Chapter 20
The Love of the Trinity in the Atonement — Against "Cosmic Child Abuse"

Introduction: A Doctrine Rooted in Love

Perhaps no doctrine in the history of Christianity has been more fiercely attacked in recent years than substitutionary atonement. Critics have called it everything from morally repugnant to theologically incoherent. But one accusation has risen above all others in its rhetorical power and emotional punch: the charge that penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) amounts to "cosmic child abuse." According to this accusation, PSA portrays a furious, rage-filled Father who takes out His anger on His innocent, helpless Son — a picture that, the critics say, looks less like divine love and more like domestic violence on a cosmic scale.

This chapter addresses that charge head-on. But I want to be clear about something from the start: the goal here is not merely defensive. I am not simply trying to rescue substitutionary atonement from its critics. I believe that when we truly understand what happened at the cross — when we see the atonement through the lens of Trinitarian theology — we discover something far more beautiful and profound than either the critics or many defenders have imagined. Rightly understood, substitutionary atonement is not a story about an angry God punishing an unwilling victim. It is the story of the Triune God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — acting together in unified, self-sacrificial love to rescue a fallen world. It is, as John Stott so memorably put it, "the self-substitution of God."¹

Here is the thesis of this chapter, stated as plainly as I can: Rightly understood, substitutionary atonement is supremely an act of divine love — not a transaction between an angry Father and an unwilling Son, but the unified, self-sacrificial action of the Triune God — and any formulation that pits the Father against the Son or divides the will of the Trinity must be rejected as a distortion of both PSA and Trinitarian theology.

This is, I believe, one of the most important chapters in this entire book. It is where the author's distinctive position comes into sharpest focus. I affirm penal substitutionary atonement. I believe Jesus Christ bore the judicial consequences of our sins on the cross. But I firmly reject the idea that God the Father "poured out His wrath" upon the Son in some act of furious, retributive violence. The Father loved Jesus throughout the entirety of the crucifixion. He was never enraged at His Son. The cross was not a scene of divine domestic violence. It was the most stunning act of self-giving love the universe has ever witnessed.

To make this case, we will first examine the profound and foundational concept of God's "self-substitution" as developed by John Stott. Then we will explore the Trinitarian nature of the atonement — how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all participated in the work of the cross in unified love. We will engage directly with the "cosmic child abuse" accusation and show why it fundamentally misunderstands the doctrine it critiques. We will draw on the insights of Roman Catholic theologian Philippe de la Trinité, who beautifully describes Christ as "the victim of love." And we will establish theological guardrails — boundaries that any faithful formulation of substitutionary atonement must not cross. Along the way, we will engage fairly and carefully with critics like Steve Chalke, Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Parker, and William Hess, taking their concerns seriously even where we ultimately disagree.

The Self-Substitution of God: John Stott's Breakthrough Insight

The single most important concept for understanding substitutionary atonement rightly is what John Stott called "the self-substitution of God." If there is one idea that dissolves the caricatures, answers the objections, and reveals the beauty of the cross, it is this one. I want to spend considerable time on it because everything else in this chapter builds on this foundation.

The basic question is deceptively simple: Who is the substitute? When we say that Jesus died "in our place," who exactly is this Person who takes our position before the judgment seat of God? Is He a third party — an innocent bystander dragged into a dispute between God and humanity? Is He a reluctant victim, forced by an angry Father to suffer against His will? Or is He something else entirely?

Stott's answer is breathtaking in its clarity. The substitute is not a third party. The substitute is God Himself. In the person of His eternal Son, God took our place. The Judge Himself stepped down from the bench and stood in the dock. The Lawmaker bore the penalty of the law He had given. The one who was offended by our sin became the one who bore its consequences. As Stott writes, the cross represents God "satisfying himself by substituting himself for us."²

Why does this matter so much? Because it completely reframes the entire discussion. When critics accuse PSA of being a story about an angry God punishing an innocent victim, they are assuming a picture with three independent actors: (1) the guilty sinners, (2) the angry judge, and (3) the innocent victim dragged in to suffer. Stott insists — and I believe he is absolutely right — that this three-actor model is a fundamental distortion. The biblical picture has only two parties: sinful humanity on the one hand, and God on the other. And the God who stands on the other side is not two different characters (an angry Father and a suffering Son pulling in opposite directions), but one God acting in perfect unity through the person of His incarnate Son.³

Stott builds this argument by going to the heart of what sin is and what salvation is. He writes what may be the most famous sentence in modern atonement theology: "The concept of substitution may be said, then, to lie at the heart of both sin and salvation. For the essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man."⁴ Read that again slowly. Sin is humanity pushing God off the throne and sitting in His place. Salvation is God stepping down from the throne and standing in our place. Sin is humanity seizing divine prerogatives. Salvation is God accepting human penalties. The symmetry is stunning, and it reveals that the cross is the exact reversal of the fall — not through force or coercion, but through self-giving love.

This framework has several critical implications that we need to trace out carefully.

First, it means that the cross is not an act of injustice. One of the oldest and most persistent objections to substitutionary atonement — going back at least to the Socinians in the sixteenth century — is that it is inherently unjust to punish an innocent person for the crimes of the guilty. And if we are imagining an innocent third party being dragged in and punished against his will, that objection would be devastating. But Stott insists that this is emphatically not what the Bible describes. As he writes, "Any notion of penal substitution in which three independent actors play a role — the guilty party, the punitive judge and the innocent victim — is to be repudiated with the utmost vehemence."⁵ The substitute is not a third party but the Judge Himself. The one who bears the penalty is the very one whose law was broken. This is not injustice. It is, as Stott calls it, "unfathomable mercy."⁶

Second, it means that the cross is deeply personal, not mechanical. Critics sometimes charge that PSA reduces the atonement to a cold legal transaction — a cosmic accounting exercise in which debts are shuffled around from one ledger to another. But Stott pushes back against this with real force. "There is nothing even remotely immoral here," he writes, "since the substitute for the law-breakers is none other than the divine Lawmaker himself. There is no mechanical transaction either, since the self-sacrifice of love is the most personal of all actions."⁷ Self-sacrifice is the most intimate act imaginable. A parent who throws herself in front of a car to save her child is not engaging in a cold transaction. She is acting out of the deepest, most personal love there is. The cross is that kind of act — multiplied to infinity.

Third, it means that the person and work of Christ cannot be separated. Stott makes the point that at the root of every caricature of the cross lies a defective Christology — a faulty understanding of who Jesus is. If Jesus is merely a human prophet, or if He is somehow separate from the Father in His essential being, then the cross does indeed look like the punishment of an innocent third party. But if Jesus is who the New Testament says He is — the eternal Son of God, one with the Father in essential being, sharing the Father's divine nature — then the picture looks radically different. Then the cross is God bearing the penalty Himself. "It is essential to affirm," Stott writes, "that the love, the holiness and the will of the Father are identical with the love, the holiness and the will of the Son."⁸

Charles Cranfield, in his magisterial commentary on Romans, captured this beautifully in his comment on Romans 3:25. He wrote that God, because He willed in His mercy to forgive sinful people — and because He willed to forgive them righteously, without condoning their sin — purposed to direct against His own self in the person of His Son the full weight of that righteous judgment which they deserved.⁹ Notice the language: God directed judgment "against his own very self." This is not the story of an angry deity beating up someone else. This is the story of a God who absorbs the cost of justice into His own being so that mercy can go free.

David Allen puts the same point forcefully in his discussion of the atonement and the Trinity. He writes that in perfect Trinitarian harmony, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit work together to atone for human sin and bring about salvation. The Father gave the Son, but the Son also gave Himself. The Father sent the Son, but the Son Himself came. As Allen emphasizes, the Father did not require the Son to take up a cross that He was unwilling to bear, nor did the Son extract from the Father a salvation He was reluctant to bestow.¹⁰

The Trinitarian Shape of the Atonement

Stott's insight about God's self-substitution leads naturally to a deeper question: How exactly do we understand the involvement of all three Persons of the Trinity in the work of the cross? This is not an abstract exercise in speculative theology. It is the very heart of the matter. If we get the Trinity wrong here, we will inevitably get the atonement wrong — either by pitting the Father against the Son (the error of the critics) or by collapsing the distinction between them (the error of modalism). The Bible presents the atonement as a thoroughly Trinitarian event, involving the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each contributing distinctly but in perfect unity.

The Father Sends the Son in Love

Let us begin with the Father. What was the Father's role at the cross, and — this is the crucial question — what was His disposition toward the Son as the Son suffered?

The New Testament is remarkably consistent on this point. The Father's sending of the Son to the cross was an act of love — love for a lost world, and love expressed through the giving of what was most precious to Him. Consider the foundational text:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (John 3:16–17, ESV)

Notice the grammar of love here. God loved the world. Therefore God gave His Son. The giving of the Son flows from the Father's love; it does not stand in tension with it. The Father is not an angry judge reluctantly handing over a victim. He is a loving Father giving the most precious gift imaginable — His own Son — because He loves the lost world that desperately needs saving.

Romans 8:32 makes the same point with even more emotional power: "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?" (ESV). The language here — "did not spare his own Son" — echoes the story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22, where God told Abraham, "you have not withheld your son, your only son" (Gen. 22:12). The parallel is intentional and profound. What Abraham was willing to do but did not ultimately have to carry out, God the Father actually carried out — at infinite cost to Himself. The emphasis falls not on divine anger but on divine generosity and grief. This is a Father giving up what is dearest to Him, not a tyrant venting rage.¹¹

We should also note the remarkable text in 1 John 4:10: "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" (ESV). The word propitiation — hilasmos (ἱλασμός) — refers to the satisfaction of divine justice (as discussed in Chapter 8). But look at the framework in which John places it. Propitiation is defined as an expression of love. God's initiative in sending His Son to satisfy His own justice is not an act of cold retribution but an act of extraordinary love. The Father loved us and therefore sent His Son as propitiation. Love is the motive; propitiation is the means; salvation is the result.¹²

The Son Goes Willingly in Love

If the Father sends the Son in love, the Son goes willingly in love. This is one of the most critical points in the entire debate, and one that the "cosmic child abuse" charge fundamentally ignores. The Son is not a passive, unwilling victim. He is a co-equal, co-eternal Person of the Trinity who freely and voluntarily offers Himself.

Jesus could not have been clearer about this. In John 10:17–18, He declares: "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father" (ESV). The language is emphatic. "No one takes it from me." The Son is not dragged to the cross kicking and screaming. He goes freely, deliberately, with full divine authority. And notice that even in this act of self-offering, the Father loves the Son: "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life." The cross does not interrupt the Father's love for the Son; it is one of the reasons the Father loves Him.¹³

Paul echoes this in Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (ESV). The Son loved me and gave himself for me. Love is the motive. Self-giving is the action. Both Father and Son are driven by the same love for the same purpose.

Stott draws particular attention to the voluntary nature of Christ's self-offering, noting that Jesus' surrender to the Father's will was "entirely voluntary, so that his will and the Father's were always in perfect harmony."¹⁴ This is not the language of coercion. It is the language of unity. The Father wills the redemption of humanity through the cross. The Son wills the same thing. Their wills do not conflict; they converge.

The Holy Spirit Enables the Offering

There is one more dimension of the Trinitarian atonement that often gets overlooked: the role of the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 9:14 tells us that Christ "through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God" (ESV). The phrase "through the eternal Spirit" (dia pneumatos aiōniou, διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου) indicates that the Holy Spirit was actively involved in Christ's self-offering on the cross. The Spirit did not stand aside while Father and Son acted; the Spirit was the divine power enabling and empowering the sacrifice.

Adam Johnson captures the Trinitarian shape of the atonement beautifully, describing it this way: the Father willed to give His Son as a sacrifice; the Son willed to be sacrificed; and the Spirit willed to accompany and enable the sacrifice.¹⁵ Allen notes that while Johnson's language could be improved to maintain clearer distinction between the persons, the basic point is profoundly important: all three Persons of the Trinity are actively involved in the atonement, each contributing distinctly, yet all acting in perfect unity of purpose and love.¹⁶

This Trinitarian framework is essential. It means the atonement is not something that happens to one member of the Trinity at the hands of another. It is something that the entire Godhead does together for the salvation of the world. John Webster put it well when he said that the bedrock of soteriology is the doctrine of the Trinity.¹⁷ Get the Trinity right, and the atonement makes sense. Get the Trinity wrong — by pitting Father against Son, or by separating their wills — and you inevitably end up with a distortion.

Answering the "Cosmic Child Abuse" Charge

With this Trinitarian framework in place, we are now in a position to engage directly with the "cosmic child abuse" accusation. Where did this charge come from? What does it actually claim? And why, despite its rhetorical power, does it ultimately fail as a critique of substitutionary atonement?

The Origin of the Accusation

The phrase "cosmic child abuse" entered the atonement debate through Steve Chalke and Alan Mann's 2003 book The Lost Message of Jesus. Chalke, a British evangelical minister, wrote that the popular understanding of penal substitutionary atonement — the idea that the cross is primarily about God punishing Jesus in the place of sinners — amounts to "a form of cosmic child abuse — a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed."¹⁸ The accusation was deliberately provocative, and it sent shockwaves through the evangelical world.

A similar line of attack had been developing in feminist theology. Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker, in their influential book Proverbs of Ashes (2001), argued that traditional atonement theology — particularly its emphasis on redemptive suffering — reinforces patterns of abuse. If God requires the suffering and death of His innocent Son in order to forgive, they argued, then Christianity effectively valorizes the suffering of the innocent, making it easier to justify or accept abuse in human relationships.¹⁹ Joanne Carlson Brown and Rebecca Parker had made a similar argument even earlier, asking provocatively, "Is it any wonder that there is so much abuse in modern society when the predominant image or theology of the culture is of 'divine child abuse'?"²⁰

More recently, William Hess has raised related concerns in Crushing the Great Serpent, arguing against the idea that the Father poured out His wrath upon the Son. Hess shares many of the worries that animate the "cosmic child abuse" charge: that standard formulations of PSA portray the Father as angry at the Son, that they divide the will of the Trinity, and that they distort the character of God. Hess's solution is to reject the substitutionary and penal dimensions of the atonement entirely, favoring a Christus Victor model instead.²¹

I take these concerns seriously. I share some of them, in fact. The reason the "cosmic child abuse" charge resonates with so many people is that some popular presentations of PSA really do sound like what the critics describe. When preachers say things like "God turned His face away from Jesus in disgust," or "the Father poured out every drop of His fury on the Son," or "God treated Jesus as if He were the worst sinner who ever lived and punished Him accordingly" — well, I can understand why someone might hear those descriptions and think of abuse. The problem is not with every formulation of substitutionary atonement. The problem is with certain distorted formulations of it.

But here is where I part company with the critics: the right response to a distorted version of a doctrine is to correct the distortion, not to abandon the doctrine. And the Trinitarian framework we have just laid out provides exactly the correction needed.

Why the Accusation Fails

The "cosmic child abuse" charge fails for at least four fundamental reasons. Let me lay them out one by one.

First, the Son is not a helpless child but a co-equal, co-eternal Person of the Trinity who acts voluntarily. The very analogy of "child abuse" assumes a power differential: a powerful adult abusing a helpless child who cannot consent and cannot resist. But this picture bears no resemblance whatsoever to the New Testament's portrayal of the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Son is not a helpless creature subject to the Father's whims. He is the eternal, uncreated, co-equal second Person of the Trinity, sharing fully in the divine nature, possessing the same divine will, authority, and power as the Father. When He goes to the cross, He goes not as a powerless victim but as a sovereign divine Person who freely chooses to lay down His life. "No one takes it from me," Jesus says. "I lay it down of my own accord" (John 10:18). You cannot have "abuse" without a victim who is acted upon against his will. And the Son was never, at any point, acted upon against His will.²²

Second, the Father does not "punish" the Son in the sense of inflicting retributive violence upon an unwilling party. This is a crucial distinction that gets lost in the rhetoric. When we say that Christ bore the penalty of our sins, we do not mean that the Father flew into a rage and attacked His Son. We mean that the Son voluntarily accepted the judicial consequences that were the rightful due of sinful humanity. As we argued in Chapter 19, the "penalty" borne by Christ is primarily the consequence of sin — death, separation, the curse of the law — rather than an act of vindictive punishment inflicted by an angry deity. The Son steps into the place where sinful humanity stands under judgment, and He bears what we deserved. The Father does not gleefully inflict suffering on the Son; the Father and the Son together carry the terrible weight of human sin, at devastating cost to both.²³

Third, the motivation for the entire event is love, not anger. As we have already seen, every major New Testament text that describes the atonement emphasizes love as the driving motive. "God so loved the world" (John 3:16). "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us" (1 John 4:10). The Son "loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20). Abuse is driven by rage, selfishness, and the desire to dominate. The cross is driven by love, self-sacrifice, and the desire to rescue. The two could not be more different.²⁴

Fourth, calling the cross "abuse" fundamentally misunderstands the nature of self-sacrifice. Every day, human beings lay down their lives for others in ways that we rightly celebrate. A firefighter runs into a burning building. A soldier throws himself on a grenade. A parent pushes her child out of the path of an oncoming car. We do not call these acts "abuse." We call them heroism. We recognize instinctively that voluntary self-sacrifice for the good of another is the highest form of love, not a form of victimization. The cross is the supreme instance of voluntary self-sacrifice — not the sacrifice of a third party, but the self-sacrifice of God Himself. To call it "abuse" is to drain the word of all meaning.²⁵

I. Howard Marshall has expressed the Trinitarian answer to this objection with particular precision. He notes that because it is God the Son — that is, quite simply God — who suffers and dies on the cross, the question of abuse is settled. "This is God himself bearing the consequences of sin," Marshall writes, "not the abuse of some cosmic child."²⁶ When we understand that the Son shares fully in the divine nature, the entire "abuse" framework collapses. God is not abusing someone else. God is absorbing the cost of redemption into His own being.

The Father's Love for the Son at the Cross

If the "cosmic child abuse" charge is a distortion, what was the Father's actual posture toward the Son during the crucifixion? This is one of the most important questions in all of atonement theology, and I believe the answer has sometimes been muddied by well-meaning but careless language — even from defenders of PSA.

Let me state my conviction plainly: God the Father loved Jesus Christ throughout the entire crucifixion. The Father was never, at any moment, enraged at His Son. The Father never turned away from the Son in disgust. The Father never "poured out wrath" upon the Son as if the Son were the object of divine hatred. The penalty borne by Christ was the consequence of human sin, not the expression of the Father's anger toward the Son.

This is a point of vital importance, and it is supported by both Scripture and careful Trinitarian theology.

What Does the Cry of Dereliction Mean?

The most challenging text for this view is the so-called "cry of dereliction" — Jesus' agonized words from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34, ESV). As discussed more fully in Chapter 11, these words come from Psalm 22:1, and their meaning has been debated for centuries. Some have taken them to mean that the Father literally abandoned the Son — that the Trinitarian relationship was ruptured, that the Father turned His face away in wrath, that the Son was truly and completely cut off from the Father's presence and love.

Thomas McCall, in his careful study Forsaken, surveys the biblical and theological evidence and concludes that this interpretation goes beyond what the text warrants. As Allen summarizes McCall's argument, concepts such as "rejection" or "completely abandoned" are not found in the New Testament concerning the action of the Father toward the Son when Jesus was on the cross. In what sense was the Son "forsaken"? The Father left Him to die — He did not intervene to prevent the crucifixion. But this is a very different thing from saying that the Father hated the Son, or that the Father's love was withdrawn, or that the Trinitarian bond was broken.²⁷

Allen notes a particularly striking point: Jesus' quotation of Psalm 22:1 likely was meant to bring the entire psalm to mind, not just its opening verse. And Psalm 22 does not end in abandonment — it ends in vindication and praise. Moreover, Psalm 22:24 explicitly states: "For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him" (ESV). If the whole psalm is in view, then the psalm itself declares that God did not hide His face from the sufferer but heard his cry.²⁸

McCall's conclusion, which Allen endorses, is that the Trinity was in no way "fractured," "broken," or "ruptured" when Christ died on the cross. As McCall puts it: "Did the Father 'turn his face away from his Son?' No, the only text of Scripture that we can understand to address this question directly, Psalm 22:24, says that the Father did not hide his face from his Son. To the contrary, he has 'listened to his cry for help.'"²⁹ Orthodox Trinitarian theology makes such a rupture impossible, for it would mean that the very being of God was torn apart — which is theologically incoherent.

Herman Bavinck expressed a similar view with beautiful directness. Even on the cross, he writes, Jesus remained the beloved Son, the Son of His Father's good pleasure. It was precisely in His suffering and death that Christ offered His greatest and most complete obedience to the will of the Father. And Jesus Himself tells us that though a time would come when all His disciples would abandon Him, He Himself would not be alone, for the Father was with Him (John 16:32).³⁰

Allen draws the conclusion forcefully: "Christ's eternal Trinitarian union with the Father as well as the incarnational union with humanity remained unbroken at the cross."³¹ This is not to minimize the agony of the cross. The suffering was real, devastating, and beyond our comprehension. But it was suffering borne in love and in unbroken Trinitarian fellowship — not suffering inflicted by an angry Father upon a rejected Son.

Christ as "Victim of Love": The Insight of Philippe de la Trinité

One of the most profound treatments of this theme comes from an unexpected source — a twentieth-century Roman Catholic Thomistic theologian named Philippe de la Trinité. In his book What Is Redemption?, Philippe develops a careful analysis of what he calls "vicarious satisfaction" rooted in love and mercy rather than in divine rage. His treatment is deeply relevant to our concerns in this chapter, and I believe Protestant evangelicals have much to learn from it.

Philippe's central category for understanding Christ's work on the cross is striking: he calls Jesus "the victim of love."³² This phrase captures something essential. Christ is indeed a victim — He suffers, He bleeds, He dies. But He is not the victim of the Father's wrath. He is the victim of love. Love drove Him to the cross. Love sustained Him through the agony. Love motivated every moment of His passion. The Father did not victimize the Son; the Son, in union with the Father, offered Himself as a sacrifice motivated by love for a fallen world.

Philippe develops this point by carefully tracing the various senses in which Christ was "given up" (paradidōmi, παραδίδωμι, "to hand over"). He notes that the New Testament uses this same language to describe the actions of very different agents: the Father gave Him up (Rom. 8:32), the Son gave Himself up (Eph. 5:2), Judas gave Him up (Matt. 26:15), the Jewish leaders gave Him up to Pilate (John 18:35), and Pilate gave Him up to be crucified (John 19:16). The same word — "gave up" — is used in every case, but the meaning differs dramatically depending on the agent's motive. As Philippe notes, following Thomas Aquinas, the Father gave up Christ and Christ gave up Himself through love, and hence they are praised for it. But Judas gave up Christ out of greed, the Jews out of envy, and Pilate out of cowardice, and therefore they are blamed for it.³³

This is a critically important distinction. The same event — the crucifixion — can be described from the perspective of divine love (the Father's giving, the Son's self-offering) and from the perspective of human sin (the treachery of Judas, the hatred of the religious leaders, the cowardice of Pilate). The cross has both a divine face and a human face, and we must not confuse them. The human agents acted from sinful motives. The divine Persons acted from love.

Philippe draws extensively on Thomas Aquinas to explain how the Father can be said to "deliver up" His Son without being guilty of cruelty. Aquinas argued that God the Father did not deliver Christ against His will but rather inspired in Him the desire to suffer voluntarily for our sake. Christ, as God, gave Himself up to death with the same will and act as the Father had in giving Him up. As man, He gave Himself up through a desire inspired in Him by the Father. Hence, Aquinas argues, there is no conflict arising from the fact that both the Father gave up Christ and Christ gave up Himself.³⁴

Aquinas further clarifies that it was not impious or cruel of God to will Christ's death. God did not compel Christ against His will. Rather, the Father was pleased by the charity — the love — which caused Christ to accept His death. And it was the Father Himself who infused this love into Christ's human soul.³⁵ This is a stunning picture. The Father does not coerce the Son. The Father loves the Son, and the Son's willingness to go to the cross is itself a gift of the Father's love working in the Son's heart. There is no division of wills, no conflict of purposes, no opposition between an angry Father and a suffering Son. There is only love — the infinite, self-giving love of the Triune God — flowing from the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Spirit, for the salvation of the world.

Philippe's broader analysis also includes a rigorous critique of what he calls "distorting mirrors" — historical formulations of the atonement that distort the biblical picture by introducing the language of divine rage directed at the Son. He surveys Catholic preachers and writers from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who used language describing the Father as "irritated," "striking his innocent Son," "wrestling with the wrath of God," and describes such formulations as unfortunate departures from sound Thomistic theology.³⁶ It is striking that Philippe's critique of these distortions — written from a Catholic Thomistic perspective in 1961 — so closely anticipates the concerns raised by Protestant critics of PSA decades later. The distortions that Chalke and others rightly object to are not intrinsic to substitutionary atonement. They are corruptions of it — corruptions that careful theologians in both the Catholic and Protestant traditions have long recognized and rejected.

Engaging with William Hess's Concerns

At this point, I want to engage fairly and carefully with the objections raised by William Hess in Crushing the Great Serpent. Hess is not merely a critic to be refuted; in several important respects, I find myself in sympathy with his concerns. Where we differ is in what to do about them.

Hess argues that penal substitutionary atonement as commonly presented involves the Father pouring out His wrath upon the Son — a picture Hess finds biblically unsupported and theologically troubling. He is particularly concerned with the claim that the Father was angry at the Son, that the Father punished the Son in a retributive sense, and that the Son bore divine wrath directed at Him personally. Hess surveys both Eastern and Western theological traditions and concludes that the penal substitutionary model is a Western innovation that departs from the more ancient Christus Victor understanding of the cross.³⁷

Here is where I agree with Hess: I share his discomfort with formulations that depict the Father as angry at the Son. I share his concern that some popular versions of PSA effectively divide the Trinity, placing the Father and Son on opposite sides of a conflict. And I share his conviction that the Christus Victor model captures something genuinely biblical and essential about the atonement (as we will explore more fully in Chapter 21).

But here is where I respectfully disagree: I do not believe these concerns require us to abandon the substitutionary dimension of the atonement. Hess's argument, as I understand it, essentially says: "Because certain formulations of PSA are distorted, the whole idea of penal substitution must be rejected." My argument says: "Because certain formulations of PSA are distorted, those distorted formulations must be corrected — but the core of the doctrine can and must be preserved, because it is deeply rooted in Scripture."

The difference between our positions can be stated simply. Hess hears "substitutionary atonement" and thinks of the Father pouring wrath on the Son. I hear "substitutionary atonement" and think of the Triune God bearing the cost of our redemption in unified love. Hess concludes the doctrine is irredeemable. I conclude that the doctrine, when properly framed within Trinitarian theology, is indispensable.

As argued in Chapter 19, the biblical evidence for substitutionary atonement is extensive and deeply rooted — from the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 who "bore the sin of many" (Isa. 53:12), to Jesus' own declaration that He came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45), to Paul's statement that Christ "was delivered up for our trespasses" (Rom. 4:25) and was "made to be sin" for us (2 Cor. 5:21), to Peter's affirmation that Christ "bore our sins in his body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24). The substitutionary dimension is not a later theological invention imposed on the text; it is woven into the fabric of the New Testament witness from the very beginning. The question is not whether there is a substitutionary dimension to the atonement — that is beyond reasonable doubt. The question is how to understand it rightly. And I believe the Trinitarian framework we have been developing in this chapter provides exactly the right lens.³⁸

Hess also raises concerns about the historical development of PSA, arguing that the early church favored a Christus Victor model and that the penal substitutionary understanding was a later Western development — particularly associated with Anselm, the Reformers, and post-Reformation Protestant scholasticism. As we have shown in Chapters 13–15, this historical narrative is significantly overstated. Substitutionary language appears throughout the patristic tradition — in writers like Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, and many others. The Christus Victor model and substitutionary themes coexisted in the early church; the idea that one must choose between them is a false dilemma created largely by Gustaf Aulén's influential but one-sided reading of the evidence.⁵² (For the full treatment of this historical question, see Chapters 13–15.)

What Hess's argument does helpfully remind us, however, is that the penal dimension of substitutionary atonement requires careful Trinitarian framing. When the penal dimension is separated from the Trinitarian framework — when it is presented as the Father punishing the Son in anger rather than as the Triune God bearing the cost of justice in love — it becomes vulnerable to exactly the kinds of objections Hess raises. The answer is not to jettison the penal dimension but to insist that it be understood within the Trinitarian context where it belongs. The Father does not punish the Son as a separate, angry party. Rather, God Himself — in the unity of His Trinitarian life — bears the judicial consequences of human sin. The penalty is real. The suffering is real. The satisfaction of justice is real. But all of it happens within the embrace of divine love, not outside it.

Simon Gathercole's careful study Defending Substitution helps clarify why the substitutionary element cannot simply be absorbed into a Christus Victor framework. Gathercole demonstrates that the core New Testament language about Christ's death — particularly the formula "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3) — carries genuinely substitutionary content. The prepositions hyper (ὑπέρ, "on behalf of") and anti (ἀντί, "in the place of") are used throughout the New Testament to describe Christ's death as an act done for us and in our place. This is not merely beneficiary language ("He did it for our benefit") but substitutionary language ("He took our place").³⁹ Christus Victor tells us that Christ won a victory over the powers of evil. Substitution tells us how He won that victory — by stepping into our place, bearing what we deserved, and emerging triumphant on the other side. The two models are not competitors; they are complementary.

Theological Guardrails: Boundaries for Faithful Formulation

Having made the positive case, I want to conclude by establishing some clear theological guardrails — boundaries that any faithful formulation of substitutionary atonement must respect. These are not arbitrary restrictions but flow directly from the Trinitarian theology of the atonement that we have been developing throughout this chapter.

Guardrail #1: No Division of Will within the Trinity

Any formulation of PSA that creates a division of will within the Trinity has departed from orthodox Christian theology and must be corrected. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine will. They do not have competing agendas, conflicting desires, or opposing purposes. The Father did not want to punish while the Son wanted to save. Both wanted to save, and both willed the cross as the means of salvation. Formulations that speak of the Son "pleading with" or "persuading" or "changing the mind of" an angry Father are deeply problematic, because they imply a conflict within the Godhead that is foreign to orthodox Trinitarianism.⁴⁰

Allen underlines this point. He reminds us that Johnson's insistence is correct: "Any time we speak of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as though they were opposed, we do so at the expense of the doctrine of the Trinity and therefore at the expense of the Gospel."⁴¹ The atonement is a Trinitarian act in which all three Persons cooperate. The doctrine of divine simplicity — the teaching that God's attributes are not in conflict with one another but are unified in the simplicity of the divine nature — further reinforces this point. As Thomas McCall argues, divine simplicity makes a conflict between love and wrath impossible in God.⁴²

Guardrail #2: The Father Was Not Angry at the Son

Any formulation that depicts the Father as angry at the Son, as if the Son were the object of the Father's fury or hatred, must be rejected. The Father loved the Son throughout the crucifixion. The penalty borne by Christ was the consequence of our sin, not an expression of the Father's personal animosity toward the Son. To say that God directed judgment "against his own very self in the person of his Son" (Cranfield's language) is very different from saying that God was angry at His Son. The former preserves the unity of Father and Son; the latter ruptures it.

Does this mean there is no dimension of divine judgment at the cross? No. As we have argued throughout this book, the cross does involve the satisfaction of divine justice. The judicial consequences of sin are real, and Christ bore them. But the judgment falls on sin, not on the Son as a person. The Father's settled opposition is against sin, not against the Son who bears it. There is a world of difference between "God judges sin in the person of Christ" and "God is angry at Christ." The first is biblical theology. The second is a distortion.⁴³

Guardrail #3: The Son Did Not Suffer Unwillingly

Any formulation that suggests the Son suffered against His will, or that the Father imposed suffering on an unwilling victim, must be rejected. As we have seen, the New Testament is emphatic that Christ went to the cross voluntarily. "No one takes it from me. I lay it down of my own accord" (John 10:18). Gethsemane is sometimes cited as evidence that the Son was reluctant, since Jesus prayed, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me" (Matt. 26:39). But the prayer continues: "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." The struggle in Gethsemane reveals the genuine humanity of Jesus — He naturally shrank from the horror of what lay ahead — but it concludes with a resolute act of submission, not coercion. The Son's consent to the cross is free, deliberate, and loving. This is what makes it a sacrifice rather than a victimization.⁴⁴

Guardrail #4: The Father Did Not Need to Be "Appeased" as a Separate Angry Party

Any formulation that implies the Father needed to be "appeased" by the Son's suffering — as if the Father were a separate angry party whose rage needed to be calmed by someone else's payment — imports a pagan framework into Christian theology. In pagan religion, humans attempt to placate angry gods through sacrifices and offerings. In biblical theology, the initiative flows in exactly the opposite direction. It is God who provides the sacrifice (Gen. 22:8; 1 John 4:10). It is God who bears the cost. It is God who, in the person of His Son, satisfies the demands of His own justice. The "satisfaction" at the cross is, as Stott puts it, "divine self-satisfaction through divine self-substitution."⁴⁵ God satisfies Himself. He does not need to be appeased by someone else.

This point connects directly to the distinction between Christian atonement theology and the pagan parallels that Hess discusses in his chapter on pagan substitutionary atonement. Hess argues that PSA bears uncomfortable resemblances to pagan sacrifice — a human victim offered to appease an angry deity.⁴⁶ But the resemblance holds only if we adopt the distorted version of PSA that this chapter has been at pains to reject. When substitutionary atonement is properly understood as God's self-substitution — as the Triune God absorbing the cost of justice into His own being out of love — the supposed parallel with pagan sacrifice collapses. In pagan sacrifice, humans give to the gods. In the gospel, God gives to humans. The direction of movement is entirely reversed.

Wrath, Love, and the Character of God

Before we conclude, there is one more issue that requires careful attention. Some readers may wonder: if the Father was not angry at the Son, does that mean there is no divine wrath at the cross? Does the framework I am proposing drain the atonement of its judicial dimension entirely? Have I, in my eagerness to avoid the "angry Father" caricature, inadvertently fallen into the opposite ditch of minimizing the seriousness of sin and its consequences?

The answer is no — and the distinction is critical. There is genuine divine wrath at the cross, but its object is sin, not the Son. God's wrath, as we discussed in Chapter 3, is not irrational anger or vindictive rage. It is the settled, principled, holy opposition of God's perfect nature to all that is evil. Wrath is, as Stott puts it, the obverse of love — because God loves what is good, He opposes what is evil.⁴⁷ At the cross, this holy opposition to sin meets sin in its fullness. The consequences of sin — death, alienation, the curse of the law — are concentrated and borne by Christ. In that sense, there is a genuine penal dimension to the cross.

But this penal dimension must always be understood within the Trinitarian framework of love. The wrath of God against sin and the love of God for the Son are not in competition. God can simultaneously oppose sin with all the force of His holy nature and love the Son who bears that sin with all the tenderness of the eternal Father-Son relationship. These are not two opposite poles between which God oscillates. They are two dimensions of a single divine act, held together in the infinite depth of God's character.

Allen captures this well when he notes that there is a sense in which God is not moved from wrath to mercy by the cross, and yet a sense in which He is. What has objectively changed as a result of the atonement is God's treatment of sinners. But His fundamental disposition toward humanity has not changed, because God has always loved the world He created. God's wrath is a contingent expression of His holiness — His love expressed against sin in specific ways. When the basis for that wrath is removed (because the penalty has been borne), God's treatment of sinners changes. But the underlying love that motivated the whole plan never changed at all.⁴⁸

The Roman Catholic theologian Adonis Vidu makes a related point using the concept of divine simplicity. He argues that the condemnation Jesus suffered is just as much an expression of divine love as His resurrection and glorification. The crucifixion, the resurrection, and the glorification are not separate divine actions driven by different attributes (wrath causing the crucifixion, love causing the resurrection). They are all elements of a single, all-encompassing divine act in which God is fully Himself.⁴⁹ The cross does not "enable" God to adjust His attributes so that He can now receive us. God was always loving; the cross is the means by which His love becomes saving without compromising His justice.

This is the heart of the mystery. At the cross, love and justice do not compete. They converge. As Psalm 85:10 puts it: "Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other" (ESV). The cross is the place where that meeting happens — where the full seriousness of God's justice and the infinite depth of God's love meet in a single act of breathtaking beauty and terrible cost.

H. Wheeler Robinson grasped this truth with real depth. He noted that the more we appeal to the love of Christ for humanity, in life and in death, as revealing the love of the Father, the more we seem driven to ascribe the sacrificial quality of that love — its very essence and core — to the Father as well as to the Son.⁵⁷ In other words, the cross does not reveal a split between an angry Father and a loving Son. It reveals a Father whose love is just as sacrificial, just as costly, just as self-giving as the Son's. The Father is not watching from a safe distance while the Son suffers alone. The Father participates in the suffering through the bond of Trinitarian love. George Buttrick described a painting in an Italian church that, at first glance, appears to be an ordinary crucifixion scene. But on closer inspection, a vast, shadowy Figure appears behind the figure of Jesus. The nail that pierces the hand of Jesus goes through to the hand of God. The spear thrust into the side of Jesus goes through into God's.⁵⁸ That painting, whether or not it is theologically precise in every detail, captures something profoundly true: at the cross, the Father suffers with and in the Son. The cost of redemption falls on the entire Godhead, not on the Son alone.

The nineteenth-century Wesleyan theologian William Burt Pope offered a sweeping summary that ties these themes together. He wrote that everything belonging to our understanding of the divine nature is revealed in the Son, who in both His active and passive righteousness reveals all that is in the Father. God is known to us only as a God of redemption, Pope insisted, and every doxology in all of Scripture derives its strength and fervor from the atonement.⁵⁹ If Pope is right — and I believe he is — then the cross is not an interruption of God's character. It is the supreme revelation of it. Everything God is — His love, His justice, His holiness, His mercy, His faithfulness — is poured into the act of the cross. And because God is one, these attributes do not war against each other in the act of atonement. They work together in "combined action," as T. J. Crawford put it, not "counteraction."⁶⁰

This is why James Pendleton could write so beautifully of "a cordial co-operation of the divine attributes in the salvation of the guilty."⁶¹ At the cross, God's love does not defeat His justice, and God's justice does not override His love. Instead, love and justice cooperate — they work together, hand in hand — to accomplish something that neither could accomplish alone. Justice without love would mean condemnation. Love without justice would mean cheap grace. But justice and love together, expressed through the self-substitution of the Triune God, produce genuine salvation — costly, real, and infinitely precious.

Karl Barth and the Trinitarian Shape of the Cross

No discussion of the Trinitarian dimension of the atonement would be complete without reference to Karl Barth, who perhaps more than any twentieth-century theologian grasped the centrality of Christology for atonement theology. Stott himself acknowledged Barth's contribution, noting that Barth insisted Christology is the key to the doctrine of reconciliation. And Christology means confessing Jesus Christ as "very God, very man, and very God-man."⁵³

Barth's contribution is important for our purposes because he understood that the identity of the one who dies on the cross changes everything about how we interpret that death. If the crucified one is merely a human being, then the cross might be a noble example of martyrdom, or an inspiring display of courage, but it cannot be the saving act of God. If the crucified one is God incarnate — the eternal Son who shares the Father's nature — then the cross becomes something entirely different: it becomes God Himself entering the far country of human sin and death, bearing its weight in His own person, and overcoming it from within.

For Barth, this means that we can never separate the person of Christ from the work of Christ. Who He is determines what His death accomplishes. And because He is the eternal Son of the Father — one with the Father in essence, will, and love — His death on the cross is not the Father punishing a separate being but God acting within Himself to bear the cost of human rebellion. The cross is God's own act, from start to finish.⁵⁴

This is why Stott could write that "at the root of every caricature of the cross there lies a distorted Christology."⁵⁵ If we have a low Christology — if we think of Jesus as less than fully divine, or as somehow separate from the Father in His essential being — then we will inevitably distort the atonement. We will picture the cross as a transaction between two separate parties (God and Jesus) rather than as an act of divine self-sacrifice. We will hear "substitution" and think "third-party punishment" rather than "God bearing the cost Himself." Every christological error produces a corresponding soteriological error. And every soteriological correction requires a christological correction.

Responding to Pastoral Concerns

I want to acknowledge one more dimension of the "cosmic child abuse" debate before we conclude: the pastoral dimension. The critics of PSA are not wrong to worry about the way atonement theology can be misused. It is sadly true that some people have used the language of redemptive suffering to justify or minimize abuse — telling victims of domestic violence, for example, that they should endure suffering patiently because Christ suffered for them. This is a grotesque distortion of the gospel, and we should name it as such.

But the solution is not to abandon substitutionary atonement. The solution is to proclaim it rightly. And when proclaimed rightly, substitutionary atonement is actually the most powerful theological resource against abuse, not in favor of it. Here is why.

First, the cross reveals God's identification with victims, not abusers. At the cross, God takes the position of the one who suffers unjustly. He does not stand with the powerful against the powerless; He stands with the powerless against the powerful. If God Himself is found among the suffering, then suffering is not something to be imposed or celebrated. It is something that God Himself enters into in order to overcome. The crucified God is forever on the side of the crucified — those who are mocked, abandoned, tortured, and killed by the violent and the powerful. Any theology that uses the cross to justify violence against the vulnerable has betrayed the very God who hung there.

Second, Christ's suffering is unique and unrepeatable. It is not a pattern for passive acceptance of abuse. Christ suffered so that we would not have to bear the ultimate consequences of sin. His suffering was purposeful, voluntary, and effective — it accomplished something that no other suffering could accomplish. To tell an abuse victim that they should suffer "like Christ" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Christ's suffering. He suffered precisely so that the cycle of suffering could be broken. His cross was a once-for-all event (Heb. 9:26, 28; 10:10), not a template for ongoing victimization.⁵⁰

Third, the cross exposes violence for what it truly is. Fleming Rutledge has argued powerfully that the cross is not the glorification of violence but the unmasking of it. At the cross, the principalities and powers — the structures of human evil, oppression, and violence — are exposed and defeated (Col. 2:15). Far from endorsing violence, the cross is God's definitive judgment against violence.⁵¹ As we will explore in Chapter 21, the Christus Victor dimension of the atonement reveals that the cross is God's invasion of enemy-occupied territory, liberating captives and overthrowing the powers of darkness.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the Trinitarian understanding of the atonement we have developed in this chapter is itself a safeguard against abuse theology. If the cross is the self-substitution of God — if it is the Triune God bearing the cost of redemption in unified love — then it simply cannot be used to justify one person imposing suffering on another. The cross is not about one party inflicting pain on another party. It is about God freely choosing, out of love, to absorb the consequences of evil into His own being. The moment we use the cross to justify a powerful person inflicting suffering on a powerless person, we have reversed the entire logic of the gospel. We have turned God's self-sacrifice into an excuse for exploitation — which is precisely the kind of sin the cross was meant to defeat.⁵⁶

Conclusion: The Cross as the Supreme Act of Triune Love

We have covered a great deal of ground in this chapter, and it may be helpful to gather the threads together.

We began with Stott's foundational insight that the cross is the self-substitution of God — not God punishing someone else, but God, in the person of His Son, bearing the cost of our redemption Himself. This framework removes the objection that PSA involves the unjust punishment of an innocent third party, because the substitute is not a third party but God Himself.

We then explored the Trinitarian nature of the atonement, seeing how the Father sends the Son in love, the Son goes willingly in love, and the Holy Spirit enables the offering — all three Persons acting in perfect unity of will and purpose. There is no division within the Trinity at the cross. There is only the unified, self-giving love of the Triune God accomplishing what no creature could accomplish.

We engaged directly with the "cosmic child abuse" accusation and showed why it fails: because the Son is not a helpless victim but a co-equal divine Person who acts freely; because the Father does not inflict vindictive punishment but joins with the Son in bearing sin's consequences; because the motive is love, not rage; and because voluntary self-sacrifice is the highest form of love, not a form of abuse.

We examined the Father's posture toward the Son during the crucifixion and argued that the Father loved the Son throughout — that the Trinity was never ruptured, never broken, never divided. We drew on McCall, Bavinck, and Allen to support this claim.

We explored Philippe de la Trinité's beautiful concept of Christ as "the victim of love" — a victim not of the Father's wrath but of the Triune God's self-giving love for a fallen world. And we traced the careful Thomistic logic by which the Father's "giving up" of the Son and the Son's self-offering can be understood as a single act of unified love rather than a conflict between an angry judge and a helpless victim.

We engaged fairly with Hess's concerns and acknowledged the legitimacy of his discomfort with certain distorted formulations of PSA, while arguing that the solution is to correct the distortion rather than abandon the doctrine.

And we established four theological guardrails: no division of will within the Trinity, no Father-Son anger, no unwilling suffering, and no pagan-style appeasement. Any formulation of substitutionary atonement that crosses these lines has departed from orthodox Trinitarian theology and must be brought back within bounds.

Let me close with a personal reflection. I have spent years thinking about the cross. I have read the critics and the defenders, the theologians and the philosophers, the ancient Fathers and the modern scholars. And I keep coming back to the same conclusion: the cross is the most beautiful thing that has ever happened. Not beautiful in a sentimental way — there is nothing sentimental about crucifixion. Beautiful in the deepest possible way — because it reveals a God who loves so extravagantly, so recklessly, so completely, that He enters into the darkest consequences of human sin and bears them in His own being so that we can go free.

That is not cosmic child abuse. That is cosmic love. That is the gospel. And that is what I believe the Bible teaches from beginning to end.

As Paul wrote to the Romans: "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8, ESV). The Father shows His love. Christ dies for us. Love is the motive. Substitution is the means. And the whole Trinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — is united in the act from start to finish. This is the cross at the center. This is the atonement rightly understood. And it is very, very good news.

Bibliography

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

Aulén, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. Translated by A. G. Hebert. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. IV/1: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Blocher, Henri. "The Atonement in John Calvin's Theology." In The Glory of the Atonement, edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III, 279–303. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Brock, Rita Nakashima, and Rebecca Ann Parker. Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us. Boston: Beacon, 2001.

Brown, Joanne Carlson, and Rebecca Parker. "For God So Loved the World?" In Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse: A Feminist Critique, edited by Joanne Carlson Brown and Carole R. Bohn, 1–30. Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1989.

Carson, D. A. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000.

Chalke, Steve, and Alan Mann. The Lost Message of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

Craig, William Lane. Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020.

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975.

Gathercole, Simon. Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

Hess, William L. Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God Punish Jesus? 2024.

Jeffery, Steven, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.

Johnson, Adam. Atonement: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: T&T Clark, 2015.

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

McCall, Thomas. Forsaken: The Trinity and the Cross, and Why It Matters. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

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

Philippe de la Trinité. What Is Redemption? How Christ's Suffering Saves Us. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road, 2021.

Rutledge, Fleming. The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

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

Vidu, Adonis. Atonement, Law, and Justice: The Cross in Historical and Cultural Contexts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.

Williams, Garry. "Penal Substitution: A Response to Recent Criticism." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 1 (2007): 71–86.