ as the new Adam who reverses the trajectory of human history. She sees this as supporting both substitution and recapitulation themes. | Hess focuses on Christ as the second Adam who succeeds where the first failed, emphasizing obedience rather than punishment. This supports his representative rather than substitutionary view. |
| 2 Corinthians 5:21 “God made him to be sin who knew no sin” |
Fleming connects this to the cry of dereliction, seeing it as Christ entering fully into the human condition of alienation from God. This is substitution but not penal substitution. | Hess interprets this as Christ identifying with sinful humanity, not literally becoming sinful or being punished as if he were sinful. |
| Galatians 3:13 “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” |
Fleming sees this as clearly substitutionary—Christ takes our place under the curse. But the curse is not God’s punishment but the consequence of being under the law’s condemnation. | Hess emphasizes the redemption/ransom aspect rather than substitution. Christ frees us from the curse by defeating the one who uses the law to accuse us (Satan). |
| Colossians 2:13-15 Triumphing over powers and authorities |
Fleming uses this as a key text for Christus Victor, showing how substitution and victory themes interweave. Christ defeats the powers by submitting to them and then rising victorious. | This is central to Hess’s argument—Christ’s victory over demonic powers, not satisfaction of divine wrath, is the heart of atonement. |
| Hebrews 2:14-15 Destroying the one who has the power of death |
Fleming sees this as Christ invading death’s territory through substitution—taking our place in death to destroy death from within. | Hess emphasizes this as the clearest statement of Christus Victor—Christ defeats Satan who held the power of death, freeing those held in bondage. |
| 1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree” |
Fleming notes this as the clearest NT use of Isaiah 53 for substitution. Christ bears our sins not as punishment but as taking responsibility for dealing with them. | Hess sees “bearing” as carrying or taking away, not being punished for. The emphasis is on the result—”that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.” |
| 1 John 2:2; 4:10 Christ as “propitiation” (hilasmos) |
Fleming interprets this as expiation (cleansing from sin) rather than propitiation (appeasing wrath), though she doesn’t extensively discuss these passages. | Hess strongly argues for “expiation” over “propitiation,” seeing Christ’s work as cleansing/purifying rather than appeasing divine anger. |
Hermeneutical Principles
Both authors share certain hermeneutical principles that shape their interpretation:
Distinctive Interpretive Approaches
However, there are also distinctive elements in their interpretive approaches. Fleming tends toward a more liturgical and sacramental reading of Scripture. Her interpretation is deeply influenced by the church’s liturgical tradition, particularly the Anglican tradition of reading certain passages during Holy Week and Easter. She often notes how passages have functioned in worship and devotion, not just in theological argument.
Hess, on the other hand, employs a more polemical and apologetic hermeneutic. His interpretation is often framed in opposition to PSA readings, showing how passages that seem to support PSA actually mean something different when properly understood. He is particularly concerned with issues of translation, arguing that many English translations have been influenced by PSA theology.
VII. The Role of Substitution
The concept of substitution represents one of the most significant points of divergence between Fleming and Hess, revealing different theological instincts and concerns. This difference is particularly important because substitution has been so central to Western atonement theology since Anselm.
Fleming’s Defense of Substitution
Fleming mounts a vigorous defense of substitutionary language while carefully distinguishing it from penal substitution. She argues that the concept of Christ dying “in our place” is too deeply embedded in Scripture, tradition, and Christian piety to be abandoned. She writes: “There is something deep in the human psyche that responds to the idea of substitution—someone who dies in my place so that I may live—and the loss of it from the preaching and teaching of the church would be grievous.”
For Fleming, substitution operates on multiple levels. First, Christ substitutes for humanity under the powers of Sin and Death. He enters into our condition of bondage, taking our place as one subject to these powers, in order to defeat them from within. This is not about God punishing Christ instead of us, but about Christ entering into our situation to transform it.
Second, Fleming sees substitution in the “great exchange” where Christ takes our place in death so that we might take his place in life. This is more than a legal transaction; it’s an ontological exchange where Christ assumes our human nature in its fallen condition in order to heal and restore it.
Third, Fleming argues that substitution is necessary for understanding the personal and emotional dimensions of salvation. The recognition that “Christ died for me” or even “instead of me” has unique power to evoke gratitude, love, and transformation. She quotes the hymn: “Lo, the Good Shepherd for the sheep is offered; The slave hath sinnèd, and the Son hath suffered; For our atonement, while we nothing heeded, God interceded.”
Fleming provides extensive historical evidence that substitutionary language was present in the church from the earliest times. She documents its use in Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, and many others, showing that they used such language without the penal framework that would later develop.
Hess’s Critique and Alternative
Hess is much more suspicious of substitutionary language, seeing it as almost inevitably leading to penal concepts. He prefers to speak of Christ as our “representative” rather than our “substitute.” This is not merely a semantic preference but reflects a different understanding of how Christ’s work relates to humanity.
For Hess, representation means that Christ acts on our behalf without taking our place in a substitutionary sense. Using his analogy, Christ is like someone who attends a meeting to represent us, speaking and acting on our behalf, but not taking over our identity or bearing our liabilities. This preserves Christ’s distinct identity and avoids any suggestion that guilt or punishment is transferred to him.
Hess argues that the biblical language often translated as substitution (especially the Greek preposition “huper”) is better understood as “on behalf of” rather than “instead of.” While acknowledging that huper can sometimes mean “instead of,” he argues that in soteriological contexts it typically means “for the benefit of” or “on behalf of.”
Furthermore, Hess connects substitutionary language with the worst excesses of PSA theology. He quotes Luther’s statement that Christ became “the greatest sinner, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer that ever was” and Calvin’s teaching about God pouring out his wrath on Christ. For Hess, these problematic ideas flow naturally from substitutionary thinking, making it better to avoid such language altogether.
Evaluating the Debate
The debate over substitution reveals different pastoral and theological concerns. Fleming is concerned to preserve the personal and existential power of the gospel message. For her, the idea that Christ took our place speaks directly to human guilt, fear, and alienation, offering a concrete and powerful message of salvation. She worries that without substitution, the gospel becomes too abstract or impersonal.
Hess is concerned to protect the character of God and the unity of the Trinity. For him, substitutionary language too easily slides into making God the Father the one who punishes Jesus, creating an unacceptable division in the Godhead. He also worries about the moral implications of substitutionary thinking—does it teach that the innocent can be justly punished for the guilty?
Both concerns are valid, and the difference between Fleming and Hess here may be partly contextual. Fleming writes from within the Anglican tradition where liturgical and devotional use of substitutionary language has been less tied to strict penal theology. Hess writes from an evangelical context where PSA has been dominant and where substitutionary language almost automatically evokes penal concepts.
VIII. Understanding Christ’s Victory
Both Fleming and Hess emphasize Christ’s victory over evil powers, but they understand this victory in somewhat different ways. These differences reflect their broader theological frameworks and their understanding of the nature of evil and redemption.
Fleming’s Integrated Victory
For Fleming, Christ’s victory is achieved through a complex interplay of the various biblical motifs she identifies. The victory is not separate from substitution, sacrifice, or ransom, but is accomplished through them. Christ defeats the powers by submitting to them, allowing them to do their worst, and then emerging victorious through resurrection.
Fleming emphasizes that this victory is won through apparent defeat. The crucifixion looks like the triumph of evil—the innocent one is condemned, the righteous one is killed, the Son of God is rejected. But this apparent defeat is actually the means of victory. By submitting to death, Christ enters death’s domain and destroys it from within. By accepting the curse of the law, he exhausts its power and emerges free.
This understanding draws heavily on patristic interpretations, particularly the idea of divine deception or the “fishhook” theory—that Satan overreached in killing Christ and thereby lost his power over humanity. While Fleming doesn’t embrace the more mythological aspects of these theories, she does see truth in the idea that evil defeats itself by attacking Christ.
Fleming also emphasizes the cosmic dimensions of Christ’s victory. This is not just about individual salvation but about the restoration of creation itself. The powers that Christ defeats are not just personal tempters but cosmic forces that have distorted God’s good creation. The victory therefore has implications for all of reality, not just for human souls.
Hess’s Dramatic Victory
Hess presents Christ’s victory in more dramatic and personal terms, with Satan as the primary antagonist. Drawing on the imagery of Genesis 3:15, he sees the entire biblical narrative as the outworking of the conflict between the seed of the woman and the serpent. Christ’s victory is specifically the crushing of the serpent’s head, the definitive defeat of Satan.
For Hess, this victory is achieved not through payment or substitution but through combat. Christ invades Satan’s territory, challenges his authority, and defeats him through perfect obedience, sacrificial death, and triumphant resurrection. The cross is not where Christ is punished but where he defeats Satan’s claim on humanity.
Hess gives particular attention to the “harrowing of hell” tradition, though he prefers to speak of Christ’s descent to Hades. This descent is not for suffering but for proclamation and liberation. Christ storms the gates of death, proclaims his victory, and leads the captives free. This is victor, not victim, theology.
The resurrection is absolutely central to Hess’s understanding of victory. Without the resurrection, there is no victory—just another failed messiah. But the resurrection demonstrates that death could not hold Christ, that Satan’s power is broken, and that a new age has begun. Hess quotes Melito of Sardis: “It is I, says the Christ, I am he who destroys death, and triumphs over the enemy, and crushes Hades, and binds the strong man, and bears humanity off to the heavenly heights.”
The Nature and Scope of Victory
Both authors agree that Christ’s victory is comprehensive, but they emphasize different aspects. Fleming tends to speak more of victory over impersonal powers—Sin, Death, the Law—while Hess focuses on victory over personal beings—Satan and his demons. This difference reflects broader theological sensibilities, with Fleming more influenced by modern biblical scholarship’s demythologizing tendencies and Hess more committed to a traditional supernatural worldview.
They also differ in how they understand the present reality of this victory. Fleming tends toward an “already/not yet” eschatology where Christ’s victory is real but not fully manifest. The powers are defeated but not destroyed; they continue to operate but without ultimate authority. Christians live between the times, participating in Christ’s victory while still struggling with sin and death.
Hess seems to emphasize more strongly the “already” aspect of victory. Satan is defeated, his power is broken, and Christians can live in that victory now. While acknowledging ongoing spiritual warfare, Hess presents a more triumphalist vision of Christian life in the power of Christ’s victory.
IX. The Nature of Sin and Redemption
Fleming and Hess’s understanding of sin shapes their entire approach to atonement. Both reject the primarily legal-forensic understanding of sin that characterizes PSA, but they develop their alternatives in different directions.
Fleming on Sin as Power
Fleming consistently presents Sin (often capitalized) as a power that holds humanity in bondage. This is not merely the accumulation of individual sins but a hostile force that has invaded God’s good creation and holds it captive. She draws on Paul’s language in Romans about Sin as an active agent that deceives, enslaves, and kills.
This understanding of Sin as power shapes Fleming’s view of what Christ accomplishes. The problem is not primarily that humans have broken God’s laws and need forgiveness (though this is true), but that they are enslaved to a power from which they cannot free themselves. Christ’s work is therefore not primarily about satisfying legal requirements but about defeating this enslaving power.
Fleming also emphasizes the systemic and structural dimensions of sin. Sin is not just personal but social, not just individual but cosmic. It infects institutions, systems, and structures, turning them into instruments of oppression and death. This understanding opens up connections between atonement theology and social justice, though Fleming doesn’t develop these connections extensively.
Redemption, for Fleming, is liberation from bondage to these powers and transformation into the image of Christ. It’s not just forgiveness but new creation, not just pardon but participation in Christ’s victory. She emphasizes the communal dimensions of redemption—God is creating a people, not just saving individuals.
Hess on Sin as Corruption
Hess tends to speak of sin more in terms of corruption and infection than as a personified power. Sin has corrupted God’s good creation, infected it with death, and handed it over to Satan’s dominion. This corruption affects everything—human nature, relationships, creation itself.
For Hess, the problem of sin is closely tied to Satan’s dominion. Through sin, humans have placed themselves under Satan’s authority, and he uses their sin to accuse and condemn them. The law, which should guide humans to righteousness, becomes in Satan’s hands an instrument of condemnation and death.
This understanding shapes Hess’s view of redemption as cleansing, healing, and liberation. Christ’s blood cleanses the corruption of sin; his resurrection breaks the power of death; his victory liberates from Satan’s dominion. Redemption is about restoration to the original created purpose, not just forgiveness of transgressions.
Hess emphasizes that redemption is cosmic in scope. It’s not just about saving human souls but about reclaiming all of creation from Satan’s dominion. The new heaven and new earth are not afterthoughts but the goal toward which all of God’s saving work is directed.
Implications for Christian Life
These different understandings of sin and redemption have practical implications for Christian life and discipleship. Fleming’s emphasis on Sin as power leads to a focus on resistance and struggle. Christians are called to resist the powers, to refuse to cooperate with systems of oppression, to live as signs of God’s coming kingdom. The Christian life is characterized by ongoing battle against the powers, even though the decisive victory has been won.
Hess’s emphasis on corruption and cleansing leads to a focus on purification and transformation. Christians are called to live holy lives, to be cleansed from sin’s corruption, to manifest the victory Christ has won. The Christian life is characterized by progressive sanctification and increasing victory over sin.
Both authors reject the transactional understanding of salvation common in PSA theology—the idea that salvation is a legal status change that may or may not result in life transformation. For both, salvation is inherently transformative, involving real liberation from real powers and real participation in Christ’s victory.
X. Historical and Theological Context
Understanding the historical and theological contexts from which Fleming and Hess write helps explain their different emphases and approaches. Both are responding to perceived problems in contemporary Christianity, but they diagnose these problems somewhat differently.
Fleming’s Anglican-Catholic Context
Fleming writes from within the Anglican tradition, with its historic commitment to the via media between Catholicism and Protestantism. This tradition has generally been more comfortable with mystery, paradox, and multiple perspectives than some other Christian traditions. The Anglican tradition of common prayer has also kept alive liturgical and devotional uses of atonement imagery that don’t fit neatly into systematic theological categories.
Fleming is also influenced by the Catholic tradition’s emphasis on the incarnation and its sacramental worldview. This leads her to see Christ’s work as affecting not just legal status but ontological reality. The Word became flesh to heal and restore flesh, not just to be punished instead of flesh.
Her context in academic theology also shapes her approach. She engages extensively with historical and contemporary scholarship, showing familiarity with patristic, medieval, Reformation, and modern sources. Her method is more systematic and comprehensive, attempting to weave together various theological strands.
Fleming is also responding to what she sees as the impoverishment of much contemporary Christianity, both liberal and conservative. Liberal Christianity has often abandoned the biblical language of sacrifice, substitution, and victory, leaving it with an anemic gospel of moral improvement. Conservative Christianity has often reduced the gospel to PSA, missing the richness of the biblical witness.
Hess’s Evangelical Context
Hess writes from within evangelicalism but as a critic of one of its central doctrines. His context is one where PSA has been not just dominant but often treated as the gospel itself. He describes growing up with PSA and the spiritual problems it caused—creating fear of the Father while fostering love for Jesus, suggesting a divided Trinity.
His approach is more directly biblical and less engaged with academic theological scholarship. While he does interact with historical sources, particularly in arguing against the antiquity of PSA, his primary focus is on biblical exegesis. This reflects evangelicalism’s emphasis on sola scriptura and suspicion of tradition.
Hess is also influenced by the renewal of interest in spiritual warfare and the demonic in some evangelical and charismatic circles. His emphasis on Satan and demons as real personal beings engaged in cosmic conflict reflects this context. He’s trying to recover what he sees as a biblical worldview that modern Western Christianity has largely abandoned.
His work has an apologetic and pastoral character, aimed at convincing fellow evangelicals to abandon PSA. He knows his audience has been taught that PSA is the biblical gospel, so he must show both that it’s not biblical and that there’s a better alternative.
Common Cultural Context
Both authors write in a context where traditional Christian doctrines are under scrutiny, both from within and without the church. The idea of blood sacrifice seems primitive to many modern people; the notion of substitutionary punishment seems unjust; the whole framework of sin and redemption seems outdated.
Both are also responding to critiques of atonement theology from feminist and liberationist theologians who argue that traditional theories sanctify suffering and encourage victims to accept abuse. While neither Fleming nor Hess engages these critiques extensively, their rejection of PSA and emphasis on victory over oppressive powers shows some influence from these conversations.
The contemporary context of religious pluralism also shapes their work. Both are trying to articulate a robust Christian understanding of salvation that doesn’t depend on portraying God as wrathful or bloodthirsty. They want to present the gospel in a way that reveals God’s love and justice without the problematic elements they see in PSA.
XI. Practical Implications
The theological differences between Fleming and Hess have significant practical implications for preaching, pastoral care, evangelism, and Christian discipleship. These implications help us see why debates about atonement theology matter beyond academic circles.
Preaching and Teaching
Fleming’s approach suggests a style of preaching that draws on the full range of biblical imagery for Christ’s work. Rather than reducing every sermon to PSA categories, preachers should help congregations appreciate the richness of biblical metaphors—Christ as victor, as sacrifice, as ransom, as substitute, as example. This variety keeps preaching fresh and speaks to different needs and situations.
Her emphasis on the liturgical tradition also suggests that preaching should be connected to the church’s worship and seasons. During Lent, focus on Christ’s solidarity with human suffering; during Holy Week, on his victory through apparent defeat; at Easter, on the triumph of life over death.
Hess’s approach suggests preaching that emphasizes the dramatic narrative of cosmic conflict and victory. Sermons should help people understand their struggles in the context of spiritual warfare, while assuring them of Christ’s decisive victory. His approach might particularly resonate with those who have experienced oppression or who struggle with besetting sins.
Both approaches suggest moving beyond purely individualistic preaching to address systemic and cosmic dimensions of sin and redemption. The gospel is not just about personal forgiveness but about God’s victory over all powers that oppose his good purposes for creation.
Pastoral Care and Counseling
Fleming’s retention of substitutionary language provides resources for addressing guilt and shame. When people feel crushed by their failures, the message that Christ took their place can bring profound relief. However, her rejection of penal substitution means this isn’t about God’s anger being redirected but about Christ entering into our condition to transform it.
Her emphasis on multiple motifs also means pastoral care can draw on different images for different situations. Someone struggling with guilt might need to hear about Christ as substitute; someone facing oppression might need to hear about Christ as victor; someone dealing with alienation might need to hear about Christ as reconciler.
Hess’s approach offers particular help for those who have been damaged by PSA theology—those who fear God the Father, who see him as angry and punitive, who can’t reconcile the God Jesus reveals with the God PSA seems to require. His emphasis on God’s unified love and Christ’s victory over accusation can bring healing to those wounded by toxic theology.
His framework also provides resources for dealing with spiritual oppression and demonic influence. While Fleming doesn’t deny these realities, Hess’s more explicit focus on them offers a framework for understanding and addressing such situations.
Evangelism and Apologetics
Fleming’s approach suggests an evangelistic message that emphasizes the richness and beauty of the gospel rather than reducing it to a single transaction. The gospel is about God invading enemy territory to rescue his beloved creation, not about God punishing Jesus so he can forgive us. This may be more compelling to contemporary people who find PSA morally problematic.
Her sophisticated engagement with culture and scholarship also models how to commend the gospel in intellectually credible ways. The gospel doesn’t require checking one’s brain at the door but invites deep thought and engagement.
Hess’s approach offers an evangelistic message centered on liberation and victory. The gospel is good news for the oppressed, the accused, the defeated. Christ has won the victory and offers freedom from all that enslaves us. This message might particularly resonate with those who feel trapped by addiction, oppression, or despair.
His direct biblical approach also models how to make the case for the gospel from Scripture without depending on complicated theological systems. This could be particularly effective in contexts where people respect the Bible but are suspicious of theology.
Social Ethics and Justice
Fleming’s understanding of sin as a power that infects systems and structures has clear implications for social justice. If sin is not just personal but systemic, then redemption must address not just individual hearts but social structures. Christians are called to resist the powers wherever they operate—in racism, economic exploitation, environmental destruction, and other forms of systemic evil.
While Fleming doesn’t develop these implications extensively, her framework provides resources for connecting atonement theology with social action. Christ’s victory over the powers is not complete until all forms of oppression are overcome.
Hess’s emphasis on Satan’s dominion and Christ’s victory could also support social action, though he doesn’t develop this extensively. If Satan holds sway over the world’s systems, then Christians must work to reclaim them for Christ. The kingdom of God advances as Satan’s kingdom retreats.
However, Hess’s more individualistic focus and emphasis on spiritual warfare might lead to a different approach—focusing more on personal evangelism and spiritual transformation as the means of social change rather than direct engagement with structural issues.
Verses That Hess Discusses Which Could Affect Fleming’s Theory
While examining Hess’s work, several biblical passages emerge that Fleming doesn’t extensively address but which could strengthen or challenge aspects of her modified Catholic view:
1. Hebrews 2:14-18 – Hess places great emphasis on this passage’s explicit statement that Christ became human “so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.” Fleming could integrate this more fully into her substitutionary framework, showing how Christ substitutes for us precisely to fight this battle against Satan.
2. 1 John 3:8 – “The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.” Hess uses this to argue that defeating Satan, not satisfying divine justice, is the primary purpose of the incarnation. Fleming might respond that Christ destroys the devil’s works precisely through substitution—taking our place under Satan’s dominion to defeat him from within.
3. Revelation 12:10-11 – The casting down of Satan “the accuser of our brethren” and the victory of the saints “by the blood of the Lamb.” Hess sees this as central to understanding atonement as victory over accusation. Fleming could incorporate this more fully, showing how Christ’s substitutionary death removes the grounds of Satan’s accusation.
4. Luke 11:21-22 – Jesus’s parable about binding the strong man. Hess uses this to emphasize the combat/victory motif. Fleming might interpret this through her substitutionary lens—Christ enters the strong man’s house (our condition) to bind him and free his captives.
5. Acts 26:18 – Paul’s commission to turn people “from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God.” Hess sees this as defining salvation in terms of liberation from Satan’s power. Fleming could argue this supports her view that substitution addresses our bondage to hostile powers, not just legal guilt.
XII. Conclusion
Synthesis and Assessment
The comparison between Fleming’s modified Catholic view and Hess’s Classical view reveals both the possibilities and challenges of articulating a non-penal understanding of the atonement. Both authors demonstrate that rejecting PSA does not mean abandoning a robust theology of the cross. Indeed, their works show that moving beyond PSA can open up richer, more biblical, and more compelling ways of understanding Christ’s saving work.
Fleming’s great contribution is her demonstration that substitutionary language can be retained and defended without falling into penal substitution. Her careful historical work shows that the church used such language for centuries without the problems associated with PSA. Her integration of multiple biblical motifs provides a rich, multifaceted understanding of the cross that avoids reductionism while maintaining coherence. Her emphasis on Christ taking our place under the powers of sin and death, rather than under God’s punishment, offers a way to preserve the personal and existential power of substitutionary language while avoiding its problematic implications.
However, Fleming’s position raises questions. Can substitutionary language really be separated from penal concepts in practice? Given how deeply PSA has shaped Western Christianity, is it possible to use substitutionary language without it being heard in a penal framework? Hess’s concerns about the inevitable slide from substitution to penal substitution deserve serious consideration.
Hess’s contribution is his recovery of the dramatic, cosmic dimensions of redemption often lost in Western theology’s legal-forensic focus. His emphasis on Christ’s victory over Satan and the powers of evil reconnects with the predominant understanding of the early church and offers a compelling narrative of salvation. His clear distinction between representation and substitution provides a helpful alternative framework that preserves Christ’s solidarity with humanity while avoiding suggestions of transferred guilt or punishment.
Yet Hess’s approach also has limitations. His strong emphasis on Satan and demons, while biblical, may be difficult for some modern Christians to embrace. His rejection of substitutionary language may lose something valuable in Christian piety and preaching. And his more polemical approach, while effective in critiquing PSA, sometimes lacks the nuance and comprehensiveness of Fleming’s work.
The Way Forward
Perhaps the way forward is not to choose between Fleming and Hess but to learn from both. Fleming shows us how to retain and reinterpret traditional language in ways that avoid problematic implications. Hess shows us how to recover neglected biblical themes that enrich our understanding of salvation. Together, they demonstrate that the resources exist within Scripture and tradition for articulating a compelling doctrine of atonement that doesn’t depend on divine violence or retributive justice.
Both authors remind us that the atonement is ultimately a mystery that transcends our theological formulations. The cross reveals the depths of divine love, the seriousness of sin, the reality of evil, and the power of God to overcome all that opposes his good purposes. No single theory or model can capture all of this. We need multiple images, diverse metaphors, and varied approaches to begin to appreciate what God has done in Christ.
The practical implications of this theological work are significant. How we understand the atonement shapes how we understand God, ourselves, salvation, and the Christian life. If God is not the angry deity demanding violent satisfaction but the loving Father who enters into our condition to rescue us, this transforms our relationship with him. If Christ is not the victim of divine punishment but the victor over evil powers, this changes how we understand suffering and struggle. If salvation is not just a legal transaction but liberation from real bondage and transformation into Christ’s image, this affects how we live as Christians.
Fleming and Hess both call us to move beyond the reductionism that has too often characterized atonement theology. They invite us to explore the richness of the biblical witness, to learn from the breadth of the church’s tradition, and to articulate the gospel in ways that reveal rather than obscure the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Their work, despite its differences, points toward a more biblically grounded, theologically sophisticated, and pastorally helpful understanding of the cross.
In the end, both authors are trying to answer the same fundamental question: How does the cross reveal and accomplish God’s saving love? Their answers, while different in emphasis and approach, converge on key points: God loves the world and acts to save it; Christ identifies with humanity to rescue us from bondage; the cross achieves victory over all that opposes God’s good purposes; and this salvation transforms us, not just legally but really, not just individually but cosmically.
As the church continues to wrestle with how to proclaim the gospel in the contemporary world, the contributions of scholars like Fleming and Hess are invaluable. They show us that we need not choose between biblical fidelity and theological coherence, between traditional language and contemporary relevance, between personal salvation and cosmic redemption. The gospel is rich enough, deep enough, and broad enough to encompass all these dimensions and more.
The conversation between Fleming and Hess also illustrates the importance of theological dialogue across traditions. Fleming brings the wisdom of the Anglican-Catholic tradition with its liturgical richness and theological comprehensiveness. Hess brings the biblical focus and evangelical fervor of Protestantism along with renewed appreciation for the supernatural worldview of Scripture. Together, they offer resources for a more ecumenical understanding of the atonement that draws on the strengths of various Christian traditions.
Ultimately, both Fleming and Hess call us back to the cross itself—not to our theories about it but to the actual event of God’s self-giving love in Christ. They remind us that the cross is not a problem to be solved but a mystery to be entered, not a doctrine to be defended but good news to be proclaimed and lived. In their different ways, both authors help us see that the cross reveals a God who loves us enough to enter into our deepest darkness, to take on our fiercest enemies, and to emerge victorious for us and for our salvation.
This comprehensive analysis has shown that while Fleming and Hess differ significantly in their constructive proposals, they share a common conviction that PSA inadequately represents the biblical witness and distorts the character of God. Their alternative proposals, while different, both offer rich resources for understanding and proclaiming the gospel. The church would do well to learn from both, allowing their insights to deepen and enrich our understanding of what God has accomplished in Christ for the salvation of the world.
© 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.
