Chapter 36

The Atonement Applied — Justification, Reconciliation, and Redemption

Introduction: From Accomplishment to Application

We have spent many chapters now examining what Christ accomplished on the cross. We have looked at the biblical vocabulary for the atonement, traced the Old Testament foundations, studied the New Testament witness in depth, surveyed the historical development of atonement theology from the Church Fathers through the modern era, examined and defended penal substitutionary atonement as the central facet of the cross, engaged the major philosophical objections, and responded to critics both ancient and contemporary. But one absolutely vital question remains: What difference does the cross actually make? What are the concrete results of what Christ has done?

This is the question of the atonement applied. And it is not a secondary question at all. If Christ's death on the cross was the most important event in the history of the cosmos — and I believe it was — then the benefits that flow from it represent the most important gifts any human being can receive. These benefits are not abstract theological categories to be filed away in some mental cabinet. They are living realities that transform every dimension of our existence, from our legal standing before God, to our personal relationship with him, to our freedom from bondage, to our very identity as members of his family.

The New Testament uses a breathtaking array of images to describe what the cross has accomplished for those who trust in Christ. John Stott rightly observed that "several pictures are needed to portray" the richly diverse blessings of salvation. He noted that the images of salvation are drawn from very different spheres of life: "propitiation introduces us to rituals at a shrine, redemption to transactions in a marketplace, justification to proceedings in a court of law, and reconciliation to experiences in a home or family."¹ These images are not competing explanations but complementary portraits of a single, magnificent reality. And as I have argued throughout this book, the foundational logic that holds all of these portraits together is penal substitutionary atonement. Because Christ bore the penalty of our sin in our place, the legal barrier is removed, the debt is paid, the wrath is satisfied, the relationship is restored, and the way is opened for every other saving benefit to flow to us.

The thesis of this chapter is straightforward: the atonement, objectively accomplished in Christ's death, produces a constellation of saving benefits — justification, reconciliation, redemption, propitiation, adoption, sanctification, and new creation — that together describe the full scope of what Christ has won for those who trust in him. Each of these benefits is grounded in the objective work of the cross, and penal substitutionary atonement provides the central mechanism by which these benefits are secured and applied.

We will examine each of these benefits in turn, paying careful attention to the key Greek terms, the major biblical passages, and the way each benefit connects back to the substitutionary and penal dimensions of the cross. Along the way, we will also address the question of how these benefits are appropriated — that is, how they become ours personally through faith in Christ.

I. Justification: The Courtroom Verdict

We begin with justification, and we begin here for a reason. Of all the benefits that flow from the atonement, justification is arguably the one most directly connected to penal substitutionary atonement. If PSA is about Christ bearing the judicial penalty for our sin, then justification is the judicial verdict that results: the sinner is declared righteous before God.

The Meaning of Justification

The Greek word for justification is dikaiōsis (δικαίωσις), and the verb "to justify" is dikaioō (δικαιόω). These words belong to the dik- word group, which is thoroughly legal in its orientation. As we explored in Chapter 2, this family of terms — including dikē (δίκη, justice), dikaios (δίκαιος, righteous or just), and dikaiosynē (δικαιοσύνη, righteousness or justice) — draws us into the world of the courtroom.² To "justify" someone, in the biblical sense, is not to make them righteous in the sense of transforming their character. It is to declare them righteous — to pronounce them "not guilty," to render a favorable verdict. Justification is the opposite of condemnation (Romans 5:18; 8:34), and both are verdicts rendered by a judge.³

This is a crucial distinction, and one that the sixteenth-century Reformers labored to recover. Martin Luther called justification "the principal article of all Christian doctrine," the doctrine that "makes true Christians indeed."⁴ And he was right to insist that justification is fundamentally a forensic act — a legal declaration — rather than a process of moral transformation. The justified person is declared righteous, not yet made fully righteous in character. That process of character transformation is sanctification, and we will discuss it later in this chapter. But the two must not be confused, even though they are inseparable in the actual experience of the believer.

The Ground of Justification: Christ's Atoning Work

What gives God the right to declare guilty sinners righteous? Doesn't such a declaration amount to a legal fiction — a cosmic pretense that things are other than they are? This was precisely the charge leveled by critics of the Reformation doctrine, and it remains a common objection today.

The answer lies in the cross. God does not simply overlook sin or wave a magic wand of forgiveness. Rather, the penalty for sin has been genuinely borne — borne by Christ in our place. This is where penal substitutionary atonement bears its most direct soteriological fruit. Paul states the logic with crystalline clarity in Romans 3:24–26, the passage we examined in depth in Chapter 8:

"...and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:24–26, ESV)

Notice the stunning phrase: God is both "just and the justifier." That is, God does not compromise his justice in order to justify sinners. He does not sweep sin under the rug. Rather, he has dealt with sin decisively and completely through the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. Because the penalty has been borne, God can now declare the believing sinner righteous without any violation of his own righteous character. As Allen puts it, the atonement is "a full and final provision for the sin problem because by means of the atonement, the demands of the divine law have been fulfilled."⁵

This is the logic of PSA working itself out in the doctrine of justification. Christ bore the penalty; therefore God can justly pardon. Craig has explored this connection at length, arguing that divine forgiveness functions much like a legal pardon issued by a head of state. A pardon does not pretend the crime never happened. It removes the criminal's liability to punishment while preserving the integrity of the justice system — because the demands of justice have been otherwise satisfied. In Craig's words, divine pardon "removes our liability to punishment and thus obviates the demands of retributive justice upon us: the just desert of our sins is gone."⁶ God's forgiveness is thus not a sentimental overlooking of sin but a righteous act grounded in the sufficient sacrifice of his Son.

Imputed Righteousness

But justification involves more than the forgiveness of sins. It also involves the positive crediting of righteousness to the believer's account. This is the doctrine of imputation, and it rests on one of the most remarkable verses in all of Scripture:

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

This verse, as we discussed in Chapter 9, describes a breathtaking exchange. Our sin was imputed — credited, reckoned — to Christ, who had no sin of his own. And his righteousness is imputed to us, who have no righteousness of our own. This is not a legal fiction; it is a legal transaction grounded in the real union between Christ and his people. Because we are "in him" (the crucial Pauline phrase), what is his becomes ours, and what was ours — our guilt, our penalty, our condemnation — was laid upon him.⁷

James Denney did not exaggerate when he wrote that this verse is "the key to the whole of the New Testament."⁸ And Christians across the centuries have marveled at this exchange. The second-century Epistle to Diognetus exclaimed: "O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! ... that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single Righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors."⁹ Luther wrote to a troubled monk: "Lord Jesus, you are my righteousness, I am your sin. You took on you what was mine; yet set on me what was yours. You became what you were not, that I might become what I was not."¹⁰

The connection to PSA is direct. Why was Christ "made to be sin"? Because he bore the penalty for our sin on the cross. Why can we "become the righteousness of God"? Because the penalty has been fully discharged, and Christ's righteous standing is credited to all who are united to him by faith. Remove the penal dimension, and this exchange loses its logical foundation.

Justification by Faith Alone

How does this justification become ours? The consistent New Testament answer is: through faith. "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28). "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8–9).

Faith is not another "work" that earns justification. It is simply the hand that receives the gift, the eye that looks to Christ, the mouth that drinks the water of life. As Stott memorably put it, "the more clearly we see the absolute adequacy of Jesus Christ's divine-human person and sin-bearing death, the more incongruous does it appear that anybody could suppose that we have anything to offer."¹¹ The entire thrust of justification by faith is to direct our attention away from ourselves and toward the finished work of Christ on the cross.

Craig has explored how the appropriation of a divine pardon works in analogy with the acceptance of a legal pardon. In American jurisprudence, a presidential pardon must generally be accepted by the recipient in order to take effect. In the same way, God's pardon, though objectively secured through Christ's death, must be personally received through faith.¹² This does not mean faith is a meritorious act. It means that God, in his wisdom, has chosen faith as the instrument by which the benefits of the atonement are personally applied. And as we argued in Chapter 29, this faith is itself a gift of God's grace, enabled by the Holy Spirit, not manufactured by human willpower.

We should also note that justification by faith is not a Pauline invention, even though Paul gives it its fullest theological articulation. The concept goes all the way back to the Old Testament, where Abraham "believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6) — a text Paul cites extensively in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. It runs through the Psalms, where David speaks of the blessedness of the one whose transgression is forgiven and whose sin is covered (Psalm 32:1–2). It appears in the prophets, where God's righteous Servant will "justify many" because "he shall bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:11). And it appears in the teaching of Jesus himself, who declared that the tax collector who cried out for mercy "went down to his house justified" rather than the Pharisee who boasted of his good works (Luke 18:14). The doctrine of justification by faith is woven into the very fabric of Scripture.³⁸

The Protestant-Catholic Debate

I should say a brief word here about the ongoing Protestant-Catholic conversation regarding justification, because it touches directly on the relationship between the atonement and its application. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) taught that justification occurs at baptism and includes both the forgiveness of sins and the infusion of new righteousness — so that justification and sanctification are, in the Catholic view, aspects of a single process. The Reformers, by contrast, insisted that justification is purely forensic — a legal declaration — and must be carefully distinguished from sanctification, which is the gradual process of moral transformation.

Hans Küng, the Roman Catholic theologian, made a remarkable attempt to bridge this divide in his study of Karl Barth's doctrine of justification. Küng acknowledged that justification "must be defined as a declaring just by court order" and strongly affirmed sola fide, that "man is justified by God on the basis of faith alone." He further stated that "justification through 'faith alone' bespeaks the complete incapacity and incompetence of man for any sort of self-justification."⁴⁴ These are remarkable statements for a Catholic theologian, and they suggest the possibility of greater convergence than is often assumed.

However, as Stott rightly cautioned, there remains a "dangerous ambiguity" in Küng's claim that God's declaration of justice simultaneously "makes just." Everything depends on what is meant by "making just." If it means that justification immediately gives us a new standing before God — forgiven, accepted, right with him — then this is simply what Protestants mean by justification. If it means that justification immediately makes us morally perfect in character, that is clearly false. And if it means that justification initiates the lifelong process of growing in holiness, then what is being described is not justification per se but sanctification — a related but distinct aspect of salvation.¹¹

I believe the Reformers were right to insist on the distinction between justification and sanctification, even while affirming that the two are inseparable in the believer's experience. Justification is instantaneous, complete, and admits of no degrees — you are either declared righteous or you are not. Sanctification is gradual, progressive, and will not be complete in this life. Conflating the two creates the danger of turning justification into a process that depends partly on our moral progress — which is precisely what the Reformers rightly rejected. The whole point of justification by faith is that our standing before God rests entirely on the finished work of Christ, not on our incomplete and faltering efforts at holiness.

II. Reconciliation: Coming Home

If justification takes us into the courtroom, reconciliation takes us home. Of all the images of salvation, reconciliation is probably the most warmly personal, because it describes the restoration of a broken relationship. We leave behind the legal terminology and enter the world of family and friendship — a world where estrangement gives way to embrace, where enemies become children, and where alienation is replaced by intimacy.

The Meaning of Reconciliation

The Greek word is katallagē (καταλλαγή), and the verb is katallassō (καταλλάσσω), meaning to restore to a right relationship, to bring together those who have been estranged. As we noted in Chapter 2, the English word "atonement" itself captures this idea beautifully: it is at-one-ment, the making of two parties "at one" again.¹³

The New Testament's great reconciliation passages are Romans 5:10–11, 2 Corinthians 5:18–21, Ephesians 2:11–22, and Colossians 1:19–22. Together they paint a magnificent picture of what God has done to restore the shattered relationship between himself and humanity — and, remarkably, between human beings and one another.

Who Needed to Be Reconciled?

A question that has generated significant discussion is whether reconciliation was needed only on our side (we needed to stop being hostile toward God) or on both sides (God's holy opposition to sin also constituted a real barrier). Some theologians have argued that since the New Testament always says God reconciled us to himself (never that Christ reconciled God to us), the barrier was entirely on the human side. But this argument, while linguistically accurate, is theologically misleading.

As Stott and others have rightly observed, the enmity was real on both sides. We were hostile toward God in our rebellion, and God was opposed to us in his holy wrath against our sin. Romans 5 makes this clear by placing "saved from God's wrath" (Romans 5:9) in immediate parallel with "we were God's enemies" and "we were reconciled to him" (Romans 5:10). If there were no divine opposition to sin — no wrath that needed to be turned aside — then there would be no need for the kind of costly reconciliation that the cross represents. Emil Brunner put it forcefully: "Reconciliation, real reconciliation, an objective act of reconciliation, presupposes enmity on both sides; that is, that man is the enemy of God and that God is the enemy of man."¹⁴

This is where propitiation and reconciliation intersect. We discussed propitiation at length in Chapter 8 (on Romans 3:21–26) and will summarize it briefly later in this chapter. But the key point here is that reconciliation presupposes that the barrier of divine wrath has been dealt with. God did not reconcile us to himself by pretending he was never offended by our sin. He reconciled us by bearing the cost of that offense himself, in the person of his Son, on the cross. As P. T. Forsyth expressed it with characteristic force, the reconciliation was "not a tentative, preliminary affair" but a "finished work."¹⁵

God as Author, Christ as Agent

The most detailed reconciliation passage in the New Testament is 2 Corinthians 5:18–21, and its central emphasis is that God is the author of the reconciliation. "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ" (v. 18). God took the initiative. He did not wait for us to come crawling back. He acted first, decisively and at infinite cost. Paul heaps up verbs with God as their subject: God reconciling, God giving the ministry of reconciliation, God making his appeal through the apostles, God making Christ to be sin for us. As Stott observes, "From first to last this has been the work of God."¹⁶

And the means of reconciliation is the cross. God "reconciled us to himself through Christ" (v. 18) and "was reconciling the world to himself in Christ" (v. 19). The reconciliation is both through Christ (he is the agent) and in Christ (God was personally present in the Son doing the reconciling). And the specific mechanism is stated in verse 21: the great exchange of 2 Corinthians 5:21, where Christ was "made sin" for us. Once again, we find PSA at the heart of the matter. The reconciliation is not achieved by a divine lecture on love, or by a moral example that inspires us to return. It is achieved by a substitutionary sacrifice that removes the barrier of sin and wrath.

But notice something else in this passage. Having accomplished the reconciliation objectively, God then entrusts to his people the ministry of reconciliation (v. 18) and the message of reconciliation (v. 19). "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God" (v. 20). There is a critical distinction here between the objective accomplishment and the subjective appropriation. The reconciliation has been achieved — past tense — through the cross. But it must now be received — through faith. God has done his part; he calls on us to accept what he has done. James Denney drew out this implication with characteristic force: "The work of reconciliation, in the sense of the New Testament, is a work which is finished, and which we must conceive to be finished, before the gospel is preached."¹⁵ The reconciliation is not in process; it is accomplished. What remains is for individual men and women to accept it — to respond to God's appeal and be reconciled to him.

This distinction between the objective and subjective dimensions of reconciliation has profound pastoral implications. It means that the gospel is not primarily an invitation for people to do something for God, but an announcement that God has already done something for them. We are not pleading with people to make their peace with God by their own efforts; we are telling them that God has made peace through the blood of the cross, and that this peace is available as a free gift to all who will receive it. The message of reconciliation is fundamentally good news — news about what has been done, not instructions about what must be earned.

The Horizontal Dimension

Reconciliation in the New Testament has a horizontal as well as a vertical dimension. Ephesians 2:11–22 describes how Christ's death has broken down "the dividing wall of hostility" (v. 14) between Jew and Gentile, creating "one new man" out of the two and thus "making peace" (v. 15). The same cross that reconciles us to God also reconciles us to one another. This has profound implications for the church as a reconciled and reconciling community — a point we will explore further in Chapter 37.

Paul even hints at a cosmic dimension of reconciliation in Colossians 1:19–20, where God was pleased "through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." The full scope of what "reconciling all things" means is debated — it likely includes the subjugation and pacification of the hostile spiritual powers, as described in Colossians 2:15 (explored in Chapter 21) — but the central point is clear: the reconciling power of the cross extends to the farthest reaches of the created order.¹⁷

III. Redemption: Set Free at a Price

With redemption, our imagery shifts again — from the courtroom (justification) and the home (reconciliation) to the slave market. To "redeem" is to buy back, to purchase freedom for someone held in bondage. And the emphasis of the redemption image falls on two things: the terrible bondage from which we needed rescue, and the staggering price that was paid to secure our release.

The Meaning of Redemption

The Greek words are apolytrōsis (ἀπολύτρωσις, redemption), lytron (λύτρον, ransom or price of release), antilytron (ἀντίλυτρον, a ransom paid in exchange), and lytroō (λυτρόω, to redeem). As we explored in Chapter 2, these terms were nearly technical vocabulary in the ancient world for the purchase or manumission of a slave.¹⁸ The word group carries what Leon Morris called an inescapable emphasis on the payment of a costly price. B. B. Warfield lamented that the word "redeem" was losing its force in modern usage and pleaded for the recovery of its original meaning: "A redemption without a price paid is as anomalous a transaction as a sale without money passing."¹⁹

In the Old Testament, property, animals, persons, and even the entire nation of Israel were "redeemed" by the payment of a price. The kinsman-redeemer (gō'ēl, גֹּאֵל) was a family member who had the right and duty to buy back land or persons that had been lost through debt or enslavement — a role beautifully illustrated by Boaz in the book of Ruth. The nation of Israel itself was "redeemed" from Egypt (Exodus 6:6; 15:13) and from Babylon (Isaiah 43:1; 44:22), and though in these cases the "price" was not a monetary payment, it involved — as Stott notes — "a great expenditure of the divine power" that was costly in the deepest sense.²⁰

From What Are We Redeemed?

When we enter the New Testament, the bondage from which we need redemption is moral and spiritual rather than merely physical. We are redeemed from our "transgressions" and "sins" (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14), from "the curse of the law" (Galatians 3:13; 4:5), and from "the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors" (1 Peter 1:18). Underlying all of these is the fundamental captivity that sin has imposed on the human race — a captivity to guilt, condemnation, and death itself.

And yet even our present experience of redemption is not the whole story. Paul speaks of a future "day of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30) when we will experience "the redemption of our bodies" (Romans 8:23). The entire groaning creation, he says, will one day "be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (Romans 8:21). Redemption thus has a past dimension (we have already been redeemed from guilt and condemnation), a present dimension (we are being set free from sin's power), and a future dimension (we will one day be completely liberated from every consequence of the fall).²¹

The Price of Redemption

What was the price? The New Testament is emphatic: it was the blood of Christ — that is, his sacrificial death on the cross. Peter puts it memorably:

"...knowing that 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, ESV)

And the foundational "ransom saying" of Jesus himself is recorded in Mark 10:45: "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 phrase lytron anti pollōn (λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν) uses the preposition anti (ἀντί), "in the place of," which makes the substitutionary dimension explicit. Christ gave his life in the place of the many. His death was the price that purchased our freedom.²²

The parallel expression in 1 Timothy 2:5–6 is even more emphatic: Christ Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for all" (antilytron hyper pantōn, ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων). Here both prepositions — anti (in the place of) and hyper (on behalf of) — are combined in the compound word antilytron, making the substitutionary and beneficiary dimensions doubly clear.

Redemption and PSA

Here is where redemption and penal substitutionary atonement come together beautifully. The "ransom" or "price" that Christ paid was not a payment to Satan (as some early Church Fathers speculated — see Chapter 22) but a satisfaction of the demands of divine justice. The metaphor is clear: we were held captive by sin, guilt, and the condemnation of God's law. The "price" of our release was the bearing of that condemnation by another — by Christ, who took the penalty upon himself so that we might go free.

As Craig has argued, "Talk of ransom is thus a metaphor for penal substitution. Atonement theories emphasizing redemption should thus not be seen as stand-alone theories but rather serve to highlight one aspect of a multifaceted atonement theory that has penal substitution at its center."²³ This is precisely the point I have been making throughout this book. The ransom/Christus Victor motif and the PSA motif are not competitors; they are complementary dimensions of a single, multifaceted atonement, with PSA providing the inner mechanism by which the ransom is paid and the victory is won.

There is a further implication of redemption that deserves mention. Because Christ has purchased us with his blood, we belong to him. Paul argues that since "you were bought at a price," we should "honor God with your body" (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23). Peter speaks with something like outrage about false teachers who deny "the sovereign Lord who bought them" (2 Peter 2:1). And in the heavenly throne room of Revelation 5, the redeemed community sings a new song to the Lamb: "for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation" (Revelation 5:9). Redemption is not only liberation; it is transfer of ownership. We have been set free from sin in order to belong to Christ — and his service, as Paul makes clear, is the truest freedom of all.²⁴

IV. Propitiation: The Satisfaction of Divine Justice

We examined propitiation in detail in Chapter 8, so we will summarize more briefly here. But it belongs in this chapter because it is one of the essential benefits — or more precisely, one of the essential achievements — of the atonement, without which none of the other benefits would be possible.

The Greek terms are hilasmos (ἱλασμός) and hilastērion (ἱλαστήριον), and the verb is hilaskomai (ἱλάσκομαι). As we argued in Chapter 8, against C. H. Dodd's famous attempt to reduce these terms to "expiation" (the cleansing of sin), the biblical evidence overwhelmingly supports the meaning "propitiation" (the turning aside of God's wrath by satisfying his justice). Leon Morris and Roger Nicole demonstrated that Dodd's case rested on incomplete evidence, and that the propitiatory meaning — the averting of divine anger — represents what Morris called "a stubborn substratum of meaning" throughout both Testaments.²⁵

Stott provides the most helpful framework for understanding how propitiation works in a biblical, as opposed to a pagan, context. He identifies three crucial differences between pagan propitiation and the biblical doctrine. First, why propitiation is necessary: not because of capricious divine rage, but because of God's settled, holy opposition to all evil. Second, who makes the propitiation: not human beings desperately trying to placate an angry deity, but God himself, who takes the initiative in love. "God put forward" Christ as a propitiation (Romans 3:25). God "sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). The love of God is the source, not the consequence, of the atonement. Third, what the propitiatory sacrifice is: not an animal or a gift, but God's own Son — which means, ultimately, God himself. "In giving his Son, he was giving himself."²⁶

And propitiation must come first, logically, in the order of salvation's benefits. As Stott rightly argued, "until the wrath of God is appeased (that is, until his love has found a way to avert his anger), there can be no salvation for human beings at all."²⁷ Propitiation is the foundation upon which redemption, justification, reconciliation, and all the other benefits rest. Because God's wrath against sin has been satisfied in the cross, the way is opened for everything else.

We should also note, as we argued in Chapter 8, that propitiation and expiation are not mutually exclusive. The cross both propitiates God (satisfies his justice) and expiates sin (cleanses or removes it). Both dimensions are present; neither should be reduced to the other.²⁸

V. Adoption: Welcomed into the Family

If justification gives us a new legal standing, and reconciliation restores a broken relationship, adoption goes further still. It gives us a new identity. Through the cross of Christ, believers are not merely pardoned criminals or reconciled strangers — they are children of God, full members of his family, heirs of his promises.

The Meaning of Adoption

The Greek word is huiothesia (υἱοθεσία), which literally means "the placing as a son." It was a technical legal term in the Greco-Roman world for the formal act by which a person was taken into a family and given all the rights and privileges of a natural-born child. Paul uses this term five times in his letters (Romans 8:15, 23; 9:4; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5), and it is a uniquely Pauline contribution to New Testament theology.²⁹

The key passage is Galatians 4:4–7:

"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God." (Galatians 4:4–7, ESV)

Notice the logical chain. God sent his Son to redeem us (there is the ransom/PSA dimension — Christ bore the curse of the law in our place, Galatians 3:13), in order that we might receive adoption as sons and daughters. Redemption is the means; adoption is the goal. The cross removed the barrier of sin and guilt that kept us in slavery; adoption brings us into the family with all the privileges of children.

And Paul adds a further gift: because we are sons and daughters, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, enabling us to cry "Abba! Father!" — the same intimate, familial address that Jesus himself used in prayer (Mark 14:36). The Spirit of adoption is the subjective confirmation of the objective reality accomplished at the cross.³⁰

Adoption and the Atonement

How does adoption connect to penal substitutionary atonement? The connection is this: the barrier that prevented our adoption into God's family was not merely our ignorance of God or our emotional estrangement from him. It was our guilt — our legal liability to condemnation under God's holy law. Until that barrier was removed, there could be no adoption. And the barrier was removed by Christ's atoning death, in which he bore the curse of the law in our place (Galatians 3:13) and satisfied the demands of divine justice (Romans 3:25–26).

As Romans 8:15 puts it, "You did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons." The contrast between slavery and sonship, between fear and intimacy, captures what the atonement has accomplished. We were slaves, imprisoned by guilt and fear of condemnation. Now we are children, welcomed into the family with full rights and privileges. And it is the cross — specifically, the penal substitutionary dimension of the cross — that made the transition possible.

John's writings, while using different language (John speaks of believers as "children of God" who are "born of God" rather than using the adoption metaphor), arrive at the same astonishing conclusion. "See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are" (1 John 3:1). The wonder of it never gets old. Former rebels, enemies, guilty sinners — now children of the living God.

And adoption, like justification and reconciliation, has both a present and a future dimension. Paul speaks of believers "waiting eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Romans 8:23). There is a sense in which our adoption is already complete — we are sons and daughters now, with the Spirit as the guarantee. But there is also a sense in which the full realization of our adoption awaits the resurrection, when our bodies will be transformed and we will enter into the full inheritance that belongs to God's children. The eschatological dimension of adoption reminds us that the benefits of the atonement are not exhausted in the present; they reach forward into eternity.

The privilege of adoption is perhaps best understood in contrast with the condition from which it rescues us. Before the cross, we were not merely guilty defendants in God's courtroom (requiring justification) or estranged parties needing reconciliation. We were slaves — slaves to sin, slaves to the law's condemnation, slaves to the "elemental spirits of the world" (Galatians 4:3, 8–9). Adoption means that the slave has become a son. The prison has become a home. The taskmaster has become a father. And all of this is possible because Christ, the eternal Son, entered our slavery in order to bring us into his sonship. He was "born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law" (Galatians 4:4–5) — and that redemption, as we have seen, was accomplished through his penalty-bearing death on the cross.

VI. Sanctification: Being Made Holy

If justification declares us righteous, sanctification actually makes us righteous — progressively, gradually, over the course of a lifetime. Justification changes our legal status before God; sanctification changes our actual character. And both are rooted in the cross.

Positional and Progressive Sanctification

We need to recognize that the New Testament uses "sanctification" language in two distinct but related senses. Sometimes it describes what might be called positional sanctification — the fact that believers have been "set apart" for God and belong to his holy people. In this sense, sanctification is virtually a synonym for justification. Paul addresses the Corinthian believers as "those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints" (1 Corinthians 1:2), even though their actual behavior left much to be desired. Hebrews 10:10 declares, "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." This is a completed, once-for-all act rooted directly in the cross.³¹

But there is also progressive sanctification — the ongoing process by which the Holy Spirit transforms the believer's character into the likeness of Christ. This is the process Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 3:18: "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another." This is gradual, lifelong, and will not be complete until the resurrection.

Both dimensions of sanctification are grounded in the atonement. Positional sanctification flows directly from the cross: because Christ's sacrifice has cleansed us, we are set apart as God's holy people. Progressive sanctification is empowered by the Spirit who was given to us as a result of Christ's finished work (John 7:39; Acts 2:33). The cross provides both the legal basis (we are positionally holy before God) and the dynamic power (the Spirit transforms us from within) for the believer's ongoing growth in holiness.³²

Hebrews makes this connection between the atonement and sanctification explicit in a remarkable passage: "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14). Notice the tension in this verse — and it is a productive tension, not a contradiction. Christ's single offering has "perfected for all time" those who belong to him. That is positional sanctification — a finished, complete work. And yet these same people "are being sanctified" — present tense, ongoing process. That is progressive sanctification. The believer lives in the dynamic space between what has already been accomplished at the cross and what is still being worked out in daily life. The "already" of the cross guarantees the "not yet" of our complete transformation.

This is why the New Testament regularly grounds its ethical commands — its calls to holiness, love, purity, and self-sacrifice — in the accomplished work of the cross. "Walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Ephesians 5:2). "You were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body" (1 Corinthians 6:20). "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you" (Ephesians 4:32). In each case, the indicative (what Christ has done) is the foundation for the imperative (what we must do). The atonement does not merely secure our legal acquittal; it provides the motivation, the pattern, and the power for transformed living.

The Orthodox tradition has emphasized this transformative dimension of the atonement with particular force, especially through the doctrine of theosis (θέωσις, deification or divinization). As we explored in Chapter 23, theosis does not mean that humans become God in essence, but that they are progressively conformed to the likeness of God, participating in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Schooping has demonstrated persuasively that this vision of transformation is not in tension with PSA but is actually grounded in it. The cross removes the barrier of sin that prevented our participation in God's life; sanctification and theosis describe the positive content of that life into which we are now invited.³⁶ The penal dimension clears the ground; the transformative dimension builds on it.

The Relationship Between Justification and Sanctification

It is critically important not to confuse justification and sanctification, and equally important not to separate them. They are distinct but inseparable. As Stott wisely noted, "Regeneration is not an aspect of justification, but both are aspects of salvation, and neither can take place without the other." Luther illustrated this with his famous image of the tree and its fruit: "The tree must be first, and then the fruit. For the apples make not the tree, but the tree makes the apples."³³ Justification (the declaration of righteousness) always produces sanctification (the transformation of character), just as a healthy tree always produces fruit. But the fruit does not cause the tree to be a tree; it is the evidence that it already is one.

This distinction is what allows us to answer the perennial accusation that justification by faith alone is a "license to sin." Not at all! As Paul asked incredulously, "Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may increase? By no means!" (Romans 6:1–2). The person who has been justified — who has truly grasped the magnitude of what Christ did on the cross — is not left unchanged. The same faith that receives justification also receives the Holy Spirit, who begins the work of sanctification. Good works are not the cause of salvation but its inevitable fruit.

VII. New Creation: All Things Made New

The final benefit of the atonement we will consider is perhaps the most sweeping in its scope. In 2 Corinthians 5:17, Paul makes a stunning declaration: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come."

Notice the cosmic language. Paul does not say that the believer has been improved or repaired. He says we are a new creation — the same language used of God's original creation of the world out of nothing (Genesis 1:1). The atonement does not merely patch up the old order of sin and death; it inaugurates an entirely new order of grace and life. The believer is not a renovated sinner but a newly created person, participating already in the new age that Christ's death and resurrection have launched.³⁴

The context of 2 Corinthians 5:17 makes this even more striking. Paul has just been speaking of the death of Christ and its reconciling effects. He has said that "one has died for all, therefore all have died" (2 Corinthians 5:14) and that "he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised" (v. 15). The new creation is not separate from the atonement; it is the result of the atonement. Because Christ died and rose again, the old order of sin and death has been decisively broken. A new reality has invaded the world. And everyone who is "in Christ" — united to him through faith — participates in that new reality.

Paul explores this further in Romans 6, where he argues that the believer's union with Christ in his death and resurrection means that "we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4). Our old self "was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin" (v. 6). The cross breaks the power of the old creation — the old Adam, the old humanity enslaved to sin — and inaugurates the new creation, the new humanity in Christ. This is why baptism, which symbolizes our death and resurrection with Christ, is so closely associated with new creation language in the New Testament. In baptism we are acting out the story of the cross: dying to the old and rising to the new.

This new-creation language connects the atonement to the broadest possible biblical narrative — the story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation that runs from Genesis to Revelation. The cross is the pivot point of the entire story. It is the event by which God begins to undo the damage of the fall and to bring about the new heavens and new earth promised in Isaiah 65:17 and Revelation 21:1–5. When John hears the voice from the throne declaring, "Behold, I am making all things new" (Revelation 21:5), that "making new" is grounded in the atoning work of the Lamb who was slain (Revelation 5:6–14).

Rutledge captures this beautifully in her treatment of recapitulation, which we explored in Chapter 23. The atonement is not merely a transaction that forgives individual sins; it is a cosmic event that restores and renews the whole of creation.³⁵ And within the Orthodox tradition, Schooping has shown how this new-creation dimension of the atonement is connected to the doctrine of theosis — the teaching that believers are progressively conformed to the likeness of God, participating in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). The cross is the gateway to this transformation, because it is the cross that removes the barrier of sin and opens the way for human nature to be restored to its original glory and beyond.³⁶

The new-creation theme also has an important social and communal dimension. The "new humanity" that Christ has created through his death is not merely a collection of saved individuals but a genuine community — the church. As Paul argues in Ephesians 2, the cross has created "one new man" out of the formerly divided halves of the human race, breaking down the barrier between Jew and Gentile and establishing a new, reconciled community (Ephesians 2:14–16). This new community is itself a sign of the new creation — a living preview of the reconciled world that God is bringing about through the cross. Every time the church gathers in genuine love across barriers of race, class, and culture, it is displaying the new-creation power of the atonement.

VIII. How PSA Holds It All Together

We have now surveyed seven major benefits of the atonement: justification, reconciliation, redemption, propitiation, adoption, sanctification, and new creation. Each is a genuine, distinct dimension of what Christ accomplished on the cross. Each is described in its own vivid biblical imagery — courtroom, home, marketplace, temple, family, workshop, and cosmos. And each is indispensable for a full understanding of what salvation means.

But here is the crucial point I want to make in conclusion — a point that draws together the central argument of this entire book. These benefits are not simply a random collection of good things that happen to flow from the cross. They are logically interconnected, and the thread that connects them is penal substitutionary atonement.

Think about it this way. Why can God justify sinners — declare them righteous — without compromising his own justice? Because the penalty for sin has been borne by Christ. Why has reconciliation been achieved between God and humanity? Because the wrath of God against sin has been satisfied in the cross, removing the barrier that separated us from him. Why have we been redeemed — set free from bondage? Because the ransom price has been paid: the blood of Christ, given in our place. Why has God been propitiated? Because Christ's sacrifice has satisfied the demands of divine justice. Why can we be adopted as God's children? Because the guilt that barred us from the family has been removed by Christ's penalty-bearing death. Why are we being sanctified? Because the cross provides both the legal basis (our positional holiness) and the dynamic power (the Spirit given through Christ's finished work) for our transformation. Why is there a new creation? Because the cross has broken the power of sin and death, inaugurating a new order of grace and life.

In every case, PSA provides the central mechanism. Remove the penal dimension — deny that Christ bore the judicial consequences of our sin — and the entire structure begins to wobble. How can God be "just and the justifier" if no penalty has been borne? How can reconciliation be achieved if the wrath of God has not been addressed? How can the ransom price be meaningful if there is no debt of punishment to discharge? Stott put it with his characteristic clarity: "If God in Christ did not die in our place, there could be neither propitiation, nor redemption, nor justification, nor reconciliation."³⁷

This is why I have argued throughout this book that penal substitutionary atonement, rightly understood, stands at the center of the atonement, with the other models arranged around it as complementary dimensions. This is not to minimize the other models. As we argued in Chapter 24, each of them — Christus Victor, recapitulation, moral influence, ransom — captures genuine and important dimensions of the cross. But it is PSA that provides the logical foundation, the inner mechanism, by which all the benefits of the atonement are secured and applied.

Some might object that I am overemphasizing the forensic dimension at the expense of the relational or transformative dimensions. Does not the emphasis on legal categories — courtrooms, verdicts, penalties — depersonalize the atonement? I understand this concern, and I want to address it directly. The answer is no — and for a very important reason. The legal categories do not stand alone. They are always accompanied by, and indeed give rise to, the most deeply personal categories in the New Testament: reconciliation, adoption, intimacy, love. The legal and the relational are not in competition; the legal is the foundation for the relational. It is precisely because the legal barrier has been removed (justification) that the personal relationship can be restored (reconciliation) and the family bond can be established (adoption). Far from depersonalizing the atonement, the legal categories explain how the deeply personal benefits become possible.

Chandler, in her Victorious Substitution model, affirms substitution while rejecting the penal dimension, arguing instead for a combination of substitutionary and ransom/Christus Victor themes.⁴⁰ I appreciate her commitment to substitution, and I agree that the Christus Victor dimension is essential. But I believe her rejection of the penal element creates a gap in the explanatory structure. If Christ did not bear the penalty for sin, on what basis does God declare sinners righteous? If the demands of divine justice have not been met, what grounds does God have for pardoning the guilty? These are the questions that PSA answers, and without those answers, the application of the atonement — especially justification and propitiation — loses its logical footing.

Craig has made a similar point from a philosophical angle, arguing that "atonement theories emphasizing redemption should not be seen as stand-alone theories but rather serve to highlight one aspect of a multifaceted atonement theory that has penal substitution at its center."²³ The redemption metaphor tells us that a price was paid for our freedom. PSA tells us what the price was — the bearing of the penalty of sin — and why it was necessary — because divine justice required it. The Christus Victor model tells us that the powers of evil have been defeated. PSA tells us how the victory was won — through the satisfaction of divine justice on the cross. Each model needs the others. But PSA provides the explanatory center that holds the whole constellation together.

IX. The Atonement Applied and Our Posture of Gratitude

I want to close this chapter on a personal note. The doctrines we have surveyed in these pages are not abstractions. They describe what God has done for us — for you and for me. They describe a rescue so comprehensive, so costly, and so lavish in its generosity that the only appropriate response is wonder, gratitude, and worship.

We were guilty; we have been justified. We were estranged from God; we have been reconciled. We were slaves to sin; we have been redeemed. We were under the wrath of God; that wrath has been propitiated. We were orphans; we have been adopted as children. We were polluted by sin; we are being sanctified. We were dead in our trespasses; we are a new creation.

And all of this — every single one of these benefits — flows from the cross of Jesus Christ. From the place where the Son of God, in unfathomable love, took our place, bore our penalty, and absorbed in himself the consequences of our rebellion. As Paul writes in Romans 8:32, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?"

The cross is inexhaustible in its meaning, and the benefits that flow from it are inexhaustible in their richness. We will explore in the next chapter how these benefits shape the way we worship, love, suffer, and live. But for now, let us simply pause and marvel at what the Triune God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, acting in unified love — has accomplished for us. The old hymn says it best: "What wondrous love is this, O my soul?"

The proper response to the atonement applied is not primarily a theological system, though we need one. The proper response is a life poured out in gratitude to the One who poured out his life for us. As Paul will say in Romans 12:1 — and as we will explore in the next chapter — "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship." That is the atonement applied, not just to our doctrine, but to our lives.

Bibliography

Allen, David L. The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 4th rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941.

Brunner, Emil. The Mediator. Translated by Olive Wyon. London: Lutterworth, 1934.

Büchsel, Friedrich. "λύτρον." In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 4:340–49. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967.

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.

Forsyth, P. T. The Cruciality of the Cross. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1909.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. 1871–73. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.

Küng, Hans. Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection. Translated by Thomas Collins, Edmund E. Tolk, and David Granskou. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1964.

Marshall, I. Howard. Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity. Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Nicole, Roger. "C. H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation." Westminster Theological Journal 17, no. 2 (1955): 117–57.

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.

Schreiner, Thomas R. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Warfield, B. B. "The New Testament Terminology of Redemption." Princeton Theological Review 15 (1917): 201–49.