A Comprehensive Exposition of Vee Chandler’s Atonement Model

The cross of Jesus Christ stands at the absolute center of the Christian faith. It is not merely a historical event, a tragic execution of a good man, but the very heart of our relationship with God. It is the hinge upon which all of human history turns, a mystery of divine love and wisdom so profound that we could spend a thousand lifetimes exploring its depths and never reach the end. The apostle Paul, a man of immense intellect and spiritual insight, resolved to know nothing among the Corinthians “except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). This was not an anti-intellectual statement; it was a declaration that in the cross, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found.

For centuries, believers have gathered at the foot of this cross, asking the same fundamental question that all theories of the atonement seek to answer: Why was it necessary for Jesus, the sinless Son of God, to suffer and die? Scripture is abundantly clear on the foundational truth: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3). Yet, the mechanics of how His death accomplishes our forgiveness and reconciliation remain a subject of profound theological exploration.[1]

In many of our conservative churches, the dominant explanation for this necessity is a model known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). This view rightly takes the horror of sin and the holiness of God with utmost seriousness. It teaches that on the cross, Jesus stood in our place as our substitute and bore the full, righteous punishment for our sins that we deserved. In this model, the wrath of God the Father against sin was poured out upon His own Son. While this view has been a source of comfort for many, assuring them that the legal debt of their sin has been paid in full, it also presents significant pastoral and theological difficulties. For many sincere believers, the image of a loving Father actively punishing His beloved Son creates a troubling picture of conflict within the very heart of the Godhead.

This article aims to explore these deep waters with reverence and care. Its purpose is to present a powerful, biblically-rooted understanding of Christ’s sacrifice that passionately upholds its substitutionary nature—that He truly died for us and in our place—without portraying a conflict within the Trinity. To achieve this, we will undertake a three-part journey. First, we will provide a comprehensive and detailed explanation of Dr. Vee Chandler’s “Victorious Substitution” model, a framework that aligns deeply with a biblically balanced view of God’s love and justice. Second, we will carefully and fairly compare this model with the sophisticated defenses of Penal Substitution offered by respected scholars Dr. David L. Allen and Dr. William Lane Craig. Finally, through this exploration, this report seeks to equip you, the reader, with a deeper, more biblically-nuanced framework for understanding, cherishing, and glorying in the beautiful, triumphant, and finished work of our Lord Jesus Christ.

To truly grasp the beauty of the cross, we must begin with a clear foundation. Dr. Vee Chandler’s work in Victorious Substitution provides a compelling framework that honors the full witness of Scripture. This model does not reject the precious truths of substitution or the penal consequences of sin; rather, it re-frames them within the grand, biblical narrative of God’s triumphant love. This section will offer a thorough and sympathetic explanation of her system, which provides a robust alternative to the standard Penal Substitution model.

Section 1: Distinguishing Fact from Theory in the Atonement

Dr. Chandler begins her study by drawing a crucial distinction that brings immense clarity to the entire discussion: the distinction between atonement fact and atonement theory.[1] This is the bedrock of her approach and is essential for any fruitful discussion of the cross.

The fact of the atonement is what Scripture clearly and repeatedly teaches about what the cross accomplished. These are the non-negotiable truths of our faith. It is a biblical fact that “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:19). It is a fact that Christ died “for our sins.” It is a fact that through His shed blood, we have redemption and the forgiveness of sins (Ephesians 1:7). These truths are the bedrock of the gospel message. As Chandler notes, “What Christ’s life and death accomplished is not the mystery; that sins are forgiven in and through Christ’s death is the plain teaching of Scripture”.[1]

The theory of the atonement, on the other hand, is our human attempt to explain the how and the why of this divine work. Atonement theories are conceptual tools we use to answer the question, “Why was this specific, bloody sacrifice necessary for our reconciliation to God?”.[1] God has chosen to leave an element of mystery surrounding this question; it is not directly and systematically answered in one place in Scripture. Therefore, theologians develop theories to connect the dots and provide a coherent explanation.

Much of the confusion and heated debate surrounding the atonement arises when a particular theory, such as Penal Substitution, is presented as if it were the biblical fact itself. When this happens, the theory’s specific explanation—for example, that the Father poured His wrath on the Son—is treated as being as foundational as the fact that Christ died for our sins. This conflation can create unnecessary stumbling blocks for believers who are troubled by the theory’s implications, leading them to question the gospel itself rather than just one human explanation of it.[1]

To further clarify the landscape, Chandler uses the traditional categories of objective and subjective theories. Objective theories suggest that Christ’s death brought about a change related to God or the cosmic order. For example, a debt was paid or justice was satisfied. Subjective theories suggest Christ’s death primarily brings about a change in us, such as moving our hearts to repentance by demonstrating God’s love.[1] Chandler’s Victorious Substitution model, like Penal Substitution, is primarily an objective theory. However, it radically redefines the objective reality that was changed by the cross. It argues the change was not in God’s disposition (from wrathful to loving), but in humanity’s position (from captive to free).

Section 2: A Case Against the Penal Substitution Theory

Before building her own model, Chandler first carefully deconstructs the dominant Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) theory. This critique is not a hostile attack from a liberal perspective; it is a respectful, in-house conversation among conservative believers who hold the Bible as their highest authority. Chandler acknowledges that PSA is often considered the “orthodox understanding” and that it rightly emphasizes the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death and the seriousness of sin.[1] Her disagreement is not with the idea that Christ died in our place, but with the specific mechanism that PSA proposes: that God the Father satisfied His own retributive justice by actively punishing His Son.

Chandler’s Logical Objections

Chandler raises two primary logical problems with the PSA framework [1]:

• Grace vs. Payment: There is a fundamental contradiction between the concepts of paying a debt and graciously forgiving it. If a debt is paid in full, there is nothing left to forgive. The creditor has received what is owed; no grace or mercy is required. If God’s justice received its full and complete payment through the punishment of Christ, in what sense does God then “graciously” forgive our sins? The forgiveness seems to have been purchased, which runs contrary to the biblical emphasis on salvation as a free gift (Romans 6:23). As Chandler puts it, “Debt cannot be both forgiven and paid back at the same time”.[1]
• The Nature of the Penalty: The true penalty for sin, according to Scripture, is eternal death—eternal separation from God. Christ, however, did not suffer this penalty. He was dead for three days and was resurrected. Proponents of PSA often argue that because Christ is a divine person of infinite value, His temporary suffering had infinite worth, making it equivalent to our eternal punishment. Chandler points out that this is a complex theological construct created to solve the problem; it is not something the Bible explicitly teaches. It remains a logical leap to equate a finite duration of suffering, no matter how intense, with an eternal penalty.[1]

Chandler’s Moral Objections

The most serious challenges to PSA, in Chandler’s view, are moral. These objections touch upon the very character of God [1]:

• The Injustice of Punishing the Innocent: This is the heart of the moral dilemma. Scripture itself, in places like Ezekiel 18:20 (“The one who sins is the one who will die”) and Deuteronomy 24:16, establishes a clear principle of divine justice: the guilty are punished for their own sins. How, then, can God violate His own revealed standard of justice in the very act that is supposed to be its ultimate demonstration? To punish a perfectly innocent person (Christ) for crimes he did not commit is, by God’s own definition, an act of injustice.
• The Character of God: The PSA model can inadvertently portray God the Father as a being whose primary attribute is a kind of impersonal, retributive justice. It can create an image of a stern judge whose wrath must be satisfied before His love can be expressed. This creates a moral tension within the Godhead, where the Father demands punishment and the Son provides it, almost as if they have conflicting interests. This picture is hard to reconcile with the New Testament’s portrayal of a God who “is love” (1 John 4:8) and whose actions flow from that love.

Chandler’s Theological Objections

Flowing from the moral problems are deep theological difficulties [1]:

• An Inner-Divine Conflict: The PSA narrative can imply a division within the Trinity. It sets the Father’s justice in opposition to the Son’s mercy. The Father is the one who inflicts punishment; the Son is the one who endures it. This is theologically problematic. The consistent witness of Scripture is of a unified work. Jesus says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). The atonement is not the Son appeasing the Father; it is, as Paul says, “God… in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). The Father, Son, and Spirit are perfectly united in their purpose and love.
• Reconciling God to Man?: PSA focuses on satisfying a need within God—the need for His justice to be satisfied. The change happens in God; His satisfied justice now allows Him to forgive. However, the New Testament consistently speaks of humanity being reconciled to God, not the other way around. The barrier to fellowship is our sin and rebellion, not a reluctance on God’s part to forgive.
• Love, Not Justice, as the Primary Motivation: The ultimate source and motivation for the atonement is the boundless love of God. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). While PSA does not deny God’s love, its functional mechanism makes the satisfaction of an abstract principle of justice the central and driving necessity of the cross. Chandler argues that this inverts the biblical priority, where justice serves love, not the other way around.

These profound moral and theological objections to the “wrath-bearing” element of PSA are what necessitate a search for a different framework. If the idea of God punishing God is biblically and theologically untenable, then the “necessity” of the cross cannot be to satisfy God’s internal need for retribution. Yet, the cross was undeniably necessary. This leads to a critical question: if the necessity wasn’t in God, where was it? Chandler finds the answer by turning to a more ancient understanding of the atonement, one that sees the necessity not in changing God’s mind, but in changing humanity’s dire situation. The necessity was not to satisfy God, but to liberate humanity from its bondage to hostile cosmic powers. This completely reframes the purpose of Christ’s substitutionary death.

Section 3: Re-reading the Biblical Language of Atonement

A key part of Chandler’s argument is that the biblical verses often used as “proof texts” for Penal Substitution are, upon closer examination, better understood in a different light. She argues that centuries of viewing the Bible through a PSA lens have colored our interpretation of key theological terms.[1]

The most crucial re-reading involves the Greek word hilasmos and its related forms. In many English Bibles, this word is translated as “propitiation,” which means to appease or avert wrath. This translation perfectly fits the PSA model: Christ’s sacrifice propitiates God’s wrath. However, Chandler makes a compelling case that the better translation is “expiation,” which means the cleansing, wiping away, or removal of sin.[1]

Her argument is based on several lines of evidence:

• The Object of the Action: In both the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and the New Testament, the action of hilasmos is consistently directed toward sin, not toward God. One expiates sin; one propitiates a person. The Bible says Christ is the hilasmos “for our sins” (1 John 2:2), not “for God.” To propitiate sins makes no grammatical sense.[1]
• The Hebrew Background: The Greek term hilasmos was used by the Jewish translators of the Septuagint to render the Hebrew word kipper, which is the primary Old Testament word for atonement. The fundamental meaning of kipper is to “cover” or “wipe clean.” The Old Testament sacrifices were meant to cleanse the people and the sanctuary from the defilement of sin.[1]

This shift from propitiation to expiation is theologically massive. It removes the idea of an angry God who needs to be appeased by a violent sacrifice. Instead, it presents a loving and holy God who provides a means to cleanse His beloved but sin-stained people from their defilement, so that they can be in fellowship with Him. The problem is the stain of sin, and the cross is God’s powerful detergent.

This re-reading also affects the interpretation of Romans 3:25. Proponents of PSA often translate the word hilasterion here as “propitiatory sacrifice.” Chandler, however, argues that it should be understood as “mercy seat,” a direct reference to the golden cover of the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament Tabernacle.[1] On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat, and there God’s presence would meet with humanity and forgive their sins (Leviticus 16). Paul’s point, then, is that Jesus Himself is the new and ultimate “mercy seat.” He is the place where God’s holy presence and boundless mercy meet our sin and cleanse it away once and for all. The old mercy seat was hidden behind a veil; the new one, Jesus, has been publicly displayed for all the world to see.

Finally, Chandler addresses the biblical concept of the wrath of God. She firmly affirms the reality of God’s wrath as His settled and holy opposition to all evil and sin. However, she argues that it is not an impersonal, metaphysical force that must be “satisfied” or an uncontrollable anger that must be vented. Rather, it is the personal, judicial response of a holy God against unrepentant sin. The cross, in this view, is not the event where God’s wrath is poured out and absorbed. Instead, the cross is the ultimate act of rescue. It is the means by which we are cleansed from the sin that would otherwise subject us to the just consequences of God’s future wrath and judgment.[1]

Section 4: Recovering the Classic View: Christ’s Victory Over Darkness

Having shown the weaknesses of the PSA model, Chandler turns to the model she believes is more biblically and theologically sound: the Ransom theory, more commonly known today as the Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) model. Following the work of Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulén, she argues that this was the dominant understanding of the atonement for the first thousand years of church history, held by early church fathers like Irenaeus and Augustine.[1]

This view frames the story of salvation not as a legal transaction in a divine courtroom, but as a cosmic drama—a great war between the Kingdom of God and the powers of darkness. The key elements of this narrative are:

• Humanity in Bondage: When Adam and Eve sinned, they did not just break a rule; they surrendered their allegiance. They plunged the human race into a state of bondage and captivity to a triumvirate of hostile, spiritual powers: Sin (as an enslaving force), Death (as the consequence of sin), and the Devil (“the prince of this world”).[1] We were born as captives in enemy territory, unable to free ourselves.
• Christ the Liberator: Jesus’s incarnation was a divine invasion. His entire ministry is presented in the Gospels as a cosmic battle. His temptation in the wilderness was a direct confrontation with the enemy commander. His exorcisms were not just acts of healing but were skirmishes where He drove the enemy’s forces from their occupied territory. He came, as He announced, “to proclaim freedom for the prisoners” (Luke 4:18).
• The Cross as the Decisive Battle: The crucifixion is the climax of this war. It is not God punishing Jesus. It is the moment when the powers of darkness unleash their full, concentrated fury upon the Son of God. They use all their weapons—betrayal, injustice, pain, mockery, and death itself—to try to break Him. But because Jesus endures it all without sinning, He absorbs their attack and exhausts their power. By submitting to death, He enters the heart of the enemy’s stronghold, and because death has no rightful claim on a sinless person, He shatters its gates from the inside out. He defeats them not by using superior force, but by triumphing through perfect, loving obedience. As Paul writes, God “disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Colossians 2:15).

In this model, the resurrection is not merely an epilogue to the story; it is the public announcement of victory. It is God’s great “V-Day,” declaring to the entire cosmos that the battle has been won, the enemy has been defeated, and the power of death is broken forever. Death could not hold the sinless one, proving that its reign of terror was over.[1]

Section 5: The Victorious Substitution Synthesis

Here we arrive at the heart of Dr. Chandler’s unique and powerful contribution to atonement theology. She argues that the precious biblical concept of substitution—the truth that Christ acted in our place—is not exclusive to the Penal Substitution model. In fact, she contends that it finds its most logical and biblically coherent home within the Christus Victor framework. This fusion is what she calls the Victorious Substitution theory.[1]

How does substitution function in this model of cosmic liberation?

First, Christ acts as our substitute by becoming the Ransom Price. Jesus Himself said He came “to give his life as a ransom [Greek: lytron] for many” (Mark 10:45). A ransom is a payment made to liberate a captive. Christ’s life, offered in death, is the price that purchases our freedom from bondage.[1]

This raises a question that has long been debated: to whom is the ransom paid? Chandler, following the classic view, argues that the ransom is directed toward the one who holds humanity captive—Satan, or more broadly, the objective power of Sin and Death. This does not imply that Satan is God’s equal or that he has legitimate “rights” over humanity in an ultimate sense. Rather, it means that God, in His perfect justice, chooses to operate in a lawful way. Since humanity fell into bondage through an act of free will, God chooses to liberate them through a just transaction—a payment—rather than by an act of sheer, overwhelming force. He honors the cause-and-effect reality of the fallen world He created.[1]

This is where the “penal” aspect of the atonement finds its proper place, without any notion of God punishing His Son. Chandler explains that Christ, as our substitute, bears the full “penal consequences” of our sin.[1] In this fallen world, which exists under the righteous judgment of God, sin has real, unavoidable consequences or penalties: suffering, alienation, and ultimately, death. Christ, as our substitute, fully entered into our condemned human reality. He stepped into our place and took upon Himself the full, crushing weight of those consequences. He experienced the pain, the sorrow, and the separation that our sin deserved. He died the death that was the just “wage” of our sin (Romans 6:23). This suffering is truly penal—it is the penalty for sin—but the agent inflicting it is the broken system of sin and death itself, not the direct, wrathful hand of the Father. Christ submits to the consequences of the judgment that rests upon the world.[1]

The result of this victorious substitution is a Great Exchange. Christ, our champion and substitute, takes on our condition so that we might receive His. He takes our bondage, and in exchange, we receive His freedom. He takes our sin-sickness, and by His wounds, we are healed. He endures our death, and we, in turn, receive His eternal life. He enters the darkness of the enemy’s camp, and as our liberator, He brings us out into the glorious light of the Kingdom of God.

Having established a thorough understanding of Vee Chandler’s Victorious Substitution model, we now turn to a comparative analysis. To do justice to the discussion, it is essential to first build a strong and accurate representation of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) model as it is defended by some of its most articulate modern proponents. By understanding the best arguments for PSA, we can more clearly identify the precise points of divergence and appreciate the unique contributions of each framework.

Section 6: The Architecture of Penal Substitution: The Views of Allen and Craig

This section will summarize the PSA position as articulated by Dr. David L. Allen and Dr. William Lane Craig. Their defenses, while arriving at the same conclusion, approach the topic from complementary angles—one primarily from biblical theology and the other from philosophical and legal reasoning.

David L. Allen’s Biblical-Theological Defense

In his work The Atonement, Dr. David Allen provides a comprehensive defense of PSA rooted in a systematic reading of the biblical text. His argument is built on several key pillars [1]:

• The Centrality of Sacrifice: Allen, like many PSA proponents, emphasizes that sacrifice is the central and most important metaphor for the atonement in Scripture. The entire Old Testament sacrificial system, with its emphasis on blood and atonement, points forward to Christ’s ultimate sacrifice.[1]
• The Reality of God’s Wrath: For Allen, God’s wrath is not merely a metaphor for the consequences of sin; it is His holy, personal, and necessary reaction against evil. Propitiation, therefore, is the very real turning away of this righteous wrath, and it is an essential component of the atonement. He argues that God’s love and wrath are compatible aspects of His nature, and both are displayed at the cross.[1]
• Substitution as the Controlling Category: Allen views substitution as the primary mechanism explaining how the atonement works. He points to the clear substitutionary language in passages like Isaiah 53, where the Servant suffers “for our transgressions” and “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all”.[1]
• Penal Substitution as the Biblical Core: Bringing these elements together, Allen concludes that Penal Substitution is the model that best expresses the biblical data. It directly addresses what he sees as the root problem between God and humanity: our guilt, which incurs God’s righteous wrath. Christ’s death is a penal act because He bears the punishment we deserve, and it is substitutionary because He does so in our place.[1]

William Lane Craig’s Philosophical-Legal Defense

Dr. William Lane Craig, in Atonement and the Death of Christ, defends PSA by framing it in forensic, or legal, terms. He argues that the model is not only biblically sound but also philosophically coherent and morally just.[1]

• The Atonement as a Legal Transaction: Craig views the atonement primarily through the lens of a divine courtroom. God is the supreme and righteous Judge and Ruler of the universe, and His primary responsibility is to uphold divine justice.[1]
• The Necessity of Punishment: For Craig, divine justice is fundamentally retributive. This means that justice, by its very nature, requires that sin be punished. A just judge cannot simply overlook wrongdoing. Therefore, for God to forgive sinners, the demands of His own justice must first be satisfied through the punishment of sin.[1]
• Imputation as the Key Mechanism: The key to understanding how PSA can be just is the doctrine of imputation. Craig argues that on the cross, our sin and, crucially, our legal guilt were legally credited, or imputed, to Christ’s account. Simultaneously, Christ’s perfect righteousness is imputed to the account of believers. Because Christ was made legally guilty in the eyes of the divine court, it was therefore perfectly just for God to inflict upon Him the punishment that sin deserved. God did not punish an innocent person; He punished the one who had legally taken on the status of the guilty.[1]
• Philosophical Coherence: Craig dedicates significant effort to defending the coherence and morality of this divine transaction. He draws on analogies from legal theory, such as vicarious liability, to show that the concept of one person bearing the legal consequences for another is not without precedent. He argues that since God is the ultimate lawgiver, He has the authority to establish the terms of justice, including the provision of a substitute.[1]

Section 7: Locating the Disagreements: A Comparative Analysis

When we place the Victorious Substitution model alongside the Penal Substitution model of Allen and Craig, the differences are profound. The core distinction lies in the primary framework, or narrative, used to understand the cross. For Chandler, the atonement is a cosmic drama of liberation. For Allen and Craig, it is a divine courtroom drama of legal satisfaction. This fundamental difference in the story being told dictates how every piece of biblical data is interpreted and understood.

Let us compare the models on several key points:

• The Primary Problem to Be Solved:
  • Victorious Substitution: The primary problem is human bondage. Humanity is captive to the powers of sin, death, and the devil.
  • Penal Substitution: The primary problem is divine wrath. God’s holy and just nature has been violated by sin, and His righteous wrath must be satisfied.
• The Direction of the Atoning Act:
  • Victorious Substitution: The “payment” of the cross (the ransom) is directed outward and downward, toward the hostile powers that hold humanity captive, to secure our release.
  • Penal Substitution: The payment of the cross (the punishment) is directed upward, toward God the Father, to satisfy the demands of His own justice.
• The Role of God’s Wrath at the Cross:
  • Victorious Substitution: The cross is the ultimate act of rescue by which we are saved from the consequences of God’s future, judicial wrath against unrepentant sin.
  • Penal Substitution: The cross is the very place where God’s present, righteous wrath against sin is poured out and fully absorbed by Christ.
• The Meaning of “Penalty”:
  • Victorious Substitution: Christ bears the “penal consequences” of sin. He enters our fallen world, which is under a state of divine judgment, and suffers the effects of that judgment (pain, death, separation).
  • Penal Substitution: Christ bears the direct, active, retributive punishment for sin, which is personally and judicially inflicted by God the Father.
• The Nature of God’s Justice:
  • Victorious Substitution: God’s justice is revealed in the just means He uses to accomplish His loving purpose of rescue. He defeats evil through a lawful transaction (a ransom) rather than by sheer force, honoring the created order.
  • Penal Substitution: God’s justice is an intrinsic attribute of His nature that must be satisfied by punishment before His mercy and love can be freely extended to sinners.

This reveals a profound difference in theological starting points. The models of Allen and Craig begin with the attributes of God’s holiness and retributive justice. Sin violates these, creating a legal problem that must be solved. God’s love then provides the solution in the person of Christ. Chandler’s model begins with the attribute of God’s love, which sees humanity in bondage and acts to rescue them. This loving act of rescue is then carried out in a way that is perfectly consistent with God’s justice. This is not a mere difference in emphasis; it changes the entire character of the atonement narrative from one of satisfying God to one of rescuing humanity.

These differing frameworks also carry distinct pastoral implications. Chandler’s model offers a powerful narrative of triumphant liberation from oppression, which can be deeply encouraging to those who feel trapped by sin, addiction, or despair. It is a gospel of victory and freedom. The models of Allen and Craig offer a narrative of profound legal assurance. For those who are acutely aware of their guilt before a holy God, this model provides immense comfort in knowing that the legal problem of their sin has been definitively and eternally solved.

Section 8: The Word of God: A Comparative Table and Exegesis of Key Scriptures

The ultimate test of any theological model is its faithfulness to the Word of God. The differences between Victorious Substitution and Penal Substitution are not merely philosophical; they lead to different interpretations of the same sacred texts. The following table is designed to distill these exegetical disagreements into a clear, comparative format. It allows us to move from abstract theology to concrete biblical interpretation and see precisely how each framework reads key atonement passages.

Scripture	Vee Chandler (Victorious Substitution)	David L. Allen (Penal Substitution)	William Lane Craig (Penal Substitution)
Isaiah 53	Christ is the Suffering Servant who vicariously bears the consequences of our sin (suffering, death) as part of His victorious battle. “The LORD has laid on him the iniquity” refers to the burden of our fallen state, not the Father’s active punishment. [1]	The capstone OT text for substitution. The Servant bears the guilt and punishment for the people, a clear statement of penal substitutionary sacrifice. [1]	The Servant suffers vicariously and punitively. “To bear sin” means to endure the punishment for it. The LORD inflicts this suffering. [1]
Mark 10:45	Jesus gives His life as a lytron (ransom) to liberate humanity from bondage to Satan, sin, and death. A literal payment for freedom. [1]	The verse stresses the substitutionary nature of the sacrifice (“for many,” meaning all). It is a ransom that pays the price our sin incurred. [1]	Jesus’ life is the ransom price paid to God to discharge the debt of punishment we owe to divine justice. A metaphor for penal substitution. [1]
Romans 3:21-26	Hilasterion means “mercy seat.” Christ is the place where God’s mercy cleanses sin (expiation). God demonstrates His saving justice by providing this means of cleansing, not by satisfying His own wrath. [1]	Hilasterion means “propitiation.” Christ’s death averts God’s wrath. The passage is the apex of Paul’s teaching on how God can be both “just and the justifier” by punishing sin in a substitute. [1]	Hilasterion is a propitiatory offering. The context of God’s wrath (Rom 1-3) demands a solution that appeases it. Christ’s death vindicates God’s retributive justice. [1]
2 Cor. 5:21	“Made to be sin” is best understood sacrificially: Christ was made a “sin offering.” This avoids the theological problem of the sinless one literally becoming sin or legally guilty. [1]	Our sin was imputed to Christ; He was treated as a sinner. His righteousness is imputed to us. A clear statement of substitution. [1]	God imputed our sins to Christ, making Him legally guilty before God, though personally sinless. The parallelism with “become the righteousness of God” is key. [1]
Galatians 3:13	Christ became a “curse” for us by entering into our cursed condition under the law and bearing its ultimate consequence, death, thereby breaking its power over us. [1]	Christ bore the curse of the law on the cross for humanity. A clear statement of redemption by means of substitution. [1]	A shocking affirmation that Christ became accursed of God on our behalf. This implies the imputation of our sin and consequent condemnation. [1]
1 Peter 2:24	Christ “bore our sins” by carrying them away, breaking their power so we can “die to sins.” The healing is spiritual conversion, not absorption of punishment. [1]	A clear statement of substitution. The focus is on the transformative outcome: dying to sin and living for righteousness. The healing is primarily spiritual. [1]	An affirmation of Christ’s substitutionary punishment, echoing Isaiah 53. He bore our sins, and by His wounds we are healed from sin’s effects. [1]
1 Peter 3:18	“The righteous for the unrighteous” is a clear statement of vicarious, substitutionary suffering to bring us to God (reconciliation), not to satisfy God’s justice. [1]	The verse highlights the purpose of the atonement: reconciliation. It is achieved through the substitution of “the just for the unjust.” [1]	A clear statement of substitutionary suffering, reflecting the Servant of Isaiah 53 who suffers on behalf of others. [1]
1 John 2:2	Christ is the hilasmos (atoning sacrifice) for our sins. The context is God’s love, not wrath. It is an expiation that cleanses sin, not a propitiation that appeases God. [1]	One of the clearest verses affirming universal atonement. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, not just the elect. [1]	Christ is the hilasmos (atoning sacrifice). The term connects to the OT sacrificial system and implies both expiation and propitiation. [1]
Hebrews 2:17	Christ makes expiation for sins in His ongoing high priestly ministry. The verb is present tense, referring to a continual action, not the past event of the cross. The context is defeating the devil, not appeasing wrath. [1]	The verse underscores the necessity of the incarnation for Christ to serve as High Priest and make propitiation for sins, averting God’s wrath. [1]	Jesus is the high priest who makes a “sacrifice of atonement” (hilaskesthai), linking his death to the sacrificial system that was both expiatory and propitiatory. [1]

Narrative Analysis of Exegetical Differences

The comparative table reveals several key patterns. The interpretation of the hilasmos word group as either “expiation” (Chandler) or “propitiation” (Allen/Craig) fundamentally alters the reading of Romans 3 and 1 John 2. For Chandler, these passages describe God’s loving provision to cleanse us from sin. For Allen and Craig, they describe God’s just provision to appease His own holy wrath against sin.

Similarly, the understanding of Isaiah 53 sets the trajectory for the entire doctrine. For Allen and Craig, the passage is a clear prophecy of a substitute bearing the active, judicial punishment for sin. For Chandler, it describes a substitute vicariously bearing the tragic consequences of sin as part of a victorious conflict. This difference is echoed in the interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21. For Craig and Allen, the legal mechanism of “imputation” is central, making Christ legally guilty. For Chandler, the language is sacrificial—Christ becomes a “sin offering,” a mechanism for cleansing, not for punishment.

Finally, the concept of ransom in Mark 10:45 is seen by Chandler as a literal payment to liberate captives from a hostile power. Craig, in contrast, interprets it as a metaphor for the penal substitutionary payment made to satisfy God’s justice. These are not minor disagreements; they represent two fundamentally different ways of reading the central story of the Bible.

Our journey through these profound theological waters has revealed two distinct, yet overlapping, portraits of the cross. The Penal Substitution model, defended with biblical rigor by David L. Allen and philosophical precision by William Lane Craig, presents a powerful picture of God’s unswerving justice. It provides deep assurance that the legal debt of our sin has been fully paid by a divine substitute who absorbed the righteous wrath of God in our place.

The Victorious Substitution model, articulated so clearly by Vee Chandler, offers a different, though no less powerful, portrait. It is a picture of a cosmic battle, a divine rescue mission motivated by immeasurable love. In this view, Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice is the ransom price that liberates humanity from bondage and the decisive blow that defeats the powers of sin, death, and the devil.

From the perspective of this report, the Victorious Substitution model holds a distinct advantage. It powerfully affirms all the essential, non-negotiable truths of the faith that we hold dear: the utter seriousness of sin, the absolute necessity of the cross, the substitutionary nature of Christ’s sacrifice, the forgiveness of sins purchased by His precious blood, and the unwavering reality of God’s perfect justice. It accomplishes all of this while avoiding the significant theological and pastoral problems that arise from the “wrath-bearing” element of Penal Substitution.

The Victorious Substitution model presents a picture of the Triune God working in perfect, harmonious unity. There is no conflict between the Father’s justice and the Son’s love. The Father does not punish the Son; rather, the Father, in His love, sends the Son on a mission of rescue, and the Son, in His love, willingly enters our fallen reality to bear the consequences of our sin and lead us to freedom. It is a gospel not of divine anger appeased, but of divine love triumphant. It is a story of victory, of liberation, and of a Great Exchange that brings us from darkness to light, from bondage to freedom, and from death to life.

Ultimately, regardless of the specific theoretical model one finds most compelling, our response must be one of awe, gratitude, and worship. The cross is and will always be a profound mystery. But what is not a mystery is the love that motivated it. The ultimate truth, which unites all true believers, is that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). May we never cease to wonder at the Victorious Lamb who was slain and has redeemed us to God by His blood, for to Him belongs all glory, honor, and praise, forever and ever. Amen.

© 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.