Chapter 13
The Apostolic Fathers and Second-Century Atonement Thought

Introduction: Listening to the Earliest Christian Voices

What did the very first Christians after the apostles believe about why Jesus died? This question matters a great deal. If we want to understand whether substitutionary atonement — the idea that Jesus died in our place, bearing the consequences of sin that should have fallen on us — is truly at the heart of the gospel, then we need to see whether that idea shows up in the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament. Did the first generation of believers after the apostles talk about the cross in ways that sound substitutionary? Or did they think of Christ's death in completely different terms?

In this chapter, we will walk through the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and second-century Christian thinkers — men like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, the unknown author of the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, and the towering figure of Irenaeus of Lyons. These are the earliest Christian voices we have after the New Testament itself, and what they say about the cross is both fascinating and important.

Here is the thesis I want to defend in this chapter: The earliest post-apostolic Christian writers reflect atonement ideas that are broadly substitutionary, sacrificial, and ransom-oriented, showing that the church from its very beginning understood Christ's death as involving the bearing of sin on behalf of others — even before anyone developed a systematic atonement "theory."

Now, a word of caution before we dive in. These writers were not systematic theologians. They did not sit down and write careful, organized books about exactly how the atonement works. They were pastors, bishops, and apologists — people writing letters to encourage their churches, defend the faith against critics, and pass on what they had received from the apostles. Their atonement language is often brief, scattered across letters and apologetic works, and woven into broader discussions of Christian life and belief. We should not expect to find a fully developed doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement in these writers. That came later. What we should expect to find — and what we do find — are the raw materials, the building blocks, the seeds from which later atonement theology would grow.

And this is where the chapter becomes especially interesting, because a major scholarly debate has raged for nearly a century over what the earliest Christians actually believed about the atonement. The Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulén argued in his famous 1931 book Christus Victor that the dominant early Christian view was the "classic" model — a dramatic picture of Christ winning a cosmic victory over sin, death, and the devil. According to Aulén, the substitutionary and penal understanding of the cross was a later development, a Latin invention that arrived with Anselm in the eleventh century and was then sharpened by the Protestant Reformers.¹ On the other side of the debate, scholars like Leon Morris, J.I. Packer, and more recently Steven Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach have argued that substitutionary and even penal language is present in the earliest Christian writings — and that Aulén's reading of the Fathers is one-sided.²

I believe the evidence supports a middle position that leans strongly toward the latter view. Yes, Christus Victor themes — Christ's triumph over the powers of evil — are genuinely present in the early church. Aulén was not wrong about that. But he was wrong to claim that victory language was the only kind of atonement language the early Christians used. When we read the primary sources carefully, we find that substitutionary, sacrificial, and penal themes sit right alongside the victory themes, often in the same paragraph. The earliest Christians did not neatly separate their atonement thinking into tidy categories. They used whatever language the Scriptures gave them — and the Scriptures gave them language of substitution, sacrifice, ransom, and victory all woven together.

Let us now turn to the sources themselves and let these ancient voices speak.

1 Clement (c. AD 96): The Blood Shed "for Our Salvation"

The earliest Christian document outside the New Testament (apart from the Didache, which we will discuss shortly) is probably the letter known as 1 Clement, written by Clement of Rome around AD 96 — barely a generation after the apostle Paul. Clement was writing to the church in Corinth, which was dealing with internal divisions. In the course of his letter, he has occasion to speak about Christ's death, and what he says is striking.

Clement writes: "Let us fix our gaze on the blood of Christ, and let us know that it is precious to His Father, because it was poured out for our salvation and brought the grace of repentance to the whole world."³ Notice the language here. Christ's blood is "precious to His Father" — it has value before God. It was "poured out for our salvation" — that little word "for" (the Greek hyper, ὑπέρ, meaning "on behalf of") carries substitutionary overtones, as we discussed in Chapter 2. And it "brought the grace of repentance to the whole world" — notice the universal scope.

But Clement goes further. In a remarkable passage, he says: "On account of the love which He had for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God — His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls."⁴ This is deeply significant language. Christ gave "His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls." That is exchange language. It is substitutionary language. Christ gives His life in place of ours. And Clement grounds this entire exchange in love — "on account of the love which He had for us." This is precisely the kind of substitution-rooted-in-love that I have been arguing for throughout this book.

Now, William Hess, in his book Crushing the Great Serpent, quotes Clement's language but argues that "doing something on behalf of someone, for someone, or at God's will should not be equated with punishment or substitution. There's a difference between a representative and a substitute."⁵ Hess insists that Clement's "for us" language describes Christ as a representative who acts on our behalf, not a substitute who acts in our place. I appreciate Hess's careful attention to these distinctions, but I think he draws the line too sharply. When Clement says Christ gave "His flesh for our flesh," the natural sense is that Christ's flesh was given instead of ours — it is not merely that He acted alongside us, but that He gave what was His so that we would not have to give what was ours. The exchange is the whole point. As Simon Gathercole has shown, in Paul's letters the language of Christ dying "for us" (hyper hēmōn) consistently carries substitutionary meaning — Christ in our place — and Clement, who was deeply shaped by Paul, uses the same language in the same way.⁶

To be fair, Clement does not develop a systematic theology of penal substitution. He does not explain how Christ's blood satisfies divine justice or why the exchange was necessary. He simply states it as a fact, grounding it in the love of Christ and the will of the Father. But the raw material is there: Christ's blood has value before God, it was given for our salvation, and it involved a real exchange — His life for ours. It is also worth noting that Clement wrote this letter to resolve a dispute in the Corinthian church about leadership. His references to the atonement are not the main point of his letter — they are things he says in passing, truths he takes for granted as shared convictions that do not need to be argued. That is precisely what makes them so valuable as historical evidence. Clement is not defending substitutionary language. He is assuming it. It is already part of the fabric of Christian belief, so basic that it can be mentioned without explanation in a letter about church order.

The Epistle of Barnabas (c. AD 70–130): Old Testament Types and the Cross

The Epistle of Barnabas — not written by Paul's companion Barnabas, but by an unknown early Christian author — is one of the most fascinating documents from this period for our purposes, because it is packed with Old Testament typology. The author reads the entire Old Testament as pointing forward to Christ, and his treatment of the sacrificial system is especially important for understanding early Christian atonement thought.

The author quotes Isaiah 53 directly: "He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities, by His stripes we were healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before its shearer."⁷ The author then draws the conclusion: "The Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we should be sanctified by the remission of sin, that is, by His sprinkled blood."⁸ Christ delivered His flesh to "corruption" — that is, to death — so that we might receive the "remission of sin." The mechanism by which this happens is "His sprinkled blood," language drawn directly from the Old Testament sacrificial system (see Chapter 4 for a full treatment of Levitical sacrifice).

This is remarkable. As early as the late first or early second century, a Christian writer is reading Isaiah 53 — the great Suffering Servant passage that we examined in detail in Chapter 6 — as describing what Christ accomplished on the cross. And the language the author uses is unmistakably sacrificial and substitutionary. Christ was "wounded for our transgressions." He gave His flesh so that we might be sanctified. His blood was "sprinkled" for the remission of sin.

The Epistle of Barnabas also contains an extensive treatment of the scapegoat ritual from Leviticus 16 — the Day of Atonement ceremony we examined in Chapter 5. The author interprets the scapegoat as a type of Christ who bears the sins of the people. He draws vivid parallels between the Old Testament ritual and what happened to Jesus. The scarlet thread tied to the scapegoat's head represents the suffering of Christ. The goat is driven into the wilderness, bearing the sins of the people, just as Christ bore our sins to the cross.⁹ What makes this especially significant is the fact that the scapegoat ritual in Leviticus 16 involves the explicit transfer of sins — the high priest lays his hands on the goat's head and confesses over it all the iniquities of the people, symbolically transferring their sins to the animal. When the author of Barnabas applies this image to Christ, he is drawing on a pattern of sin-transfer that points unmistakably in a substitutionary direction.

Hess reads the Epistle of Barnabas through a Christus Victor lens, arguing that when Barnabas speaks of Christ suffering "for us," it means Christ gave Himself to rescue us from the power of death, not to satisfy anyone's justice or absorb anyone's wrath.¹⁰ I think Hess is right that the rescue dimension is present. But I also think he underestimates the sacrificial and substitutionary dimensions. When the Epistle of Barnabas quotes Isaiah 53 — "He was wounded for our transgressions" — and connects it to the scapegoat ritual of Leviticus 16, it is drawing on language and imagery that are fundamentally about sin-bearing, about one who carries what belongs to others. As we showed in Chapter 6, the Hebrew behind Isaiah 53:5 uses the word musar (מוּסָר), which means corrective punishment or chastisement. And the scapegoat ritual in Leviticus 16 is explicitly about the transfer of sins from the people onto the animal. The Epistle of Barnabas applies both of these images to Christ.

So the author of Barnabas is not just using victory language. He is using sacrificial language, substitutionary language, and sin-bearing language — all drawn from the Old Testament and applied to the death of Christ. These are precisely the categories that later theologians would develop into a full doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 110): Suffering "for Our Sakes"

Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch in Syria. Around AD 110, he was arrested and sent to Rome to be executed. On the journey, he wrote a series of letters to various churches — letters that give us a precious window into early second-century Christianity. What does Ignatius say about why Christ died?

He writes: "Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved."¹¹ And again: "Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes."¹² Here we see the astonishing contrast that Ignatius draws: the eternal, invisible, impassible God became visible, passible, and suffering — all "for our sakes." This is incarnational and sacrificial language woven together. God entered into suffering so that we might be saved from it.

Even more striking is this passage: "Do ye therefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, become the imitators of His sufferings, and of His love, wherewith He loved us when He gave Himself a ransom for us, that He might cleanse us by His blood from our old ungodliness, and bestow life on us when we were almost on the point of perishing through the depravity that was in us."¹³

This is a remarkable sentence. Notice the layers of atonement language Ignatius piles up. Christ "gave Himself a ransom for us" — that is ransom language, echoing Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:6. He did this to "cleanse us by His blood" — that is sacrificial and purification language. He did it to "bestow life on us when we were almost on the point of perishing" — that is rescue and deliverance language. And the whole thing is motivated by His "love, wherewith He loved us" — the love of Christ is the driving force behind the cross.

Hess, again, reads Ignatius through a non-substitutionary lens, arguing that "to die for someone does not require a vicarious punishment or a satisfaction of wrath. Instead, it could be an act of love to throw oneself into an abyss to prevent your friends from falling in."¹⁴ While I appreciate Hess's emphasis on love as the motive, his analogy actually works against his point. If someone throws himself into an abyss to keep his friends from falling in, that person dies instead of his friends. That is substitution! The friend dies so that the others do not have to. And when Ignatius says Christ gave Himself as a "ransom for us" and cleansed us "by His blood," he is saying more than just that Christ loved us — he is saying that Christ's death accomplished something specific, something that involved the giving of His life in exchange for ours.

The Didache: The Eucharist and Its Atonement Implications

The Didache, or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," is a short early Christian manual that may date to as early as the late first century. It is primarily a practical document — instructions for how to live the Christian life, how to baptize, how to fast, and how to celebrate the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper). It does not contain a long theological discussion of the atonement. But its Eucharistic prayers are revealing.

The Didache instructs Christians to give thanks over the cup by saying: "We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David thy servant, which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy servant."¹⁵ And over the broken bread: "We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy servant."¹⁶

These prayers are notably brief and do not contain the explicit "body given for you" and "blood poured out for the forgiveness of sins" language that we find in Paul's account of the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23–26) and in the Gospel accounts (Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20). Some scholars have taken this as evidence that the earliest Christians did not always connect the Eucharist to the atoning significance of Christ's death.¹⁷

I think this overstates the evidence. The Didache is a practical manual, not a theological treatise. It does not contain a developed Christology or soteriology of any kind — it is simply giving brief liturgical instructions. The fact that its Eucharistic prayers are short and simple does not mean the community behind the Didache had no concept of atonement. It is like arguing that because a church's Sunday bulletin does not contain a treatise on the Trinity, the congregation must not believe in the Trinity.

There are, in fact, hints of atonement awareness even in this brief document. The Didache instructs believers to confess their sins before participating in the Eucharist, suggesting an awareness of the connection between sin, forgiveness, and the breaking of bread.¹⁸ The very act of gathering around the Lord's Table, breaking bread and drinking from the cup, would have carried enormous atonement significance in any community shaped by the apostolic tradition. Paul's own account of the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 — "This is my body, which is for you" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" — was part of the teaching the earliest Christians received and passed on. It is virtually impossible that a community practicing the Eucharist in the late first century would have had no understanding of its connection to Christ's sacrificial death, even if their liturgical manual did not spell it out in every detail.

Still, it is fair to say that the Didache does not give us much explicit material to work with for atonement theology specifically. Its primary value for our purposes is as background — evidence that the earliest Christians practiced the Eucharist, confessed their sins, and lived in a community shaped by the apostolic message of the cross, even when they did not write lengthy theological reflections on these practices.

Justin Martyr (c. AD 100–165): Christ Bore the Curse for Humanity

Justin Martyr is one of the most important second-century Christian writers. He was a philosopher who converted to Christianity and became one of the first great apologists — defenders of the faith against pagan and Jewish critics. His Dialogue with Trypho, a literary debate with a Jewish interlocutor, contains extensive discussion of Christ's death and its significance.

Justin's most important atonement passage comes in his discussion of Galatians 3:13, where Paul writes that "Christ became a curse for us." Justin explains to Trypho: "For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.' And no one has accurately done all."¹⁹ Justin's reasoning is clear: all human beings have broken God's law, and therefore all are under the curse that the law pronounces on lawbreakers.

Then comes the crucial move. Justin says: "If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed?"²⁰

This is remarkable language. The Father "wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all." Christ takes upon Himself the curses that belong to others — the curses that rest on the whole human family because of their disobedience to God's law. This is substitutionary language. The curse belongs to us; Christ takes it upon Himself.

Justin also makes extensive use of Isaiah 53. In his First Apology, he quotes the Servant Song at length and applies it directly to Christ, interpreting the Servant's suffering as vicarious — the Servant bears what belongs to others.²¹ He also draws a parallel between the blood of the Passover lamb and the blood of Christ: "As the blood of the Passover saved those who were in Egypt, so also the blood of Christ will deliver from death those who have believed."²² This Passover typology connects Christ's death to the sacrificial system and to the idea of deliverance through blood.

Hess argues that many people "mistakenly assume Justin Martyr taught PSA, but this is a mistake," because Justin's use of "curse" does not mean "God's wrath poured out for the satisfaction of sins" but rather refers to the curse of mortality and death that results from sin.²³ Hess has a point that we should not read fully developed Reformation-era PSA back into Justin. Justin is not writing a systematic treatise on penal substitution. But Hess goes too far in the other direction. When Justin says the Father wished Christ "to take upon Him the curses of all," he is clearly describing a transfer — the curses that rested on humanity are now placed on Christ. Whether we call this "penal" or not, it is undeniably substitutionary. Christ bears what belongs to others. That is the essential structure of substitution.

Furthermore, Justin tells Trypho that the Father wished Christ to suffer "in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed."²⁴ This is a direct allusion to Isaiah 53:5, and it connects Christ's suffering to our healing. Justin is not merely saying that Christ is a moral example or that He wins a cosmic victory. He is saying that Christ's suffering is the means by which we are healed. His stripes bring our healing. That is classic substitutionary logic.

The Epistle to Diognetus (c. AD 130–200): "O Sweet Exchange!"

One of the most beautiful passages in all of early Christian literature appears in the Epistle to Diognetus, a short apologetic work addressed to an otherwise unknown pagan inquirer. The author — whose identity is lost to history — describes the work of Christ in language that virtually any defender of substitutionary atonement would be delighted to claim:

But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!²⁵

Where do we even begin? This passage is simply extraordinary. Let me walk through the key elements.

First, the author begins by describing humanity's desperate situation: "our wickedness had reached its height" and "punishment and death was impending over us." This is the problem the atonement must solve — human wickedness has earned punishment and death.

Second, the initiative comes entirely from God's love: "the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred." This is not the picture of an angry deity looking for someone to punish. This is a God of overflowing love who acts to save the undeserving.

Third, the mechanism is substitutionary exchange: "He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities." God bears our sins. "He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous." Each phrase is a contrast — the sinless One in place of the sinful, the righteous One in place of the unrighteous. This is exchange. This is substitution.

Fourth, the author states the result in explicitly forensic (legal) terms: "the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors." The word "justify" (Greek: dikaioō, δικαιόω) is a legal term — it means to declare righteous, to acquit in a court of law. The author is saying that on the basis of the exchange — Christ's righteousness for our wickedness — "many transgressors" are declared righteous before God.

Fifth, the author calls this an "exchange" — and not just any exchange, but a "sweet exchange" (antallage). John Stott points out that this passage is "probably the first example" of Christians meditating on the great exchange between Christ and sinners that would become central to the theological tradition.²⁶

Hess discusses this passage and acknowledges its powerful language, but he emphasizes the love of God as the driving motive, reading the passage primarily through the lens of God's "exceeding regard for men" rather than as a statement about the mechanism of atonement.²⁷ I agree that love is the motive — the passage says so explicitly. But the motive and the mechanism are not in competition. The passage describes both: God loved us (motive), and so He gave His Son as a ransom for us, the righteous One for the unrighteous (mechanism). The mechanism is substitutionary exchange, and the motive is love. This is precisely the integration I have been arguing for throughout this book: substitution is not opposed to love but is the supreme expression of love.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 130–202): The Great Recapitulator

We come now to the most important atonement theologian of the second century — Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul (modern-day France). Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was himself a student of the apostle John, so Irenaeus stands only two generations removed from the apostles themselves. His major work, Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses), is a massive refutation of Gnostic heresies, but woven throughout it is a rich and multi-layered theology of salvation.

Aulén regarded Irenaeus as the supreme example of the "classic" Christus Victor view. In Christus Victor, Aulén devotes an entire chapter to Irenaeus and argues that his central idea was dramatic and cosmic: "The purpose of the Incarnation, according to Irenaeus, [is] that God in Christ might deliver man from the enemies that hold him in bondage — sin, death, and the devil."²⁸ Aulén insists that Irenaeus represents the pure "classic" model, in which the atonement is a divine victory rather than a legal transaction.

Aulén is partly right. Christus Victor themes are undeniably central to Irenaeus's thought. But Aulén's reading is selective and incomplete. Irenaeus is far too rich and complex to fit neatly into any single category. Let me walk through the key elements of his atonement theology.

Recapitulation: Christ Undoes What Adam Did

Irenaeus is most famous for his theology of recapitulation — in Greek, anakephalaiōsis (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις), a word drawn from Ephesians 1:10, where Paul says that God's plan is "to unite [literally, to recapitulate or sum up] all things in Christ." For Irenaeus, Christ "recapitulates" the entire human story. He relives what Adam lived, but where Adam failed, Christ succeeds. Where Adam disobeyed, Christ obeyed. Where Adam's disobedience brought sin, death, and bondage, Christ's obedience brings righteousness, life, and freedom.

As Irenaeus puts it: "For it behooved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same thing which he was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death, so that sin should be destroyed by man, and man should go forth from death."²⁹

The logic is beautiful. Since it was a human being (Adam) who brought sin and death into the world, it must be a human being (Christ) who defeats sin and death. "As by the disobedience of the one man who was originally molded from virgin soil, the many were made sinners, and forfeited life; so was it necessary that, by the obedience of one man, who was originally born from a virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."³⁰

Notice how Irenaeus echoes the Adam-Christ typology of Romans 5:12–21 (which we will examine in detail in Chapter 28 on federal headship and representation). Adam's disobedience made many sinners; Christ's obedience makes many righteous. Irenaeus even uses the word "justified" — again, forensic language that involves a legal declaration of righteousness.

What makes Irenaeus's recapitulation theology so powerful is its comprehensiveness. For Irenaeus, Christ does not merely fix one dimension of the human problem — He addresses the whole thing. He lives a fully human life, from birth to death, at every stage reversing the damage that Adam's fall introduced. As Aulén puts it, the recapitulation "does not end with the triumph of Christ over the enemies which had held man in bondage; it continues in the work of the Spirit in the church."⁴⁸ Salvation, for Irenaeus, is not a single transaction at the cross. It is a comprehensive reversal of the entire human tragedy — a reversal that begins with the incarnation, reaches its climax at the cross and resurrection, and continues through the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church.

Fleming Rutledge helpfully draws attention to the way Irenaeus's recapitulation theology presents Christ "as the representative of the entire race," noting that "just as all men were somehow present in Adam, so they are present in the second Adam."⁴⁹ This representative dimension is crucial. Irenaeus does not think of Christ merely as an individual hero who wins a personal victory. He thinks of Christ as the Head of a new humanity — One whose actions count for all who belong to Him. This is representative and corporate thinking, and it provides the very framework that makes substitutionary atonement intelligible (as we will argue in Chapter 28).

David Allen notes that the recapitulation theory was "the earliest theory of the atonement" and that Irenaeus built it on "the concept of Jesus as the 'Second Adam' and new head of humanity."³¹ This is correct, and it is an important insight. But recapitulation is not the only category Irenaeus uses.

Ransom Language

Irenaeus also uses ransom language extensively. He writes that Christ, "the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been carried into captivity."³² Christ redeems us "by His own blood" and gives Himself as a "redemption" for captives. This is language drawn from Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:6, and it pictures the cross as a ransom payment that secures our freedom.

Aulén seizes on this ransom language as evidence of the "classic" Christus Victor model — Christ paying a ransom to defeat the powers of evil.³³ And indeed, Irenaeus does see the cross as a defeat of the devil. But notice what Irenaeus says next: he insists that God "deals according to justice even with the apostasy itself."³⁴ God does not simply overpower the devil by brute force. He acts "according to justice." There is a legal, just dimension to what God does at the cross. This is not pure Christus Victor in Aulén's sense — it includes an element of divine justice that Aulén's framework does not fully account for.

Substitutionary and Penal Language in Irenaeus

Here is where things get particularly interesting — and where I think Aulén's reading of Irenaeus falls short. Alongside the recapitulation and ransom themes, Irenaeus also uses language that sounds distinctly substitutionary and even penal.

Consider this passage: "He did not make void, but fulfilled the law, by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for men, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, and Himself suffering death, that exiled man might go forth from condemnation, and might return without fear to his own inheritance."³⁵

Notice the word "propitiating" — Christ propitiated God for men. As we discussed in Chapter 2, propitiation means the satisfaction or turning away of divine wrath or justice through an offering. Irenaeus says Christ did this. He also says Christ "Himself [suffered] death, that exiled man might go forth from condemnation." Christ suffers death so that we might be freed from condemnation. That is substitutionary logic: He undergoes what we deserve (death, condemnation) so that we might be set free.

Hess pushes back on this reading. He argues that Irenaeus's use of "propitiation" does not carry the PSA meaning of "appeasing an angry deity" but rather describes Christ bringing the divine to mankind through incarnation, miracles, service, and sacrificial death.³⁶ Hess writes: "That is nowhere in Irenaeus' definition of propitiation. Rather Irenaeus has two things in mind: restoration and incarnation."³⁷

I think Hess makes a valid point that Irenaeus does not describe propitiation in terms of appeasing an angry, raging Father — and neither do I. As I have argued throughout this book, the "angry Father punishing an unwilling Son" picture is a distortion of genuine substitutionary atonement. But the fact that Irenaeus does not depict an angry Father does not mean he rejects all propitiatory or substitutionary dimensions. Irenaeus says Christ propitiated God for men, suffered death so that we might be freed from condemnation, and gave Himself as a ransom for captives. These are objective accomplishments — things Christ did that changed our standing before God. They are not merely examples of love or demonstrations of divine power. They are real transactions that deal with the real problem of sin, guilt, and death.

There is another passage from Irenaeus that is especially significant. He writes that Christ, "by transgressing whose commandment we became His enemies ... in the last times, the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation, having become 'the Mediator between God and men'; propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned, and canceling our disobedience by His own obedience; conferring also upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker."³⁸

This is enormously important. Irenaeus says: (1) we became God's enemies through sin, (2) Christ is the Mediator who restores us to friendship with God, (3) Christ "propitiated for us the Father against whom we had sinned," and (4) Christ "canceled our disobedience by His own obedience." The Father is specifically named as the one who is propitiated. Our sin is specifically described as being against the Father. And Christ's obedience specifically cancels our disobedience — again, the logic of exchange and substitution.

Hess reads this passage as being about incarnation and reconciliation rather than about penal substitution, emphasizing that it was "through the incarnation" that Christ restored us into friendship.³⁹ He is right that incarnation is crucial for Irenaeus — Christ must become human in order to save humans. But the incarnation is the precondition for what Christ does, not the whole of it. Irenaeus says Christ did something specific: He propitiated the Father and canceled our disobedience by His obedience. That is not merely incarnation. That is atonement — the resolution of the problem that stood between humanity and God.

Irenaeus on the Tree of the Cross

One more element of Irenaeus's thought deserves mention. He draws a vivid parallel between the tree in the Garden of Eden — the tree whose fruit brought about humanity's fall — and the tree of the cross, the wood on which Christ was crucified. Irenaeus writes that Christ "has destroyed the handwriting of our debt, and fastened it to the cross; so that as by means of a tree we were made debtors to God, so also by means of a tree we may obtain the remission of our debt."⁴⁰

This passage echoes Colossians 2:14, which says Christ "cancelled the record of debt that stood against us" by "nailing it to the cross." Notice the language: we are "debtors to God" — our sin creates a debt that we owe to God, not to the devil. And through the cross, we "obtain the remission of our debt." The debt language here is judicial and relational — sin creates an obligation to God that must be dealt with, and the cross is the means by which it is dealt with. This is not pure Christus Victor language. It is debt-and-remission language, the kind of language that points in the direction of satisfaction and substitution.

Engaging Aulén's Thesis: A Necessary Corrective

Having surveyed the major early Christian sources, we are now in a position to evaluate Gustaf Aulén's influential thesis about the earliest Christian atonement thought.

Aulén argued that the "classic" patristic view was Christus Victor — a dramatic model in which God in Christ defeats the powers of evil that hold humanity captive. He claimed that this was "altogether dominant" in the early church, both East and West, and that the substitutionary or "Latin" view was a later development.⁴¹ Even Aulén acknowledged that "the smaller writings of the Apostolic Fathers treat of this theme in a relatively incidental way," but he insisted that when the Fathers did address the atonement, their language was overwhelmingly dramatic and victorious rather than substitutionary or penal.⁴²

Aulén's thesis contains an important grain of truth. Christus Victor themes are genuinely present in the early church. The Fathers do speak of Christ conquering the devil, triumphing over death, and liberating humanity from bondage. We should not minimize this. The cosmic, dramatic dimension of the cross is real and important (as we will discuss at length in Chapter 21).

But Aulén's thesis also contains a serious flaw: it is too tidy. It imposes a neat three-way classification (classic/Latin/subjective) on sources that are actually far messier, far richer, and far more multi-dimensional than Aulén's framework allows. As we have seen in this chapter:

1 Clement uses exchange and substitutionary language — "His flesh for our flesh, His soul for our souls." The Epistle of Barnabas quotes Isaiah 53 and applies the scapegoat typology to Christ, using sacrificial and sin-bearing language. Ignatius combines ransom, blood-cleansing, and "for us" language in a single sentence. The Epistle to Diognetus contains perhaps the most explicitly substitutionary passage in all of early Christian literature — "the righteous One for the unrighteous ... that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors." And Irenaeus himself, Aulén's star witness for the "classic" view, uses propitiation language, debt-and-remission language, and exchange language alongside his recapitulation and victory themes.

Allen makes this point directly. He observes that while the Christus Victor model was indeed prominent in the early church, "most patristic theologians also held to some form of a satisfaction/substitutionary atonement."⁴³ The two were not seen as incompatible. Victory and substitution existed side by side in the same writers, often in the same passages.

Aulén also claimed that in the "classic" view, "the patristic theology refuses to separate the Son from the Father" in the work of atonement — the whole Trinity acts together.⁴⁴ I completely agree with this point, and it is one of the reasons I have insisted throughout this book that genuine substitutionary atonement must be understood within a Trinitarian framework of unified divine love, not as the Father punishing an unwilling Son (see Chapter 20). But the fact that the Trinity acts together does not eliminate the substitutionary dimension. It simply means that the substitution is self-substitution — God Himself, in the person of His Son, bears the cost of our salvation. This is exactly what Stott called "the self-substitution of God."⁴⁵

The Big Picture: Seeds, Not Systems

Let me step back and summarize what we have found in this survey of the earliest post-apostolic Christian writers.

We have not found a fully developed doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement in these sources. That would be anachronistic — we would be expecting too much from writers who were dealing with very different challenges (internal church disputes, persecution, Gnostic heresies) and who were not trying to write systematic theologies of the atonement.

But what we have found is a constellation of atonement ideas that are broad, rich, and remarkably consistent with the New Testament witness. Specifically, we have found:

Substitutionary language. Christ gave "His flesh for our flesh" (1 Clement). Christ took upon Himself "the curses of all" (Justin Martyr). "The righteous One for the unrighteous ... that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Epistle to Diognetus). Christ "canceled our disobedience by His own obedience" (Irenaeus).

Sacrificial language. Christ's blood was "poured out for our salvation" (1 Clement). Christ was "sanctified by the remission of sin, by His sprinkled blood" (Epistle of Barnabas). Christ "cleansed us by His blood" (Ignatius).

Ransom language. Christ "gave Himself a ransom for us" (Ignatius). He "gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been carried into captivity" (Irenaeus).

Victory language. Christ came to "destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of death" (Irenaeus). He defeated the powers of evil and liberated the captives.

Forensic (legal) language. "The righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Epistle to Diognetus). We were "debtors to God" and through the cross we "obtain the remission of our debt" (Irenaeus).

Love as the motive. "On account of the love which He had for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us" (1 Clement). "The one love of God, through exceeding regard for men" (Epistle to Diognetus). "His love, wherewith He loved us, when He gave Himself a ransom for us" (Ignatius).

These are the seeds from which the great atonement theologies of later centuries would grow. They are not a system. They are not a theory. But they are the raw materials — drawn from Scripture and passed down from the apostles — that the church would continue to reflect on, organize, and develop over the next two thousand years.

And here is the critical point for our argument: substitutionary language is present from the very beginning. It is not a late invention of Anselm or the Reformers. It is not a Western corruption of an originally Eastern message. It is there in the earliest Christian documents we possess, alongside and intertwined with ransom, victory, and sacrificial language. The claim that substitutionary atonement is a post-Reformation innovation with no early church support is simply false. The evidence of the primary sources refutes it.

What the Early Church Did Not Do

At the same time, intellectual honesty requires us to say what the early church did not do. The Apostolic Fathers and second-century writers did not:

— Develop a systematic doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, with a clear account of how Christ bears the specific penalty of divine justice on behalf of sinners.

— Articulate a formal theory of satisfaction, explaining how Christ's death satisfies the demands of God's righteousness.

— Resolve the question of to whom the ransom was paid (this became a major debate in later centuries, with some Fathers arguing the ransom was paid to the devil — a view I believe is mistaken, as we will discuss in Chapter 22).

— Carefully distinguish between the different "models" of atonement. They did not categorize their thinking into neat boxes labeled "Christus Victor," "substitution," "satisfaction," or "moral influence." They simply used whatever language Scripture and tradition gave them, moving freely between images and metaphors without apparent concern for systematic consistency.

This last point is especially important. The Apostolic Fathers and second-century writers were pre-theoretical in their atonement thinking. They had the data — the biblical language, the liturgical practices, the apostolic tradition — but they had not yet organized it into a formal theory. The process of systematic organization would come later, with Anselm, the Reformers, and the great theologians of the medieval and modern periods (see Chapters 16–18). But the absence of a systematic theory does not mean the absence of the ideas that later theories would organize. The ideas were there all along — in seed form, waiting to be cultivated.

The Importance of Primary Sources

Before closing this chapter, I want to make a methodological point that I believe is extremely important for the historical argument of this book. One of the convictions that drives my research is that secondary sources sometimes misstate what the primary sources actually taught. This is true on both sides of the atonement debate.

On one side, some defenders of penal substitutionary atonement have claimed the Church Fathers as straightforward witnesses to PSA, reading later theological categories back into writers who did not have those categories. This is anachronistic and unhelpful.

On the other side — and this is a more common problem in recent scholarship — some critics of PSA have claimed that the Church Fathers had no substitutionary or penal concepts, that the early church was purely Christus Victor in its orientation, and that substitutionary thinking is a Western corruption. This claim, as we have seen in this chapter, does not hold up under examination of the primary sources.

Aulén's Christus Victor is a case in point. It is a brilliant and influential book, and it rightly recovered the importance of the victory motif in the early church. But it achieved this recovery partly by minimizing and overlooking the substitutionary evidence. Aulén focused almost exclusively on the ransom and victory themes in the Fathers and passed over the substitutionary, sacrificial, and forensic language in near-silence. The result was a persuasive but one-sided portrait of early Christian atonement thought that has shaped scholarly discussion for nearly a century.⁴⁶

Similarly, Hess's treatment of the early church fathers in Crushing the Great Serpent is valuable for its careful engagement with the primary texts, but it consistently interprets "for us" language as representative rather than substitutionary, and it reads propitiation as restoration rather than satisfaction — interpretations that, while possible, are not the most natural readings of the texts in question.⁴⁷

The solution is to read the primary sources carefully, charitably, and without imposing our own theological agenda on them — whether that agenda is pro-PSA or anti-PSA. When we do that, what emerges is a picture far richer and more complex than any single model can capture. The earliest Christians used substitutionary language and victory language and ransom language and sacrificial language and forensic language — all held together by the unifying theme of God's love for a fallen world. That is the picture the primary sources give us, and it is the picture I am defending in this book.

Conclusion: The Foundation Was Laid

What have we learned from our survey of the Apostolic Fathers and second-century Christian writers?

We have learned that the earliest post-apostolic Christians understood Christ's death as a multi-dimensional saving event. They did not have a single, unified "theory" of the atonement, but they had a rich collection of images, metaphors, and theological concepts drawn from Scripture and the apostolic tradition. These included substitution (Christ in our place), sacrifice (Christ's blood shed for our sins), ransom (Christ's life given to free captives), victory (Christ's triumph over sin, death, and the devil), and exchange (Christ's righteousness given to us, our sin borne by Him).

We have also learned that the claim that substitutionary atonement is a post-Reformation innovation finds no support in the earliest Christian sources. Substitutionary language — the language of Christ bearing what belongs to us, of the righteous One dying in place of the unrighteous, of our iniquities being laid on Him — is present from 1 Clement (AD 96) through the Epistle to Diognetus and Irenaeus (late second century). These ideas did not appear out of nowhere in the sixteenth century. They were there from the beginning.

At the same time, we have seen that the earliest Christians held these various atonement themes together without pitting them against each other. They did not say, "It's either substitution or victory — choose one." They said both. And they said both because the Scriptures say both. The New Testament uses substitutionary language (Isaiah 53, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:24), victory language (Colossians 2:15, Hebrews 2:14), ransom language (Mark 10:45, 1 Timothy 2:6), and sacrificial language (Hebrews 9–10, Romans 3:25) — often in the same passages. The earliest Christians simply followed the Scriptures in holding all of these themes together.

In the next two chapters (Chapters 14–15), we will continue our historical survey into the patristic era of the third through fifth centuries, examining what the great Church Fathers — Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and Augustine — actually taught about the atonement. We will find the same pattern we have seen here: a rich, multi-dimensional understanding of the cross in which substitutionary, sacrificial, ransom, and victory themes coexist and complement one another. And in Chapter 15, I will make the case that substitutionary and even penal language is far more pervasive in the Church Fathers than many modern scholars have acknowledged — a claim that requires careful examination of the primary texts.

But for now, the foundation has been laid. The Apostolic Fathers and second-century writers gave us the seeds of a multi-faceted atonement theology with substitution at its heart. The rest of the Christian tradition would cultivate those seeds. But they did not plant them. The seeds were there from the beginning — planted by the apostles, rooted in the Scriptures, and watered by the blood of the Lamb.

And perhaps the most striking thing about these earliest Christian voices is how naturally they hold together what later generations would sometimes pull apart. They did not argue about whether the cross was a victory or a substitution. They did not debate whether Christ's death was a ransom or a sacrifice. They did not feel the need to choose between divine love and divine justice as the motive for the cross. For them, the cross was all of these things at once — a single, glorious, multi-dimensional event in which the loving God of the universe gave His own Son to bear the burden of human sin, defeat the powers of evil, pay the ransom for captives, and open the way for transgressors to be declared righteous. That is the vision we have inherited from the earliest church. And it is the vision I believe we should hold today.

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.

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.

Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 315–567. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

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

Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 194–270. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Justin Martyr. First Apology. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 163–187. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

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

Packer, J.I. "What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution." Tyndale Bulletin 25 (1974): 3–45.

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.

Torrance, T.F. The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1948.