In the previous chapters we have examined penal substitutionary atonement—the model I believe stands at the center of the biblical witness—and Christus Victor, the dramatic picture of Christ's triumph over sin, death, and the devil (Chapter 21). But these are not the only atonement models the Christian tradition has produced. Over two thousand years, thoughtful believers have looked at the cross from many different angles, and each vantage point has revealed something genuine about what God accomplished through the death of His Son.
In this chapter we turn to four additional models: the ransom theory, the satisfaction theory, the moral influence theory, and the governmental theory. Each of these has a long and honorable history. Each captures real biblical themes. And each, I will argue, contributes something important to our understanding of the cross—while also falling short as a complete explanation of what happened at Calvary. My goal here is not to tear these models down. It is to appreciate what they get right, identify where they come up short, and show how each one finds its proper place when penal substitution stands at the center of a multi-faceted understanding of the atonement.
Think of it this way. If the cross is like a diamond with many facets, then penal substitution is the central facet—the one that holds the others together and gives them their coherence. Ransom, satisfaction, moral influence, and governmental theories each illuminate a different facet of the same brilliant reality. We lose something when we ignore any of them. But we lose even more when we try to make any one of them carry the whole weight of the atonement by itself.
Why does this matter for ordinary Christian believers and not just for seminary professors? Because how we understand the cross shapes everything—how we worship, how we pray, how we share the gospel, how we think about suffering, how we approach God. If we think the cross is only a ransom paid to the devil, we will see salvation primarily as escape from demonic captivity. If we think the cross is only a moral example, we will see Christianity primarily as ethical improvement. If we think the cross is only a satisfaction of divine honor, we will see God primarily as an offended king. Each of these perspectives captures part of the truth, but none of them captures all of it. The richness of the gospel depends on holding these truths together, and as I will argue, penal substitution is what makes that integration possible.
Let me walk us through each model in turn, giving careful attention to its biblical basis, its historical development, its genuine strengths, and its real limitations.
Of all the atonement models, the ransom theory has arguably the strongest claim to antiquity. It dominated Christian thinking for roughly the first thousand years of the church's history, and it is rooted directly in the words of Jesus Himself.1 In Mark 10:45, Jesus declares: "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." The Greek word translated "ransom" here is lytron (λύτρον), a term drawn from the world of slavery and captivity. A lytron was the price paid to set a prisoner or slave free.2 As we noted in Chapter 2, the word carries strong connotations of liberation through costly payment.
Paul echoes this language in 1 Timothy 2:5–6: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time." Here the word is the intensified form antilytron (ἀντίλυτρον)—a "ransom in exchange for"—with the prefix anti (ἀντί) reinforcing the substitutionary character of Christ's payment.3 Peter adds his own testimony: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Peter 1:18–19).
The ransom theme runs deep in the Old Testament as well. The Hebrew word padah (פָּדָה) means "to ransom" or "to redeem by paying a price," and ga'al (גָּאַל) refers to the action of a kinsman-redeemer who buys back what has been lost. God Himself is repeatedly described as the one who "redeems" Israel—from Egypt, from exile, from death itself.4 The Psalmist cries out: "Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice" (Psalm 49:7–8). This Old Testament text is especially striking because it declares that no human being can pay the ransom price. The cost is simply too high. Only God Himself can do it. So when Jesus says He has come "to give his life as a ransom for many," He is not merely drawing on an ancient metaphor—He is claiming to do what only God can do. He is providing the ransom that no human being could ever provide.
It is worth pausing to notice the specific language in these key texts. In Mark 10:45, Jesus says He will give His life as a ransom for many. The Greek preposition here is anti (ἀντί), which carries a strong substitutionary meaning—"in the place of," "instead of." In 1 Timothy 2:6, Paul uses the compound antilytron (ἀντίλυτρον), reinforcing the idea that Christ's self-giving is a substitutionary exchange. As we discussed in Chapter 2, these prepositions are not incidental. They tell us that the ransom is not merely offered on our behalf (as a benefit to us) but in our place (as a substitute for us). The ransom language is inherently substitutionary.
Key Point: The ransom metaphor is not a later theological invention. It comes directly from the lips of Jesus (Mark 10:45) and is echoed by Paul (1 Timothy 2:5–6) and Peter (1 Peter 1:18–19). Any complete account of the atonement must take this language seriously.
The early church fathers took Jesus' ransom language very seriously. As Gustaf Aulén demonstrated in his influential 1931 work Christus Victor, the "classic" or "dramatic" view of the atonement—in which God in Christ triumphs over the powers of evil that hold humanity captive—was the dominant understanding of the cross for the first millennium of Christian history.5 Aulén called this the "classic" theory precisely because of its longstanding dominance in Christian thought.
Irenaeus of Lyon, writing in the late second century, is the earliest church father to treat the atonement comprehensively. For Irenaeus, Christ's work was first and foremost a victory over the forces that held humanity in bondage—sin, death, and the devil. God Himself, in Christ, entered the world to do battle with these powers and achieve a decisive triumph. This victory created a new situation in which the dominion of these hostile forces was broken and humanity was set free.6 Irenaeus also emphasized justice: God deals justly even with Satan, redeeming what was His own not by violence but by Christ giving Himself as a ransom in exchange for humanity's deliverance.7
But here is where the ransom theory ran into trouble. As the centuries passed, an inevitable question arose: To whom was the ransom paid? If Jesus gave His life as a ransom, who received the payment? The early fathers gave three basic answers, each one more problematic than the last.
The first and most common answer was that the ransom was paid to the devil. Since Satan had gained a kind of dominion over the human race through the Fall, and since humanity was in some sense his captive, the ransom must have been paid to him in exchange for our release.8 This was a very popular idea in the early centuries. But it raises an obvious difficulty: Does the devil really have legitimate rights over human beings that God is obligated to respect? Most theologians, both ancient and modern, have rightly answered no.
The second answer went further and depicted the transaction as a divine deception. In this version, the devil overreached himself by putting the sinless Jesus to death. Since he had no rightful authority over an innocent man, Satan lost his power by abusing it. Some fathers—including Origen—added that the devil did not fully realize what he was doing. He saw Godhead wrapped in human flesh and thought he had a unique opportunity to overpower it. But he was tricked.9
Gregory of Nyssa, the shy fourth-century Cappadocian scholar, gave this idea its most vivid expression in his famous "fishhook" analogy. Christ's humanity was the bait; His divinity was the hook. When the devil, like a ravenous fish, swallowed the bait of Christ's flesh, he also swallowed the hook of Christ's deity—and was caught.10 Augustine used a similar image, comparing the cross to a mousetrap baited with Christ's blood. Peter Lombard later picked up the same imagery.11
Now, I have to be honest: these images strike most modern readers as grotesque, and rightly so. To attribute deliberate deception to God is unworthy of Him. Even in the ancient world, not everyone was comfortable with this direction. Gregory of Nazianzus, for example, pushed back firmly on the idea that the ransom was paid to Satan. "Was it paid to the Evil One?" he asked. "Monstrous thought! If the robber receives the ransom—not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself—then the robber receives a payment so enormous that it would have been right to have released us long ago."12
The third possible answer—and the one I believe is most theologically sound—is that the "to whom" question presses the ransom metaphor further than it was ever meant to go. As Fleming Rutledge wisely observes, when the Bible uses the language of ransom and redemption, the emphasis is not on the identity of the recipient but on the costliness of the deliverance and the incomparable value of the price paid.13 The point of Mark 10:45 is not to establish the mechanics of a cosmic financial transaction. It is to declare that our liberation from bondage was achieved at the staggering cost of Christ's own life.
Rutledge's point deserves careful consideration. When we read in 1 Peter 1:18–19 that we "were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot," Peter is not inviting us to ask, "To whom was this blood-price paid?" He is inviting us to marvel at the sheer costliness of our deliverance. Silver and gold are precious, but they are "perishable"—they are nothing compared to the infinite worth of the blood of Christ. The ransom language tells us something essential: our salvation was not cheap. It cost God everything. It cost the life of His Son.
This is, I think, the heart of the ransom metaphor. It communicates the costliness of grace—what Dietrich Bonhoeffer memorably called "costly grace" as opposed to "cheap grace." We were not rescued by a wave of the hand. We were not saved by a mere declaration. We were ransomed at unimaginable cost. And that cost—the death of the incarnate Son of God—demands not only our gratitude but our wonder.
The Ransom Question: To whom was the ransom paid? (a) To the devil—problematic because it grants Satan legitimate rights over humanity. (b) To God's justice—this moves toward the penal substitution and satisfaction models. (c) The question presses the metaphor too far—the point is the cost of deliverance, not the identity of the payee. I believe option (c) is the wisest approach, though the payment ultimately satisfies the demands of God's own justice (option b), as the penal substitutionary model makes clear.
In recent years, Vee Chandler has offered a vigorous defense of the ransom theory in her book Victorious Substitution. Chandler argues that the ransom or "classic" theory was the dominant view of the first thousand years of the church and that modern theology has unjustly neglected it.14 Drawing heavily on Aulén, Chandler identifies several reasons for this neglect: the bitter controversy between "objective" and "subjective" views during the Enlightenment period, which left little room for the classic model; the dismissal of dualistic language as "mythology" by liberal theologians; and the tendency of conservative theologians to regard the classic view as a crude, undeveloped precursor to the more "rational" satisfaction theory of Anselm.15
Chandler also argues that the ransom theory correctly emphasizes God's own initiative in the atonement. In the classic view, God Himself is the active agent from beginning to end. It is God who enters the world in Christ to overcome evil. It is God who pays the price. It is God who achieves the victory. Atonement does not depend on an offering made to God by Christ from humanity's side; rather, God Himself is the one who brings redemption to completion.16
I find much to appreciate in Chandler's defense. She is right that the ransom/Christus Victor model has been unjustly neglected, right that it captures genuinely biblical themes, and right that it emphasizes God's initiative in salvation. Where I part company with her is in her insistence that the ransom theory can stand on its own as a sufficient account of the atonement. As we will see, the ransom metaphor tells us that we have been liberated and how costly that liberation was, but it does not fully explain the mechanism by which the liberation was accomplished. For that, we need the penal dimension.
Let me summarize the strengths of the ransom model. First, it is genuinely biblical. The language of ransom, redemption, and deliverance saturates both Testaments. Second, it emphasizes the cosmic scope of Christ's work—He did not merely address a legal problem between individual sinners and God but overthrew the entire kingdom of darkness. Third, it rightly portrays God as the active agent who takes the initiative in salvation. Fourth, it takes seriously the reality of evil powers and the genuine bondage of the human condition. As Stott observed, what is of permanent value in these theories is that they took seriously the reality, malevolence, and power of the devil, and that they proclaimed his decisive, objective defeat at the cross for our liberation.17
But the weaknesses are equally real. First, when pressed into a full-blown theory—especially the "payment to the devil" version—the ransom model raises more questions than it answers. Does Satan have rights that God must honor? Does God resort to trickery? These are serious theological problems. Second, the ransom model by itself does not adequately address the problem of human guilt before a holy God. It tells us we have been set free from captivity, but it does not explain how our sins have been forgiven or how God's justice has been satisfied. Third, the question of mechanism remains unanswered: How exactly does Christ's death achieve liberation? Without the penal dimension—the understanding that Christ bore the judicial consequences of our sin—the ransom metaphor lacks a clear explanatory framework.
This is why the ransom model finds its fullest expression when it is integrated with penal substitution. Christ's death is the ransom price (Mark 10:45) precisely because it is the bearing of the penalty for sin (Isaiah 53:5–6; 2 Corinthians 5:21). The two ideas are not in competition. The ransom price is the satisfaction of divine justice. As argued in Chapter 19, penal substitution provides the mechanism that makes the ransom work.
We treated Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction theory in some detail in Chapter 16. Here I want to focus specifically on how this model relates to penal substitutionary atonement and what it contributes to the broader mosaic of atonement theology.
Anselm's Cur Deus Homo ("Why the God-Man?"), written in 1098, marked what David Allen calls "a crucial breakthrough in atonement doctrine."18 Anselm did something no theologian before him had done so systematically: he asked why the cross was necessary and sought a rigorous answer rooted in the character of God. His answer centered on the concept of "satisfaction." Humanity owes God the debt of total obedience and honor. Sin withholds this debt and thereby dishonors God. Since God cannot simply ignore sin without compromising His own justice, satisfaction must be made. But the debt is infinite—an offense against an infinite God requires an equally infinite satisfaction. No mere human being can pay it. Only a God-man, one who is both fully human (and thus can represent humanity) and fully divine (and thus can offer a satisfaction of infinite value), can make this payment. That God-man is Jesus Christ.19
Anselm also made an important break with the ransom tradition. He rejected the idea that Christ paid a debt to Satan and insisted instead that the debt was paid to God. The cross, in Anselm's framework, addresses not a problem between humanity and the devil but a problem between humanity and God Himself—specifically, the dishonoring of God's nature through sin.20
Anselm's Key Contribution: Anselm rightly located the problem that the cross addresses in the character of God Himself, not in the rights of the devil. Sin is not primarily an offense against Satan but against the infinite God. This insight was foundational for the later development of penal substitutionary atonement.
The satisfaction theory and penal substitution have much in common. Both agree that the atonement must address something in God's own nature. Both insist that sin cannot simply be overlooked. Both affirm that Christ's death accomplishes something objective—something that changes the relationship between God and humanity. And both hold that only the God-man can make the needed payment.
But there are important differences. In Anselm's satisfaction model, what is satisfied is God's honor. Sin dishonors God, and Christ's death provides a compensating good—a gift of infinite value—that restores God's honor. In penal substitution, what is satisfied is God's justice. Sin incurs a penalty, and Christ's death pays that penalty on our behalf. The difference is subtle but significant. In satisfaction theory, the satisfaction is achieved through the offer of something positive (a compensating good). In penal substitution, the satisfaction is achieved through the bearing of something negative (the penalty for sin).21
It has been standard fare to criticize Anselm by claiming that his concept of divine "honor" was borrowed from the feudal system of his day, in which lords demanded satisfaction for any affront to their dignity. There is perhaps some truth to this, but it is also somewhat one-sided. As Allen notes, for Anselm "the whole conception revolves around our need to honor God, not God's need to be honored."22 And Rutledge reminds us that for Anselm, as for the church fathers, there was a common understanding of the human predicament as "both guilt requiring remission and captivity requiring deliverance."23
I think the fairest assessment is the one offered by scholars like Jeffrey Pugh, who argues that Anselm's Cur Deus Homo "should be viewed as more post-patristic than proto-Reformed."24 Anselm was building on the patristic tradition, not simply imposing feudal categories on the cross. At the same time, his emphasis on "honor" rather than "justice" left his model incomplete. The Reformers would later sharpen the argument by specifying that it is God's retributive justice—not merely His honor—that demands a response to sin, and that the response takes the form of penalty-bearing, not merely the offering of a compensating good.
The strengths of Anselm's model are considerable. First, Anselm correctly located the necessity of the atonement in the character of God Himself. The cross is not an arbitrary arrangement but flows from who God is. Second, he rightly insisted that only the God-man could make the needed satisfaction—a point that preserves the uniqueness and sufficiency of Christ's work. Third, he broke decisively with the problematic "ransom to the devil" tradition and redirected the focus toward God. Fourth, he asked the right question—"Why did God become man?"—and gave a theologically serious answer.
The weaknesses are also worth noting. First, the concept of "honor" is arguably too narrow to capture the full biblical picture. Scripture speaks not just of God's honor being offended but of God's justice being violated, God's wrath being provoked, and God's law being broken. The penal dimension goes beyond mere honor. Second, Anselm's model relies on the idea of Christ earning "excess merit" that can be transferred to sinners—a concept that the New Testament does not use in connection with the atonement.25 Third, Anselm did not adequately integrate the theme of Christ's victory over evil (Christus Victor), which was central to the patristic tradition he claimed to be continuing.
It is important to trace what happened after Anselm. Peter Lombard (d. 1160), whose Sentences became the theological textbook of the later medieval period, retained the Christus Victor idea. According to Bynum, Lombard agreed with Anselm on the necessity of satisfaction but—unlike Anselm—viewed it as penal substitution.52 Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian of the Middle Ages, likewise affirmed a penal satisfaction component, speaking of the atonement as simultaneously a satisfaction, an example, and a victory over Satan—though he did not integrate these themes into a unified theory.53 So even in the medieval period, elements of penal substitution were present alongside satisfaction and Christus Victor themes. The systematic formulation would come later with the Reformers, but the raw materials were already there.
Nevertheless, Anselm's core insight—that the atonement addresses a problem in God's own nature and requires a divinely provided satisfaction—is one that penal substitution affirms and develops. In this sense, penal substitution is not a rejection of satisfaction theory but its deepening and completion. PSA agrees that the atonement must satisfy something in God but specifies more precisely what that something is (justice, not merely honor) and how it is satisfied (through penalty-bearing, not merely through the offer of a compensating good).
If Anselm emphasized what the cross accomplishes in relation to God (the objective dimension), the moral influence theory—traditionally associated with Peter Abelard (d. 1142)—emphasizes what the cross accomplishes in relation to us (the subjective dimension). In this model, the primary purpose of Christ's death is not to satisfy divine justice or pay a ransom to the devil but to demonstrate God's love in a way that melts the human heart, breaks down our resistance to God, and inspires us to love Him in return.26
The biblical texts that most naturally support this emphasis are powerful ones. Romans 5:8 declares: "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." First John 4:10–11 says: "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." And 1 Peter 2:21 tells us: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps." These passages are clear: the cross is a demonstration of divine love, and it does provide an example for how we should live.
Now, before we go further, an important clarification is in order. Recent scholarship has shown that Abelard himself has been somewhat misrepresented by the tradition. He was not a pure "exemplarist" who reduced the atonement entirely to its moral influence. Allen notes that Abelard "did not explain the atonement exclusively as one that provides an example" but also "expressed a penal substitution notion" in his comments on Romans 4:25.27 Caroline Walker Bynum has argued persuasively that the supposed opposition between Anselm and Abelard has been overdrawn: "There are subjective and objective elements in the theories of both Anselm and Abelard.... Hence, it is quite wrong to see two redemptive theories warring for precedence in the twelfth century."28
So the real Abelard was more nuanced than the standard textbook portrayal suggests. But the "moral influence theory" as it came to be understood—especially in the hands of later thinkers like Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Bushnell, and Rashdall in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—stripped away these objective elements and presented the cross as primarily (or exclusively) a subjective demonstration of love.29
In its developed form, the moral influence theory works like this: Human beings are alienated from God, not primarily because of a legal problem (guilt, penalty, broken law) or a cosmic problem (bondage to Satan and the powers), but because of an attitudinal problem. We do not love God. We do not trust Him. We are suspicious of His intentions and resistant to His will. What we need, therefore, is not a legal verdict of acquittal or a cosmic rescue operation but a powerful demonstration of love that will change our hearts.
The cross provides exactly that. When we see Christ dying for us—the innocent suffering for the guilty, love pouring itself out without limit—something happens inside us. Our hard hearts are softened. Our resistance crumbles. We are drawn to the God who loved us this much, and we begin to love Him in return. The atonement, in this view, changes nothing in God; rather, repentance and faith—awakened by the moral influence of the cross—change God's disposition toward us.30
As Allen describes it, the moral influence theory "attributes no objective aspect to the work of Christ on the cross such as substitution, propitiation, expiation, etc. Rather, the cross moves people to a better knowledge of God and to an appreciation of His love that breaks down human opposition to God and leads to a change of heart toward God and toward sin."31
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, this approach gained enormous popularity. The intellectual currents of the age—Enlightenment rationalism, Romantic emphasis on feeling and experience, and growing discomfort with the idea of divine retributive justice—made the moral influence model deeply attractive to many theologians. Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, Horace Bushnell in America, and Hastings Rashdall and F. D. Maurice in England all developed variations on this theme.29 What united them was a shared conviction that the atonement should be understood primarily in subjective terms—as something that changes us rather than something that changes God's relationship to us. The objective, substitutionary, penal dimensions of the cross were downplayed or discarded entirely.
It is no accident that this theory flourished during the same period that saw the rise of theological liberalism. Once divine retributive justice was denied—once God's holiness and wrath against sin were softened into mere benevolence—the objective dimension of the atonement became unnecessary. If there is no penalty to be paid, no justice to be satisfied, no wrath to be absorbed, then the cross needs only to show us something, not do something. And the subjective theory was ready-made for this theological environment.
Let me be fair to this model before I critique it. There are real strengths here. The cross is a demonstration of God's love—the most powerful demonstration imaginable. Romans 5:8 says exactly that. The cross does break down human resistance and draw sinners to God. Jesus Himself said, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32). The cross does provide an example of self-giving love that transforms how believers live (1 Peter 2:21). And the moral influence tradition rightly emphasizes that the atonement is not merely an abstract theological mechanism but something that touches the heart and transforms the life. I find great value in this emphasis, and I think any account of the atonement that ignores the subjective dimension—the way the cross changes us—is seriously deficient.
What the Moral Influence Theory Gets Right: The cross IS a demonstration of divine love (Romans 5:8). It DOES transform those who contemplate it (1 Peter 2:21). It DOES break down human resistance and draw sinners to God (John 12:32). These truths are not optional add-ons but essential aspects of the atonement.
But the weaknesses of this model, when it stands alone, are severe. Let me name four of them.
First, if the cross is only a demonstration of love, why was it necessary? Could God not have demonstrated His love in a less violent way? Why the agony of crucifixion? Why the shedding of blood? If the only purpose of the cross was to show us how much God loves us, then surely an omnipotent God could have found a less horrific means of communication. The fact that Christ had to die—that no other path was available—points to something deeper than mere demonstration. It points to a real, objective problem that only the cross could solve.32
Second, the moral influence theory empties the cross of its objective content. If the cross changes nothing in God's relationship to sin—if it merely changes how we feel about God—then the subjective response has no objective ground to stand on. As Kevin Vanhoozer incisively puts it: "If the cross saves merely by manifesting some universal truth—'God is on the side of the victims'; 'God forgives us no matter what'—then it does not really change anything, except for our ignorance of the principle."33 The demonstration of love is compelling precisely because it demonstrates love that actually does something—that actually accomplishes redemption, pays the penalty, defeats the powers. Remove the objective accomplishment, and the demonstration loses its power.
Third, the moral influence theory cannot explain what happens to sin. If Christ did not bear the penalty for sin, if He did not make propitiation, if He did not satisfy divine justice—then how are sins forgiven? The theory offers no answer. It simply says that God forgives when we repent, and the cross inspires repentance. But this raises a deeper question: On what basis does God forgive? If sin is a real offense against a holy God, and if God's justice is real, then forgiveness requires a just basis. The moral influence theory provides none.
Fourth, as W. T. Conner memorably stated, "The Cross cannot be my example unless it is first my redemption."34 The subjective power of the cross depends on the objective reality of what was accomplished there. I am moved by the cross not simply because it is a dramatic display of selflessness but because I know that it is my sin that was dealt with there, my penalty that was borne, my liberation that was secured. Take away the objective content, and the subjective response collapses.
This is why the moral influence of the cross is best understood as a result of the atonement, not the mechanism of the atonement. Because Christ actually bore our sins, because He truly satisfied divine justice, because He genuinely defeated the powers of evil—because all of this is true—the cross becomes the supreme demonstration of divine love. The demonstration is powerful precisely because the accomplishment is real. As John Stott argued with characteristic clarity, the cross demonstrates love because it is the place where God Himself, in the person of His Son, bore the cost of our redemption. The subjective flows from the objective, not the other way around.35
A word should be said about the distinction between the moral influence theory and the closely related "example" theory. Though the two overlap, the example theory is a weaker version. In the example theory, the cross serves as nothing more than a moral example of how we should live—self-sacrificially, courageously, obediently. There is no focus on the drawing power of God's love, no transformative encounter with divine grace. Jesus becomes, in effect, an elevated martyr whose death we are meant to emulate.36
The example theory is even more deficient than the moral influence theory because it strips the cross of any unique theological significance. Lots of people have died heroically. Lots of people have sacrificed themselves for others. If the cross is merely an example, what makes it different from any other act of martyrdom? The answer, of course, is that the cross is different because of who died and why. The Son of God died as a substitutionary sacrifice for human sin. That is what makes the example meaningful.
The governmental theory of the atonement was articulated by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) in his work The Satisfaction of Christ (De Satisfactione Christi). Grotius was responding to the Socinian attack on penal substitution—Faustus Socinus had argued that the very idea of transferring punishment from the guilty to the innocent was unjust and incoherent. Grotius wanted to defend the objectivity of the atonement against the Socinian critique while also offering what he considered a more carefully reasoned account of how Christ's death relates to divine justice.37
Grotius's central idea was that God should be understood not primarily as an offended party (Anselm) or a creditor or even a judge, but as the Supreme Moral Governor of the universe. As Stott summarizes: "He saw God neither as the offended party nor as creditor nor even as judge, but as the Supreme Moral Governor of the world."38 God's primary concern, in this framework, is the maintenance of the moral order—the system of justice and law that makes society and the cosmos function properly. Sin is a threat to this moral order because it violates the laws on which the universe depends. If sin goes unpunished, the moral order collapses and chaos ensues.
Christ's death, in Grotius's view, serves as a public demonstration that God takes sin seriously. The cross is not the exact punishment that sinners deserve (as in strict penal substitution) but rather a "distinguished example" of God's serious displeasure with sin—a demonstration sufficiently weighty to uphold the moral order and deter future sin, while also allowing God in His love to extend forgiveness to those who repent. The cross vindicates the justice of God's rule so that He can pardon sinners without undermining the moral fabric of the universe.39
The Governmental Theory in a Nutshell: Christ's death demonstrates God's commitment to upholding the moral order of the universe. It shows that God takes sin seriously, vindicates His justice as Ruler, and thereby provides a just basis for extending mercy to sinners. The cross upholds public justice rather than retributive justice in the strict sense.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the governmental theory is that its standard interpretation in textbooks may be seriously misleading. Allen provides an important corrective here, drawing on the work of Garry Williams. Williams demonstrated that "contrary to many, Grotius did not think that punishment arises from the exigencies of divine governance rather than from the nature of God Himself. Grotius stands solidly with the Reformers in the belief that Jesus bore the very punishment deserved by all sinners."40
This is a remarkable finding. Williams showed that in Grotius's own text, the language of penalty, punishment, and substitution is clearly present. Grotius wrote that "God was moved by his own goodness to bestow considerable blessings upon us, but our sins, which deserved punishment, were an obstacle to this; so he decided that Christ, willingly and because of his love for mankind, should pay the penalty for our sins by undergoing the most severe tortures and a bloody and disgraceful death."41 Williams's conclusion is straightforward: "Grotius plainly set out here to defend the Penal doctrine, and he remains faithful to his purpose throughout the work."42
So the governmental theory, as Grotius himself articulated it, was not the clean departure from penal substitution that many textbooks assume. It was more of an additional emphasis—a stress on the public, governmental dimension of what Christ accomplished—layered on top of a fundamentally penal framework. Allen summarizes: "The tradition of reading his doctrine of the atonement as a departure from the Protestant inheritance is thus only reliable at two points of comparison—in his isolation of the doctrine of the atonement, and in his increased emphasis on the conception of God as Ruler."43
Williams further argues that Grotius "does indeed hold the doctrine of both the Fathers and the Reformers, and that he neither proposes a new Governmental Theory in which law dominates theology, nor separates law and theology."44 This is an important corrective. If Williams is right, then Grotius has been misread for centuries, and the "governmental theory" as it is usually presented in theology textbooks is more of a later development by Grotius's followers than an accurate representation of Grotius's own position.
Whether or not Grotius himself intended to depart from penal substitution, later theologians certainly took his emphasis on divine governance in a new direction. Several twentieth-century thinkers built on Grotius's vision of God as "the moral governor of the world." P. T. Forsyth spoke of "this cosmic order of holiness" and argued that "God's moral order demands atonement wherever moral ideas are taken with final seriousness."45 Emil Brunner made a powerful statement of the inviolability of the moral order, arguing that "the law of his divine Being, on which all the law and order in the world is based," demands a divine response to sin—without which "there would be no seriousness in the world at all; there would be no meaning in anything, no order, no stability."46
The governmental theory also gained a significant following in the Wesleyan tradition, though it is important to note—as Allen points out—that the common claim that "Wesleyan theology generally rejects a penal substitutionary view of the atonement in favor of Grotius's so-called 'Governmental' theory" is largely false. "A cursory look at Wesleyan systematic theologians reveals that the majority of them have affirmed some form of substitutionary atonement, often penal substitution." John Wesley himself held to penal substitution.47
The governmental theory has real strengths. First, it rightly emphasizes the public and corporate dimension of the atonement. The cross is not merely a private transaction between God and individual sinners; it is a cosmic declaration about the nature of justice, the seriousness of sin, and the character of God's rule. This is genuinely biblical. Romans 3:25–26 says that God put Christ forward as a propitiation "to show his righteousness" and to demonstrate that He is "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." The cross is indeed a public demonstration of God's justice.
Second, the governmental theory helps answer the question of why the cross was necessary if God could simply forgive. It reminds us that forgiveness without a just basis would undermine the moral order of the universe. God cannot simply wave His hand and pretend that sin does not matter. His forgiveness must be grounded in something real—a public vindication of justice—or the entire moral structure of creation collapses.
Third, the emphasis on God as Ruler connects to important biblical themes about the kingdom of God, divine sovereignty, and the cosmic scope of Christ's work.
But there are weaknesses too. First, in its later, non-Grotian forms, the governmental theory tends to weaken the substitutionary element. If Christ's death is merely a "demonstration" rather than the actual bearing of our penalty, then the connection between Christ's suffering and our forgiveness becomes unclear. Why was this particular demonstration necessary? Why the incarnation? Why the crucifixion? A demonstration could theoretically take many forms; only if Christ is actually bearing the penalty for sin does the specific form of the cross become intelligible.
Second, the governmental theory in its weaker forms risks reducing the cross to a utilitarian calculation—God chose the most effective deterrent. But the cross is not primarily about deterrence. It is about dealing with sin, satisfying justice, and reconciling sinners to God. The deterrent effect is real but secondary.
Third, the sharp distinction between "public justice" and "retributive justice" is hard to sustain exegetically. The Bible does not separate these categories as neatly as the governmental theory requires. God is not merely a ruler who upholds public order; He is a Judge who renders verdicts and a Holy One whose very nature cannot tolerate sin. The retributive dimension is not optional.
We have now surveyed four atonement models, each with its own strengths and limitations. How do they all fit together? And how does each relate to penal substitution?
I want to suggest that each model captures a genuine aspect of the cross, but each is incomplete without the penal substitutionary center. Here is how I see the relationships:
Ransom theory tells us that Christ's death was a costly deliverance from bondage. It rightly emphasizes the price paid and the liberation achieved. But it does not explain how the ransom works or why Christ's death is the price of freedom. Penal substitution provides the answer: Christ's death is the ransom price because it is the bearing of the penalty for sin. The "record of debt" is cancelled (Colossians 2:14), and therefore the powers have no further claim on those who are in Christ. The ransom is effective because the penalty has been paid.
This connection is beautifully illustrated in Colossians 2:13–15, a passage we discussed at length in Chapter 9. In verse 14, Paul says that God "cancelled the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross." That is penal substitution—the legal debt of our sin was nailed to the cross. But then in verse 15, Paul immediately adds: "He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him." That is Christus Victor and ransom. The two themes are not competing; they are cause and effect. It is because the record of debt was cancelled (penal substitution) that the powers were disarmed (ransom/victory). The ransom price is the satisfaction of justice.
Satisfaction theory tells us that the atonement addresses a real problem in God's own nature—that sin cannot be ignored but must receive a fitting response. Anselm was right about this. But his focus on "honor" was too narrow. Penal substitution sharpens the insight: what needs satisfaction is not merely God's honor but His justice. And the satisfaction comes not through the offer of a compensating good but through the bearing of the actual penalty for sin. When Paul writes in Romans 3:25–26 that God put Christ forward as a propitiation "to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins... so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus," he is describing a satisfaction of divine justice—not merely of divine honor. The propitiation (as argued in Chapter 8) is the means by which God's justice is satisfied and sinners are justified.
Moral influence theory tells us that the cross is a demonstration of divine love that transforms those who contemplate it. This is true and important. But the demonstration is powerful precisely because the accomplishment is real. The cross demonstrates love because it is the place where God Himself bore the cost of our redemption. Without the objective work of penal substitution—without the actual bearing of sin's penalty—the demonstration of love is emptied of its content. As Vanhoozer says, once we grasp the principle, "the particular story and the events it relates are dispensable."48 But the story is not dispensable, because it is not merely illustrating a principle. It is accomplishing a salvation.
Consider the flow of Paul's argument in Romans 5:6–11. Paul begins with the objective fact: "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (v. 6). Then he moves to the demonstration: "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (v. 8). And then he draws the theological conclusion: "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God" (v. 9). Notice the order. The objective accomplishment (Christ died for the ungodly) comes first. The demonstration of love (God shows His love) flows from it. And the result—justification, salvation from wrath—depends on the objective reality, not merely on the subjective impression. This is exactly the pattern I am arguing for: the moral influence of the cross is real, but it is grounded in the objective, substitutionary work of Christ.
Governmental theory tells us that the cross is a public vindication of God's justice that upholds the moral order of the universe. This too is genuinely biblical (Romans 3:25–26). But the public vindication works precisely because something real is happening at the cross—the actual penalty for sin is being borne by the divine substitute. The demonstration of justice is not a theatrical performance; it is the outward face of a real, objective, substitutionary transaction. God does not merely show that He takes sin seriously; He actually deals with sin—bearing its penalty in the person of His Son so that sinners can be forgiven on a just basis.
The Integration: Each model contributes a genuine insight: ransom (costly deliverance), satisfaction (response to God's nature), moral influence (transformative love), and governmental (public vindication of justice). But each finds its explanatory power and theological coherence when penal substitution stands at the center, providing the mechanism that makes the ransom effective, the satisfaction complete, the love demonstrably real, and the vindication of justice authentic.
This is perhaps the most common misunderstanding in atonement theology. Many treatments present the various models as mutually exclusive options, as if we must pick one and reject the others. But this is a false choice. The cross is too rich, too multi-dimensional, too inexhaustible to be captured by any single model. What we need is not a single theory but an integrated vision in which multiple models work together, each illuminating a different facet of the same brilliant reality.
As we will argue more fully in Chapter 24, the best approach is to recognize penal substitution as the central facet around which the other models are arranged as complementary dimensions. We do not have to choose between ransom and satisfaction, between moral influence and governmental theory. We can—and should—affirm them all, while recognizing that they find their coherence and explanatory power when the penal substitutionary center holds them together.
This claim is frequently made, especially by advocates of the ransom/Christus Victor model. Aulén himself argued that the "classic" (ransom/Christus Victor) view was the true patristic consensus and that penal substitution was a Reformation novelty.49 But as we demonstrated in Chapters 14 and 15, this claim does not survive careful examination of the primary sources. The church fathers—both Eastern and Western—used substantial penal and substitutionary language, even if they did not formulate a systematic doctrine of "penal substitutionary atonement" in the way the Reformers later did. The patristic evidence, as Fr. Joshua Schooping has shown from within the Orthodox tradition, reveals that substitutionary and penal themes are woven throughout the fabric of patristic theology.50
Furthermore, the ransom model itself was not a monolithic "theory" in the early church. As Allen notes, the fathers combined ideas of ransom, victory, satisfaction, and moral influence in various ways without feeling the need to choose between them. The systematization into distinct, competing "theories" is itself a modern phenomenon.51
This claim has gained considerable traction in recent decades, especially among progressive theologians who find the idea of substitutionary punishment morally objectionable. But as we have seen, the moral influence theory by itself cannot explain the necessity of the cross, the mechanism of forgiveness, or the basis on which God justly pardons sinners. A cross that merely demonstrates love without accomplishing redemption is ultimately neither good news nor good theology.
Moreover, the charge that penal substitution is inherently "violent" rests on a caricature—the "cosmic child abuse" accusation that we addressed at length in Chapter 20. When penal substitution is properly understood within a Trinitarian framework—as the self-substitution of the loving God, in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit act in unified love—it is not a story of violence imposed by an angry deity on an unwilling victim. It is the story of God's own costly, self-giving love.
We have covered a lot of ground in this chapter. Let me draw the threads together.
The ransom theory reminds us that Christ's death was a costly act of deliverance, that we were truly in bondage, and that our freedom came at an unimaginable price. The satisfaction theory reminds us that the cross addresses a real problem rooted in the very character of God—that sin cannot simply be swept under the rug but demands a response befitting God's nature. The moral influence theory reminds us that the cross is the supreme demonstration of divine love and that it transforms everyone who encounters it. The governmental theory reminds us that the cross is a public vindication of God's justice, upholding the moral order on which the entire universe depends.
Each of these insights is genuinely biblical. Each captures something real about what happened at Calvary. But none of them, standing alone, can bear the full weight of the atonement. The ransom model without penal substitution cannot explain how the ransom works. The satisfaction model without penal substitution cannot specify what is being satisfied. The moral influence model without penal substitution cannot ground the why of the cross. The governmental model without penal substitution cannot explain what actually happened at the cross that vindicates God's justice.
Only when penal substitution stands at the center—the understanding that Christ, our divine substitute, voluntarily bore the judicial consequences of human sin in an act of unified Trinitarian love—do all the other models find their proper place and their full explanatory power. The cross is the ransom price because the penalty is paid. The cross satisfies God's nature because justice is met. The cross demonstrates love because something real and infinitely costly was accomplished. The cross vindicates God's rule because sin was genuinely and publicly dealt with.
I want to stress one more time that this integration is not forced or artificial. It emerges naturally from the biblical text itself. The New Testament writers did not feel the need to choose between ransom and substitution, between demonstration of love and satisfaction of justice, between cosmic victory and legal forgiveness. They held all of these themes together—because they all describe different dimensions of the same event. The cross is one event, but it is an event of infinite depth and meaning. Every time we look at it from a new angle, we see something new. And every new facet we discover makes the whole picture more beautiful.
In the next chapter, we will turn to one more important set of atonement themes: recapitulation (the Irenaean idea that Christ "sums up" all of human experience), theosis (the Eastern Orthodox emphasis on deification and participation in the divine nature), and the broader Eastern Orthodox contribution to atonement theology (Chapter 23). Then, in Chapter 24, we will bring all of the models together in a comprehensive integration—the full picture of the multi-faceted atonement with penal substitution at the center.
For now, let us simply marvel at the richness of what God accomplished at the cross. It is a ransom that sets captives free. It is a satisfaction that honors God's nature. It is a demonstration of love that melts the hardest heart. It is a vindication of justice that upholds the moral order of the universe. And at its heart, it is the self-substitution of the loving God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit acting in perfect unity to bear the cost of our salvation. This is the multi-faceted glory of the cross. We begin to see what Paul meant when he prayed that we might "have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge" (Ephesians 3:18–19).
The cross surpasses our knowledge. But it does not surpass our wonder.
1 Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, trans. A. G. Hebert (New York: Macmillan, 1931), 1–7. Aulén calls this the "classic" theory precisely because it dominated the first thousand years of the church. ↩
2 Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 11–64. Morris provides a thorough treatment of the lytron word group and its significance for atonement theology. ↩
3 David L. Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019), 18–21. Allen discusses the significance of the anti and hyper prepositions in atonement contexts. ↩
4 Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 512–516. Rutledge traces the Old Testament background of the redemption/ransom terminology. ↩
5 Aulén, Christus Victor, 20–23. ↩
6 Vee Chandler, Victorious Substitution: Exploring the Nature of Salvation and Christ's Atoning Work (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2025), chap. 4, "Ransom Theory," under "Irenaeus and the Fathers." ↩
7 Chandler, Victorious Substitution, chap. 4, "Ransom Theory," under "Irenaeus and the Fathers." Chandler emphasizes that Irenaeus viewed God as dealing justly even with Satan, redeeming humanity not by violence but by self-offering. ↩
8 John R. W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 114. Stott notes that this was "a very popular belief in the early centuries of the church." ↩
9 Stott, The Cross of Christ, 114–115. ↩
10 Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism 24. See the discussion in Stott, The Cross of Christ, 114–115. ↩
11 Stott, The Cross of Christ, 115. Stott notes Peter Lombard's use of the mousetrap imagery. ↩
12 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 45.22. Gregory's sharp rhetorical challenge to the ransom-to-Satan theory was influential in the patristic period. See also William Lane Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020), chap. 6, "Patristic Theories of the Atonement," under "The Ransom Theory." ↩
13 Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 521–523. Rutledge argues that the basic idea in ransom and redemption is not the identity of the payee but the incomparable costliness and value of the price paid. ↩
14 Chandler, Victorious Substitution, chap. 4, "Ransom Theory," under "The 'Classic' Idea of the Atonement." ↩
15 Chandler, Victorious Substitution, chap. 4, "Ransom Theory," under "Reasons for the Neglect of the Classic View." ↩
16 Chandler, Victorious Substitution, chap. 4, "Ransom Theory," under "Irenaeus and the Fathers." Chandler emphasizes that in the classic view, God is the active agent of atonement from beginning to end. ↩
17 Stott, The Cross of Christ, 115. ↩
18 Allen, The Atonement, 248. ↩
19 Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo 2.6. See the discussion in Allen, The Atonement, 248–249. ↩
20 Allen, The Atonement, 249. Allen notes that Anselm broke with the ransom-to-Satan concept and maintained that the debt was paid to God via a substitutionary sacrifice. ↩
21 Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ, chap. 7, "Medieval Theories of the Atonement," under "Anselm's Theory of Satisfaction." Craig distinguishes between satisfaction as the offer of a compensating good (Anselm) and satisfaction as the bearing of penalty (penal substitution). ↩
22 Allen, The Atonement, 248. Allen is quoting Anselm scholarship that emphasizes this often-overlooked point. ↩
23 Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 250. Rutledge summarizes the common understanding shared by Anselm and the church fathers. ↩
24 Allen, The Atonement, 250. Allen cites Jeffrey Pugh's assessment of Anselm's historical-theological location. ↩
25 Allen, The Atonement, 249. Allen notes that "the NT does not speak of merit in connection with the atonement." ↩
26 Stott, The Cross of Christ, 121. Stott notes that Abelard "emphasized the subjective moral influence which the cross has on believers." ↩
27 Allen, The Atonement, 250–251. Allen notes that recent scholarship shows Abelard was not purely exemplarist. ↩
28 Caroline Walker Bynum, cited in Allen, The Atonement, 251. ↩
29 Allen, The Atonement, 260–261. Allen traces the development of the moral influence theory through Kant, Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Bushnell, and Rashdall. ↩
30 Allen, The Atonement, 261. ↩
31 Allen, The Atonement, 261. ↩
32 Stott, The Cross of Christ, 212–217. Stott's extended discussion of the inadequacy of purely subjective theories addresses this question directly. See also Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ, chap. 14, "The Moral Influence of Christ's Passion," under "Evaluation of the Moral Influence Theory." ↩
33 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, cited in Allen, The Atonement, 263. ↩
34 W. T. Conner, cited in Allen, The Atonement, 263. ↩
35 Stott, The Cross of Christ, 218–222. Stott argues throughout Part II that the objective accomplishment of the cross is the ground from which its subjective effects flow. ↩
36 Allen, The Atonement, 262–263. Allen distinguishes between the moral influence theory and the weaker "example" theory and notes Conner's critique of the latter. ↩
37 Allen, The Atonement, 257. ↩
38 Stott, The Cross of Christ, 122. ↩
39 Stott, The Cross of Christ, 122–123. Stott summarizes Grotius's governmental interpretation and his concern for the public vindication of God's justice. ↩
40 Allen, The Atonement, 258. Allen draws on the work of Garry Williams to correct the standard reading of Grotius. ↩
41 Hugo Grotius, A Defence of the Catholic Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ (De Satisfactione Christi) 1.2, 90/91, cited in Allen, The Atonement, 258. ↩
42 Garry Williams, cited in Allen, The Atonement, 259. ↩
43 Allen, The Atonement, 259. ↩
44 Garry Williams, cited in Allen, The Atonement, 259–260. ↩
45 P. T. Forsyth, cited in Stott, The Cross of Christ, 123. ↩
46 Emil Brunner, The Mediator, cited in Stott, The Cross of Christ, 123. ↩
47 Allen, The Atonement, 264. Allen corrects the common assumption about Wesleyan theology and the governmental theory. ↩
48 Vanhoozer, cited in Allen, The Atonement, 263. ↩
49 Aulén, Christus Victor, 143–159. Aulén's thesis that penal substitution was a Reformation innovation has been significantly challenged by subsequent scholarship. ↩
50 Fr. Joshua Schooping, An Existential Soteriology: Penal Substitutionary Atonement in Light of the Mystical Theology of the Church Fathers (Olyphant, PA: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020), chap. 6, "The Patristic Witness." Schooping demonstrates from within the Eastern Orthodox tradition that penal and substitutionary language is pervasive in the church fathers. ↩
51 Allen, The Atonement, 242–243. Allen notes that the patristic fathers held multiple atonement themes together without systematizing them into competing theories. ↩
52 Allen, The Atonement, 251. Allen notes that Peter Lombard, according to Bynum, agreed with Anselm regarding satisfaction but viewed it as penal substitution. ↩
53 Allen, The Atonement, 251. Allen notes that Aquinas spoke of the atonement as a satisfaction, an example, and a victory over Satan, though he did not integrate these themes into a unified theory. ↩
Allen, David L. The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019.
Anselm of Canterbury. Cur Deus Homo. In Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, edited by Brian Davies and G. R. Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Aulén, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. Translated by A. G. Hebert. New York: Macmillan, 1931.
Chandler, Vee. Victorious Substitution: Exploring the Nature of Salvation and Christ's Atoning Work. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2025.
Craig, William Lane. Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 45. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 7. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Gregory of Nyssa. The Great Catechism. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 5. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Grotius, Hugo. A Defence of the Catholic Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ (De Satisfactione Christi). 1617.
Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.
Rutledge, Fleming. The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.
Schooping, Fr. Joshua. An Existential Soteriology: Penal Substitutionary Atonement in Light of the Mystical Theology of the Church Fathers. Olyphant, PA: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020.
Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.