The Eastern Orthodox View of Atonement: A Comprehensive Analysis of Patrick Henry Reardon’s Theology and Its Biblical Foundation

The doctrine of the atonement stands at the very heart of Christian faith. How we understand Christ’s death on the cross shapes our entire understanding of God’s character, the nature of salvation, and the meaning of the Christian life. Yet Christians have understood the atonement in remarkably different ways throughout history. This comprehensive study examines one of the most significant alternatives to the dominant Protestant understanding: the Eastern Orthodox view as articulated by Patrick Henry Reardon in his three-volume work “Reclaiming the Atonement: An Orthodox Theology of Redemption.”

Patrick Henry Reardon, a priest in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, represents a thoughtful and biblically grounded approach to understanding the atonement that differs significantly from the penal substitutionary model common in Western Christianity. His work deserves careful attention not only because it represents the Eastern Orthodox tradition, but because it raises profound questions about how we read Scripture and understand the saving work of Christ.

This study will first thoroughly explain Reardon’s understanding of the atonement, drawing extensively from his work “Reclaiming the Atonement” (Volume 1: The Incarnate Word). We will then compare and contrast his view with the penal substitutionary understanding as defended by William Lane Craig in his comprehensive work “Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration.” Throughout this comparison, we will pay careful attention to the biblical texts that both authors cite, examining whether Reardon’s model adequately accounts for all the substitutionary language found in Scripture.

The stakes of this discussion could not be higher. If the penal substitutionary view is correct, then Christ literally bore the punishment for our sins, satisfying God’s wrath and enabling our forgiveness. If Reardon and the Eastern Orthodox tradition are correct, then this entire framework fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of sacrifice and the character of God. These are not merely academic distinctions; they shape how we worship, how we understand God’s love, and how we proclaim the gospel.

2. Understanding Key Terms and Concepts

Before we proceed with our analysis, it is essential to define several key terms that will appear throughout this study. These definitions will help us understand the precise nature of the disagreement between the Eastern Orthodox and penal substitutionary views.

Atonement itself is an English word, unique among theological terms, that originally meant “at-one-ment” – the state of being reconciled or made one. Reardon deliberately chooses this term for his Orthodox theology, despite its associations with Western theology, because he believes it can be properly understood to express what Christ accomplished without necessarily implying punishment or wrath. As he explains in his introduction, the word captures the idea of reconciliation and unity between God and humanity that Christ’s work achieves.

Penal Substitution refers to the specific theory that Christ bore the punishment (Latin: poena) that we deserved for our sins. According to this view, God’s justice requires that sin be punished, and Christ voluntarily took that punishment upon himself as our substitute. This is the dominant view in Reformed and many Evangelical churches.

Satisfaction, as used by Anselm of Canterbury, refers to the idea that sin offends God’s honor and requires reparation. Christ’s death satisfies this requirement not by being punished but by offering to God something of infinite value – the life of the God-man. This differs from penal substitution in that it focuses on restoring God’s honor rather than absorbing punishment.

Deification or Theosis is central to Eastern Orthodox soteriology. It refers to humanity’s calling to participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). For the Orthodox, salvation is not primarily about escaping punishment but about being transformed into the likeness of God through union with Christ.

Sacrifice in the biblical sense, as Reardon emphasizes, does not primarily mean punishment or death but rather offering and gift. The Hebrew word korban comes from the root meaning “to draw near,” indicating that sacrifice brings the worshipper into communion with God.

Part II: Reardon’s Eastern Orthodox View

3. The Foundation: Life in the Church

Reardon begins his theology of redemption not with abstract theories but with the concrete reality of life in the Church. This starting point is itself significant and distinguishes the Eastern Orthodox approach from Western systematic theology. As Reardon explains in Chapter 1 of “Reclaiming the Atonement,” the Church is not merely the context for understanding redemption; it is the very place where redemption is experienced and lived out.

For Reardon, theology is “faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum), but this understanding must be rooted in the lived experience of the Church’s worship and sacramental life. The Orthodox Church’s prayers, hymns, and liturgical texts provide the primary theological data for understanding the atonement. Significantly, Reardon notes that expressions like “meritorious cause,” “satisfaction,” and especially “punishment” are “grandly absent from Orthodox prayers and hymns on the theme of redemption.”

“Not for a very long time had I conceived of salvation in chiefly forensic terms, nor, I believe, had I ever seriously thought of Jesus being punished on the Cross; I don’t think I have ever imagined that God took out His anger on His Son. Indeed, even words like merit and satisfaction were long gone from my vocabulary when my family and I joined the Orthodox Church in 1988.”

– Patrick Henry Reardon, Reclaiming the Atonement, Introduction

This experiential foundation leads to a fundamentally different understanding of what Christ accomplished. Rather than satisfying legal requirements or absorbing punishment, Christ’s work is understood in terms of healing, restoration, and transformation. The Church becomes the hospital where this healing takes place, and the sacraments are the medicine of immortality.

Reardon emphasizes that the Orthodox understanding sees salvation as a process of deification – becoming by grace what God is by nature. This process begins in baptism, continues through the Eucharist and other sacraments, and culminates in the full transformation of humanity in the age to come. The cross is central to this process, but not as the place where punishment is meted out. Instead, it is where death is destroyed, where love triumphs over hatred, and where humanity is united to divinity.

4. Sacrifice Without Wrath

One of Reardon’s most significant contributions is his careful analysis of the Old Testament sacrificial system, which he undertook under the influence of Stanislas Lyonnet’s lectures on biblical theology. This analysis led him to a startling conclusion that fundamentally challenges the penal substitutionary view: the wrath of God was not part of Israel’s theology of sacrifice.

“In particular, Lyonnet demonstrated that attention to God’s wrath was not part of the theology of Israel’s sacrificial system. Indeed, the wrath of God was a concept alien to Israel’s understanding of blood sacrifice; although the Hebrew Scriptures have a great deal to say about the divine wrath in connection with sin, they say nothing about it in connection with the sin offering.”

– Patrick Henry Reardon, Reclaiming the Atonement, Introduction

This observation is crucial for understanding the Orthodox view. If the Old Testament sacrifices were not about appeasing God’s wrath, then we cannot interpret Christ’s sacrifice primarily in those terms. Reardon points out that in the Torah, there is no indication that the sacrificial animals – the bulls, goats, sheep, and doves – were being punished in any sense. They were clearly substitutes, but not in a penal sense.

Instead, Reardon argues that sacrifice in the Old Testament was about offering, gift-giving, and establishing communion with God. The blood of the sacrifice represented life offered to God, not death inflicted as punishment. When Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls,” it is speaking of life being offered, not death being required.

This understanding transforms how we read the New Testament’s sacrificial language about Christ. When Paul writes that “Christ loved us and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (Ephesians 5:2), he is using the language of gift and offering, not punishment. A punishment would not produce a “sweet-smelling aroma” to God; this language indicates something pleasing being offered, not wrath being satisfied.

Reardon further notes that the God worshipped in Israel’s temple was not bloodthirsty. When God became angry, the anger might be turned away (by the offering of incense, for example, which symbolizes prayer), but it was never appeased by the shedding of blood. This distinction is vital: turning away wrath through prayer and intercession is fundamentally different from satisfying wrath through punishment.

5. The Incarnational Model

Central to Reardon’s understanding is the inseparable connection between the Incarnation and the atonement. This connection, deeply rooted in patristic theology, sees Christ’s saving work beginning not at the cross but at the moment of the Incarnation itself. As Reardon explains in Chapter 4, “Incarnation and Deification,” the very act of the Word becoming flesh initiates the healing and transformation of human nature.

The famous patristic formula, expressed by Athanasius and others, states: “God became man that man might become god.” This is not mere rhetoric but expresses the fundamental Orthodox understanding of salvation. By taking on human nature, the Word of God united divinity and humanity, making it possible for humans to participate in the divine nature. The Incarnation is thus not merely preparatory to the real work of salvation at the cross; it is itself salvific.

Gregory of Nazianzus’s principle that “what is not assumed is not healed” becomes crucial here. Christ had to take on full human nature – body, soul, and spirit – in order to heal every aspect of humanity. This healing is not forensic or legal but ontological – it involves the actual transformation of human nature through its union with divinity.

Reardon emphasizes that this incarnational understanding makes better sense of many New Testament passages than does the penal substitutionary view. When John writes, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), he is not merely describing the prerequisite for the real work of salvation but is describing salvation itself beginning to unfold. The presence of God with humanity in the person of Jesus Christ is itself redemptive.

This incarnational model also helps explain why the Eastern Orthodox tradition places such emphasis on the Transfiguration, which Reardon discusses in Chapter 9. At the Transfiguration, the disciples glimpse what humanity is meant to become through union with Christ. The glorified Christ on Mount Tabor reveals not only his own divine nature but also the destiny of all who are united to him. This is not about escaping punishment but about participating in divine glory.

6. Christ as the New Adam

Chapter 5 of Reardon’s work, “Christ and Adam,” develops another crucial aspect of Orthodox soteriology: the understanding of Christ as the New or Second Adam who succeeds where the first Adam failed. This theme, deeply rooted in Paul’s theology (especially Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15), provides a framework for understanding salvation that does not require penal substitution.

According to Reardon, Adam’s sin introduced death and corruption into human nature. This was not primarily a legal problem requiring forensic solution but an ontological problem requiring healing and restoration. Christ, as the New Adam, lives the truly human life that Adam failed to live. Through perfect obedience and love, even unto death, Christ reverses the trajectory initiated by Adam’s disobedience.

This Adamic theology sees Christ’s work as recapitulation – he sums up and perfects human existence, succeeding at every point where Adam failed. Where Adam grasped at equality with God (Genesis 3:5), Christ “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6). Where Adam’s disobedience brought death, Christ’s obedience brings life.

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” – Romans 5:19

Importantly, this framework understands Christ’s death not as punishment for Adam’s sin but as the ultimate expression of obedience and love. Christ enters into death – the consequence of Adam’s sin – not to be punished but to destroy death from within. As the Orthodox Paschal hymn declares: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.”

This understanding radically reframes the significance of the cross. Rather than being the place where God’s wrath is poured out, it becomes the place where divine love confronts and conquers death. Christ’s cry of dereliction – “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – is not evidence of the Father’s wrath but of Christ’s complete identification with humanity in its most desperate condition.

Part III: The Penal Substitutionary View

7. William Lane Craig’s Position

To properly evaluate Reardon’s Orthodox view, we must carefully examine the most sophisticated defense of penal substitution available. William Lane Craig’s “Atonement and the Death of Christ” provides exactly such a defense, combining rigorous biblical exegesis with philosophical and legal analysis. Craig’s work represents the penal substitutionary view at its strongest, making it the ideal counterpoint to Reardon’s Orthodox approach.

Craig begins by distinguishing between “atonement” in its etymological sense of reconciliation and “atonement” as it has come to be used in theology – referring to the means by which reconciliation is achieved. For Craig, the central question is: “How is it that Christ’s death atones for our sins?” His answer is unequivocal: Christ bore the punishment that we deserved, satisfying divine justice and enabling God to forgive our sins.

According to Craig, this understanding is not a later theological development but is rooted in Scripture itself, particularly in Isaiah 53 and Paul’s interpretation of Christ’s death. Craig argues that the substitutionary and punitive nature of Christ’s death is the clear teaching of the New Testament, even if the precise philosophical and legal frameworks for understanding it were developed later.

Craig’s position can be summarized in several key propositions: First, sin deserves punishment because God is essentially just. Second, this justice is retributive – it requires that wrongdoing be punished. Third, Christ voluntarily bore this punishment in our place. Fourth, this substitutionary punishment satisfies divine justice, enabling God to forgive sins without compromising his essential nature. Fifth, this entire arrangement is an expression of God’s love and mercy, not a contradiction of it.

8. The Legal Framework

One of Craig’s distinctive contributions is his use of legal philosophy to defend penal substitution against common objections. He argues that many criticisms of penal substitution fail because they assume a crude understanding of punishment and justice that neither the Bible nor sophisticated penal substitution theorists actually hold.

Craig distinguishes between several theories of justice to clarify his position. He rejects consequentialist theories that see punishment merely as a means to produce good outcomes (deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.). Instead, he defends a form of retributivism – the view that punishment is intrinsically just when imposed on wrongdoers. However, he argues that retributive justice, while necessary, is not sufficient by itself to require punishment in every case.

This nuanced position allows Craig to address the objection that penal substitution makes God vindictive or bloodthirsty. God’s justice requires that sin be addressed, but God freely chooses to address it through the substitutionary punishment of Christ rather than the punishment of sinners. This is not vindictiveness but mercy operating within the constraints of justice.

Craig also employs the legal concept of “legal fiction” to explain how Christ can bear our punishment. Just as legal systems can treat corporations as persons or adoptions as creating biological relationships, God can treat Christ as bearing our guilt. This is not a falsehood but a divinely instituted arrangement that accomplishes real effects.

Furthermore, Craig argues that the objection that an innocent person cannot justly bear another’s punishment fails to account for Christ’s unique status. Christ is not merely an innocent third party but is uniquely appointed by God for this role. Moreover, through union with Christ, believers are not simply external beneficiaries but are incorporated into Christ himself, making the substitution more than a mere legal transaction.

9. Isaiah 53 and Vicarious Punishment

Central to Craig’s biblical case for penal substitution is Isaiah 53, which he argues clearly teaches substitutionary punishment. Craig provides a detailed exegesis of this passage, demonstrating that the Servant bears not merely the consequences of sin but the punishment for sin.

Craig points to several key features of Isaiah 53 that support his interpretation. First, the repeated use of sin-bearing language: the Servant “bore our griefs,” “carried our sorrows,” “was wounded for our transgressions,” “was bruised for our iniquities.” The Hebrew terms used (nasa and sabal) clearly indicate bearing or carrying something on behalf of another.

“But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.” – Isaiah 53:5

Second, Craig emphasizes that the suffering described is explicitly punitive. The term “chastisement” (Hebrew: musar) frequently denotes punishment in biblical usage. The phrase “the chastisement for our peace” indicates the punishment necessary to restore our relationship with God.

Third, verse 10 explicitly states that “it pleased the LORD to bruise Him” and that “when You make His soul an offering for sin [‘asham – guilt offering], He shall see His seed.” The guilt offering in Levitical law specifically dealt with offenses requiring restitution. The Servant’s soul becomes this guilt offering, bearing the penalty for the people’s sins.

Craig argues that the New Testament authors, following Jesus himself, understood Christ as fulfilling Isaiah 53. When 1 Peter 2:24 says Christ “bore our sins in His own body on the tree,” it is directly applying Isaiah 53’s sin-bearing language to Christ’s crucifixion. Similarly, when Paul writes that Christ “was delivered up for our offenses” (Romans 4:25), he echoes Isaiah 53:12.

This interpretation, Craig contends, is not imposed on the text but arises naturally from careful exegesis. The shock expressed in Isaiah 53 at what the LORD has done to His righteous Servant makes little sense if the Servant is merely sharing in communal suffering or offering a non-punitive sacrifice. The extraordinary nature of what is described – an innocent one bearing the punishment deserved by the guilty – explains the amazement expressed in the passage.

Part IV: Critical Comparison

10. Key Differences in Understanding Sacrifice

The fundamental divergence between Reardon and Craig begins with their understanding of sacrifice in the Old Testament. This difference is not merely about interpreting specific texts but involves entire frameworks for understanding the relationship between God and humanity.

Reardon insists that biblical sacrifice is primarily about gift, offering, and establishing communion. The sacrificial animal is not punished but offered. Its death is necessary not because death is the punishment for sin but because blood, representing life, must be offered to God. The entire system is about drawing near to God (the meaning of korban) rather than satisfying divine wrath.

Craig, while acknowledging the gift aspect of sacrifice, maintains that substitutionary punishment is also present. He points to the hand-laying ritual in Leviticus as indicating identification between the worshipper and the animal. The animal dies in place of the sinner, bearing the death that sin deserves. For Craig, Leviticus 17:11 – “for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul” – indicates that the life of the animal is given in place of the life of the sinner.

This difference profoundly affects how each interprets Christ’s sacrifice. For Reardon, Christ offers himself to God as the perfect gift, the true sacrifice that all Old Testament sacrifices foreshadowed. His death is not punishment but the ultimate offering of love and obedience. For Craig, while Christ’s death includes this offering aspect, it is fundamentally about bearing the punishment that we deserved.

Consider how each would interpret Hebrews 9:14: “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Reardon emphasizes “offered Himself” – this is gift language, not punishment language. The result is cleansing, not satisfied wrath. Craig would agree that Christ offered himself but would add that this offering involved bearing our punishment, which is why it can cleanse our conscience – the penalty has been paid.

11. The Role of Divine Wrath

Perhaps no issue divides the Orthodox and penal substitutionary views more sharply than the role of divine wrath in the atonement. This difference goes to the heart of how we understand God’s character and his response to sin.

Reardon adamantly maintains that divine wrath plays no role in the biblical understanding of sacrifice and therefore should not be central to our understanding of the atonement. While acknowledging that Scripture speaks of God’s wrath against sin, he insists this wrath is never appeased through sacrifice. The Old Testament sacrifices were not about satisfying an angry God but about cleansing and consecration.

When the Old Testament does speak of turning away God’s wrath, it is through intercession and prayer, not blood sacrifice. Moses turns away God’s wrath through intercession (Exodus 32:11-14). Phinehas turns away wrath through zealous action (Numbers 25:11). Aaron stops a plague through incense offering (Numbers 16:46-48). In none of these cases is wrath appeased through punitive suffering.

Craig, however, argues that divine wrath is essential to understanding the atonement. God’s justice requires a response to sin, and that response is wrath – not vindictive anger but righteous indignation at evil. This wrath must be addressed for reconciliation to occur. Christ’s death propitiates (turns away or satisfies) this wrath by bearing the punishment sin deserves.

Craig points to Romans 3:25, where Christ is described as a “propitiation” (hilasterion) through faith in his blood. While some translate this as “mercy seat” or “place of atonement,” Craig argues the context requires understanding it as propitiation – the turning away of wrath. God’s righteousness is demonstrated precisely in that he does not simply overlook sin but addresses it through Christ’s substitutionary death.

This difference profoundly affects how we understand God’s love. For Reardon, God’s love is shown in that he enters into our condition, takes on our nature, and destroys death from within. There is no conflict between the Father and Son, no moment when the Father turns away in wrath. For Craig, God’s love is shown precisely in that he himself bears the punishment our sins deserve. The Father gives the Son, and the Son willingly goes, but genuine punishment must occur for justice to be satisfied.

12. The Nature of Justice

Underlying the disagreement about wrath is a fundamental difference about the nature of divine justice itself. This philosophical and theological difference shapes how each side reads the biblical texts.

For Craig, following the Reformed tradition, justice is an essential attribute of God that requires sin to be punished. This is retributive justice – wrongdoing inherently deserves punishment. God cannot simply forgive sin without addressing the demands of justice, any more than he can lie or cease to exist. The cross is necessary because God’s justice must be satisfied.

Reardon and the Orthodox tradition understand justice differently. Justice (dikaiosune) in biblical and patristic thought is not primarily about punishment but about righteousness, right relationships, and setting things right. God’s justice is his faithfulness to his creation and his commitment to restore it. The cross demonstrates this justice not by punishing sin but by destroying sin and death.

This difference appears clearly in how each interprets Romans 3:21-26, a crucial passage for both views. Craig sees this passage as teaching that God demonstrates his justice by punishing sin in Christ, thus able to be “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” The cross shows that God does not compromise his justice even while showing mercy.

Reardon would read the same passage as showing that God’s justice is his saving righteousness – his covenant faithfulness that brings salvation. The cross demonstrates this justice by actually destroying sin’s power and restoring humanity. God is just precisely in that he justifies (makes righteous) those who have faith in Jesus.

These different understandings of justice lead to different views of what the fundamental human problem is. For Craig, the primary problem is that we are guilty before God and deserve punishment. For Reardon, the primary problem is that we are enslaved to death and corruption. Christ’s work addresses whichever problem we see as fundamental.

Part V: Biblical Analysis

13. Old Testament Foundations

To evaluate these competing views, we must carefully examine the biblical evidence, beginning with the Old Testament foundations that both sides claim support their position. The Old Testament sacrificial system, the Day of Atonement, and prophetic passages about vicarious suffering all require careful analysis.

The Levitical sacrificial system provides the primary background for understanding Christ’s sacrifice. Several observations are crucial:

First, the purpose of sacrifice. Leviticus repeatedly states that sacrifices are offered “to make atonement” (Hebrew: kipper). This word’s basic meaning is “to cover” or “to wipe away.” It can also mean “to ransom” or “to make reconciliation.” Notably, it does not inherently mean “to punish” or “to satisfy wrath.”

Second, the variety of sacrifices. Not all sacrifices dealt with sin. The burnt offering (olah) was primarily about dedication and worship. The peace offering (shelamim) celebrated fellowship with God. The grain offering (minchah) was a gift of gratitude. Even the sin offering (chattat) and guilt offering (asham) were more about purification and restitution than punishment.

Third, the Day of Atonement ritual. Leviticus 16 describes the most important sacrificial ritual in Israel’s calendar. Two goats are involved – one sacrificed and one sent into the wilderness. If substitutionary punishment were the main point, why would the scapegoat bearing the sins not be killed? Instead, it is sent away alive, suggesting that the removal of sin, not punishment, is the focus.

Fourth, the limitations of sacrifice. The sacrificial system explicitly did not cover deliberate, high-handed sins (Numbers 15:30-31). If sacrifice were about bearing punishment, why couldn’t it address the sins that most deserved punishment? This suggests sacrifice served a different purpose than penal substitution.

However, certain passages do seem to support substitutionary ideas:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.” – Leviticus 17:11

This verse can be read as teaching that the animal’s life is given in place of the worshipper’s life. The hand-laying ritual (Leviticus 1:4) also suggests identification between worshipper and sacrifice. While these elements don’t necessarily prove penal substitution, they do indicate some form of substitution.

14. New Testament Interpretation

The New Testament’s interpretation of Christ’s death provides the most direct evidence for evaluating our competing views. We must examine key passages that both sides claim for their position.

Romans 3:21-26 is perhaps the most important passage for the penal substitutionary view. Paul writes that God put Christ forward as a “propitiation by His blood” (v. 25). This was to demonstrate God’s righteousness, “because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed” (v. 25). The passage seems to teach that God’s justice required a response to sin, and Christ’s death provided that response.

However, the Orthodox reading emphasizes different aspects. The word hilasterion, translated “propitiation,” is the same word used for the mercy seat in the Old Testament – the place where God met with his people. Christ is not appeasing God’s wrath but is the place where God and humanity meet. God’s righteousness is his covenant faithfulness in saving his people, not his retributive justice in punishing sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 states: “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” The penal substitution reading is straightforward: Christ became sin (bore our guilt and punishment) so we could become righteous. The Orthodox reading sees this as Christ entering into our sinful condition to transform it from within, not bearing punishment but destroying sin’s power.

Galatians 3:13 declares: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.” Craig sees this as clear evidence of penal substitution – Christ bore the curse (punishment) we deserved. Reardon would emphasize the redemption language – Christ entered the realm of the curse to break its power, not to be punished by it.

1 Peter 2:24 directly applies Isaiah 53 to Christ: “who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you are healed.” The language of bearing sins seems clearly substitutionary. Yet the emphasis on healing and living for righteousness suggests transformation rather than mere legal transaction.

15. Missing Substitutionary Elements in Reardon’s View

While Reardon’s Orthodox view offers profound insights into the nature of sacrifice and salvation, we must honestly ask whether it adequately accounts for all the biblical data, particularly the substitutionary language that appears throughout Scripture.

Several biblical themes seem to require some form of substitutionary understanding:

First, the language of bearing sin. Throughout Scripture, we find the concept of one bearing the sin of another. The scapegoat “bears” (nasa) the sins of Israel (Leviticus 16:22). Isaiah 53 repeatedly uses this language of the Servant. The New Testament applies this directly to Christ. While Reardon acknowledges substitution in a general sense, does his model adequately explain what it means for Christ to “bear our sins”?

Second, the language of ransom and redemption. Jesus himself said he came “to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). The word “ransom” (lutron) implies a price paid for release. Paul writes that we were “bought at a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20). While these can be interpreted as metaphors for liberation from slavery to sin and death, they seem to imply some kind of exchange or substitution.

Third, the emphasis on blood. Hebrews 9:22 states: “Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” While Reardon correctly notes that blood represents life, not just death, the consistent emphasis on blood being shed, poured out, and sprinkled suggests that death, not just life, is significant. Why must the life be given up through death if not as some form of substitution?

Fourth, the concept of propitiation. While the Orthodox interpretation of hilasterion as “mercy seat” is possible, the verb form hilaskomai in other New Testament passages (like Hebrews 2:17) seems to require the meaning of propitiation or appeasement. 1 John 2:2 calls Christ “the propitiation for our sins.” Can this language be fully explained without any notion of satisfying divine justice?

Fifth, the necessity of the cross. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane – “if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me” (Matthew 26:39) – suggests the cross was necessary in some absolute sense. If the Incarnation itself was salvific, and if Christ’s death was simply the culmination of his obedience rather than bearing punishment, why was the cross necessary? Why couldn’t salvation be accomplished another way?

Part VI: Theological Implications

16. The Character of God

How we understand the atonement profoundly shapes our understanding of God’s character. This is not merely an academic concern but affects how we relate to God, how we worship, and how we share the gospel.

The penal substitutionary view, critics argue, presents God as wrathful and vindictive, requiring violent punishment before he can forgive. It seems to divide the Trinity, with the loving Son placating the angry Father. It makes God appear bound by an abstract justice that even he cannot transcend without punishment occurring somewhere.

Defenders like Craig respond that this is a caricature. God’s wrath is not vindictive rage but righteous opposition to evil. The entire plan of redemption flows from God’s love – “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16). The Father and Son are united in will and purpose. Justice is not an abstract principle above God but an expression of his own perfect nature.

The Orthodox view, as Reardon presents it, emphasizes God’s love, mercy, and desire to heal and restore humanity. God is not bound by legal requirements but freely chooses to enter our condition and transform it from within. The cross reveals God’s love not in punishing an innocent victim but in God himself entering death to destroy it.

Yet critics might ask whether this view takes sin seriously enough. If God can simply forgive without addressing the demands of justice, what does this say about his holiness? Does the Orthodox view risk presenting God as indulgent, overlooking sin rather than dealing with it?

These questions about God’s character are not merely theoretical. They shape pastoral practice and personal spirituality. Does the penal substitutionary view lead to an unhealthy fear of God or a healthy reverence? Does the Orthodox view lead to presumption on God’s mercy or grateful love for his compassion?

17. The Unity of the Trinity

One of the most serious theological concerns about penal substitution is whether it divides the Trinity. If the Father pours out wrath on the Son, if the Son cries out in abandonment, if there is a moment when the Father turns away from the Son, what does this mean for Trinitarian theology?

Reardon and the Orthodox tradition strongly emphasize that the Trinity acts with one will in redemption. The Father sends the Son in love. The Son willingly goes in love. The Spirit empowers the entire mission in love. There is no division, no conflict, no moment of separation. When Christ cries out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” he is identifying with humanity in its sense of abandonment, not experiencing actual abandonment by the Father.

Craig and other defenders of penal substitution insist they too maintain Trinitarian unity. The Father and Son are united in the plan of redemption. The Son voluntarily takes on the punishment. The “forsaking” is not a rupture in the Trinity but the Son experiencing the consequences of bearing sin. The three persons of the Trinity have distinct roles in redemption while maintaining unity of essence and will.

Yet questions remain. Can the Son truly bear divine wrath while maintaining unity with the Father who is the source of that wrath? Reformed theologian Jürgen Moltmann famously argued that the cross involves a rupture within the Trinity itself. While most penal substitution advocates reject this extreme position, they must still explain how punishment can occur within the context of Trinitarian love and unity.

The Orthodox emphasis on the unity of divine action in redemption provides a clearer picture of Trinitarian cooperation. The Father sends, the Son accomplishes, the Spirit applies, but all work together in perfect harmony for humanity’s salvation. There is no conflict to resolve, no wrath to redirect, no abandonment to endure.

18. Practical Applications

These theological differences have profound practical implications for Christian life and ministry. How we understand the atonement affects evangelism, discipleship, worship, and pastoral care.

In evangelism, the penal substitutionary view often leads to presenting the gospel as escape from punishment. The bad news is that you deserve hell; the good news is that Jesus took your punishment. This can be powerful and has led many to faith. However, critics argue it can reduce the gospel to a legal transaction and fail to address the fuller biblical picture of salvation as healing, transformation, and union with God.

The Orthodox approach presents the gospel as liberation from death and corruption, invitation into divine life, and healing of our broken nature. The emphasis is less on escaping punishment and more on entering into life. This may resonate better with those who don’t feel guilty but do feel broken, empty, or enslaved.

In discipleship, penal substitution can sometimes lead to a “ticket to heaven” mentality – once your punishment is paid, you’re secure. While Reformed theology emphasizes sanctification and gratitude as motivations for holy living, the logical connection between justification and sanctification can be unclear.

The Orthodox understanding of salvation as theosis – becoming like God – makes transformation central rather than peripheral. Salvation is not just about position but about participation in divine nature. This provides a robust framework for understanding spiritual growth and the purpose of spiritual disciplines.

In worship, these different understandings shape liturgy and hymnody. Western churches influenced by penal substitution often emphasize songs about the cross, blood, and forgiveness of sins. Orthodox liturgy, while certainly including these themes, places greater emphasis on resurrection, victory over death, and transformation.

In pastoral care, understanding the atonement shapes how we minister to those struggling with guilt, shame, and spiritual wounds. The penal substitutionary view offers powerful assurance that punishment has been borne and guilt removed. The Orthodox view offers healing for the whole person – not just forgiveness but transformation and renewal.

Biblical Passage	Penal Substitution Reading	Orthodox/Reardon Reading	Critical Analysis
Isaiah 53:5-6 “But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him… All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”	The Servant bears the punishment (chastisement) that we deserved. God the Father laid our guilt and its penalty on Christ. The wounds and bruises represent punitive suffering.	The Servant enters into solidarity with suffering humanity, bearing the consequences of sin to heal and restore. The emphasis is on healing (“by His stripes we are healed”) rather than punishment.	The Hebrew word for “chastisement” (musar) does frequently mean punishment. The passage emphasizes substitution (“for our,” “upon Him”). However, the healing emphasis suggests restoration beyond mere punishment.
Romans 3:25-26 “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.”	Christ’s blood propitiates (satisfies) God’s wrath. God’s righteousness required punishment for sins previously passed over. The cross demonstrates that God is just in punishing sin.	Christ is the hilasterion (mercy seat) where God meets humanity. His blood cleanses and consecrates. God’s righteousness is His covenant faithfulness in saving His people.	The term hilasterion can mean either propitiation or mercy seat. Context speaks of demonstrating righteousness regarding previously unpunished sins, suggesting some notion of satisfaction.
2 Corinthians 5:21 “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”	God imputed our sin to Christ and punished Him as if He were guilty. In exchange, God imputes Christ’s righteousness to believers. This is the great exchange.	Christ fully entered our sinful condition (became sin) to transform it from within. We become righteous through participation in Christ’s victory over sin and death.	The language of “becoming sin” is shocking and suggests more than mere identification. The exchange pattern implies substitution, though not necessarily penal.
Galatians 3:13 “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’).”	Christ bore the curse (divine judgment) that the law pronounced on lawbreakers. He was literally cursed by God in our place, experiencing the penalty we deserved.	Christ entered the realm of the curse to break its power. By voluntarily accepting crucifixion, He transformed the curse into blessing. The emphasis is redemption, not punishment.	The citation of Deuteronomy 21:23 suggests real curse-bearing. “Becoming a curse for us” most naturally reads as substitution. However, redemption language emphasizes liberation.
1 Peter 2:24 “who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you are healed.”	Christ carried our sins and their penalty to the cross. Like the scapegoat, He bore away our guilt. He was punished (“stripes”) in our place.	Christ took our sins into Himself to destroy them through His death and resurrection. The emphasis on healing shows this is medicinal, not penal.	Direct application of Isaiah 53 to Christ. “Bore our sins” strongly suggests substitution. Yet healing language points beyond punishment to restoration.
Hebrews 9:22 “And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.”	Blood must be shed because death is the penalty for sin. Christ’s blood was shed as He bore our death penalty, enabling forgiveness.	Blood represents life offered to God. The shedding enables cleansing and consecration. The emphasis is on purification, not punishment.	The necessity of bloodshed suggests death is significant, not just life. But the context emphasizes cleansing and entering the heavenly sanctuary.
Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”	Christ’s life was the payment (ransom) to free us from sin’s penalty. He paid the price that divine justice demanded for our release.	Christ’s life liberates us from bondage to sin and death. The ransom metaphor emphasizes costly liberation, not punishment.	Ransom (lutron) implies a price paid for release. The word anti (“for”) suggests substitution. But to whom is the ransom paid?
Colossians 2:13-14 “Having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us… And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”	The legal charges against us were transferred to Christ on the cross. God punished Christ for the violations listed in our charge sheet.	Christ’s death cancels the record of debt, not by being punished for it but by destroying its power. The emphasis is victory and cancellation.	The metaphor is of canceling a document, not transferring guilt. Yet nailing it to the cross suggests some connection between Christ’s death and debt cancellation.
Romans 8:3 “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.”	God condemned sin by punishing it in Christ’s flesh. The judgment we deserved fell on Christ’s human nature.	God condemned sin by destroying its power through the Incarnation. In Christ’s flesh, sin was defeated, not punished.	“Condemned sin in the flesh” suggests judgment. But is sin being punished or destroyed? The context emphasizes liberation from sin’s power.
1 John 2:2 “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”	Christ satisfies God’s wrath against sin for all humanity. He is the universal propitiation that enables God to forgive anyone who believes.	Christ is the place of mercy and reconciliation for all humanity. He removes the barrier between God and humanity through His sacrifice of love.	Hilasmos definitely means propitiation here. But is wrath being satisfied or is relationship being restored? The universal scope suggests restoration.

Conclusion: Toward a Biblical Synthesis

After this extensive analysis of both Reardon’s Eastern Orthodox view and Craig’s penal substitutionary position, several conclusions emerge:

First, both views capture important biblical truths. The Orthodox emphasis on sacrifice as offering, on the Incarnation as salvific, and on salvation as healing and transformation is deeply biblical. The penal substitutionary emphasis on Christ bearing our sins, on the seriousness of sin, and on the costliness of forgiveness also has strong biblical support.

Second, Reardon’s critique of crude penal substitution is largely valid. The Old Testament sacrificial system was not primarily about appeasing divine wrath through punishment. The animals were not punished in the place of sinners. God is not bloodthirsty or vindictive. Any adequate theory of atonement must avoid dividing the Trinity or making God appear subject to an abstract justice above himself.

Third, however, Reardon’s view does seem to underemphasize certain substitutionary elements in Scripture. The language of bearing sin, becoming a curse, and serving as a ransom strongly suggests some form of substitution beyond mere identification or solidarity. While this need not be understood in crudely penal terms, Christ does seem to bear something on our behalf that we would otherwise have to bear.

Fourth, the biblical testimony may be richer than either view alone captures. Scripture uses multiple metaphors and images for the atonement – sacrifice, ransom, reconciliation, victory, healing, legal justification, and more. Rather than forcing all these into a single model, perhaps we should allow them to stand in creative tension, each illuminating different aspects of Christ’s work.

Fifth, a more nuanced understanding might combine insights from both views. We might say that Christ genuinely bears the consequences of our sin (including divine judgment) without being punished in a retributive sense. He enters into our condition under judgment to transform it from within. He satisfies divine justice not by being punished but by offering perfect obedience and love where we offered rebellion and hatred.

Finally, the practical implications suggest that both emphases are needed. Some people need to hear that their guilt is real but has been addressed in Christ. Others need to hear that their brokenness can be healed through union with Christ. The gospel includes both forgiveness and transformation, both justification and theosis, both escape from penalty and entrance into life.

Reardon’s work provides an invaluable service in helping Western Christians understand the richness of the Eastern Orthodox tradition and challenging oversimplified views of the atonement. His emphasis on the Incarnation, on sacrifice as offering, and on salvation as theosis enriches our understanding of Christ’s work. At the same time, the biblical language of substitution, bearing sin, and propitiation cannot be entirely explained away and suggests that Christ’s death does involve taking our place in some meaningful sense.

Perhaps the way forward is not to choose between these views but to recognize that the mystery of the atonement is greater than any single theory can capture. Christ’s work is both substitutionary and transformative, both satisfying divine justice and demonstrating divine love, both addressing our legal standing and healing our corrupted nature. The cross is where all these realities converge in an act of divine love that transcends our full comprehension while inviting our grateful response.

As we continue to study and contemplate the atonement, we would do well to hold our theories humbly, learning from various traditions while always returning to Scripture as our guide. The goal is not merely correct doctrine but deeper love for the God who, in Christ, has reconciled us to himself. Whether we emphasize penal substitution or theosis, satisfaction or healing, the central truth remains: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). This is the mystery we proclaim, the truth we celebrate, and the reality that transforms our lives.