One of the most important claims in this book is that penal and substitutionary language is not an invention of the Reformers. It is present throughout the patristic tradition—in both Eastern and Western Fathers. The common claim that penal substitution is a purely "Western" or "Reformation" idea with no support in the early Church is, as we have argued in Chapters 14 and 15, demonstrably false.
This appendix provides a quick-reference guide to the major Church Fathers and their atonement theology. For each Father, we note: (1) their primary atonement emphases—that is, the themes they stress most; (2) whether they use penal or substitutionary language, with a brief representative reference; (3) their key texts on the atonement; and (4) the chapter(s) in this book where their views are discussed in detail.
How to Read This Table: The fact that a Father's primary emphasis may be Christus Victor, recapitulation, or theosis does not mean they lack substitutionary or penal language. Many Fathers who are primarily known for one model also use language from other models. The "Penal/Substitutionary Language?" column indicates whether the Father uses language that describes Christ bearing the penalty or consequences of sin in the place of sinners—even if that is not his dominant theme. A "Yes" means clear penal or substitutionary language is present. A "Partial" means substitutionary themes are present but penal language specifically (i.e., language about punishment or penalty) is less explicit.
Important Caution: No Church Father articulated a fully systematic "penal substitutionary atonement theory" in the way the Reformers later did. What we find in the Fathers is penal and substitutionary language, themes, and concepts—building blocks that the later systematic formulation drew upon. The point is not that the Fathers were proto-Calvinists. The point is that the raw materials for penal substitution are genuinely present in the patristic tradition, and claims that these ideas are entirely absent from the Fathers are not supported by the primary sources. For detailed analysis, see Chapters 13–15 and the extensive treatment in Schooping, An Existential Soteriology, and Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions, chapter 5.
| Church Father | Dates | Primary Atonement Emphases | Penal/Substitutionary Language? | Key Texts | Book Chapter(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clement of Rome | c. AD 35–99 | Sacrificial; substitutionary; the blood of Christ | Yes. Christ gave "His blood for us" and "His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls" (1 Clement 49.6). Clear substitutionary pattern. | 1 Clement (esp. chs. 7, 12, 16, 49) | Chapter 13 |
| The Epistle of Barnabas | c. AD 70–132 | Typological; sacrificial; Christ as the scapegoat and the sacrifice | Yes. Christ "was to offer the vessel of His Spirit as a sacrifice for our sins" (Barnabas 7.3). Christ is the antitype of both the scapegoat and the sacrificial offering. | Epistle of Barnabas (esp. chs. 5, 7) | Chapter 13 |
| Ignatius of Antioch | c. AD 35–108 | Incarnational; unitive; the blood of God | Partial. Ignatius speaks of Christ's passion "for our sake" and of "the blood of God" shed for us. Substitutionary overtones present, though penal language is not explicit. | Letters (esp. To the Ephesians, To the Smyrnaeans) | Chapter 13 |
| The Epistle to Diognetus | c. AD 130–200 | Substitutionary; exchange; God's kindness covering our sin | Yes. God gave His own Son "as a ransom for us"—"the holy one for the lawless, the innocent for the guilty, the righteous one for the unrighteous" (Diognetus 9.2). One of the clearest early substitutionary statements. | Epistle to Diognetus (esp. ch. 9) | Chapter 13 |
| Justin Martyr | c. AD 100–165 | Christus Victor; typological; Christ as the fulfillment of OT types; substitutionary | Yes. Christ became "a curse on behalf of the human race" (Dialogue with Trypho 95). Christ bore the "curse" of the law in our place—clear substitutionary and penal language drawn from Galatians 3:13. | Dialogue with Trypho (esp. chs. 13, 40, 89, 95, 111); First Apology (esp. ch. 63) | Chapters 13, 15 |
| Irenaeus of Lyon | c. AD 130–202 | Recapitulation; Christus Victor; ransom; Christ "summing up" all of humanity | Partial. Irenaeus's primary framework is recapitulation, but he also speaks of Christ becoming "what we are" to make us "what He is" and of Christ "redeeming us by His own blood" (Against Heresies 5.1.1). The admirabile commercium (wonderful exchange) pattern has substitutionary dimensions. | Against Heresies (esp. 2.20.3, 3.18.1–7, 5.1.1, 5.21.1–3); Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching | Chapters 13, 23 |
| Church Father | Dates | Primary Atonement Emphases | Penal/Substitutionary Language? | Key Texts | Book Chapter(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Origen of Alexandria | c. AD 185–254 | Ransom; Christus Victor; pedagogical; sacrifice; substitution | Yes. Origen speaks of Christ "bearing our sins" and of His death as a sacrifice that removes the penalty of sin. He also uses ransom language extensively and speaks of Christ destroying death by death. | Commentary on Romans; Commentary on Matthew; Against Celsus; Homilies on Leviticus | Chapter 14 |
| Eusebius of Caesarea | c. AD 260–339 | Substitutionary; sacrificial; Christ as the sin-bearer | Yes. Eusebius explicitly states that Christ was "punished on our behalf" and bore "the penalty of sinners" (Demonstration of the Gospel 10.1). Some of the clearest early penal language. | Demonstration of the Gospel (esp. 10.1); Proof of the Gospel | Chapters 14, 15 |
| Athanasius of Alexandria | c. AD 296–373 | Incarnational; victory over death; the "debt" satisfied; theosis | Yes. Athanasius argues that Christ in His body "took on the death that was due" and "bore the wrath of God" against sin in order to free us from the "debt" of death (On the Incarnation 8–9, 20). Both substitutionary and penal dimensions are present alongside his famous emphasis on deification. | On the Incarnation (esp. chs. 6–10, 20); Four Discourses Against the Arians (esp. 1.60, 2.7, 2.55) | Chapters 14, 15 |
| Basil of Caesarea | c. AD 330–379 | Sacrificial; Christus Victor; sanctification | Partial. Basil speaks of Christ as the Lamb who "takes away the sin of the world" and as a sacrifice offered on our behalf. Substitutionary overtones are present, though explicit penal vocabulary is less frequent. | Various homilies and letters; On the Holy Spirit | Chapter 14 |
| Gregory of Nazianzus | c. AD 329–390 | Ransom (but not paid to the devil); sacrifice; Christus Victor; theosis | Yes. Gregory states that Christ was "called a curse" for us (Gal. 3:13) and "sin" for us (2 Cor. 5:21), taking upon Himself what belongs to us. He explicitly affirms substitution while famously rejecting the idea that the ransom was paid to the devil (Oration 45.22). | Orations (esp. 30.5, 30.20, 45.22); Letters | Chapters 14, 15 |
| Gregory of Nyssa | c. AD 335–395 | Ransom; Christus Victor (the "divine deception" of the devil); theosis; restoration | Partial. Gregory's primary emphasis is on Christ's victory over the devil through the incarnation and resurrection. He uses the famous "fishhook" analogy—the devil swallowed the bait of Christ's humanity, only to be caught by the hook of His divinity. Substitutionary themes are present but less prominent than in some other Fathers. | Great Catechism (esp. chs. 22–26); Against Eunomius; On the Soul and the Resurrection | Chapters 14, 22 |
| Cyril of Alexandria | c. AD 376–444 | Substitutionary; sacrificial; penal; incarnational; hypostatic union | Yes. Cyril is one of the most important patristic witnesses to penal and substitutionary language. He explicitly states that Christ "endured the penalty in our stead" and "suffered the wrath that was due to us." Schooping devotes an entire chapter to Cyril's penal substitutionary language. | Commentary on Isaiah; Commentary on John; Commentary on Romans; On the Unity of Christ; Glaphyra on Genesis | Chapters 14, 15 |
| John Chrysostom | c. AD 347–407 | Substitutionary; sacrificial; moral transformation; pastoral | Yes. Chrysostom comments on 2 Corinthians 5:21: God "made the Righteous One a sinner, that He might make the sinners righteous." He speaks of Christ "bearing the curse" for us and "receiving the punishment" that was ours. See Schooping, chap. 17. | Homilies on Romans; Homilies on 2 Corinthians; Homilies on Galatians; Homilies on Hebrews | Chapters 14, 15 |
| Church Father | Dates | Primary Atonement Emphases | Penal/Substitutionary Language? | Key Texts | Book Chapter(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hilary of Poitiers | c. AD 310–367 | Incarnational; substitutionary; sacrificial | Yes. Hilary speaks of Christ "taking upon Himself the curse that lay upon us" and "offering Himself to the death of the accursed on our behalf" (On the Trinity 10.47). He connects the incarnation directly with penal substitution. | On the Trinity (esp. 1.13, 10.47); Tractates on the Psalms | Chapters 14, 15 |
| Ambrose of Milan | c. AD 340–397 | Substitutionary; sacrificial; Christus Victor; redemption | Yes. Ambrose states that Christ "took upon Himself our punishment" and "bore our sins in His body upon the tree." He draws directly on Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2:24 in developing a substitutionary framework. | On the Christian Faith; On the Death of His Brother Satyrus; Letters; Exposition of the Gospel of Luke | Chapters 14, 15 |
| Augustine of Hippo | c. AD 354–430 | Sacrificial; substitutionary; Christus Victor; mediatorial; love of God | Yes. Augustine explicitly describes Christ as "Priest and Sacrifice" who "bore our punishment" (On the Trinity 4.14; Against Faustus 14.4–7). He also speaks of Christ being "made sin" and bearing the "curse" for us. His language is both substitutionary and, at points, clearly penal. | On the Trinity (esp. books 4, 13); City of God (esp. 10.6); Against Faustus (esp. 14.4–7); Enchiridion (esp. chs. 33, 41) | Chapters 14, 15 |
| Jerome | c. AD 347–420 | Substitutionary; exegetical; sacrificial | Yes. Jerome, commenting on Isaiah 53 and Galatians 3:13, speaks of Christ bearing the "curse" and the "penalty" due to sinners. As a careful biblical exegete, his commentary follows the penal and substitutionary logic of the texts themselves. | Commentary on Isaiah; Commentary on Galatians; Commentary on Matthew | Chapter 14 |
| Church Father | Dates | Primary Atonement Emphases | Penal/Substitutionary Language? | Key Texts | Book Chapter(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gelasius of Cyzicus | c. 5th century | Substitutionary; sacrificial | Yes. Gelasius speaks of Christ bearing "the penalty we owed" and dying "in our place." His language aligns with the substitutionary tradition present in earlier Fathers. | History of the Council of Nicaea | Chapter 15 |
| Gregory the Great | c. AD 540–604 | Sacrificial; substitutionary; pastoral; moral | Yes. Gregory states that Christ, "though without sin, was made sin for us" and "bore the punishment of our iniquity." He draws on Pauline and Isaianic language to present Christ's death as a substitutionary sacrifice. | Moralia in Job; Homilies on the Gospels; Pastoral Rule | Chapters 15, 16 |
| Maximus the Confessor | c. AD 580–662 | Recapitulation; theosis; cosmic restoration; Christus Victor | Yes. Though best known for his theology of theosis and cosmic recapitulation, Maximus also uses substitutionary language. Schooping demonstrates that Maximus speaks of Christ willingly "condemning sin in His flesh" and "accepting the sentence pronounced against us." His theology integrates substitutionary motifs within his broader theotic framework. | Ambigua; Questions to Thalassius; Mystagogia | Chapters 15, 23 |
| John of Damascus | c. AD 675–749 | Incarnational; sacrificial; substitutionary; summary of patristic tradition | Yes. John of Damascus, often called the last of the great Eastern Fathers, explicitly states that Christ "offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father on our behalf" and describes Christ as bearing the "penalty of death" that was ours. As a great synthesizer of earlier patristic thought, his language reflects the substitutionary and penal themes present throughout the tradition. Schooping treats his contributions at length. | An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (esp. 3.27, 4.11) | Chapters 15, 23 |
| Writer | Dates | Primary Atonement Emphases | Penal/Substitutionary Language? | Key Texts | Book Chapter(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symeon the New Theologian | c. AD 949–1022 | Mystical; theosis; experiential; substitutionary elements | Yes. Schooping documents Symeon's use of substitutionary language in the context of his mystical theology. Symeon speaks of Christ bearing the "condemnation" that rested on humanity and "paying the debt" of our sin through His death. | Catechetical Discourses; Hymns of Divine Love | Chapter 15 |
| Gregory Palamas | c. AD 1296–1359 | Theosis; energies/essence distinction; hesychasm; substitutionary elements | Yes. Though best known for his theology of the divine energies and hesychastic prayer, Palamas also affirms that Christ "bore the penalty that was ours" and "offered Himself in our place." Schooping demonstrates that Palamas's soteriology includes genuine penal and substitutionary dimensions alongside his emphasis on theosis. | The Triads; Homilies | Chapters 15, 23 |
| Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow | c. AD 1782–1867 | Substitutionary; sacrificial; catechetical | Yes. The great nineteenth-century Russian Orthodox metropolitan uses clear penal substitutionary language in his famous Catechism: Christ "bore our sins and suffered the death that was due to us." Schooping cites Philaret as evidence that PSA language has been present within mainstream Orthodoxy into the modern period. | The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church | Chapters 15, 34 |
| Writer | Dates | Primary Atonement Emphases | Penal/Substitutionary Language? | Key Texts | Book Chapter(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anselm of Canterbury | c. AD 1033–1109 | Satisfaction; the "debt of honor" owed to God; the necessity of the incarnation | Partial. Anselm's satisfaction theory is not identical to penal substitution (he emphasizes the restoration of honor rather than the bearing of punishment), but it laid essential groundwork. Christ makes "satisfaction" for the debt that sinners owe—a substitutionary framework, though the penal element is underdeveloped compared to later Reformers. | Cur Deus Homo; Proslogion | Chapter 16 |
| Peter Abelard | c. AD 1079–1142 | Moral influence; the love of God; subjective transformation | Partial. Abelard is traditionally associated with the moral influence theory—that the cross saves by inspiring love in the sinner. However, his actual writings contain more substitutionary elements than his reputation suggests. He affirms that Christ "bore our punishment" in some passages, though his primary emphasis is on love. | Commentary on Romans; Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans | Chapter 16 |
| Thomas Aquinas | c. AD 1225–1274 | Satisfaction; sacrificial; meritorious; substitutionary; multi-faceted | Yes. Aquinas develops a multi-faceted atonement theology that includes satisfaction, sacrifice, merit, redemption, and even penal elements. He states that Christ "bore the punishment for our sins" (Summa Theologiae III, q. 46–49) and describes Christ's suffering as both satisfactory and penal. Aquinas is an important bridge between Anselm's satisfaction theory and the Reformers' penal substitution. | Summa Theologiae III, qq. 46–49; Commentary on Romans; Compendium of Theology | Chapter 16 |
Summary of Findings: As this quick-reference table demonstrates, substitutionary language is found across the entire patristic tradition—Eastern and Western, early and late. Penal language specifically (language about Christ bearing punishment or penalty) appears in Clement of Rome, the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Symeon the New Theologian, Gregory Palamas, Philaret of Moscow, and Thomas Aquinas. The claim that penal substitution has no roots in the patristic era is not supported by the evidence. For the full argument, see Chapters 13–15, and especially the groundbreaking patristic research documented in Schooping's An Existential Soteriology and the historical survey in Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach's Pierced for Our Transgressions, chapter 5.
Orthodox Hymnography: In addition to the patristic writings listed above, Fr. Joshua Schooping documents extensive penal and substitutionary language in the Orthodox liturgical tradition—the hymns, prayers, and worship texts that form the living theological expression of the Orthodox Church. This is especially significant because, in the Orthodox tradition, the lex orandi (the rule of prayer) is considered a primary expression of the lex credendi (the rule of faith). When the Church's own worship uses penal and substitutionary language to describe Christ's saving work, it is strong evidence that these themes are not foreign imports but are part of the organic theological tradition of the East. For detailed analysis, see Schooping, An Existential Soteriology, and the discussion in Chapter 15 of this book.
1 For detailed citations and analysis of the patristic quotations summarized in this table, see Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), chap. 5, "The Historical Pedigree of Penal Substitution." ↩
2 For the Eastern Orthodox patristic evidence, see especially 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), particularly chaps. 9–21. ↩
3 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." ↩
4 See David L. Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019), for additional historical analysis of patristic atonement theology. ↩