A Comprehensive Theological Analysis: Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Views of Atonement

Part I: Introduction and Methodological Considerations

The doctrine of atonement stands at the very heart of Christian theology, addressing the fundamental question of how humanity is reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. This comprehensive analysis examines two significant contemporary approaches to atonement theology: the Eastern Orthodox perspective articulated by Patrick Henry Reardon in his three-volume work “Reclaiming the Atonement,” and the modified Catholic view presented by Fleming Rutledge. Both theologians offer sophisticated alternatives to the dominant Western Protestant understanding of penal substitutionary atonement, while maintaining fidelity to biblical witness and patristic tradition.

The significance of this comparative study extends beyond academic theological discourse. As Reardon notes in his introduction, many converts to Orthodoxy have approached him seeking clarity about the differences between Eastern and Western theologies of redemption. He observes that these newcomers “soon noticed that expressions like meritorious cause, satisfaction, and, emphatically, punishment—are grandly absent from Orthodox prayers and hymns on the theme of redemption” (Volume 1, p. 10). This experiential observation points to fundamental differences in how Christian traditions understand and articulate the mystery of salvation.

The methodological approach of this analysis will be to first present each theological position in its fullness and complexity, allowing each author to speak in their own voice and theological framework. Subsequently, we will engage in detailed comparison, identifying points of convergence and divergence, particularly in relation to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement that has dominated Western Protestant theology since the Reformation.

Historical Context and Contemporary Relevance

The contemporary discussion of atonement theology occurs within a broader context of ecumenical dialogue and theological renewal. The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have witnessed renewed interest in patristic sources, liturgical theology, and the recovery of pre-scholastic theological frameworks. This has led to questioning of certain theological formulations that had become standard in Western Christianity, particularly those emerging from medieval scholasticism and Protestant reformation theology.

Reardon’s work emerges from his own journey into Orthodoxy, which he describes as “absolutely seamless” regarding the doctrine of salvation, having already moved away from forensic understandings of redemption through his academic study (Volume 1, Introduction). His formal theological education, dependent “in large part, on recent secondary sources written by Western Christians,” had paradoxically prepared him to “feel completely at home in the Orthodox Church” (Volume 1, p. 14).

Fleming Rutledge’s approach represents a different trajectory—that of a Western theologian seeking to maintain the biblical emphasis on substitution while rejecting what she sees as problematic elements in traditional penal substitutionary theories. Her work engages seriously with contemporary criticisms of violent atonement theology while maintaining that Christ’s death has genuine salvific significance beyond mere moral influence.

Part II: The Eastern Orthodox View – Patrick Henry Reardon’s “Reclaiming the Atonement”

Foundational Principles: Theosis as the Goal of Salvation

The Eastern Orthodox understanding of atonement, as articulated by Reardon, begins with a fundamentally different anthropological and soteriological framework than that found in Western Christianity. The central concept is theosis or theopoiesis—deification or divinization—which Reardon defines as “the transforming union of man with God” (Volume 1, Introduction).

“The constant assumption in the present work is that man’s salvation consists in his union with God through Christ, his sharing in the friendship and very life of God. However we describe the nuances of meaning between the two ideas, atonement and union with Christ are assumed here to mean essentially the same thing.”

– Reardon, Volume 1, Chapter 4, p. 117

This understanding is rooted in the famous patristic formula, frequently cited by Reardon: “God became man that man might become god.” Saint Irenaeus of Lyons expressed this as “our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself” (Against the Heresies 5, Preface). Saint Athanasius similarly declared, “He was made man that we might be made God” (On the Incarnation 54).

The Incarnation as the Foundation of Atonement

For Orthodox theology, the Incarnation itself is salvific, not merely instrumental to salvation. Reardon explains this crucial distinction in Chapter 4, “Incarnation and Deification”:

“Following that line of thought, the Church Fathers sought the root of man’s theopoiesis or theosis in the event of the Incarnation. That is to say, these theological terms, theopoiesis or theosis, must pertain most properly to Christ Himself, in whom divinity and humanity are radically united in a single person. The formal and exemplary cause of man’s deification, then, is the Incarnate Word. There can be no deification (theosis) without Incarnation (sarkosis). The final transfiguration of the human race begins with the enfleshing of the Word.”

– Volume 1, Chapter 4, p. 118

However, Reardon is careful to reject what he calls the “physical fact” theory of atonement, which would suggest that the Incarnation alone, without the Cross and Resurrection, accomplishes human salvation. He identifies three reasons for rejecting this reductionist view:

1. It “eviscerates what the Apostle Paul calls ‘the word of the Cross'” and manages to “avoid the scandal and disgrace of the Passion” (Volume 1, p. 119)
2. Jesus himself spoke of his Passion and Resurrection as a “must” (dei in Greek)
3. It fails to account for the full biblical witness regarding the necessity of Christ’s death and resurrection

The Nature of Sacrifice in Orthodox Understanding

One of Reardon’s most significant contributions is his analysis of the biblical understanding of sacrifice, which differs markedly from Western interpretations. Drawing on the work of Stanislas Lyonnet, whose lectures on Pauline theology profoundly influenced him, Reardon makes a crucial observation about the Old Testament sacrificial system:

“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. And if the sin offering was not related to the wrath of God, how much less the other sacrifices prescribed in the Torah. The God worshipped in Israel’s ancient temple was not bloodthirsty. When He became angry, the anger might be turned away (by the offering of incense, for example, a symbol of prayer), but it was never appeased by the shedding of blood.”

– Volume 1, Introduction, p. 14

This understanding fundamentally challenges the Western notion that Old Testament sacrifices were primarily about appeasing divine wrath. Reardon continues:

“Something similar must be noted with respect to punishment for sin. A chief problem with the theory of penal substitutionary atonement is the difficulty of justifying it within the biblical understanding of sacrifice. In the Torah there is no indication that the victims of Israel’s various sacrifices—the bulls, the goats, the sheep, the doves, and so forth—were being punished in any sense whatever. Clearly those mactated animals were substitutes, but not in a sense that implied penal retribution.”

– Volume 1, Introduction, p. 14

The Ecclesiological Dimension of Salvation

Orthodox theology, as Reardon presents it, understands salvation as inherently communal and ecclesial rather than individualistic. He extensively quotes Saint Gregory the Theologian to illustrate this point:

“For Gregory, who on this point certainly represents the consensus of the Fathers, ‘being saved’ (soteria) is not an individual experience. It is a process of transformation that takes place in the life of the Church, into which the believer is initiated through the sacred mysteries. It is inadequate to say that the Church is the proper context of salvation; salvation is accomplished, rather, in and through the Church’s discipline and defining institutions: the Holy Scriptures, the Creed, Baptism, the Lord’s Table, the sundry rites of worship (including its arts and appointments), the chanting of the Psalms and other sacred texts, and the life of evangelical charity and ascetical striving to be transformed into the likeness of Christ.”

– Volume 1, Chapter 1, pp. 321-322

This ecclesiological emphasis distinguishes Orthodox soteriology from Protestant individualism and even from certain strands of Catholic piety that emphasize personal salvation. The Church is not merely the context for salvation but the very means through which theosis is accomplished.

The Role of the Cross in Orthodox Theology

While rejecting penal substitution, Orthodox theology does not minimize the significance of the Cross. Reardon emphasizes that Christ’s death is truly sacrificial and substitutionary, but not in a penal sense. The Cross represents Christ’s complete identification with fallen humanity and His victory over death, sin, and the devil.

The Orthodox understanding sees the Cross as the ultimate expression of divine love and condescension (kenosis), where God enters into the depths of human alienation and death to restore humanity from within. This is not about satisfying divine justice through punishment but about healing human nature through divine participation in human suffering.

The Resurrection as Integral to Atonement

In Orthodox theology, the Resurrection is not merely the vindication of Christ’s sacrifice but an integral part of the atonement itself. Reardon notes that Western theology has often neglected the Resurrection’s salvific significance, treating it as an afterthought to the “real work” accomplished on the Cross. He cites a striking example: “There is a stunning example of this neglect in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, published over several years during the early twentieth century; in the entire course of that mammoth, thorough, indispensable, multivolume work, there is no article devoted to the Ascension!” (Volume 1, Introduction, footnote 14).

The Orthodox view sees Death and Resurrection as a unified salvific event. Christ’s descent into Hades and His resurrection constitute the destruction of death from within and the opening of Paradise to humanity. This is captured in the Orthodox paschal hymn: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.”

Part III: Fleming Rutledge’s Modified Catholic Approach

Maintaining Substitution While Rejecting Crude Penalism

Fleming Rutledge represents a sophisticated theological position that seeks to maintain the biblical emphasis on substitutionary atonement while rejecting what she considers to be crude or morally problematic versions of penal substitution. Her approach, which she describes as tending “towards a modified Catholic view,” attempts to navigate between the Scylla of reducing the atonement to mere moral influence and the Charybdis of depicting God as a wrathful deity demanding blood satisfaction.

“The crucifixion is not about an angry Father punishing an innocent Son. It is about the Triune God taking into himself the full consequences of human sin and evil, absorbing it and exhausting its power. The Son suffers not God’s wrath but the godless condition that sin creates.”

– Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, Chapter 11

This formulation represents a crucial distinction in Rutledge’s theology. She maintains that Christ genuinely bears our sin and its consequences, but she rejects the notion that the Father is punishing the Son. Instead, the entire Trinity is involved in absorbing and defeating the power of sin and evil.

The Multiple Biblical Motifs of Atonement

Rutledge’s work is characterized by careful attention to the diverse biblical imagery used to describe Christ’s saving work. In Part 2 of her work, “The Biblical Motifs,” she identifies and explores eight major biblical themes:

1. The Passover and the Exodus: Christ as our Passover lamb, delivering us from bondage
2. The Blood Sacrifice: The significance of blood in atonement, but not as appeasing wrath
3. Ransom and Redemption: The commercial metaphor of buying back or liberating
4. The Great Assize: The judicial framework of divine judgment
5. The Apocalyptic War – Christus Victor: Christ’s victory over the powers of evil
6. The Descent into Hell: Christ’s solidarity with the dead and His victory over death
7. The Substitution: Christ taking our place, but not necessarily our punishment
8. Recapitulation: Christ as the new Adam, succeeding where the first Adam failed

Rutledge argues that these motifs cannot and should not be reduced to a single theory: “The atonement is so big, so vast, so significant that no one image can contain it. When we make penal substitution the center and judge all other images by it, we actually diminish the cross” (cited in project materials).

Reinterpreting Propitiation

One of Rutledge’s most significant contributions is her reinterpretation of the biblical concept of propitiation (hilasterion). She argues that the traditional understanding of propitiation as appeasing divine wrath is both biblically and theologically problematic:

“Any concept of hilasterion in the sense of placating, appeasing, deflecting the anger of, or satisfying the wrath of, is inadmissible. The more important, and truly radical, reason for firmly rejecting this understanding of propitiation is that it envisions God as the object, whereas in the Scriptures, God is the acting subject.”

– Fleming Rutledge, Chapter on Romans 3

This observation about God as subject rather than object is crucial. In Romans 3:25, it is God who “put forward” Christ as a hilasterion. God is not being propitiated; rather, God is providing the means of atonement. Rutledge notes that T.F. Torrance, “fully aware of the dangers of misunderstanding propitiation, writes, ‘It is precisely in this propitiating movement of reconciliation and justification through his Son that God the Father opens his innermost heart and mind to us in the self-revelation of his love.'”

The Nature of Substitution Without Punishment

Rutledge maintains that Christ is genuinely our substitute, but she carefully distinguishes this from penal substitution. She acknowledges the work of scholars like Charles Cousar who argue that in key passages, the Greek preposition huper “clearly denotes ‘in place of,’ a replacement of one party for another (so Galatians 3:13, 2 Corinthians 5:21; probably 2 Corinthians 5:14, and others) and thus a vicarious death” (Chapter 11).

However, she interprets this substitution not as Christ being punished by God in our place, but as Christ entering into our condition of alienation and godforsakenness to deliver us from within. She particularly emphasizes 1 Peter 2:24: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

Rutledge notes that this is “the most unambiguous use of [Isaiah 53] in the New Testament to support the idea of Christ as our substitute,” yet she maintains that “substitution is not, however, the only word that suits this context.”

The “Godless Condition” and Human Predicament

Central to Rutledge’s theology is her understanding of the human predicament as more than individual sins requiring forgiveness. She speaks of the “godless condition that sin creates”—a state of alienation, bondage, and spiritual death that encompasses the whole human race. This understanding draws heavily on Paul’s theology in Romans, particularly the concept of Sin as a enslaving Power (with a capital P) that holds humanity in bondage.

In this framework, Christ’s work is not primarily about satisfying divine justice through punishment but about entering into and overcoming this condition of godlessness. Christ experiences the full weight of human alienation from God—what Paul calls becoming “sin for us” (2 Corinthians 5:21)—not as punishment from the Father but as complete solidarity with humanity in its fallen state.

The Apocalyptic Dimension

Rutledge places significant emphasis on the apocalyptic framework of the New Testament, particularly in Paul’s writings. She sees the Cross as God’s apocalyptic invasion into the realm of Sin, Death, and the Powers that hold humanity captive. This is not merely a transaction between Father and Son but a cosmic battle in which God in Christ defeats the powers of evil.

This apocalyptic understanding provides a framework for understanding difficult passages about divine wrath. The wrath is not God’s personal anger that needs to be satisfied but rather the “wrath” of the moral order of creation itself, which cannot ultimately tolerate evil and injustice. Christ absorbs this wrath not to appease an angry God but to exhaust its power and emerge victorious.

The Rectification of the Ungodly

Rutledge employs the concept of “rectification” (related to justification/dikaiosis) to describe God’s saving action. She explains how Paul links the commercial term “to credit/reckon as” with the Hebrew concept of God’s creative word:

“It is actually a speaking (‘wording’) into (logizomai) righteousness. That is what God’s Word (logos) is able to do. In the Old Testament, God’s Word is performative; it creates what it names… In just the same new-world-creating way, God’s logizomai brings transformed persons into being. This is called dikaiosis, rectification (justification).”

– Fleming Rutledge, Chapter on Romans

This understanding emphasizes that justification is not merely a legal declaration but a creative act of God that actually transforms the person. It is not that God pretends we are righteous when we are not, but that God’s powerful Word creates righteousness in us.

Part IV: Comparative Analysis of Core Theological Themes

The Nature of the Human Predicament

Both Reardon and Rutledge share a robust understanding of the human predicament that goes beyond a merely juridical or moral framework. However, they articulate this predicament with different emphases that reflect their respective theological traditions.

Reardon’s Orthodox perspective emphasizes the ontological dimensions of the Fall. Humanity’s problem is fundamentally about corrupted nature, mortality, and alienation from the divine life. Sin is understood primarily as a disease that has infected human nature, requiring healing and transformation rather than merely forgiveness. The human predicament is characterized by:

• Corruption of the divine image in humanity
• Bondage to death and decay
• Alienation from the divine life (the opposite of theosis)
• Enslavement to the passions and to demonic powers

Rutledge’s modified Catholic approach emphasizes both the forensic and the ontological dimensions, but with particular attention to the apocalyptic framework of the New Testament. She speaks of Sin (with a capital S) as an enslaving Power, drawing on Paul’s theology in Romans. Her understanding includes:

• The “godless condition” created by sin
• Bondage to hostile Powers (Sin, Death, and the Devil)
• The need for both forgiveness and liberation
• The cosmic dimension of evil that must be defeated

The Role of the Incarnation

Both theologians assign crucial significance to the Incarnation, but with notably different emphases:

For Reardon, the Incarnation is itself salvific. The union of divine and human natures in Christ is the beginning of human deification. He quotes Thomas Aquinas approvingly: “In Christ each nature is united to the other in the person; by reason of this union the divine nature is said to be incarnate and the human nature is said to be deified” (Volume 1, Chapter 4). The Incarnation is not merely instrumental to salvation (providing a human nature that can die) but is the foundational act that makes theosis possible.

For Rutledge, while the Incarnation is essential, the emphasis falls more heavily on what the Incarnate One accomplishes through His life, death, and resurrection. The Incarnation enables Christ to enter fully into the human condition, including its godforsakenness, in order to overcome it from within. The focus is more on the Incarnation as the necessary condition for Christ’s substitutionary work rather than as itself being the primary salvific act.

Understanding Sacrifice

The interpretation of sacrifice represents one of the most significant areas of both convergence and divergence between these theologians:

Points of Agreement:

• Both reject the idea that sacrifice is primarily about appeasing divine wrath
• Both maintain that Old Testament sacrifices must be understood on their own terms, not through later theological lenses
• Both see Christ’s sacrifice as fundamentally different from pagan notions of appeasing angry deities
• Both emphasize that God is the subject providing the sacrifice, not the object being appeased

Distinctive Emphases:

Reardon provides a detailed analysis of the Old Testament sacrificial system, drawing on Lyonnet’s scholarship to demonstrate that “the wrath of God was a concept alien to Israel’s understanding of blood sacrifice.” He emphasizes that sacrificial animals were “clearly substitutes, but not in a sense that implied penal retribution” (Volume 1, Introduction).

Rutledge, while agreeing that sacrifice is not about appeasing wrath, maintains stronger continuity with the substitutionary aspects of sacrifice. She sees sacrifice as involving genuine substitution—Christ taking our place—but interprets this as bearing the consequences of sin rather than being punished for sin.

The Meaning of Christ’s Death

Both theologians affirm the absolute necessity and centrality of Christ’s death, but they explain its significance differently:

Reardon’s Orthodox interpretation sees the Cross as:

• Christ’s complete identification with fallen humanity
• The destruction of death from within through the death of the Author of Life
• The supreme manifestation of divine love and humility
• Victory over the devil and the powers of darkness
• The means by which human nature is united to God even in death

Rutledge’s interpretation emphasizes:

• Christ bearing the full weight and consequences of human sin
• The exhaustion of sin’s power through absorption into the divine life
• Genuine substitution without penal retribution
• The apocalyptic defeat of the Powers that enslave humanity
• The rectification of humanity through Christ’s faithfulness unto death

The Resurrection’s Role in Atonement

Both theologians criticize Western theology’s tendency to minimize the Resurrection’s salvific significance, but they integrate it into their atonement theology differently:

For Reardon, the Resurrection is absolutely integral to theosis. It is not merely the vindication of Christ’s sacrifice but the completion of the salvific work. Through the Resurrection, human nature is definitively united with divine life, death is destroyed, and the path to theosis is opened for all humanity. The Orthodox Pascal celebration as the “Feast of Feasts” reflects this centrality.

For Rutledge, the Resurrection is the demonstration of Christ’s victory over the Powers. It reveals that the apparent defeat of the Cross was actually God’s triumph over evil. The Resurrection is the apocalyptic vindication of God’s justice and the inauguration of the new creation.

Part V: Divergence from Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Defining Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Before examining how both theologians diverge from penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), it is essential to define this doctrine clearly. Penal substitutionary atonement, as developed in Protestant theology particularly since the Reformation, maintains that:

1. God’s holiness and justice require that sin be punished
2. The punishment for sin is death and separation from God
3. Christ bore this punishment in the place of sinners
4. God the Father poured out His wrath on the Son
5. This satisfaction of divine justice enables God to forgive sinners while maintaining His righteousness

This view was crystallized in the Reformed tradition and is expressed in documents like the Westminster Confession, which states that Christ “underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered.”

Biblical Passages and Their Interpretation

The debate over penal substitutionary atonement often centers on the interpretation of key biblical passages. Let us examine how our two theologians, in contrast with PSA advocates, interpret these crucial texts:

Isaiah 53 – The Suffering Servant

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. 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.” (Isaiah 53:4-6)

PSA Interpretation: God actively punished Christ for our sins. The phrase “smitten by God” and “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity” indicate divine punishment.

Reardon’s Interpretation: The Servant bears the consequences of sin in solidarity with humanity, but this is not divine punishment. The Hebrew understanding would not have seen this as God pouring out wrath on an innocent victim.

Rutledge’s Interpretation: Christ bears our iniquities in the sense of taking responsibility for them and bearing their consequences, but not being punished by God for them. The text emphasizes healing and peace, not satisfied wrath.

Romans 3:21-26 – Propitiation/Expiation

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:21-26)

PSA Interpretation: Christ propitiates (appeases) God’s wrath through His blood. God’s justice requires punishment for sin, and Christ satisfies this requirement.

Reardon’s Interpretation: The term hilasterion refers to the mercy seat, not propitiation of wrath. God is the subject providing mercy, not the object being appeased. The passage emphasizes God’s righteousness being revealed in His merciful action.

Rutledge’s Interpretation: “God is the acting subject” not the object. God puts forward Christ as the means of atonement. The emphasis is on God demonstrating His righteousness through saving action, not satisfying His wrath through punishment.

2 Corinthians 5:21 – Made Sin for Us

“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

PSA Interpretation: God treated Christ as if He were guilty of our sins and punished Him accordingly. This is the great exchange—our sin for His righteousness.

Reardon’s Interpretation: Christ enters into full solidarity with fallen humanity, experiencing the alienation from God that sin causes, but without God punishing Him. The emphasis is on transformation—we become God’s righteousness.

Rutledge’s Interpretation: Christ enters into “the godless condition that sin creates” but is not punished by God. He bears sin’s consequences to exhaust its power, not to satisfy divine wrath.

Galatians 3:13 – Christ Became a Curse

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'” (Galatians 3:13)

PSA Interpretation: God cursed Christ in our place. The law’s curse (divine punishment) fell on Christ instead of us.

Reardon’s Interpretation: Christ experiences the curse’s consequences—death and apparent abandonment—but is not cursed by God. He enters into the cursed condition to transform it from within.

Rutledge’s Interpretation: Christ bears the curse’s consequences to exhaust its power. The curse is not God’s active punishment but the consequence of sin that Christ overcomes.

1 Peter 2:24 – Bore Our Sins

“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” (1 Peter 2:24)

PSA Interpretation: Christ was punished for our sins on the cross. He bore the penalty we deserved.

Reardon’s Interpretation: Christ bears our sins in solidarity with us, taking responsibility for healing humanity. The emphasis is on healing, not punishment.

Rutledge’s Interpretation: This is genuine substitution—Christ takes our place—but the emphasis is on healing and transformation, not penal satisfaction.

Theological and Philosophical Objections to PSA

Both Reardon and Rutledge raise significant theological and philosophical objections to penal substitutionary atonement:

1. The Character of God

The PSA Challenge: PSA can present God as divided—the wrathful Father demanding punishment and the loving Son providing it. This threatens divine unity and presents a problematic picture of God’s character.

Reardon’s Response: The Orthodox emphasis on the Trinity’s unified action in salvation avoids this problem. The Father, Son, and Spirit work together in love for human salvation. There is no conflict within the Godhead.

Rutledge’s Response: “The crucifixion is not about an angry Father punishing an innocent Son. It is about the Triune God taking into himself the full consequences of human sin.”

2. The Nature of Justice

The PSA Challenge: PSA assumes a retributive understanding of justice—wrongdoing must be punished. This is questioned both philosophically and biblically.

Reardon’s Response: Biblical justice (dikaiosyne) is primarily about righteousness and restoration, not retribution. God’s justice is revealed in His saving action, not in punishment.

Rutledge’s Response: God’s justice is restorative and creative. Through “rectification,” God creates righteousness rather than demanding punishment.

3. The Problem of Transferred Guilt

The PSA Challenge: How can guilt be transferred from the guilty to the innocent? This seems to violate basic principles of justice.

Reardon’s Response: The Orthodox view doesn’t require transfer of guilt. Christ heals human nature by assuming it, not by having guilt imputed to Him.

Rutledge’s Response: Christ bears sin’s consequences in solidarity with humanity, but guilt is not transferred in a legal sense.

4. The Moral Influence Problem

The PSA Challenge: Does PSA provide an adequate moral example? Does it risk legitimizing violence or abuse?

Reardon’s Response: The Cross demonstrates divine love and humility, not divine violence. It shows God’s willingness to enter into human suffering to heal it.

Rutledge’s Response: The Cross reveals God’s solidarity with victims, not divine approval of victimization.

Part VI: Biblical and Patristic Foundations

The Witness of the Church Fathers

Both Reardon and Rutledge draw extensively on patristic sources, demonstrating that their views represent not innovation but recovery of ancient Christian understanding. The Church Fathers, particularly in the East, consistently articulated views of atonement that differ markedly from later Western developments.

Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202)

Irenaeus, whom Reardon frequently cites, developed the concept of recapitulation (anakephalaiosis). Christ succeeds where Adam failed, reversing the curse and restoring humanity:

“For as by the disobedience of the one man who was originally molded from virgin soil, the many were made sinners, and forfeited life; so was it necessary that, by the obedience of one man, who was originally born from a virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation.”

– Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.18.7

Note that Irenaeus emphasizes obedience and restoration, not punishment and satisfaction. The framework is medicinal and restorative rather than juridical.

Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373)

Athanasius, the great defender of Nicene orthodoxy, articulated the classic formula of deification:

“He was made man that we might be made God; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality.”

– Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 54

For Athanasius, the Incarnation and death of Christ are about defeating death and corruption, not satisfying divine wrath. Death is an enemy to be defeated, not a punishment from God to be satisfied.

Saint Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390)

Gregory the Theologian, extensively quoted by Reardon, rejected the idea that Christ’s death was a payment to either the devil or to God:

“To whom was that blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed?… If to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not the Father who held us captive… And could the Father delight in the death of His Son? …It is evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice, not because He demanded it or needed it, but because of the economy.”

– Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 45

Gregory explicitly rejects the notion that God required or delighted in Christ’s death as payment or punishment.

Saint John Chrysostom (349-407)

Chrysostom, the golden-mouthed preacher, emphasized Christ’s victory and the demonstration of divine love:

“Christ overturned the devil’s tyranny, not by force or violence, but by dying, He conquered him who had the power of death. He did not descend from the cross when they said, ‘If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross,’ but because He was the Son of God, He did not come down.”

– John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew

Saint Maximus the Confessor (580-662)

Maximus developed a sophisticated theology of deification that Reardon draws upon:

“The Word of God, born once in the flesh (such is His kindness and goodness), is always willing to be born spiritually in those who desire Him. In them He is born as an infant as He fashions Himself in them by means of their virtues.”

– Maximus the Confessor, Centuries on Charity

Biblical Theology: Beyond Proof-Texting

Both theologians emphasize the importance of reading Scripture holistically rather than proof-texting individual verses. They highlight several overarching biblical themes that shape their understanding of atonement:

The Theme of Divine Love

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” (John 3:16-17)

Both theologians emphasize that God’s love is the motivation for the atonement, not His need for satisfaction. The initiative comes entirely from divine love.

“But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

The emphasis is on demonstration of love, not satisfaction of wrath.

“In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:10)

Even when using the term “propitiation,” John emphasizes that it flows from God’s love, not His wrath.

The Theme of Victory

“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” (Hebrews 2:14-15)

The emphasis is on victory over death and the devil, not satisfaction of divine justice.

“He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.” (Colossians 2:15)

The Cross is portrayed as triumph over hostile powers, not as punishment.

The Theme of Reconciliation

“All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” (2 Corinthians 5:18-19)

Note that God is the subject doing the reconciling, not the object being reconciled. God is not being appeased; He is actively reconciling the world to Himself.

The Theme of New Creation

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Salvation is about transformation and new creation, not merely legal acquittal.

Part VII: Ecclesiological and Sacramental Implications

The Church as the Locus of Salvation

One of the most significant differences between these theological approaches and typical Protestant soteriology lies in their ecclesiology—their understanding of the Church’s role in salvation.

Reardon’s Orthodox Ecclesiology

For Reardon, following Orthodox tradition, the Church is not merely the community of the saved but the very means of salvation. He quotes Gregory the Theologian to emphasize that salvation “is a process of transformation that takes place in the life of the Church, into which the believer is initiated through the sacred mysteries” (Volume 1, p. 321).

This understanding has several important implications:

1. Salvation is inherently communal: There is no such thing as individual salvation apart from the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, and salvation means incorporation into this Body.
2. The sacraments are means of theosis: Baptism, Chrismation, and especially the Eucharist are not merely symbols but actual means through which believers participate in divine life.
3. Liturgy as participation in heavenly reality: The Divine Liturgy is understood as participation in the heavenly worship, where the boundaries between heaven and earth are transcended.
4. Ascetical practice as cooperation with grace: The spiritual disciplines of the Church (fasting, prayer, almsgiving) are means of cooperating with divine grace in the process of theosis.

“The psalmody with which you will be received is a prelude to the psalmody of heaven. The lamps you will enkindle are the mystery of the Illumination (mysterion Photismou), with which you will meet the Bridegroom—O bright and virginal souls!—with the shining lamps of our faith.”

– Gregory the Theologian, quoted in Reardon, Volume 1, p. 321

Rutledge’s Sacramental Understanding

While Rutledge writes from a Western perspective, she maintains a strong sacramental understanding of salvation. The Church is the community where the victory of Christ is proclaimed and enacted through Word and Sacrament.

For Rutledge, the sacraments are not merely memorial but are means of participating in Christ’s victory. Baptism is dying and rising with Christ (Romans 6:3-4), and the Eucharist is participation in Christ’s body and blood, making present His sacrifice.

The Eucharist and Atonement Theology

The understanding of the Eucharist/Divine Liturgy is particularly revealing of the differences between these approaches and penal substitutionary atonement.

Orthodox Eucharistic Theology

In Orthodox understanding, the Eucharist is not a re-sacrifice or a memorial of Christ’s punishment, but a participation in Christ’s eternal offering to the Father. Reardon emphasizes that the Eucharist is the primary means of theosis, where believers receive the deified humanity of Christ.

The anaphora (Eucharistic prayer) in Orthodox liturgy emphasizes thanksgiving, remembrance of God’s saving acts, and the transformation of the gifts and the participants. There is no language of appeasing divine wrath or re-presenting Christ’s punishment.

Rutledge’s Eucharistic Implications

For Rutledge, the Eucharist makes present Christ’s victory over the Powers. It is not about re-presenting a penal satisfaction but about participating in Christ’s triumph and being incorporated into His rectifying work.

Implications for Christian Life and Ethics

The different understandings of atonement have profound implications for Christian life and ethics:

The Orthodox Emphasis on Theosis

If salvation is theosis, then the Christian life is about progressive transformation into the divine likeness. This involves:

• Synergy: Cooperation between divine grace and human effort
• Ascetical struggle: Disciplined effort to overcome the passions
• Liturgical participation: Regular participation in the Church’s worship
• Mystical union: The goal of prayer is union with God
• Holistic transformation: Body, soul, and spirit are all being deified

Rutledge’s Emphasis on Cruciform Living

For Rutledge, participation in Christ’s victory means living under the sign of the Cross:

• Solidarity with victims: Christians stand with those who suffer
• Resistance to the Powers: Active opposition to systemic evil
• Costly discipleship: Following Christ involves sacrifice
• Hope in resurrection: Living in light of Christ’s victory
• Proclamation of rectification: Announcing God’s restorative justice

Contrast with PSA Ethics

Penal substitutionary atonement, critics argue, can lead to problematic ethical implications:

• Passive acceptance of abuse (especially problematic for victims of domestic violence)
• Emphasis on legal standing over transformation
• Individual salvation divorced from community
• Potential legitimation of retributive justice systems
• Reduced emphasis on social justice and systemic change

Both Reardon and Rutledge avoid these problems by emphasizing transformation, community, and God’s restorative rather than retributive justice.

Part VIII: Synthesis and Theological Conclusions

Points of Convergence

Despite their different theological traditions and emphases, Reardon and Rutledge share remarkable common ground in their understanding of atonement:

1. Rejection of Divine Violence

Both theologians firmly reject any notion that God the Father inflicted violence on the Son or that divine wrath needed to be appeased through punishment. They see this as a fundamental misunderstanding of both God’s character and the nature of Christ’s work.

2. Emphasis on Divine Love as Motivation

Both insist that God’s love, not His wrath or need for satisfaction, motivates the atonement. The initiative comes entirely from God’s desire to save humanity, not from any external necessity or constraint on God.

3. Affirmation of Genuine Substitution

Importantly, both maintain that Christ is genuinely our substitute, taking our place and bearing our sins. However, they interpret this substitution in terms of solidarity and identification rather than penal retribution.

4. Holistic Understanding of Salvation

Both reject purely forensic or transactional views of salvation in favor of understanding that encompasses the whole person and involves genuine transformation, not merely change of legal status.

5. Integration of Incarnation, Cross, and Resurrection

Neither theologian isolates the Cross as the sole salvific moment but integrates Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection as aspects of one unified saving action.

6. Critique of Individualism

Both emphasize the communal and ecclesial dimensions of salvation, rejecting the radical individualism that characterizes much Protestant soteriology.

7. Biblical and Patristic Grounding

Both root their theology deeply in Scripture and the Church Fathers, demonstrating that their views represent not innovation but recovery of ancient Christian understanding.

Points of Divergence

While sharing much common ground, important differences remain between these approaches:

1. The Centrality of Theosis

For Reardon and Orthodoxy, theosis is not merely an aspect of salvation but its very definition. Salvation is deification. Rutledge, while affirming transformation, doesn’t make theosis the organizing principle of her soteriology.

2. The Role of the Incarnation

Orthodoxy sees the Incarnation as itself salvific—the beginning of human deification. Rutledge sees it more as the necessary condition for Christ’s salvific work rather than as itself accomplishing salvation.

3. Apocalyptic vs. Ontological Framework

Rutledge operates more within an apocalyptic framework, emphasizing Christ’s victory over hostile Powers. Reardon operates more within an ontological framework, emphasizing the healing and transformation of human nature.

4. Language of Substitution

Rutledge is more comfortable with substitutionary language, provided it’s properly understood. Orthodoxy, while not rejecting substitution entirely, prefers other metaphors like healing, victory, and deification.

5. Ecclesiological Emphasis

While both affirm the Church’s importance, Orthodoxy makes it absolutely central—the Church is the very means of theosis. Rutledge maintains a somewhat more Protestant emphasis on the proclaimed Word alongside sacramental participation.

Theological Implications for Contemporary Christianity

For Ecumenical Dialogue

This analysis suggests significant potential for ecumenical convergence on atonement theology. The common rejection of crude penal substitution and affirmation of God’s love as the motivation for salvation provides ground for dialogue between Eastern and Western Christians.

The recovery of patristic sources and biblical theology over against later systematic formulations offers a way past some traditional divides. When Christians return to the sources, they often find more common ground than their later systematic theologies would suggest.

For Pastoral Practice

These understandings of atonement have important pastoral implications:

1. For those struggling with guilt: The emphasis on healing and transformation rather than punishment can be liberating for those crushed by guilt.
2. For victims of abuse: Avoiding the language of divine violence and punishment prevents the theological legitimation of abuse.
3. For spiritual formation: The emphasis on theosis and transformation provides a rich framework for spiritual growth.
4. For social justice: Understanding salvation as victory over the Powers supports engagement with systemic evil.
5. For evangelism: Presenting the gospel as God’s love and healing rather than escape from divine wrath may be more compelling in contemporary culture.

For Theological Education

This analysis suggests the need for theological education that:

• Engages seriously with patristic sources, not just Reformation and modern theology
• Presents multiple models of atonement, not just penal substitution
• Integrates biblical theology with systematic theology
• Considers the pastoral and ethical implications of theological formulations
• Promotes ecumenical awareness and dialogue

Critical Evaluation

Strengths of These Approaches

Biblical Fidelity: Both theologians demonstrate careful attention to the full biblical witness, not just proof-texts. They show how their understanding makes sense of the diverse biblical imagery for salvation.

Patristic Grounding: By rooting their theology in the Church Fathers, they show that their views represent mainstream Christian tradition, not innovation.

Theological Coherence: Their views present a coherent understanding of God’s character, avoiding the problems of dividing the Trinity or presenting God as requiring violence.

Pastoral Sensitivity: These approaches avoid the pastoral problems associated with penal substitution while maintaining the seriousness of sin and the necessity of Christ’s work.

Ethical Implications: They provide a strong foundation for Christian ethics, including social justice and care for victims.

Potential Weaknesses and Questions

The Reality of Divine Wrath: Critics might argue that these approaches minimize the biblical teaching about divine wrath. How do we account for passages that speak clearly of God’s anger against sin?

Response: Both theologians acknowledge divine opposition to sin but distinguish between righteous opposition to evil and the need for retributive punishment. God’s “wrath” is His love experienced by those who reject it.

The Seriousness of Sin: Does rejecting penal substitution minimize sin’s seriousness? If sin doesn’t require punishment, is it really that bad?

Response: Both theologians maintain sin’s absolute seriousness—it leads to death and separation from God. The difference is whether the solution is punishment or healing/victory. Cancer is serious without requiring punishment; it requires healing.

The Justice of God: How is God’s justice satisfied if sin is not punished?

Response: Both theologians reconceive justice in restorative rather than retributive terms. God’s justice is satisfied when creation is restored and righteousness established, not when punishment is inflicted.

Popular Accessibility: These theological approaches are sophisticated. Can they be communicated effectively to ordinary believers?

Response: The Orthodox Church has maintained these teachings for two millennia among populations of varying education levels. The key is liturgical and sacramental participation more than theological explanation.

Contemporary Relevance and Application

In a Post-Christian Context

These understandings of atonement may be particularly relevant in post-Christian contexts where traditional formulations are increasingly problematic:

• The emphasis on healing rather than punishment resonates with contemporary therapeutic culture
• The rejection of divine violence addresses a major stumbling block for many modern people
• The emphasis on transformation offers something more than mere forgiveness
• The communal dimension addresses contemporary hunger for community
• The mystical elements appeal to those interested in spirituality

In Interfaith Dialogue

These approaches may also facilitate interfaith dialogue:

• The emphasis on theosis has parallels in Eastern religions’ concepts of enlightenment or union with the divine
• The rejection of blood sacrifice to appease deity distinguishes Christianity from primitive religion
• The emphasis on divine love provides common ground with other Abrahamic faiths
• The focus on transformation rather than transaction is more intelligible across cultures

Final Synthesis: Toward a Unified Vision

While Reardon and Rutledge approach atonement from different traditions and with different emphases, their fundamental vision is remarkably unified. Both see the atonement as God’s loving action to rescue humanity from sin, death, and evil—not through violent punishment but through entering into human existence, bearing the consequences of sin, defeating the powers that hold humanity captive, and opening the way to transformed life in communion with God.

This vision maintains the biblical affirmation that Christ died “for us” and “for our sins” while avoiding the problematic aspects of penal substitutionary atonement. It takes seriously both the objective accomplishment of salvation in Christ and the subjective appropriation of that salvation through faith and sacramental participation. It honors both the Eastern emphasis on theosis and the Western emphasis on justification, seeing them as complementary rather than contradictory.

Perhaps most importantly, this vision presents the atonement not as a divine transaction conducted above our heads but as God’s entrance into the human condition to heal, restore, and transform it from within. The Cross is not God’s violence against the Son but God’s absorption and defeat of violence. The Resurrection is not merely the vindication of the Cross but the completion of God’s victory and the inauguration of new creation.

Conclusion: The Ongoing Task of Atonement Theology

The work of Reardon and Rutledge demonstrates that atonement theology remains a living and vital area of Christian thought. Far from being a settled doctrine, our understanding of Christ’s saving work continues to develop as we return to the sources, engage in ecumenical dialogue, and respond to contemporary challenges.

Their work suggests several important directions for future theological reflection:

1. Continued ressourcement: Returning to biblical and patristic sources to recover neglected insights
2. Ecumenical convergence: Finding common ground across traditions through shared sources
3. Contextual theology: Articulating the atonement in ways that address contemporary concerns
4. Integrated theology: Connecting atonement theology with other doctrines and with Christian practice
5. Pastoral theology: Ensuring that our understanding of atonement promotes healing and transformation

The comparison of these two approaches shows that Christians can maintain different emphases and frameworks while sharing fundamental convictions about God’s saving work in Christ. Both Reardon’s Orthodox emphasis on theosis and Rutledge’s modified Catholic emphasis on rectification offer rich resources for understanding and proclaiming the gospel.

As we continue to reflect on the mystery of the atonement, we would do well to heed Rutledge’s reminder that “the atonement is so big, so vast, so significant that no one image can contain it.” The diversity of biblical imagery and theological reflection is not a weakness but a strength, allowing us to approach the inexhaustible mystery of God’s love revealed in Christ from multiple angles.

At the same time, Reardon’s insistence that atonement means union with God through Christ reminds us that salvation is not merely about forgiveness or legal standing but about transformation and participation in divine life. The goal is not merely to escape punishment but to become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).

In an age marked by violence, division, and despair, these visions of atonement offer hope. They present a God who does not perpetrate violence but absorbs and overcomes it, who does not demand punishment but offers healing, who does not stand aloof from human suffering but enters into it to transform it from within. This is genuinely good news—a gospel worthy of proclamation.

The theological work of comparing and synthesizing these approaches is not merely academic exercise but serves the Church’s mission of proclaiming the gospel effectively in our contemporary context. As we understand more deeply what God has accomplished in Christ, we are better equipped to participate in that work and to invite others into the transformed life it makes possible.

May this analysis contribute to that ongoing theological task and ultimately to the Church’s witness to God’s saving love revealed in Jesus Christ, “who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father” (Nicene Creed).

In the end, both Reardon and Rutledge call us back to the central Christian proclamation: God loves us and has acted decisively in Christ to save us. The nature of that saving action may be expressed through various images and understood through different frameworks, but the fundamental reality remains: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). This is the mystery we celebrate, the truth we proclaim, and the reality in which we live.

Appendix: Key Terms and Concepts

Greek Terms

• Theosis/Theopoiesis: Deification, divinization, becoming god-like through participation in divine life
• Hilasterion: Variously translated as propitiation, expiation, or mercy seat
• Logizomai: To reckon, account, credit
• Dikaiosis: Justification, rectification, being made righteous
• Soteria: Salvation, deliverance, healing
• Kenosis: Self-emptying, Christ’s humiliation in becoming human
• Anakephalaiosis: Recapitulation, summing up, renewal

Key Theological Concepts

• Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA): The view that Christ bore God’s punishment for sin in our place
• Satisfaction Theory: Anselm’s view that Christ’s death satisfied God’s honor
• Christus Victor: The view that Christ’s death and resurrection constitute victory over evil powers
• Moral Influence: The view that Christ’s death primarily works by inspiring love and repentance
• Recapitulation: Christ succeeding where Adam failed, restoring human nature
• Substitution: Christ taking our place, bearing our sins and their consequences
• Propitiation: Traditionally, appeasing divine wrath; reinterpreted as God providing the means of atonement
• Expiation: Removal or cleansing of sin
• Rectification: God’s creative act of making righteous