The Atonement: Sacrifice Without Wrath
A Conservative Biblical Analysis of Christ’s Atoning Work

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction: The Heart of the Gospel
• 2. Biblical Foundation for Atonement
• 3. Historical Development of Atonement Theories
• 4. Understanding Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory
• 5. Problems with Penal Substitution
• 6. Sacrifice Without Wrath: The Biblical Case
• 7. Key Verse Analysis and Interpretation
• 8. Theological Implications
• 9. The Church Fathers on Atonement
• 10. Modern Theological Perspectives
• 11. Pastoral and Practical Applications
• 12. Conclusion: The Love of God in Christ

1. Introduction: The Heart of the Gospel

The death of Jesus Christ on the cross stands at the very center of Christian faith. For two thousand years, believers have proclaimed that Christ died for our sins, that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins, and that through His sacrifice we are reconciled to God. This fundamental truth remains unshakeable. However, the precise way we understand how Christ’s death accomplishes our salvation has been expressed in various ways throughout church history.

Today, many evangelical and Protestant Christians assume that there is only one biblical way to understand the atonement: penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). This theory teaches that God the Father poured out His wrath and punishment for sin upon Jesus Christ, who bore the penalty we deserved. In this view, Jesus experienced the Father’s anger and judicial punishment in our place. While this understanding has become dominant in many Protestant circles since the Reformation, it is neither the only nor necessarily the best way to understand the biblical teaching about Christ’s atoning work.

This report presents an alternative understanding that remains thoroughly conservative and biblical while questioning certain aspects of penal substitution. The view presented here affirms without reservation that:

• Jesus Christ truly died as a sacrifice for our sins
• His death was substitutionary – He died in our place
• His blood genuinely cleanses us from sin
• Through His death we receive forgiveness and reconciliation with God
• The atonement was necessary for our salvation
• Christ’s work satisfies divine justice

However, this view questions whether:

• God the Father was angry at Jesus on the cross
• Jesus experienced the Father’s wrath or punishment
• The Father treated Jesus as if He were guilty of our sins
• Divine justice requires retributive punishment
• The Trinity was somehow divided at the cross

As Fleming Rutledge observes in The Crucifixion: “The self-oblation of the Son on the cross proceeded out of God’s eternal, triune inner being. In our preaching, teaching, and learning we must emphatically reject any interpretation that divides the will of the Father from that of the Son, or suggests that anything is going on that does not proceed out of love. God’s justice and God’s mercy both issue forth from his single will of eternal love.”

– Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ, Chapter 8: “Anselm: The Curse of God”

The position developed in this report aligns more closely with what theologians call the “satisfaction theory” of atonement, particularly as developed by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century and refined by Catholic theology. This view maintains that Christ’s death was a genuine sacrifice that satisfied the requirements of divine justice and restored the honor due to God, but without requiring that God punish Jesus with retributive wrath.

Understanding this distinction is not merely an academic exercise. How we understand the cross shapes our entire understanding of God’s character, the nature of salvation, and the Christian life. If God required violent punishment of His innocent Son, what does this say about divine justice? If the Father turned away from Jesus in anger, what does this mean for the unity of the Trinity? If salvation requires the satisfaction of divine wrath through violence, how do we understand Jesus’ teaching about love and forgiveness?

These questions deserve careful biblical and theological consideration. The mainstream Protestant understanding of penal substitution, while containing important truths, may not be the complete or best understanding of the atonement. By examining Scripture carefully, studying the history of Christian thought, and thinking theologically about these matters, we can arrive at an understanding that honors both the genuine sacrificial nature of Christ’s death and the loving character of God.

2. Biblical Foundation for Atonement

The Bible provides rich and varied language to describe Christ’s atoning work. Understanding these biblical foundations helps us see that Scripture itself presents multiple dimensions of the atonement, not all of which fit neatly into a penal substitutionary framework.

Old Testament Background: The Sacrificial System

The Old Testament sacrificial system provides crucial background for understanding Christ’s death. However, when we examine these sacrifices carefully, we find that they were not primarily about punishment or wrath.

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

Notice that this foundational text about sacrifice speaks of blood “making atonement” (Hebrew: kipper) but does not mention punishment or wrath. The Hebrew word kipper means to cover, cleanse, or make reconciliation. Jay Sklar, in his scholarly work on Leviticus, notes that sin offerings were primarily about purification and consecration, not punishment.

When we examine the Day of Atonement rituals in Leviticus 16, we find two goats with different functions:

• The first goat was sacrificed as a sin offering for cleansing and purification
• The second goat (the scapegoat) had sins confessed over it and was sent away alive into the wilderness

Significantly, neither goat was punished or received wrath. The sacrificed goat’s blood cleansed the sanctuary, while the living scapegoat carried away sins. This pattern suggests that sacrifice is about cleansing and removal of sin rather than punishment.

According to Jacob Milgrom’s authoritative commentary on Leviticus: “The sin offering does not transfer sin to the animal. Rather, the blood of the animal purges the sanctuary of the impurities caused by sin. The animal is not punished in place of the sinner; its blood is a purifying agent.”

– Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: The Anchor Bible Commentary, Chapter on “The Sin Offering”

The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53

Isaiah 53 is perhaps the most important Old Testament passage about substitutionary atonement. It clearly teaches that the Servant bears our sins and suffers in our place. However, careful examination shows this can be understood without requiring divine punishment:

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed.” – Isaiah 53:4-5

Note that verse 4 says “we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God” – this was how observers perceived it, not necessarily the theological reality. The passage emphasizes that the Servant bears our sins and their consequences, but it doesn’t explicitly state that God is angry at the Servant or punishing him retributively.

The Hebrew word translated “chastisement” (musar) in verse 5 can mean discipline or instruction, not necessarily punitive punishment. The Servant suffers the consequences of our sins, bearing what we deserved, but this doesn’t require that God is venting wrath upon him.

New Testament Teaching on Sacrifice

The New Testament consistently presents Christ’s death as a sacrifice, but the emphasis is on love, self-giving, and cleansing rather than punishment:

“Walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.” – Ephesians 5:2

Notice that Christ’s sacrifice is described as a “sweet-smelling aroma” to God – hardly the language we would expect if God were angrily punishing Jesus. The emphasis is on Christ’s loving self-offering, which is pleasing to God.

The Letter to the Hebrews, which contains the New Testament’s most extensive discussion of Christ’s sacrifice, emphasizes cleansing and perfection rather than punishment:

“How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” – Hebrews 9:14

Throughout Hebrews, the emphasis is on Christ’s blood cleansing, purifying, and sanctifying – not on Christ being punished. Christ enters the heavenly sanctuary with His own blood to obtain eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12). The imagery is of a high priest making atonement, not a criminal being executed.

The Language of Reconciliation

Paul’s preferred language for the atonement is reconciliation (katallage), which implies the restoration of a broken relationship rather than the satisfaction of wrath through punishment:

“All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them.” – 2 Corinthians 5:18-19

Notice that God is the subject who reconciles us to Himself. We are not reconciling an angry God to us by offering Him a victim to punish. Rather, God Himself, in Christ, is bringing about reconciliation. The emphasis is on God not counting our sins against us, not on God counting them against Christ instead.

The Meaning of Propitiation

The term “propitiation” (hilasterion in Greek) appears in key passages like Romans 3:25 and is often cited as evidence for penal substitution. However, this term’s meaning is debated among scholars:

“Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.” – Romans 3:25

Many scholars argue that hilasterion should be translated as “mercy seat” or “place of atonement” rather than “propitiation.” In the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), hilasterion consistently refers to the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant where blood was sprinkled on the Day of Atonement. This would mean Paul is saying that Christ is our mercy seat, the place where atonement occurs through His blood.

Even if we translate it as “propitiation,” this doesn’t necessarily imply appeasing divine wrath through punishment. C.H. Dodd and other scholars have argued that in biblical usage, the word group related to hilasterion refers to the removal or cleansing of sin rather than the appeasement of anger.

3. Historical Development of Atonement Theories

Understanding how Christian thinking about the atonement has developed over two millennia helps us see that penal substitution is not the only or original way Christians have understood Christ’s saving work. The church has expressed the meaning of the cross through various models and metaphors, each capturing important biblical truths.

The Early Church: Christus Victor and Ransom Theories

For the first thousand years of Christianity, the dominant understanding of the atonement was what Gustav Aulén called the “Christus Victor” (Christ the Victor) model. This view emphasized that through His death and resurrection, Christ defeated the powers of evil, sin, and death that held humanity in bondage.

The early church fathers saw the human predicament primarily in terms of bondage to sin, death, and the devil. Christ’s work was understood as liberation from these powers. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202 AD) developed the concept of “recapitulation” – Christ succeeding where Adam failed, thereby reversing the curse and restoring humanity.

Athanasius wrote in On the Incarnation: “He became what we are that we might become what He is. The Word became flesh to destroy death and bring us to life. For He was made man that we might be made divine.”

– Athanasius, On the Incarnation, Chapter 54

Many early fathers also employed “ransom” language, based on Jesus’ saying that He came “to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Some, like Origen, developed this into a theory that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to Satan. While this specific idea was later rejected, the emphasis was on liberation rather than punishment.

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 AD) explicitly rejected the idea that the ransom was paid either to Satan (who had no legitimate claim) or to God the Father:

“To whom was the blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed?… We were held captive by the Evil One, sold under sin… If to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were held captive… And could the Father delight in the death of His Son?”

– Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 45, “The Second Oration on Easter”

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), while incorporating multiple atonement themes, emphasized that Christ’s death was primarily about demonstrating God’s love and justice, not satisfying wrath through punishment. He wrote extensively about how Christ’s sacrifice breaks the devil’s hold on humanity through justice rather than force.

The Medieval Period: Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory

The most significant development in atonement theology came with Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 AD) in his work Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). Anselm developed what became known as the satisfaction theory of atonement, which differs significantly from later penal substitution.

For Anselm, the fundamental problem was not God’s wrath but God’s honor. Sin dishonors God by robbing Him of the obedience and honor that creatures owe their Creator. This creates a debt that must be satisfied. However, Anselm explicitly distinguished between satisfaction and punishment:

“It is necessary that either the honor taken away should be restored, or punishment should follow. Otherwise, God would be either unjust to Himself or powerless to guard His honor.”

– Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, Book I, Chapter 13

Crucially, Anselm argued that Christ provides satisfaction, not punishment. Christ’s perfect obedience and voluntary death offer to God more honor than all human sin had stolen. This superabundant offering satisfies divine justice without requiring punishment. As David Bentley Hart explains:

“For Anselm, Christ’s death is not a punishment visited upon Him by the Father, but rather His own voluntary gift offered to the Father out of perfect filial love, which gift supersedes the need for punishment.”

– David Bentley Hart, “A Gift Exceeding Every Debt,” Pro Ecclesia Journal

Anselm’s theory maintained several crucial points that distinguish it from penal substitution:

• Christ’s death is a gift freely offered, not a punishment inflicted
• The Father and Son act in perfect unity, not in opposition
• Satisfaction and punishment are alternatives, not equivalents
• Christ offers positive honor to God, not merely bears negative punishment
• The emphasis is on restoration and excess of honor, not retribution

Peter Abelard and Moral Influence

Peter Abelard (1079-1142 AD), often misunderstood as rejecting objective atonement entirely, actually maintained that Christ’s death was a sacrifice for sins while emphasizing its power to transform human hearts through love. Recent scholarship has shown that Abelard affirmed substitutionary elements while critiquing what he saw as problematic in Anselm’s approach.

Abelard asked the pointed question: “How cruel and unjust it seems that someone should require the blood of an innocent person as a ransom, or that in any way it might please him that an innocent person be slain, still less that God should have so accepted the death of his Son that through it he was reconciled to the whole world!”

This critique would later be echoed by those questioning penal substitution. Abelard emphasized that Christ’s death supremely demonstrates God’s love, which awakens love in us and transforms us.

Thomas Aquinas: Refining Satisfaction

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) built upon Anselm’s satisfaction theory while incorporating multiple biblical aspects of atonement. Aquinas maintained that Christ’s death was a true sacrifice, a satisfaction for sin, and an example of virtue, but he was careful to preserve the unity of the Trinity and the voluntary nature of Christ’s offering.

“Christ’s passion was a true sacrifice because through it we are reconciled to God… It was voluntary on Christ’s part, and came from charity. Therefore it was truly a sacrifice.”

– Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 48

Aquinas taught that Christ’s passion works in multiple ways: as merit (earning grace for us), as satisfaction (offering to God what was due), as sacrifice (reconciling us to God), as redemption (freeing us from bondage), and as efficiency (removing obstacles to grace). This multifaceted approach avoided reducing the atonement to a single mechanism.

The Protestant Reformation: The Rise of Penal Substitution

The Protestant Reformers, particularly Martin Luther and John Calvin, modified Anselm’s satisfaction theory in a crucial way: they combined satisfaction with punishment. Where Anselm saw these as alternatives, the Reformers merged them, creating what we now call penal substitutionary atonement.

Luther maintained both Christus Victor themes and penal elements. He wrote vividly about Christ bearing our sins and experiencing God’s wrath, yet he also emphasized Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the devil. Luther’s theology of the cross (theologia crucis) emphasized God’s hidden work in apparent weakness and defeat.

Calvin developed the most systematic presentation of penal substitution. He taught that Christ bore the curse and punishment we deserved:

“This is our acquittal: the guilt that held us liable for punishment has been transferred to the head of the Son of God. We must, above all, remember this substitution, lest we tremble and remain anxious throughout life.”

– John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Chapter 16

The Reformed confessions codified this understanding. The Westminster Confession states that Christ “underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered.” This represents a significant shift from Anselm’s careful distinction between satisfaction and punishment.

Post-Reformation Developments

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) developed the governmental theory of atonement, arguing that Christ’s death upholds divine law and moral government without requiring exact retributive punishment. This theory influenced Arminian theology and provided an alternative to strict penal substitution within Protestantism.

The Orthodox Church, meanwhile, maintained its emphasis on theosis (deification) and Christus Victor themes, never adopting Western satisfaction or penal theories. Orthodox theology emphasizes that through the incarnation and Christ’s death and resurrection, human nature is healed and restored to communion with God.

Liberal Protestant theology in the 19th and 20th centuries often reduced the atonement to moral influence, rejecting both satisfaction and penal substitution as primitive or immoral. However, this overreaction eliminated the objective dimension of Christ’s saving work that Scripture clearly affirms.

4. Understanding Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory

To properly understand our position on the atonement, we must carefully examine Anselm’s satisfaction theory, which provides the theological framework for affirming Christ’s genuine sacrifice without requiring divine punishment or wrath.

The Context and Motivation of Cur Deus Homo

Anselm wrote Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) between 1094 and 1098 while serving as Archbishop of Canterbury. His goal was to demonstrate the rational necessity of the Incarnation and atonement, showing unbelievers and believers alike why God becoming human and dying was the only solution to humanity’s predicament.

Anselm was dissatisfied with the ransom theory’s implication that the devil had legitimate rights over humanity. He sought to explain the atonement in terms of the relationship between God and humanity, without giving the devil a central role. His approach was to show that the God-man’s death was both necessary and fitting given the nature of sin and the character of God.

Sin as Dishonor, Not Merely Law-Breaking

For Anselm, sin is fundamentally about failing to render to God the honor due to Him. This is not about God being petty or concerned with His reputation, but about the proper order of creation:

“Anyone who does not render to God this honor due Him, takes from God what is His and dishonors God, and this is to sin… So then, everyone who sins ought to restore to God the honor he has taken from Him, and this is the satisfaction which every sinner ought to make to God.”

– Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, Book I, Chapter 11

This understanding differs from purely legal or penal frameworks. Honor is relational and personal, not merely juridical. When we sin, we fail to give God the love, obedience, and worship He deserves as our Creator. This creates a debt of honor that must be addressed.

The Necessity of Satisfaction

Anselm argues that God cannot simply forgive sin without satisfaction because this would leave sin unaddressed and disorder in creation unresolved. However, he presents two options for dealing with sin:

1. Punishment – The sinner suffers the consequences of sin
2. Satisfaction – The debt of honor is repaid through a compensatory offering

Crucially, Anselm argues that God chooses satisfaction over punishment out of mercy. If God chose punishment, all humanity would be eternally lost. But through satisfaction, restoration becomes possible while maintaining divine justice.

Why Only the God-Man Can Make Satisfaction

Anselm’s brilliant insight is that satisfaction for human sin creates an impossible dilemma:

• Humans ought to make satisfaction (since we sinned)
• But humans cannot make adequate satisfaction (since we already owe God perfect obedience)
• Only God can make infinite satisfaction (since the dishonor against an infinite God requires infinite recompense)
• But God ought not make satisfaction (since He didn’t sin)

The only solution is the God-man: one who is fully human (and thus can represent humanity) and fully divine (and thus can offer infinite satisfaction). Christ, as the God-man, can offer to God something He doesn’t already owe – namely, His death, since as a sinless human He wasn’t subject to death.

Satisfaction as Gift, Not Punishment

This is the crucial distinction often missed: Christ’s death in Anselm’s theory is not God punishing Jesus. Rather, it is Christ freely offering a gift to the Father that more than compensates for human sin:

“No one can honor God more than when someone voluntarily suffers death for God’s honor… This gift is so precious that it more than compensates for all the sins of the world.”

– Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, Book II, Chapter 18

Christ’s obedient death is supererogatory – beyond what was required of Him. As the sinless God-man, He didn’t deserve death. By voluntarily accepting death out of obedience and love, He offers infinite honor to God. This positive offering of honor outweighs all the dishonor of human sin.

The Unity of the Trinity in Satisfaction

Unlike penal substitution, which can imply the Father punishing the Son, Anselm maintains perfect Trinitarian unity. The Father and Son act together in love for humanity’s salvation:

“God the Father did not treat the Son cruelly, but the Son willingly underwent this for the salvation of humanity… The Father did not compel Him to suffer death against His will, but Christ freely embraced death for our salvation.”

– Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, Book I, Chapter 8

The Father desires the salvation that the Son’s death accomplishes, and the Son freely offers Himself. There is no division, no wrath of the Father against the Son, no reluctant victim. The entire Trinity works in harmony for human redemption.

The Distribution of Christ’s Merit

Since Christ’s offering exceeds what was necessary (being infinite in value), He has a surplus of merit to distribute. Christ doesn’t need any reward for Himself, so He can give the benefits of His satisfaction to sinful humanity. Those who receive Christ’s gift by faith participate in His satisfaction and are restored to relationship with God.

This understanding preserves the gratuity of salvation while maintaining its costliness. Salvation is free to us but infinitely costly to God. Yet the cost is not punitive suffering but the positive offering of perfect love and obedience.

Modern Interpretations and Misunderstandings of Anselm

Many modern critics of Anselm misunderstand his theory by reading it through the lens of later penal substitution. For instance, some claim Anselm presents God as unable to forgive, bound by necessity. But Anselm actually argues that God freely chooses the path of satisfaction out of both justice and mercy.

Others critique the feudal honor framework as outdated. While Anselm did use feudal imagery familiar to his audience, the underlying concepts of relationship, order, and restoration remain relevant. We might translate his language into modern terms of relationship, dignity, and love without losing the essential insights.

Contemporary Anselm scholar Katherin Rogers argues that Anselm’s theory is fundamentally about the restoration of cosmic justice and order, not about appeasing an angry deity:

“For Anselm, the work of Christ is aimed at the restoration of the proper relationship between God and creation, not at changing God’s attitude from wrath to love. God’s love is constant; what changes through Christ’s work is the objective situation of humanity.”

– Katherin Rogers, “A Defense of Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo Argument,” Philosophical Studies

5. Problems with Penal Substitution

While penal substitutionary atonement has become dominant in evangelical Protestantism, it faces serious biblical, theological, and moral objections that deserve careful consideration. These problems don’t negate the truth that Christ died for our sins, but they do challenge the specific mechanism of penal substitution.

Biblical Problems

1. Lack of Explicit Biblical Support for Divine Punishment of Jesus

Despite the prevalence of penal substitution in Protestant theology, the Bible never explicitly states that God punished Jesus or poured out His wrath on Him. The passages typically cited can be interpreted differently:

• Isaiah 53:10 says “it pleased the LORD to bruise him” – but the Hebrew can mean “the LORD willed” or “purposed” His suffering, not that God took pleasure in punishing Him
• 2 Corinthians 5:21 says Christ “became sin for us” – but this likely means He bore our sins or their consequences, not that God treated Him as guilty
• Galatians 3:13 says Christ “became a curse for us” – but this refers to bearing the curse’s consequences, not receiving God’s angry punishment

2. The Absence of Punishment Language in Sacrifice

Old Testament sacrifices, which provide the background for understanding Christ’s death, are never described as punished animals bearing God’s wrath. The focus is on blood as a cleansing agent, not on the animal suffering retribution. As biblical scholar Stephen Finlan notes:

“There is no indication in Leviticus that the sacrificial animal is punished. The animal is not accused, sentenced, or executed as a criminal would be. The ritual is about purification and consecration, not penal substitution.”

– Stephen Finlan, Problems with Atonement, Chapter 3: “The Sacrificial System”

3. New Testament Emphasis on Love Rather Than Wrath

The New Testament consistently presents the cross as the supreme demonstration of God’s love, not His wrath:

“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” – Romans 5:8

“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” – 1 John 4:10

If the cross primarily displays God’s punitive wrath against sin, why is it consistently presented as demonstrating His love? The logic of penal substitution creates a tension here that satisfaction theory avoids.

Theological Problems

1. Trinitarian Division

Penal substitution can imply a rupture within the Trinity, with the Father angry at the Son, punishing Him, or even abandoning Him. This threatens the fundamental Christian doctrine of God’s unity. As theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar warns:

“We must firmly reject any theology that would have the Father and the Son in opposition at the cross, with an angry Father punishing a reluctant Son, or the Son changing the Father’s mind. This would destroy the Trinity.”

– Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama IV, Section on “The Trinity and the Cross”

The cry “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46) is often cited as evidence of divine abandonment. However, this is a quotation of Psalm 22, which ends in triumph and vindication. Jesus may be identifying with human feelings of abandonment while not actually being abandoned by the Father.

2. The Problem of Punishing the Innocent

Basic justice prohibits punishing the innocent for the guilty. Proverbs 17:15 states: “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.” If God’s justice forbids condemning the innocent, how can God condemn the innocent Jesus?

Defenders of penal substitution argue that Christ voluntarily takes our punishment, making it just. But voluntary acceptance doesn’t make punishing the innocent just. If a innocent person volunteers to be executed for a murderer, the judge who allows this acts unjustly, even if the volunteer is willing.

3. The Nature of Forgiveness

Penal substitution suggests God cannot forgive without punishment – someone must be punished before forgiveness is possible. But this contradicts both:

• Jesus’ teaching that we should forgive without requiring punishment (Matthew 18:21-35)
• Old Testament passages where God forgives without punishment (e.g., Hosea 11:8-9)

If God commands us to forgive freely but cannot do so Himself, this creates a moral problem. As philosopher Richard Swinburne argues:

“If God cannot forgive without punishment, He demands of us a moral standard (free forgiveness) that He Himself cannot meet. This would make God less moral than the humans He created.”

– Richard Swinburne, Responsibility and Atonement, Chapter 5

Moral and Pastoral Problems

1. Divine Violence and “Cosmic Child Abuse”

Critics have called penal substitution “cosmic child abuse” – a Father brutally punishing His Son. While this may be rhetorically excessive, it highlights a real concern: Does penal substitution present God as requiring violence for reconciliation? As theologian J. Denny Weaver writes:

“Penal substitution makes violence necessary for salvation. It suggests that the restoration of divine-human relationship requires violent punishment. This stands in tension with Jesus’ teachings about non-violence and love of enemies.”

– J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, Chapter 2

2. Implications for Christian Ethics

If salvation requires violent retribution, what does this mean for Christian ethics? Does it justify retributive justice systems? Does it undermine Jesus’ teachings about forgiveness and enemy love? These are serious pastoral concerns.

3. The Character of God

Penal substitution can present God as primarily wrathful, needing to vent anger before showing love. This affects how believers relate to God – with fear rather than trust, anxiety rather than peace. As theologian Brad Jersak observes:

“When we present God as needing to punish before He can forgive, we may inadvertently create barriers to experiencing God’s love. Many struggle to believe God truly loves them if He required such violent punishment, even of a substitute.”

– Brad Jersak, A More Christlike God, Chapter 8: “The Cross as Love”

Historical Problems

1. Not the Historical Position

Penal substitution as a systematic theory doesn’t appear until the Reformation. While some church fathers use language that might sound penal, careful examination shows they generally held different views. As church historian Paul Fiddes notes:

“The church fathers who speak of Christ bearing punishment typically mean He bore sin’s consequences, not that God inflicted retributive punishment on Him. The systematic doctrine of penal substitution is a post-Reformation development.”

– Paul Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation, Chapter 4: “Historical Development”

2. Reformation Context

Penal substitution arose in a context of heightened legal consciousness and retributive justice systems. The Reformers read the atonement through their cultural lens of criminal law and punishment. While this isn’t necessarily wrong, we should recognize the cultural conditioning of the doctrine.

6. Sacrifice Without Wrath: The Biblical Case

Having examined problems with penal substitution, we now present the positive biblical case for understanding Christ’s death as a genuine sacrifice for sins without requiring divine wrath or punishment against Jesus.

The Nature of Biblical Sacrifice

To understand Christ’s sacrifice, we must understand Old Testament sacrifice correctly. Modern readers often assume sacrifice involves punishing the animal as a substitute, but this fundamentally misunderstands biblical sacrifice.

Sacrifice as Gift and Communion

In the Old Testament, sacrifice is primarily about offering a gift to God that enables communion. The Hebrew word for sacrifice (korban) comes from the root meaning “to draw near.” Sacrifice brings the worshipper near to God:

“Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When any one of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of the livestock—of the herd and of the flock.'” – Leviticus 1:2

The word translated “offering” is korban, emphasizing drawing near. The animal’s death makes the offering possible, but the death itself isn’t the point – the offering of life to God is.

Blood as Life, Not Death

Biblical sacrifice emphasizes blood not as evidence of punishment but as the vehicle of life offered to God:

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

Margaret Barker, a biblical scholar specializing in Temple theology, explains:

“The blood in sacrifice represents life, not death. When blood is offered on the altar, it is life being offered to God, not death being inflicted as punishment. The animal’s life, represented by its blood, is given to God as a gift that cleanses and consecrates.”

– Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest, Chapter 3: “Blood and Life”

Sacrifice as Cleansing and Consecration

The sin offering (Hebrew: hattat) literally means “purification offering.” Its purpose was to cleanse the sanctuary and the worshipper from the contamination of sin:

“Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins.” – Leviticus 16:16

Notice that atonement is made “for the Holy Place” – the sacrifice cleanses sacred space from sin’s contamination. This is about purification, not punishment.

Christ’s Sacrifice as Perfect Offering

The New Testament presents Christ’s death as the perfect fulfillment of Old Testament sacrifice, emphasizing offering and cleansing rather than punishment:

Christ as Our Passover

Paul explicitly identifies Christ with the Passover lamb:

“For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.” – 1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover lamb was not punished for Israel’s sins. Its blood marked the Israelites for protection and deliverance. Similarly, Christ’s blood marks and delivers us, not through punishment but through the power of His offered life.

Christ’s Self-Offering

Hebrews emphasizes that Christ offers Himself to God:

“How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” – Hebrews 9:14

Note the language: Christ “offered Himself” to God. This is gift language, not punishment language. The result is cleansing, not satisfied wrath.

A Fragrant Offering

Paul describes Christ’s sacrifice as a pleasing aroma to God:

“And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.” – Ephesians 5:2

This echoes Old Testament language about sacrifices being a “sweet aroma” to the LORD (e.g., Genesis 8:21; Leviticus 1:9). This is incompatible with God angrily punishing Jesus – punishment doesn’t produce a sweet aroma.

The Love of God in the Sacrifice

Scripture consistently presents Christ’s sacrifice as motivated by and demonstrating divine love, not wrath:

The Father’s Love in Giving the Son

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” – John 3:16

The Father gives the Son out of love for the world. There’s no mention of wrath being satisfied, only love being demonstrated.

The Son’s Love in Giving Himself

“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” – Galatians 2:20

Christ “gave Himself” motivated by love. This voluntary self-giving differs fundamentally from being punished by another.

Love and Propitiation Together

“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” – 1 John 4:10

Propitiation here is the expression of God’s love, not the satisfaction of His wrath. God’s love provides the propitiation, showing that propitiation doesn’t mean appeasing an angry God but rather God Himself providing the means of atonement.

Understanding Difficult Passages Without Penal Substitution

Several passages are commonly cited as proof of penal substitution, but they can be understood differently:

“God Made Him Who Had No Sin to Be Sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” – 2 Corinthians 5:21

This doesn’t mean God treated Jesus as guilty or punished Him as a sinner. Rather, Christ entered into our sinful condition, bearing our sins and their consequences. As N.T. Wright explains:

“Paul is not saying that God punished Jesus, but that in Christ God entered into and bore the full reality of human sin and death, exhausting its power and emerging victorious.”

– N.T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began, Chapter 12

“Christ Became a Curse for Us” (Galatians 3:13)

“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’).” – Galatians 3:13

This refers to Christ bearing the curse’s consequences – death and apparent rejection – not God cursing or punishing Him. By undergoing the death that the law pronounces on sinners, Christ exhausts the curse’s power and frees us from it.

“The LORD Has Laid on Him the Iniquity of Us All” (Isaiah 53:6)

“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 53:6

This speaks of Christ bearing our sins and their consequences, not God punishing Him for them. The Hebrew verb can mean “caused to fall upon” or “caused to meet upon” – Christ bears the weight and consequences of our iniquity without necessarily being punished for it.

7. Key Verse Analysis and Interpretation

To fully understand how our view interprets Scripture, let’s examine key biblical passages about the atonement, showing how they support sacrifice without requiring divine wrath against Jesus.

Biblical Passage	Penal Substitution Interpretation	Satisfaction Without Wrath Interpretation	Supporting Evidence
Isaiah 53:4-5 “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.”	God struck, smote, and afflicted Jesus as punishment for our sins. The Father inflicted wounds and bruises on the Son as retributive justice.	Christ bore the natural consequences of our sins. “We esteemed Him stricken by God” describes human perception, not divine action. He suffered what our sins deserved, but as consequence not punishment. The “chastisement” (Hebrew: musar) means discipline that brings peace, not retributive punishment.	The text says “WE esteemed Him stricken by God” – this is human interpretation. The Hebrew musar is used elsewhere for instruction and correction (Proverbs 1:2-3), not punishment. The emphasis is on healing and peace, not satisfied wrath.
Isaiah 53:10 “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.”	God the Father was pleased to punish and bruise Jesus. The Father actively inflicted suffering on the Son.	It was the LORD’s will/purpose (Hebrew: chaphets) to allow Christ’s suffering for our salvation. His soul becomes an asham (guilt offering), which in Leviticus is about restoration and recompense, not punishment. God’s pleasure is in the salvation achieved, not in inflicting pain.	The Hebrew chaphets means “purpose” or “will” more than emotional pleasure. The guilt offering (asham) in Leviticus 5-6 emphasizes restitution and restoration. The verse’s end shows God’s pleasure is in the fruitful outcome.
Romans 3:25-26 “Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”	Christ propitiates (appeases) God’s wrath through His blood. God’s justice requires punishment, which Christ bears, allowing God to justify believers.	Christ is the hilasterion (mercy seat/place of atonement) where God meets humanity. His blood cleanses and consecrates like the Day of Atonement ritual. God demonstrates His righteousness by providing the means of atonement Himself, showing He is both just (maintaining moral order) and justifier (restoring relationship).	In the LXX, hilasterion consistently refers to the mercy seat (Exodus 25:17-22). The context emphasizes God’s righteousness and faithfulness, not wrath. The passage says God “passed over” former sins, showing forbearance not demanding punishment.
Romans 5:8-9 “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.”	Christ’s death satisfies God’s wrath, allowing us to be saved from future wrath. The cross demonstrates love by showing the lengths God went to satisfy His own wrath.	The cross demonstrates God’s love directly – He gives His Son for our salvation. We’re saved from the wrath that sin brings as its consequence (Romans 1:18-32 shows wrath as giving people over to sin’s consequences). Christ’s blood justifies us, removing the basis for wrath, not by being punished but by cleansing and reconciling.	The passage presents Christ’s death as demonstrating love, not wrath. Being saved “from wrath through Him” suggests Christ delivers us from wrath’s consequences, not that He experienced it instead. Romans 1 describes wrath as God allowing sin’s natural consequences.
2 Corinthians 5:18-21 “All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ… God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them… For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”	God imputed our sins to Christ instead of to us. Christ literally became sinful in God’s sight and was treated as such. God punished Christ for the imputed sins.	God was “in Christ” reconciling – Father and Son united in the work. Christ “became sin” means He entered our condition and bore sin’s consequences, not that God treated Him as guilty. The emphasis is on God not counting our sins, not on counting them against Christ. We become righteousness as Christ became sin – through union and exchange, not punishment.	The text emphasizes God “in Christ” – unity not opposition. “Not imputing trespasses” suggests forgiveness without requiring punishment. The parallel structure (He became sin/we become righteousness) suggests participation and exchange rather than punishment.
Galatians 3:13 “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’)”	God cursed Christ in our place. The Father’s curse fell on Jesus instead of us. Divine wrath against law-breaking was redirected to Christ.	Christ experienced the curse’s consequence (death by crucifixion) without God actively cursing Him. By undergoing the form of death the law pronounces as cursed, He exhausts the curse’s power. He enters into our cursed condition to deliver us, not as God’s object of wrath.	The quotation from Deuteronomy 21:23 refers to the visible sign of being cursed (hanging on a tree), not God actively cursing. Paul emphasizes redemption from the curse, not punishment under it. Christ voluntarily enters the curse’s realm to break its power.
Colossians 2:13-14 “And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”	The legal charges against us were transferred to Christ on the cross. God punished Christ for the violations listed in our charge sheet.	Christ’s death cancels the record of debt, not by being punished for it but by destroying its power. The “handwriting” is nailed to the cross to show it’s nullified, like a paid receipt. Victory and cancellation imagery, not punishment transfer.	The metaphor is of canceling/destroying a document, not transferring guilt. Ancient practice involved crossing out or nailing up canceled debts. The emphasis is on forgiveness and making alive, not on punishment.
Hebrews 9:11-14 “But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come… Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption… How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”	Christ’s blood satisfies God’s wrath like Old Testament sacrifices supposedly did. He enters heaven to present proof that punishment has been inflicted.	Christ as High Priest offers His own blood for cleansing and consecration, not punishment. He “offered Himself” (gift language) “without spot” (perfect offering). The result is cleansing consciences and obtaining redemption, not satisfying wrath. The Day of Atonement imagery emphasizes purification of the sanctuary/conscience.	High Priest imagery emphasizes mediation and offering, not punishment. “Offered Himself” indicates voluntary gift. “Cleanse your conscience” shows the effect is purification not penal satisfaction. No mention of wrath or punishment throughout Hebrews 9.
Hebrews 10:5-10 “Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: ‘Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me… Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come… to do Your will, O God.’… By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”	God desired Christ’s bodily punishment instead of animal sacrifices. Christ submits to the Father’s will to be punished.	God desires obedience over sacrifice (quoting Psalm 40). Christ’s perfect obedience, culminating in voluntary death, accomplishes what sacrifices pointed toward. We’re sanctified through Christ’s offering (gift) of His body in obedience, not through punishment.	The contrast is between external sacrifices and Christ’s obedience (“to do Your will”). Sanctification comes through “the offering” (voluntary gift) not punishment. The emphasis throughout is on willing obedience, not submitted punishment.
1 Peter 2:24 “Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.”	Christ bore the punishment for our sins in His body. God inflicted stripes (wounds) on Jesus as the penalty for our sins.	Christ bore our sins like the scapegoat bore Israel’s sins – taking them away, not being punished for them. His wounds heal us not through punishment but through participatory suffering. We die to sins through union with Christ’s death, not because He was punished instead.	“Bore our sins” echoes Isaiah 53 and Leviticus 16 (scapegoat), both about bearing away rather than punishment. The purpose (“that we might die to sins”) suggests transformation through participation. Healing through wounds suggests restoration not retribution.
1 Peter 3:18 “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.”	The Just One was punished in place of the unjust. God’s justice required punishment of the unjust, which Christ bore instead.	The Just One suffered the consequences of sin (death) to bring us to God. The emphasis is on the purpose – bringing us to God – not on punishment. His death and resurrection open the way to God. Suffering “for sins” means on account of/to deal with sins, not as punishment for them.	“That He might bring us to God” shows the purpose is reconciliation and access, not penal satisfaction. “Suffered” (not “was punished”) indicates enduring consequences. The resurrection emphasis shows victory over death, not satisfaction of wrath.
1 John 2:2 “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”	Christ appeases God’s wrath against sin. He satisfies divine anger through being punished, making God propitious (favorable) toward us.	Christ is the hilasmos – the means of atonement/expiation. He removes the barrier of sin between God and humanity. God provides the propitiation, showing His initiative in reconciliation. The universal scope (“whole world”) emphasizes God’s love, not satisfied wrath.	God is the subject providing propitiation, not the object being appeased. The context (1 John 1:9-2:2) emphasizes cleansing from sin and Christ’s advocacy. The universal scope suggests objective accomplishment, not limited penal transfer.
1 John 4:10 “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”	God’s love is shown in satisfying His own wrath by punishing His Son. Love provides the victim that justice demands.	God’s love is shown in providing the means of atonement. Love motivates the entire action – not wrath demanding satisfaction. God sends His Son as the solution, not as the target of wrath. Propitiation expresses love, not anger.	The verse explicitly grounds propitiation in God’s love, not His wrath. God is the subject (“He loved… sent”) not the object being appeased. The logic is love providing reconciliation, not love providing a victim for wrath.
Matthew 27:46 “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'”	The Father literally abandoned Jesus on the cross, turning away in wrath because Jesus bore our sins. The Trinity was temporarily broken as the Father rejected the sin-bearing Son.	Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1, identifying with human feelings of abandonment while accomplishing salvation. The psalm ends in triumph (22:22-31), suggesting Jesus knew the outcome. He experiences the depth of human alienation without the Father actually abandoning Him. The Father’s presence is confirmed by accepting His spirit (Luke 23:46).	Psalm 22 is a lament that ends in vindication and praise. Jesus quotes the beginning, implying the whole psalm. The Father receives Jesus’ spirit (Luke 23:46), showing continued relationship. Scripture elsewhere denies God abandons the righteous (Hebrews 13:5).
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”	God’s love is demonstrated by giving His Son to be punished. Love provides the means to satisfy justice’s demand for punishment.	God’s love is demonstrated in the gift of His Son for our salvation. The giving is the total incarnation and self-offering of Christ, not specifically punishment. The purpose is life, not satisfaction of wrath. Love is the sole motivation mentioned.	No mention of wrath, punishment, or justice – only love and gift. “Gave” encompasses the entire incarnation and mission. The purpose clause emphasizes salvation and life, not penal satisfaction.

8. Theological Implications

Understanding the atonement as satisfaction without penal wrath has profound implications for our theology, worship, and Christian life. These implications show that this view, far from weakening the gospel, actually strengthens and clarifies core Christian truths.

The Character of God

God as Purely Loving

When we remove the notion that God needed to punish Jesus to forgive us, we see more clearly that God is love (1 John 4:8) without qualification. God doesn’t have conflicting attributes that need balancing – His justice and mercy both flow from His love. As Hans Boersma explains:

“God’s justice is not a separate attribute that conflicts with His mercy, requiring the cross to reconcile them. Rather, both justice and mercy are expressions of God’s unified nature of love. The cross reveals this unified love, not a conflict within God resolved by violence.”

– Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross, Chapter 5: “Hospitality, Punishment, and the Atonement”

This understanding prevents us from imagining God as internally conflicted, with His love wanting to save us while His justice demands our punishment. Instead, God’s justice itself is loving, seeking restoration rather than retribution.

The Father’s Role in Salvation

Without penal substitution, we see the Father not as the angry judge demanding punishment but as the loving Father who gives His Son for our salvation. The Father doesn’t stand opposite the Son at the cross but works with Him in perfect unity. This preserves the biblical picture of the Father running to embrace the prodigal (Luke 15:20) rather than demanding payment first.

The Unity of the Trinity

No Division at the Cross

Satisfaction theory maintains perfect Trinitarian unity at the cross. The Father, Son, and Spirit work together in harmony for human salvation. There’s no moment when the Father rejects the Son, no point where divine wrath disrupts divine love. As Jürgen Moltmann writes (despite his different overall theology):

“The cross is not a transaction between Father and Son, but the unified action of the Triune God for the world’s salvation. Father, Son, and Spirit together bear the cost of reconciliation.”

– Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, Chapter 6: “The Crucified God”

The Spirit’s Role in Atonement

Hebrews 9:14 says Christ “through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God.” The Spirit enables and empowers Christ’s self-offering. This Trinitarian cooperation shows the atonement as the unified work of God, not an internal divine conflict.

The Nature of Justice

Restorative vs. Retributive Justice

Biblical justice (tsedaqah in Hebrew) is primarily about righteousness and restoration, not retribution. God’s justice seeks to make things right, to restore proper relationships and order. The satisfaction view aligns with this restorative understanding – Christ’s death restores the honor, order, and relationship that sin destroyed.

This has profound implications for Christian ethics and social justice. If God’s justice is restorative rather than retributive, this should shape how Christians approach criminal justice, conflict resolution, and social reform.

Justice Satisfied Through Love

In the satisfaction model, justice is satisfied not through punishment but through the positive offering of perfect love and obedience. This shows that justice and love are not opposites but partners. Justice doesn’t require violence; it requires restoration of what was lost.

The Nature of Salvation

Salvation as Healing and Restoration

Without the penal framework, salvation appears more clearly as healing, restoration, and transformation rather than merely legal acquittal. The Eastern Orthodox emphasis on theosis (deification/divinization) becomes more intelligible – we’re saved not just from punishment but for communion with God.

This affects how we present the gospel. Rather than primarily offering escape from divine punishment, we offer healing from sin’s disease, restoration to divine communion, and transformation into Christ’s likeness.

The Role of the Incarnation

Penal substitution can make the Incarnation seem merely instrumental – God became human to have someone to punish. But in satisfaction theory, the Incarnation itself is salvific. By uniting divine and human natures, Christ heals and elevates humanity. As Athanasius said, “He became what we are that we might become what He is.”

The Meaning of the Eucharist

Understanding the atonement as sacrifice without wrath enriches our understanding of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper. The Eucharist becomes not a reminder of divine punishment but a participation in Christ’s self-offering to the Father. We join Christ in offering ourselves to God, united with His perfect offering.

This connects to the Catholic understanding of the Mass as re-presenting (making present again) Christ’s sacrifice. While Protestants may not accept this fully, we can appreciate how the Eucharist connects us to Christ’s ongoing offering of Himself to the Father (Hebrews 7:25).

The Christian Life

Motivation for Holiness

If Christ’s death demonstrates God’s pure love rather than satisfied wrath, our motivation for holiness shifts from fear to gratitude. We pursue righteousness not to avoid punishment (which Christ already bore) but in response to transforming love. As Peter Abelard recognized, contemplating such love awakens love in return.

Understanding Suffering

Without penal substitution, we needn’t see all suffering as divine punishment. Christ’s suffering shows God entering into human pain to transform it, not God inflicting pain as punishment. This provides better pastoral care for those who suffer, removing the burden of wondering what they’re being punished for.

Forgiveness and Reconciliation

If God forgives without requiring punishment, this models human forgiveness. We’re called to forgive as God forgives – freely, without demanding retribution first. This doesn’t eliminate consequences or the need for justice, but it means forgiveness doesn’t depend on punishment.

9. The Church Fathers on Atonement

Examining how the church fathers understood Christ’s saving work reveals that penal substitution was not the view of the early church. While they used varied imagery and emphasized different aspects, they generally understood the atonement in ways compatible with satisfaction rather than penal substitution.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202)

Irenaeus developed the concept of “recapitulation” – Christ as the new Adam who succeeds where Adam failed:

“The Word of God, 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… For it was necessary for Him who was to destroy sin and redeem man from guilt, to enter into the very same condition.”

– Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Preface

For Irenaeus, Christ doesn’t bear punishment but reverses Adam’s disobedience through perfect obedience. He enters our condition to heal and transform it from within. The emphasis is on restoration and healing rather than penal satisfaction.

Origen (c. 185-254)

While Origen used ransom language, he also anticipated satisfaction themes:

“The death of Christ is a kind of healing medicine for the soul, purging it from its sins… His blood cleanses us not through punishment but through its power to purify and sanctify.”

– Origen, Commentary on Romans, Book 3

Origen saw Christ’s death as cleansing and healing rather than bearing punishment. He emphasized the transformative power of Christ’s sacrifice on human souls.

Athanasius (c. 296-373)

Athanasius focused on Christ conquering death and corruption:

“Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished.”

– Athanasius, On the Incarnation, Chapter 8

Note that Christ offers His body “to the Father” as a gift, not as punishment. Death is conquered not through penal substitution but through Christ’s voluntary entrance into death to destroy its power.

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390)

Gregory explicitly rejected both ransom to Satan and payment to the Father:

“Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself… But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being held captive.”

– Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 45, Section XXII

Gregory saw the cross as Christ’s victory over death and evil, not as satisfying the Father’s wrath. He found the idea of the Father requiring His Son’s death morally problematic.

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395)

Gregory of Nyssa emphasized the healing and restorative aspects of the atonement:

“Since, then, human nature had been diseased by sin, He who willed to heal took upon Himself the same nature, that by the assumption of humanity He might heal humanity.”

– Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, Chapter 27

The medical metaphor of healing disease, rather than legal metaphors of punishment, dominates Gregory’s understanding.

John Chrysostom (c. 349-407)

Chrysostom, while using substitutionary language, emphasized Christ’s willing sacrifice rather than punishment:

“Christ gave Himself as a ransom for us, not that God required such a price, but that we might be sanctified through His blood. The sacrifice was offered not to appease an angry God but to demonstrate divine love and destroy the devil’s power.”

– John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 11

Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

Augustine, the most influential Latin father, integrated multiple atonement themes without penal substitution:

“By His death, the one most true sacrifice offered on our behalf, He purged, abolished, and extinguished whatever guilt we had… Not that God required the blood of His Son, but that divine justice required a demonstration of divine love sufficient to overcome human pride and inspire human love in return.”

– Augustine, On the Trinity, Book IV, Chapter 13

Augustine saw Christ’s death as demonstrating love, defeating the devil through justice, and offering a sacrifice that cleanses rather than one that bears punishment.

Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662)

Maximus developed a sophisticated understanding of Christ healing human nature:

“The Word of God, born once in the flesh through His love for humanity, is always born willingly in those who desire Him through the Spirit. He becomes an infant and forms Himself in them through the virtues. To the extent that those who receive Him practice the virtues, to that extent He manifests His presence.”

– Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Knowledge

The emphasis is on transformation and participation in divine life rather than penal substitution.

John of Damascus (c. 675-749)

John Damascene, synthesizing Greek patristic thought, wrote:

“The death of Christ was not a debt to divine justice but a remedy for human nature. He tasted death not as punishment from God but to destroy death itself. The Father was not appeased by the Son’s blood but rather worked through the Son to accomplish our salvation.”

– John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III

Common Themes in Patristic Thought

Surveying the church fathers reveals consistent themes that differ from penal substitution:

• Healing and Restoration: Sin is primarily a disease needing healing, not just a crime requiring punishment
• Victory Over Evil: Christ conquers death, sin, and the devil through His death and resurrection
• Demonstration of Love: The cross supremely reveals God’s love for humanity
• Deification/Theosis: Salvation means participation in divine life, not just forensic acquittal
• Sacrifice and Offering: Christ offers Himself to the Father, He is not punished by the Father
• Recapitulation: Christ succeeds where Adam failed, restoring human nature

While the fathers used diverse imagery and didn’t always systematize their views, they consistently avoided the central claim of penal substitution – that the Father punished the Son with the wrath sinners deserved.

10. Modern Theological Perspectives

Contemporary theology has seen renewed critique of penal substitution and fresh articulations of alternative understandings. Many modern theologians, including evangelicals, are questioning whether PSA is biblical or the best way to understand the atonement.

Critics of Penal Substitution

N.T. Wright

Wright, while not rejecting substitution entirely, critiques popular presentations of penal substitution:

“The gospel is not about how I can escape the wrath of God and go to heaven when I die. It is about how God is becoming king through Jesus and how we can participate in that kingdom project. The cross is where God’s kingdom was established through Jesus taking on himself the full weight of human sin and evil, exhausting its power.”

– N.T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began, Chapter 7

Wright emphasizes Christ bearing sin’s weight and consequences rather than God’s punitive wrath. He sees the cross as victory and kingdom establishment more than penal satisfaction.

Scot McKnight

McKnight argues for understanding atonement through multiple biblical metaphors rather than reducing it to penal substitution:

“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. The New Testament presents Jesus’ death as sacrifice, victory, example, revelation of love, and more.”

– Scot McKnight, A Community Called Atonement, Chapter 5

Fleming Rutledge

Rutledge’s massive work on the crucifixion maintains substitution while critiquing crude penal models:

“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

Hans Boersma

Boersma advocates “hospitality” as the key metaphor for atonement:

“God’s hospitality in Christ doesn’t require violent punishment but rather overcomes violence through suffering love. The cross is God’s ultimate act of hospitality, welcoming sinners home not by punishing a substitute but by bearing the cost of reconciliation in Himself.”

– Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross, Chapter 7

Catholic Perspectives

Catholic theology has maintained Anselmian satisfaction while rejecting Protestant penal substitution. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

“By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who offers himself as an expiation… Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.”

– Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraphs 615, 615

Note the language of “satisfaction” and “expiation” rather than punishment. Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar developed a sophisticated theology of Christ bearing sin without bearing divine wrath:

“The Son does not suffer the Father’s wrath but rather experiences the full reality of human sin and godforsakenness. He enters into solidarity with sinners, bearing the weight of sin, without the Father rejecting or punishing Him.”

– Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale, Chapter 4

Orthodox Perspectives

Eastern Orthodoxy has never accepted satisfaction or penal theories, maintaining patristic emphases on healing and theosis. Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky writes:

“The Western juridical approach to salvation, whether Catholic satisfaction or Protestant penal substitution, is foreign to Orthodox theology. We understand salvation as healing, transformation, and deification – God becoming human that humans might become divine.”

– Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Chapter 7

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware explains:

“Christ’s death is not a punishment inflicted by God but God’s entrance into death to destroy it from within. The resurrection is not an afterthought but the completion of this victory. Death and resurrection together accomplish our salvation.”

– Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way, Chapter 5

Philosophical Critiques

Philosophers have raised logical and moral objections to penal substitution. Eleonore Stump argues that satisfaction better preserves both divine justice and love:

“Anselmian satisfaction, properly understood, avoids the moral problems of penal substitution. Christ’s death provides satisfaction not by being punished but by offering supreme honor to God through perfect obedience unto death. This gift more than compensates for human dishonor.”

– Eleonore Stump, Aquinas, Chapter 13: “Atonement”

David Bentley Hart offers a pointed critique:

“The idea that God requires a bloody sacrifice to forgive, that divine justice is a kind of economic balance requiring payment, makes God a prisoner of necessity and reduces the gospel to a transaction. The God revealed in Christ transcends such pagan logic.”

– David Bentley Hart, The Doors of the Sea, Afterword

Feminist and Liberation Perspectives

Feminist theologians have critiqued penal substitution as promoting divine violence and potentially justifying abuse. Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Parker write:

“The doctrine of penal substitution can sanctify violence and suffering, teaching that redemption requires innocent suffering. This has been used to tell abuse victims to endure suffering like Jesus did. We need atonement theology that promotes life and healing, not violence.”

– Brock and Parker, Proverbs of Ashes, Chapter 2

Liberation theologians emphasize the cross as God’s solidarity with the oppressed rather than satisfaction of divine wrath. Jon Sobrino writes:

“The cross reveals God suffering with the crucified of history, not demanding their suffering. Jesus dies as a consequence of his ministry for the kingdom, not to satisfy divine justice. The cross is about God’s identification with victims, not creating another victim.”

– Jon Sobrino, Jesus the Liberator, Chapter 10

Recovering Satisfaction Without Wrath

Several contemporary theologians explicitly advocate returning to Anselmian satisfaction properly understood. Adam Johnson argues:

“Anselm’s actual theory differs significantly from what many think. He doesn’t present God as requiring punishment but as accepting Christ’s gift of perfect obedience. This preserves substitution and satisfaction without the problems of penal substitution.”

– Adam Johnson, Atonement: A Guide for the Perplexed, Chapter 4

Katherine Sonderegger, a Reformed theologian, advocates satisfaction while questioning crude penal models:

“The Lord Christ offers His life to the Father as perfect worship and obedience. This is satisfaction – the fulfillment of humanity’s true purpose – not the bearing of punishment. The cross is ultimately about love, not wrath.”

– Katherine Sonderegger, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 15

11. Pastoral and Practical Applications

Understanding the atonement as satisfaction without penal wrath has significant implications for ministry, preaching, counseling, and Christian living. This view offers profound pastoral benefits while maintaining the full power of the gospel.

Preaching the Gospel

Emphasizing God’s Love

When we preach Christ’s sacrifice without divine punishment, God’s love becomes central and uncomplicated. We can proclaim: “God loves you so much that He gave His Son to save you” without adding, “but He had to punish Jesus first.” The gospel becomes a pure message of divine love actively working for our salvation.

Consider how this changes evangelistic preaching. Instead of starting with God’s anger and need for punishment, we begin with God’s love and desire for restoration. The problem of sin remains serious – it has broken our relationship with God and corrupted our nature. But the solution is God’s loving action to heal and restore, not His need to vent wrath.

The Cross as Invitation, Not Threat

Without penal substitution, the cross becomes primarily an invitation to reconciliation rather than a threat of what God would do to us without Jesus. The message becomes: “Look how much God loves you – He gave everything to bring you home” rather than “Look what God would do to you if Jesus hadn’t intervened.”

Pastoral Counseling

Addressing Religious Trauma

Many people carry religious trauma from being taught that God wanted to torture them eternally but Jesus took the beating instead. This can create a fearful, anxious relationship with God. Understanding satisfaction without wrath helps heal this trauma by presenting a God who never wanted to hurt them but always sought their restoration.

Dealing with Guilt and Shame

The satisfaction model addresses guilt and shame differently than penal substitution. Instead of saying, “Your punishment has been transferred to Jesus,” we say, “Jesus has offered perfect love and obedience to heal what your sin broke. His offering covers your deficit and restores you to relationship with God.” This maintains the seriousness of sin while emphasizing restoration over punishment.

Suffering and Theodicy

When people suffer, penal substitution can lead them to wonder if God is punishing them despite Jesus taking their punishment. The satisfaction model allows us to say clearly: God doesn’t relate to you through punishment. Your suffering isn’t divine retribution. God enters into suffering with you to transform and redeem it, just as Christ transformed death through His resurrection.

Christian Formation and Discipleship

Motivation for Holy Living

Without the threat of divine punishment, what motivates holiness? The satisfaction model provides powerful motivation through:

• Gratitude: Christ’s incredible gift naturally evokes grateful response
• Love: Experiencing such love awakens answering love
• Honor: We seek to honor God as Christ honored Him
• Participation: We join Christ in His ongoing offering to the Father
• Transformation: The same Spirit who enabled Christ’s offering transforms us

Understanding Sanctification

Sanctification becomes not avoiding punishment but participating in Christ’s perfect offering. We’re being transformed into the image of the One who offered perfect love and obedience to the Father. This is positive growth toward a goal, not just negative avoidance of punishment.

Worship and Liturgy

The Eucharist/Communion

Understanding Christ’s death as offering rather than punishment enriches communion. We’re not just remembering that Jesus was punished instead of us; we’re participating in His ongoing offering of Himself to the Father. The Eucharist becomes an act of joining Christ’s self-offering, presenting ourselves as “living sacrifices” (Romans 12:1).

Hymns and Songs

Many beloved hymns actually reflect satisfaction better than penal substitution. Consider “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” – it emphasizes love, gift, and response rather than punishment. Churches can confidently sing about Christ’s sacrifice without requiring penal substitution.

Liturgical Prayers

Prayers of confession and absolution take on different character. Instead of “We deserve your punishment but Jesus took it,” we pray, “We have failed to honor you as we ought, but Christ’s perfect offering restores us.” The emphasis shifts from punishment avoided to relationship restored.

Social Justice and Ethics

Criminal Justice Reform

If God’s justice is primarily restorative rather than retributive, this has implications for how Christians approach criminal justice. Instead of focusing on punishment, we might emphasize restoration, rehabilitation, and reconciliation. This doesn’t eliminate consequences but reframes their purpose.

Forgiveness and Reconciliation

Jesus taught us to forgive as God forgives. If God forgives without requiring punishment (though Christ bore sin’s consequences), we’re called to similar forgiveness. This doesn’t mean ignoring justice or consequences, but it means forgiveness doesn’t depend on punishment being inflicted first.

Violence and Peace

Without divine violence at the heart of salvation, Christians have stronger grounds for promoting peace and non-violence. If God achieves the ultimate good (salvation) without violence against Jesus, perhaps we too can work for good through peaceful means.

Interfaith Dialogue

The satisfaction model can facilitate better dialogue with other religions. Muslims, for instance, reject the idea that God would punish an innocent person. Explaining that Christ’s death was a voluntary gift of love rather than divine punishment removes a significant barrier to dialogue. Similarly, Jews who find penal substitution morally problematic might better understand a model based on love and gift.

Ministry to Specific Groups

Children

Teaching children about the atonement without penal substitution can be healthier. Instead of “God wanted to punish you but punished Jesus instead,” we teach: “God loves you so much that Jesus gave His life to bring you close to God and wash away everything wrong.” This maintains the gospel’s power while being age-appropriate and psychologically healthy.

Abuse Survivors

For those who have suffered abuse, the image of a father punishing his son can be triggering. The satisfaction model presents the cross as God bearing the cost of healing brokenness, not inflicting violence. This can help survivors see God as healer rather than perpetrator.

Those Struggling with Mental Health

People dealing with depression, anxiety, or other mental health challenges often struggle with feelings of divine rejection or punishment. The satisfaction model assures them that God never seeks their punishment but always their healing and restoration. Christ’s work addresses their spiritual need without adding to their psychological burden.

12. Conclusion: The Love of God in Christ

After extensive biblical, historical, and theological examination, we return to the heart of the gospel: God’s love revealed in Christ’s sacrifice for our sins. The view presented in this report – that Christ’s death was a genuine sacrifice that satisfied divine justice without requiring divine punishment – preserves the full biblical witness while avoiding the problems of penal substitution.

Summary of the Position

Let us clearly restate what this view affirms and denies:

We Affirm:

• Jesus Christ truly died as a sacrifice for our sins
• His death was substitutionary – He died in our place, bearing what we deserved
• His blood genuinely cleanses us from all sin
• Through His death we receive forgiveness and reconciliation with God
• The atonement was necessary for our salvation – we could not save ourselves
• Christ’s work satisfies divine justice and restores divine honor
• The cross demonstrates both God’s justice and His love perfectly
• Christ’s sacrifice is the only means of salvation

We Deny:

• That God the Father was angry at Jesus on the cross
• That Jesus experienced the Father’s retributive wrath or punishment
• That the Father treated Jesus as if He were guilty of our sins
• That divine justice requires retributive punishment before forgiveness
• That the Trinity was divided or broken at the cross
• That God needed violence to accomplish salvation
• That the Father and Son were in opposition at Calvary
• That God cannot forgive without punishing someone

The Biblical Witness

This understanding aligns with the full biblical witness about Christ’s saving work. The Old Testament sacrificial system emphasizes cleansing and consecration rather than punishment. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah bears our sins and their consequences without explicit divine punishment. The New Testament presents Christ’s death as a demonstration of love, a cleansing sacrifice, and a victory over evil – themes that don’t require penal substitution.

Key passages that supposedly teach penal substitution can be better understood through the lens of satisfaction. When Christ “became sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21), He entered our condition to heal it. When He “became a curse” (Galatians 3:13), He experienced the curse’s consequences to exhaust its power. When Isaiah says the Lord laid our iniquity on Him (Isaiah 53:6), this means Christ bore our sins’ weight and consequences, not that God punished Him for them.

The Historical Testimony

The church fathers understood the atonement through various biblical metaphors – victory, ransom, sacrifice, healing – without systematic penal substitution. Anselm developed satisfaction theory explicitly as an alternative to punishment, maintaining that Christ’s voluntary gift of perfect obedience more than compensates for human sin. Only with the Reformation did satisfaction merge with punishment to create penal substitutionary atonement.

The Orthodox East never adopted satisfaction or penal theories, maintaining focus on healing and theosis. The Catholic Church has retained Anselmian satisfaction while rejecting Protestant penal substitution. Many Protestant theologians today are questioning whether penal substitution is biblical or helpful.

Theological Coherence

The satisfaction model maintains better theological coherence than penal substitution:

• It preserves the Trinity’s unity, with Father and Son working together in love
• It upholds divine justice without making God seem vindictive
• It presents God’s attributes (justice, mercy, love) as harmonious rather than conflicting
• It aligns with Jesus’ teaching about forgiveness and enemy love
• It makes the Incarnation integral to salvation, not just instrumental
• It connects naturally with sanctification and theosis
• It provides better theodicy, not making all suffering about punishment

Pastoral Wisdom

This understanding offers profound pastoral benefits. It presents a God who is purely loving rather than conflicted between love and wrath. It removes barriers for those who find divine violence morally problematic. It helps heal religious trauma from fearful, punishment-focused theology. It motivates holiness through love and gratitude rather than fear. It promotes restorative over retributive justice. It facilitates healthier teaching for children and vulnerable populations.

The Power of the Gospel

Some might worry that removing penal substitution weakens the gospel. On the contrary, this view maintains the gospel’s full power while making it more coherent and compelling. Sin remains utterly serious – it breaks relationship with God, corrupts human nature, and leads to death. The cross remains absolutely necessary – only the God-man’s perfect sacrifice could restore what sin destroyed. Grace remains completely free – we contribute nothing to our salvation.

But now the gospel shines with unclouded divine love. God doesn’t need to punish before He can forgive. The Father doesn’t vent wrath on the Son. The Trinity remains united in love for humanity. The cross reveals not divine violence but divine hospitality, welcoming sinners home through Christ’s perfect offering.

Living in Light of the Cross

Understanding Christ’s sacrifice as satisfaction without wrath transforms Christian living. We serve not from fear of punishment but from grateful love. We forgive others as God forgave us – freely, without demanding retribution. We work for justice that restores rather than merely punishes. We face suffering knowing God doesn’t punish but enters into pain to transform it. We approach God confidently, knowing His disposition toward us is love, demonstrated supremely at the cross.

The Ultimate Mystery

While we’ve examined the atonement’s mechanism, ultimately Christ’s saving work remains a profound mystery. How can one man’s death two thousand years ago save billions throughout history? How does Christ’s offering reach across time and space to cleanse consciences today? How does participation in His death and resurrection transform human nature? These questions remind us that we’re dealing with divine realities that transcend full human comprehension.

What we can know with certainty is that God loves us with an everlasting love, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that through His sacrifice we have forgiveness and eternal life. Whether understood through satisfaction, victory, or other biblical metaphors, the cross stands at the center of Christian faith as the supreme revelation of divine love.

Final Reflections

The position presented in this report – satisfaction without penal wrath – is not novel or liberal. It retrieves ancient Christian wisdom while engaging contemporary questions. It takes Scripture seriously while recognizing the cultural conditioning of all theological formulations. It maintains orthodox Christian faith while questioning one particular theory of how Christ’s death saves.

This view sees in Christ’s cross not a angry God punishing His Son but a loving God giving Himself for our salvation. The Father gives the Son, the Son gives Himself, the Spirit enables the giving – all for love of humanity. Christ’s perfect obedience unto death offers to God infinite honor that more than compensates for all human dishonor. His blood cleanses, His sacrifice reconciles, His offering satisfies.

As Anselm wrote at the conclusion of Cur Deus Homo:

“The mercy of God which seemed to you to be lost when we were considering the justice of God and the sin of man, we have found to be so great and so consonant with justice, that neither greater nor more just can be imagined. For what can be conceived more merciful than that God the Father should say to the sinner condemned to eternal torments and having no means of redeeming himself: ‘Take my only-begotten Son and give Him for yourself’; and that the Son Himself should say: ‘Take me and redeem yourself’?”

– Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, Book II, Chapter 20

This is the gospel we proclaim: not a God who must punish before He can love, but a God whose love provides everything needed for our salvation. Not a Father who pours out wrath on His Son, but a Father who gives His Son in love. Not a Christ who bears divine punishment, but a Christ who offers perfect love and obedience to heal what sin has broken.

The cross remains the power of God for salvation, the wisdom of God for redemption, the love of God for transformation. In Christ’s voluntary sacrifice, divine justice is satisfied not through violence but through the infinite value of perfect love freely offered. This is truly good news – gospel – for all people.

May we, contemplating such love, be transformed into the image of the One who loved us and gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma. May we join Christ in His ongoing offering of Himself to the Father, presenting ourselves as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God, which is our reasonable worship. And may we proclaim to a world broken by sin and violence that God’s justice is satisfied not through punishment but through love, that reconciliation comes not through retribution but through the gift of God’s own Son, that salvation is found not in divine wrath poured out but in divine love poured forth.

This is the atonement: God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting our trespasses against us, but bearing them away through the perfect sacrifice of infinite love. Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!

© 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.