Comparing Atonement Theories: Fleming’s Substitution Without Wrath vs. Craig’s and Allen’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Introduction: Understanding the Debate

The question of how Christ’s death saves us from sin stands at the very heart of Christianity. For centuries, Christians have sought to understand exactly what happened when Jesus died on the cross and how His death brings us forgiveness and reconciliation with God. This report examines three major scholarly views on the atonement: Fleming Rutledge’s modified Catholic approach that emphasizes satisfaction without divine punishment, William Lane Craig’s philosophical defense of penal substitution, and David Allen’s traditional Penal Substitution position.

The central question dividing these views is this: Did God the Father punish Jesus on the cross for our sins, or did Jesus offer a sacrifice that satisfied divine justice without experiencing the Father’s wrath? This distinction might seem subtle, but it has profound implications for how we understand God’s character, the nature of salvation, and the Christian life.

Part I: Fleming’s Modified Catholic View – Satisfaction Without Punishment

Overview of Fleming’s Position

Fleming Rutledge, in her comprehensive work “The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ,” presents what she calls a modified Catholic view of the atonement. Her position maintains that Christ’s death was a genuine sacrifice for sins that satisfied divine justice, but without requiring that God the Father punish Jesus with retributive wrath. This view draws heavily from Anselm of Canterbury’s satisfaction theory while incorporating insights from Eastern Orthodox theology and contemporary biblical scholarship.

“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, Chapter 8: “Anselm: The Curse of God”

Key Elements of Fleming’s Satisfaction Theory

1. The Nature of Sin and Its Consequences

Fleming emphasizes that sin is not merely breaking rules but is a destructive power that enslaves humanity. She draws from Paul’s understanding in Romans where sin is both something people do (Romans 3:23) and a dominion under which humanity exists (Romans 3:9). Sin creates what she calls “the godless condition” – a state of separation from God that results in death and corruption.

Rather than focusing on sin as primarily a legal violation requiring punishment, Fleming sees sin as:

• A disease needing healing
• A debt requiring payment
• A stain needing cleansing
• A power requiring defeat
• A broken relationship needing restoration

2. Christ’s Work as Satisfaction, Not Punishment

The heart of Fleming’s position is the distinction between satisfaction and punishment. Following Anselm, she argues that these are alternatives, not equivalents. When we sin, we rob God of the honor due to Him, creating a debt. This debt must be addressed for justice to be maintained. However, God has two options: either punishment of the sinner or satisfaction through restitution.

“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 (quoted by Fleming)

Christ chooses the path of satisfaction. His perfect obedience throughout His life and His voluntary death offer to God more honor than all human sin had stolen. This superabundant offering satisfies divine justice without requiring punishment. As Fleming explains, 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.”

3. The Unity of the Trinity in Redemption

Fleming strongly emphasizes that the Father and Son act in perfect unity at the cross. She rejects any interpretation that suggests the Father and Son had different wills or that the Father was angry at the Son. Instead, she presents the atonement as the unified action of the Trinity:

• The Father sends the Son out of love (John 3:16)
• The Son voluntarily offers Himself (Galatians 2:20)
• The Spirit empowers Christ’s offering (Hebrews 9:14)

“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.”

– Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, Chapter 11: “The Substitution”

4. Biblical Motifs Supporting Satisfaction

Fleming identifies eight major biblical motifs that illuminate Christ’s atoning work, showing how satisfaction theory incorporates them all:

1. The Passover and Exodus: Christ as our Passover lamb whose blood marks us for deliverance, not punishment
2. Blood Sacrifice: The life-giving power of blood that cleanses and consecrates, not appeases wrath
3. Ransom and Redemption: Christ paying the price to free us from slavery to sin and death
4. The Great Assize (Judgment): Christ taking our place in the cosmic trial, bearing sin’s consequences
5. Christus Victor: Christ’s victory over the powers of evil through His death and resurrection
6. Descent into Hell: Christ entering the realm of death to destroy its power
7. Substitution: Christ standing in our place, bearing what we deserved
8. Recapitulation: Christ succeeding where Adam failed, restoring human nature

5. Addressing Common Objections to Penal Substitution

Fleming provides a detailed critique of penal substitution, identifying fifteen major objections. She finds the model problematic not because it takes sin and justice seriously, but because it misrepresents God’s character and the nature of the atonement. Her main concerns include:

• It depicts God as vindictive, demanding violent retribution
• It separates the Father and Son, suggesting different wills
• It makes violence essential to God’s nature
• It can glorify suffering and encourage victimization
• It reduces the atonement to a legal transaction
• It emphasizes punishment over transformation

Fleming’s Interpretation of Key Biblical Passages

Fleming carefully examines the biblical texts often cited in support of penal substitution, offering alternative interpretations that support satisfaction without punishment:

Isaiah 53

Fleming acknowledges that Isaiah 53 is central to understanding Christ’s atoning work. However, she argues that the passage emphasizes bearing consequences rather than experiencing divine punishment. When Isaiah says “it pleased the LORD to bruise Him” (53:10), she interprets this as God’s purpose or will for salvation, not pleasure in inflicting pain. The Hebrew word chaphets means “purpose” or “will” more than emotional pleasure.

2 Corinthians 5:21

Regarding “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us,” Fleming argues 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. The emphasis is on participation and identification, not punishment.

Galatians 3:13

When Paul writes that “Christ became a curse for us,” Fleming sees this as Christ experiencing the curse’s consequences (death and apparent rejection) without God actively cursing Him. By undergoing the death that the law pronounces on sinners, Christ exhausts the curse’s power and frees us from it.

Historical Support for Fleming’s View

Fleming extensively documents how the early church fathers understood the atonement without systematic penal substitution. She shows that:

• The Greek fathers emphasized healing, victory, and deification rather than punishment
• The Latin fathers used substitutionary language but without penal categories
• Anselm explicitly developed satisfaction as an alternative to punishment
• The Eastern Orthodox tradition has never adopted penal substitution
• Catholic theology maintains satisfaction while rejecting Protestant penal views

Part II: William Lane Craig’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Overview of Craig’s Position

William Lane Craig, in his comprehensive work “Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration,” provides what many consider the most sophisticated philosophical defense of penal substitutionary atonement in recent scholarship. Craig brings together biblical exegesis, historical theology, legal philosophy, and analytic philosophy to argue that Christ was indeed punished by God for our sins, and that this doctrine is both coherent and morally justified.

“Biblically speaking, the satisfaction of God’s justice primarily takes place, not as Anselm thought, through compensation, but through punishment.”

– William Lane Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ, Chapter 11

Craig’s Philosophical Framework

1. Divine Command Theory and God’s Nature

Central to Craig’s defense is his adoption of a Divine Command Theory of ethics. According to this view, God Himself by His commands determines what is just or unjust. Since God presumably does not issue commands to Himself, God has no external moral prohibitions to abide by. He can do whatever He wants, so long as it is consistent with His nature.

This philosophical move is crucial for Craig’s argument because it addresses the objection that it would be unjust for God to punish an innocent person. Craig argues that:

• God is not bound by human concepts of justice
• Divine justice flows from God’s nature, not external standards
• God can establish exceptions to general moral principles
• What would be unjust for humans might be just for God

2. Retributive Justice as Essential to God

Craig argues that retributive justice belongs essentially to God’s nature. He provides several arguments for this position:

“The more central and prominent an attribute is in the Biblical picture of God, the stronger the case for taking it to be necessary to being God… It is hard to think of an attribute more central and prominent in the biblical picture of God than His righteousness or justice.”

– William Lane Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ, Chapter 10

Craig distinguishes between two types of retributivism:

• Positive Retributivism: The good deserve reward and the guilty deserve punishment
• Negative Retributivism: The innocent should not be punished

He argues that God is necessarily a positive retributivist but may not be bound by negative retributivism when it comes to divine persons voluntarily accepting punishment.

3. The Necessity of Satisfaction

Craig presents a formal argument for why satisfaction of divine justice is necessary for salvation:

1. Necessarily, retributive justice is essential to God
2. Necessarily, if retributive justice is essential to God, then God justly punishes every sin
3. Necessarily, if God justly punishes every sin, then divine justice is satisfied
4. Therefore, necessarily, divine justice is satisfied
5. Therefore, necessarily, if some human beings are saved, divine justice is satisfied

This argument suggests that God cannot simply forgive sins without satisfaction, as this would violate His essential nature.

Craig’s Biblical Exegesis

1. Old Testament Foundations

Craig extensively analyzes the Old Testament sacrificial system, arguing that it points toward penal substitution:

• Levitical Sacrifices: The laying on of hands symbolizes transfer of guilt; the animal bears the punishment deserved by the sinner
• Day of Atonement: The scapegoat literally bears away the sins of the people
• Prophetic Literature: Isaiah 53 explicitly describes vicarious punishment

2. Isaiah 53 as Central

Craig sees Isaiah 53 as the clearest Old Testament teaching on penal substitution. He argues that the Servant suffers not merely vicariously but punitively:

“Surely our infirmities—he bore them
and our diseases—he carried them…
The righteous one, my servant, makes righteous the many,
for their iniquities—he bears them.” – Isaiah 53:4, 11 (Craig’s translation)

Craig emphasizes the strong contrasts drawn between “we/our” and “he/his” throughout the passage, showing substitution. The punishment language is explicit: “stricken,” “smitten,” “afflicted,” “wounded,” “bruised,” “chastisement.”

3. New Testament Development

Craig traces how the New Testament authors developed the theme of penal substitution:

• Romans 3:25: Christ as hilasterion (propitiation) – appeasing God’s wrath
• Romans 5:9: Saved from wrath through Christ’s blood
• 2 Corinthians 5:21: God made Christ to be sin – treating Him as guilty
• Galatians 3:13: Christ became a curse – experiencing God’s judgment
• 1 Peter 2:24: He bore our sins in His body on the tree

Craig’s Response to Objections

1. The Coherence Problem

Critics argue that penal substitution is incoherent because:

• Guilt cannot be transferred between persons
• Punishment cannot be voluntary
• Christ’s temporary suffering isn’t equivalent to eternal punishment

Craig responds by introducing the concept of legal fictions from Anglo-American law. Through legal fictions, wrongful acts can be attributed to someone other than the actor. Examples include:

• Vicarious liability in corporate law
• Joint and several liability in tort law
• Respondeat superior in employment law

These legal precedents show that imputation of guilt is not incoherent but is actually fundamental to our justice system.

2. The Justice Problem

The most serious objection is that punishing an innocent person is unjust. Craig offers several responses:

1. Divine Command Theory: God determines what is just, and He may establish different standards for Himself
2. Christ’s Divinity: This is divine self-substitution, not punishing a third party
3. Voluntariness: Christ voluntarily accepts this role
4. Legal Precedent: Our justice system allows paying of fines by others
5. Overriding Considerations: Greater goods may justify prima facie injustice

3. The Moral Influence Objection

Some argue that penal substitution removes moral influence. Craig responds that penal substitution actually enhances moral influence by demonstrating:

• The seriousness of sin (requiring such a sacrifice)
• The depth of God’s love (willing to bear our punishment)
• The costliness of forgiveness (not cheap grace)
• The justice of God (sin is not simply overlooked)

Craig’s Integration of Other Atonement Motifs

While defending penal substitution as central, Craig acknowledges that a complete atonement theory must incorporate multiple biblical motifs:

1. Sacrifice: Christ’s death as the ultimate sacrifice, both expiating sin and propitiating God
2. Satisfaction: Divine justice satisfied through punishment
3. Representation: Christ as our federal head and representative
4. Redemption: Liberation from bondage through payment of a price
5. Moral Influence: The cross demonstrating God’s love and justice

Part III: David Allen’s Traditional Penal Substitution Position

Important note: David Allen is NOT a reformed theologican (just the opposite!), the term “Reformed” is used in this article to refer to penal substitutionary atonement as coming from a reformed background and taught by almost all Reformed Theologians. It is a hallmark belief of Reformed Theologians. Of course other denominations and groups also teach it, but historically it has been identified with the Reformed movement. Again, David Allen is not reformed in his theology generally, but does accept the penal substitutionary view of the atonement

Overview of Allen’s Position

David Allen, in “The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study,” presents a robust defense of traditional Reformed theology’s understanding of penal substitutionary atonement. While Craig approaches the doctrine primarily through philosophy, Allen grounds his argument in systematic biblical theology and historical Reformed thought. His work particularly engages with the theological precision of Reformed scholasticism while addressing contemporary challenges.

Allen’s Theological Foundations

1. The Federal Headship of Christ

Central to Allen’s understanding is the concept of federal theology or covenant theology. He explains that humanity relates to God through representative heads:

• Adam: The first federal head who represented all humanity in the covenant of works
• Christ: The second Adam who represents the elect in the covenant of grace

This federal structure explains how guilt and righteousness can be imputed:

• Adam’s guilt is imputed to all his descendants
• Our guilt is imputed to Christ
• Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers

2. The Nature of Divine Justice

Allen, following Reformed orthodoxy, argues that God’s justice is not arbitrary but flows from His holy nature. He distinguishes between:

• God’s Essential Justice: His inherent righteousness and holiness
• God’s Retributive Justice: His necessary response to sin
• God’s Remunerative Justice: His rewarding of righteousness

Allen argues that God cannot simply overlook sin without violating His nature. Sin must be punished either in the sinner or in a substitute.

3. The Extent and Nature of the Atonement

Allen carefully distinguishes between different Reformed positions on the extent of the atonement:

• Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect: Christ’s death has infinite value but is applied only to believers
• Hypothetical universalism: Christ died for all conditionally, but the condition (faith) is only given to the elect
• Particular redemption: Christ died specifically and only for the elect

Allen advocates for a modified understanding that maintains the infinite sufficiency of Christ’s death while affirming its particular application.

Allen’s Biblical Arguments

1. The Language of Punishment

Allen systematically examines biblical language that indicates punishment:

• “Bearing sin” (Isaiah 53; 1 Peter 2:24) – carrying the penalty of sin
• “Made sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21) – treated as guilty
• “Became a curse” (Galatians 3:13) – experiencing divine judgment
• “Propitiation” (Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2) – appeasing wrath

2. The Wrath of God

Allen emphasizes that God’s wrath is not emotional volatility but His settled opposition to sin:

“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” – Romans 1:18

This wrath must be addressed for reconciliation to occur. Christ bears this wrath in our place.

3. The Necessity of Blood

Allen explores the biblical emphasis on blood sacrifice:

• “Without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22)
• Blood represents life given in death as punishment for sin
• The entire sacrificial system points toward penal substitution

Allen’s Historical Arguments

1. Patristic Evidence

While acknowledging that systematic penal substitution developed later, Allen finds seeds of the doctrine in the early fathers:

• Athanasius: “He bore the punishment for all”
• Augustine: “Christ bore our punishment without our guilt”
• Gregory of Nazianzus: Christ as our substitute bearing judgment

2. Medieval Development

Allen traces how medieval theology prepared for the Reformation understanding:

• Anselm: While emphasizing satisfaction, he laid groundwork for substitution
• Aquinas: Developed the concept of Christ bearing punishment’s effects
• Duns Scotus: Emphasized the acceptation of Christ’s work by divine will

3. Reformation Articulation

Allen shows how the Reformers crystallized penal substitution:

• Luther: Christ as the greatest sinner by imputation
• Calvin: Christ bearing the curse and punishment we deserved
• Reformed Confessions: Systematic statements of penal substitution

Allen’s Theological Distinctions

1. Commercial vs. Penal Categories

Allen distinguishes between two ways of understanding the atonement:

• Commercial: Exact payment of debt (problematic, limits atonement)
• Penal: Bearing of punishment (biblical, allows universal sufficiency)

He argues against the commercial model while defending the penal model.

2. Idem vs. Tantundem

An important distinction in Reformed theology:

• Idem: Christ suffered the exact same punishment (eternal hell for each sin)
• Tantundem: Christ suffered an equivalent punishment (infinite value due to His person)

Allen argues for tantundem, which better explains the infinite value of Christ’s sacrifice.

3. Active and Passive Obedience

Allen emphasizes both aspects of Christ’s work:

• Active Obedience: Christ’s perfect life fulfilling the law’s demands
• Passive Obedience: Christ’s suffering bearing the law’s penalty

Both are necessary for complete salvation – one provides positive righteousness, the other removes guilt.

Allen’s Response to Contemporary Objections

1. The “Cosmic Child Abuse” Charge

Allen strongly rejects this characterization by emphasizing:

• The Trinity’s unified will in redemption
• Christ’s voluntary self-offering
• The Father’s love motivating the plan
• Divine self-substitution, not third-party punishment

2. The Violence Objection

To those who object that penal substitution makes God violent, Allen responds:

• Justice sometimes requires force to restrain evil
• The violence comes from sin and sinners, not God’s nature
• God absorbs violence rather than perpetrating it
• The cross ends the cycle of violence through forgiveness

3. The Moral Influence Reduction

Allen argues that penal substitution enhances rather than reduces moral influence:

• It shows the seriousness of sin
• It demonstrates the costliness of forgiveness
• It reveals the depth of divine love
• It motivates grateful obedience

Part IV: Detailed Comparison and Contrast

Fundamental Agreements

Before examining the differences, it’s important to note that Fleming, Craig, and Allen agree on many fundamental points:

1. Christ’s Death is Salvific: All three affirm that Christ’s death accomplishes salvation
2. Substitution is Real: Christ genuinely takes our place in some sense
3. Justice Must Be Satisfied: God’s justice cannot simply be set aside
4. Sin is Serious: Sin creates a real problem requiring divine solution
5. The Cross is Necessary: Salvation could not be accomplished without Christ’s death
6. God’s Love Motivates: The atonement flows from divine love
7. Multiple Biblical Images: Various biblical metaphors illuminate the atonement

Key Differences

Issue	Fleming’s View	Craig’s View	Allen’s View
Nature of Christ’s Suffering	Christ bears sin’s consequences but not divine punishment. His suffering comes from entering our condition, not from the Father’s wrath.	Christ is literally punished by God for our sins. He experiences the retributive justice that we deserved.	Christ bears the full penalty of the law, experiencing God’s wrath against sin in our place.
The Father’s Role	The Father receives Christ’s offering of love and obedience. He does not punish or reject the Son.	The Father executes justice by punishing sin in Christ, though this flows from love.	The Father pours out His wrath on Christ as our substitute, satisfying divine justice.
Satisfaction vs. Punishment	Satisfaction through positive restitution (honoring God) rather than negative punishment.	Satisfaction requires punishment; compensation alone is insufficient.	Satisfaction comes specifically through penal substitution.
The Role of Wrath	God’s wrath is His giving people over to sin’s consequences, not active punishment.	God’s wrath is His retributive justice that must be propitiated through punishment.	God’s wrath is His holy hatred of sin that must be absorbed by a substitute.
Justice Type	Primarily restorative justice – making things right through positive action.	Retributive justice is essential to God and must be satisfied.	Retributive justice flowing from God’s holiness requires punishment for sin.
Trinity at the Cross	Perfect unity – Father and Son working together in love with no division.	Unity in purpose but distinction in roles – the Father punishes, the Son bears it.	Economic distinction – the Father exercises justice, the Son satisfies it.
Primary Biblical Support	Sacrificial system as gift/cleansing; Isaiah 53 as bearing consequences; love passages.	Isaiah 53 as punishment; Romans 3:25 as propitiation; legal/forensic language.	Federal theology; covenant structure; comprehensive biblical testimony.
Historical Support	Early church fathers, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anselm’s original satisfaction theory.	Seeds in fathers, development through history, Reformation crystallization.	Reformed tradition, Protestant confessions, systematic Reformed theology.
Philosophical Framework	Emphasis on biblical narrative and imagery over philosophical systematization.	Divine Command Theory, legal philosophy, analytical philosophical rigor.	Covenant theology, federal representation, scholastic precision.
View of Sacrifice	Sacrifice as gift, cleansing, and consecration, not appeasing wrath.	Sacrifice includes both expiation of sin and propitiation of God.	Sacrifice primarily as propitiation through substitutionary punishment.

Implications of the Differences

For Understanding God

The three views present somewhat different pictures of God:

• Fleming: God is purely loving, never violent, seeking restoration not retribution
• Craig: God necessarily exercises retributive justice but does so from love
• Allen: God’s holiness requires satisfaction through punishment, demonstrating both justice and mercy

For Christian Life

These differences affect practical Christianity:

• Fleming: Motivation from gratitude for Christ’s gift; emphasis on participation in Christ’s ongoing offering
• Craig: Awareness of sin’s seriousness and the cost of forgiveness; both fear and love motivate
• Allen: Assurance from Christ’s complete payment; rest in finished work

For Ethics and Justice

The views have different implications for Christian ethics:

• Fleming: Emphasis on restorative justice, healing, and reconciliation
• Craig: Balance of retribution and mercy, justice must be satisfied
• Allen: Upholding law and order while showing mercy through proper channels

Part V: Biblical Verse Analysis

To understand how these different views interpret Scripture, let’s examine key biblical passages in detail, showing how each position understands these texts:

Biblical Passage	Fleming’s Interpretation	Craig’s Interpretation	Allen’s Interpretation
Isaiah 53:4-6 “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.”	Christ bears the weight and consequences of our sins. “We esteemed Him stricken by God” is human misperception. The chastisement (Hebrew: musar) means discipline that brings peace, not retributive punishment.	This clearly describes vicarious punishment. God strikes, smites, and afflicts Christ. The strong contrasts between “our” and “His” throughout show substitutionary punishment.	The passage explicitly teaches penal substitution. The Servant bears not just consequences but the actual punishment for sin. God actively wounds and bruises Him as our substitute.
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.”	The LORD’s “pleasure” (chaphets) means His purpose or will for salvation, not delight in causing pain. The offering (asham) is about restoration and recompense, not punishment.	God’s pleasure is in the satisfaction of justice achieved through punishing Christ. The guilt offering (asham) involves bearing penalty for sin.	This shows the Father’s active role in the Son’s punishment. It pleased God to execute justice on Christ because it accomplished redemption.
Romans 3:25 “Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness.”	Propitiation (hilasterion) refers to the mercy seat where God meets humanity. It’s about cleansing and reconciliation, not appeasing wrath. God provides the means of atonement.	Hilasterion clearly means propitiation – appeasing God’s wrath. This is the place where divine justice and mercy meet through penal substitution.	This is the clearest New Testament statement of propitiation. Christ’s blood appeases God’s wrath by bearing the punishment sin deserves.
Romans 5:9 “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.”	We’re saved from wrath’s consequences, not because Christ experienced it instead. Wrath here is eschatological judgment that believers avoid through Christ’s cleansing blood.	Being saved “from wrath through Him” implies Christ bore that wrath. His blood justifies because it represents punishment borne.	Christ saves us from wrath precisely because He absorbed it on the cross. The blood represents life given in punishment.
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.”	Christ “became sin” by entering our condition and bearing sin’s consequences, not by God treating Him as guilty. The parallel structure shows exchange and participation, not punishment.	God literally treated Christ as sin, imputing our guilt to Him. This is legal imputation allowing for penal substitution.	This is the great exchange – our sin imputed to Christ, His righteousness to us. God treated Christ as if He were guilty of all our sins.
Galatians 3:13 “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’)”	Christ experienced the curse’s consequence (crucifixion) without God cursing Him. He enters the cursed realm to break its power, not as the object of divine wrath.	Christ literally became cursed by God. The quotation from Deuteronomy shows He bore the covenant curse we deserved.	Christ bore the full curse of the broken covenant. God’s curse against sin fell on Him instead of us.
1 Peter 2:24 “Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you are healed.”	Bearing sins means carrying their weight and consequences to destroy their power. The emphasis on healing shows restoration, not punishment.	Bearing sins in His body indicates receiving the punishment for those sins. This is substitutionary penalty-bearing.	Christ literally carried our sins and their penalty. He was punished in His body for our sins.
Hebrews 9:22 “And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.”	Blood represents life given in sacrifice for cleansing and consecration. The emphasis is on purification, not punishment. Blood cleanses, it doesn’t appease.	Blood is required because it represents life given in death as punishment. No remission without the penalty being paid.	This establishes the necessity of death as punishment for sin. Blood must be shed because the penalty must be paid.
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 is the place where God and humanity meet in reconciliation. God provides the propitiation out of love, not to appease His own anger.	Propitiation means Christ appeases God’s wrath against sin. The universal extent shows the infinite value of His punishment-bearing.	Christ propitiates God’s wrath by bearing the punishment for sin. The sufficiency extends to the whole world though applied only to believers.
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 provides the means of reconciliation. Propitiation is the expression of love, not the satisfaction of wrath. Love and wrath are not in tension.	God’s love motivates Him to provide propitiation through penal substitution. Love finds a way to satisfy justice.	Divine love provides what divine justice requires. God’s love and justice meet at the cross.

Part VI: Challenging Verses for Fleming’s View

While Fleming’s satisfaction theory offers compelling interpretations of many passages, certain biblical texts seem to challenge her position. Let’s examine these “problem passages” and consider how Fleming might respond:

Passages That Seem to Indicate Divine Punishment

1. Matthew 27:46 – The Cry of Dereliction

“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 Challenge: This seems to indicate that the Father abandoned or rejected the Son, suggesting a rupture in the Trinity caused by the Father’s wrath.

Possible Fleming Response: This cry quotes Psalm 22, which moves from lament to triumph. Jesus is identifying with human abandonment and entering into our God-forsaken condition, not experiencing actual rejection by the Father. The psalm ends with vindication, showing this is about solidarity with human suffering, not divine punishment. The Father never abandons the Son – this would divide the Trinity.

2. Romans 8:32

“He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?”

The Challenge: “Not sparing” and “delivering up” suggest the Father actively punishing the Son.

Possible Fleming Response: “Delivering up” (paradidomi) means “handing over” or “giving over,” not punishing. The Father gives the Son to enter our condition and bear sin’s consequences. The emphasis is on the Father’s costly gift, not on punishment. The same verb is used when Jesus “gives Himself” (Galatians 2:20), showing voluntary action.

3. Romans 4:25

“Who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.”

The Challenge: Christ was delivered up “because of our offenses,” suggesting punishment for our sins.

Possible Fleming Response: “Because of” (dia) can mean “for the sake of dealing with” rather than “as punishment for.” Christ was given over to deal with our offenses by bearing their consequences and breaking their power, not to be punished for them.

4. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15

“For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.”

The Challenge: “One died for all, then all died” suggests Christ died the death we deserved as punishment.

Possible Fleming Response: This speaks of union with Christ – when He died, we died with Him to sin’s power. This is about participation and identification, not punishment. We die with Christ to live with Him, not because He was punished instead of us.

Passages Emphasizing Wrath and Propitiation

5. 1 Thessalonians 1:10

“And to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.”

The Challenge: Jesus delivers us from wrath, suggesting He bore it Himself.

Possible Fleming Response: Jesus delivers us from future eschatological wrath by cleansing us from sin and reconciling us to God. He doesn’t need to experience wrath Himself to deliver us from it. He breaks sin’s power that would otherwise lead to wrath.

6. 1 Thessalonians 5:9

“For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The Challenge: The contrast suggests Christ experienced the wrath we were appointed to avoid.

Possible Fleming Response: The contrast is between our two possible destinies – wrath or salvation. Christ provides salvation that enables us to avoid wrath, not by experiencing it Himself but by removing its basis through cleansing from sin.

7. Ephesians 2:3

“Among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.”

The Challenge: We were “children of wrath” until Christ intervened, suggesting He bore that wrath.

Possible Fleming Response: We were under wrath’s threat due to our sinful nature. Christ changes our nature through regeneration, removing us from wrath’s sphere. He transforms us from children of wrath to children of God through His sacrifice, not by being punished.

Passages About Bearing Sin/Punishment

8. Hebrews 9:28

“So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, and to those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.”

The Challenge: “Bearing sins” seems to indicate bearing their punishment.

Possible Fleming Response: In the Old Testament, bearing sins often means carrying them away (like the scapegoat) rather than being punished for them. Christ bears our sins to remove them, not to be punished for them. The emphasis is on removal and cleansing.

9. 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 Challenge: “The just for the unjust” suggests punitive substitution.

Possible Fleming Response: This emphasizes Christ’s innocence and our guilt, showing the injustice of His death. He suffers what we deserved, but as consequence not punishment. The purpose is to “bring us to God” through reconciliation, not to satisfy punitive justice.

Fleming’s Potential Responses to Missing Verses

If pressed about verses that seem to support penal substitution that her view might miss, Fleming could offer several responses:

1. Metaphorical Language: Much biblical language about wrath and punishment is metaphorical, describing the seriousness of sin without requiring literal divine punishment of Christ.
2. Translation Issues: Many English translations are influenced by penal substitutionary theology. The original Greek and Hebrew often allow for different interpretations.
3. Systematic vs. Proof-Text Reading: Individual verses should be read in light of the whole biblical narrative, which emphasizes God’s love and restoration rather than retributive punishment.
4. Historical Reading: The early church didn’t read these passages as teaching penal substitution, suggesting alternative interpretations are valid.
5. Theological Coherence: Interpretations that divide the Trinity or make God violent should be questioned, even if they seem to have textual support.

Part VII: Theological Implications

Implications for the Doctrine of God

The Nature of Divine Justice

The three views present different understandings of God’s justice:

• Fleming: Justice is primarily about restoration and right relationships. God’s justice seeks to heal and restore rather than punish. Retribution is not essential to divine justice.
• Craig: Retributive justice is essential to God’s nature. God must punish sin, though He can determine the means and recipient of punishment through His sovereign will.
• Allen: God’s justice flows from His holiness and requires punishment for sin. This is not arbitrary but necessary given God’s nature.

The Unity of Divine Attributes

How do love and justice relate in God?

• Fleming: Love and justice are unified – justice is loving and love is just. There’s no tension requiring resolution through punishment.
• Craig: Love and justice are both essential but can create tension. The cross resolves this tension by satisfying justice while demonstrating love.
• Allen: God’s attributes are perfectly harmonious. The cross demonstrates how infinite love provides what infinite justice demands.

Implications for Christology

The Experience of Christ

What did Jesus actually experience on the cross?

• Fleming: Christ experienced the full weight of human sin and its consequences – death, apparent abandonment, shame – but not divine wrath or punishment.
• Craig: Christ experienced the punishment for sin, including some form of divine wrath, though not eternal separation from God.
• Allen: Christ experienced the full penalty of sin, including the Father’s wrath, though the exact nature of this experience remains mysterious.

The Two Natures of Christ

How do Christ’s divine and human natures relate to the atonement?

• Fleming: Christ’s human nature allows Him to represent us and bear our condition; His divine nature gives infinite value to His offering.
• Craig: Christ’s human nature receives the punishment; His divine nature makes this punishment of infinite value and prevents it from destroying Him.
• Allen: The human nature suffers while the divine nature sustains and gives infinite worth to the suffering.

Implications for Soteriology (Salvation)

The Nature of Salvation

• Fleming: Salvation is primarily healing, restoration, and participation in divine life (theosis). Legal categories are secondary to relational ones.
• Craig: Salvation centers on legal pardon based on satisfaction of justice. Relationship follows judicial reconciliation.
• Allen: Salvation is fundamentally forensic – legal declaration of righteousness based on Christ’s satisfaction, followed by transformation.

The Application of Salvation

• Fleming: Christ’s work is applied through participation – we join in His offering and are transformed by it.
• Craig: Christ’s work is applied through faith, which receives the pardon earned by His punishment-bearing.
• Allen: The benefits of Christ’s work are applied through imputation – His righteousness legally credited to believers.

Implications for Ecclesiology (Church)

The Church’s Mission

• Fleming: The church continues Christ’s ministry of reconciliation, healing, and restoration. It offers God’s transforming love to the world.
• Craig: The church proclaims the message of pardon available through Christ’s satisfaction of divine justice.
• Allen: The church declares the finished work of Christ and calls people to receive by faith what Christ has accomplished.

Worship and Sacraments

• Fleming: Worship is participation in Christ’s ongoing offering to the Father. The Eucharist is joining in Christ’s self-offering.
• Craig: Worship is grateful response to Christ’s bearing our punishment. The Lord’s Supper remembers His sacrifice.
• Allen: Worship celebrates the completed work of Christ. Sacraments are means of grace applying Christ’s benefits.

Implications for Ethics

Christian Motivation

• Fleming: Christians are motivated by gratitude for Christ’s gift and desire to participate in His life of love.
• Craig: Motivation comes from awareness of the cost of forgiveness and gratitude for escape from punishment.
• Allen: Believers are motivated by gratitude for complete salvation and assurance of acceptance.

Approach to Justice

• Fleming: Emphasis on restorative justice, reconciliation, and healing rather than retribution.
• Craig: Balance between retributive justice and mercy, recognizing the legitimate place of punishment.
• Allen: Upholding justice and law while showing mercy, recognizing government’s role in punishment.

Part VIII: Practical and Pastoral Applications

Preaching and Teaching

How to Present the Gospel

Fleming’s Approach:

• Emphasize God’s love and desire for restoration
• Present sin as bondage from which Christ frees us
• Focus on transformation and participation in divine life
• Avoid language that divides Father and Son

Craig’s Approach:

• Clearly explain the seriousness of sin and divine justice
• Present Christ as bearing the punishment we deserve
• Emphasize both God’s justice and mercy
• Use legal metaphors to explain salvation

Allen’s Approach:

• Proclaim the complete sufficiency of Christ’s work
• Emphasize the finished nature of atonement
• Offer assurance based on Christ’s payment
• Call for faith in Christ’s substitutionary work

Dealing with Difficult Questions

“How can God forgive without punishing?”

• Fleming: God forgives through Christ’s satisfaction that restores honor through love, not punishment
• Craig: God cannot forgive without punishment, but Christ bears it for us
• Allen: Forgiveness requires satisfaction of justice through penal substitution

“Why did Jesus have to die?”

• Fleming: To enter our condition, bear sin’s consequences, and emerge victorious
• Craig: To satisfy divine justice by bearing the punishment for sin
• Allen: To pay the penalty the law demands and earn our righteousness

Pastoral Care

Counseling Those Who Struggle with Guilt

Fleming’s Approach:

“Christ has borne your sins away and cleansed you completely. You are not under condemnation but are being healed and restored. God sees you through Christ’s perfect offering of love.”

Craig’s Approach:

“Christ has borne the punishment for your sins. God’s justice has been fully satisfied. You are legally pardoned and free from all condemnation.”

Allen’s Approach:

“Christ has paid your debt in full. Nothing remains to be paid. Rest in His finished work and your complete acceptance.”

Ministering to Abuse Survivors

Fleming’s Approach:

Emphasize that God never demands suffering or victimization. Christ’s suffering was voluntary love, not divine abuse. God stands with victims against oppression.

Craig’s Approach:

Carefully distinguish between Christ’s voluntary acceptance and abuse. Emphasize divine love motivating the plan.

Allen’s Approach:

Present the cross as God’s solution to injustice. Christ bears what oppressors deserve, vindicating victims.

Christian Formation

Developing Spiritual Maturity

Fleming’s Framework:

1. Growing in participation with Christ’s ongoing offering
2. Being transformed through union with Christ
3. Learning to see all life as response to God’s love
4. Developing practices of reconciliation and healing

Craig’s Framework:

1. Deepening awareness of sin’s seriousness
2. Growing gratitude for Christ’s sacrifice
3. Developing both holy fear and confident love
4. Learning to balance justice and mercy

Allen’s Framework:

1. Resting more fully in Christ’s finished work
2. Growing in assurance of salvation
3. Living from acceptance, not for acceptance
4. Demonstrating grateful obedience

Social Implications

Criminal Justice

• Fleming: Advocate for restorative justice programs, rehabilitation, and reconciliation
• Craig: Support balanced approach with both punishment and rehabilitation
• Allen: Uphold law and order while showing mercy through proper channels

Conflict Resolution

• Fleming: Emphasize reconciliation and healing over retribution
• Craig: Seek justice while extending forgiveness
• Allen: Recognize legitimate grievances while promoting forgiveness

Conclusion: Evaluating the Positions

Strengths and Contributions

Fleming’s Satisfaction Theory

Strengths:

• Maintains the unity of the Trinity without division
• Avoids depicting God as violent or vindictive
• Emphasizes love as God’s primary attribute
• Connects well with Eastern Orthodox tradition
• Provides helpful resources for abuse survivors
• Promotes restorative over retributive justice
• Integrates multiple biblical motifs coherently

Potential Weaknesses:

• May not fully account for biblical language about wrath and punishment
• Could minimize the seriousness of sin
• Might struggle with passages that seem to indicate divine punishment
• Less developed in Protestant theology

Craig’s Philosophical Defense

Strengths:

• Provides rigorous philosophical framework
• Addresses contemporary objections systematically
• Draws helpful analogies from legal theory
• Takes biblical language about punishment seriously
• Maintains both divine justice and mercy
• Offers coherent explanation of imputation

Potential Weaknesses:

• Relies heavily on controversial Divine Command Theory
• May make God seem bound by retributive justice
• Could struggle to maintain Trinity’s unity
• Philosophical complexity may obscure biblical simplicity

Allen’s Reformed Position

Strengths:

• Strong connection to historic Protestant theology
• Comprehensive biblical support
• Clear systematic presentation
• Provides strong assurance of salvation
• Maintains theological precision
• Well-developed in confessional traditions

Potential Weaknesses:

• May overemphasize legal/forensic categories
• Could lead to cheap grace if misunderstood
• Might struggle with “cosmic child abuse” objection
• Less engaged with contemporary concerns

Areas of Convergence

Despite their differences, all three positions affirm:

1. Christ’s death is absolutely necessary for salvation
2. God’s love motivates the entire plan of redemption
3. Sin creates a serious problem requiring divine intervention
4. Christ genuinely takes our place in some sense
5. The cross demonstrates both divine justice and mercy
6. Multiple biblical images illuminate the atonement
7. The atonement has moral influence on believers
8. Christ’s work is complete and sufficient

Remaining Questions

Several questions remain for further investigation:

1. How exactly does Christ’s death accomplish salvation?
2. What is the relationship between divine love and justice?
3. How should we understand biblical language about wrath?
4. What did Christ actually experience on the cross?
5. How do we best communicate the gospel today?
6. What are the ethical implications of our atonement theology?
7. How do we maintain both biblical fidelity and contemporary relevance?

Final Reflections

The debate between these positions ultimately concerns the very heart of Christianity – how God saves sinners through Christ. Each view attempts to be faithful to Scripture while addressing theological and philosophical concerns. Fleming emphasizes God’s restorative love, Craig defends the coherence of penal substitution, and Allen maintains traditional Reformed theology.

Perhaps the way forward involves recognizing that:

• The atonement is ultimately a mystery beyond full comprehension
• Multiple biblical metaphors are needed to grasp its richness
• Different aspects may be emphasized in different contexts
• All orthodox views maintain Christ’s saving death
• The practical outcome – salvation by grace through faith – remains constant

Fleming’s contribution is particularly valuable in:

• Recovering patristic and medieval insights often lost in Protestant theology
• Addressing contemporary concerns about divine violence
• Providing resources for those troubled by traditional formulations
• Emphasizing the positive, restorative aspects of salvation
• Maintaining strong Trinitarian theology

However, proponents of penal substitution like Craig and Allen would argue that Fleming’s view, while containing important truths, may not fully account for:

• The biblical emphasis on propitiation and wrath
• The necessity of punishment for satisfying justice
• The forensic/legal dimensions of salvation
• The historic Protestant understanding

Recommendations for Further Study

For those wanting to explore these positions more deeply:

1. Primary Sources:
   • Fleming Rutledge, “The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ”
   • William Lane Craig, “Atonement and the Death of Christ”
   • David Allen, “The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study”
2. Historical Background:
   • Anselm of Canterbury, “Cur Deus Homo”
   • Gustaf Aulén, “Christus Victor”
   • John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion”
3. Contemporary Discussions:
   • Hans Boersma, “Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross”
   • N.T. Wright, “The Day the Revolution Began”
   • Michael Horton, “Lord and Servant”

© 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.