Chapter 15
Correcting the Record — Penal and Substitutionary Language in the Church Fathers

Introduction: A Widespread Myth

One of the most common claims in modern atonement debates goes something like this: "Substitutionary atonement is a late Western invention. The early Church Fathers knew nothing of it. It was unknown for the first thousand years of Christianity and only appeared with Anselm in the eleventh century—or worse, with the Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth." This claim has been repeated so many times, in so many books and blog posts, that many people simply accept it as an established fact. But is it true?

In this chapter, I want to show that it is not. In fact, I believe the evidence points firmly in the opposite direction. When we actually read the Church Fathers—both Eastern and Western—we find extensive substitutionary and even penal language woven throughout their writings. The claim that substitution is absent from the patristic era is not just an overstatement. It is demonstrably false. And I think the primary sources make this very clear once we are willing to look at them carefully.

Now, let me be fair and precise about what I am arguing. I am not claiming that the Church Fathers taught penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) in the exact systematic form that the Protestant Reformers later developed. They did not. What I am claiming is that the theological substance of penal substitution—the idea that Christ bore the penalty or consequences of human sin in our place, satisfying divine justice—is clearly present in patristic thought. The Fathers used substitutionary language naturally and repeatedly. They spoke of Christ dying "in our place," "in our stead," "instead of us," bearing the penalty of our sin, taking the punishment that was due to us, and offering himself as our substitute. This language did not appear suddenly out of nowhere with Luther or Calvin. It has deep roots in the earliest centuries of Christian reflection on the cross.

This chapter builds on the survey provided in Chapter 14, which traced the broad contours of patristic atonement theology. Here, we narrow the focus. We are asking one specific question: Did the Church Fathers use substitutionary and penal language when they spoke about the cross? The answer, as we will see, is a resounding yes.

Why Has the Evidence Been Overlooked?

Before we look at the evidence itself, it is worth pausing to ask a simple question: If substitutionary language really is widespread in the Fathers, why do so many modern writers claim otherwise? How did this myth get started, and why has it proven so persistent?

I think there are several reasons. First, and perhaps most importantly, Gustaf Aulén's enormously influential 1931 book Christus Victor shaped the way an entire generation of scholars read the Fathers. Aulén argued that the "classic" view of the atonement in the early church was the dramatic or Christus Victor model—Christ's victory over sin, death, and the devil—and that the "Latin" satisfaction model only appeared later with Anselm.¹ Aulén drew a sharp line between the "classic" view and the "Latin" view, and in doing so, he tended to minimize or simply ignore the substitutionary strands that exist alongside the victory themes in the Fathers. His taxonomy was neat, memorable, and powerfully argued. It was also, I believe, significantly oversimplified.

As David Allen has noted, the claim that penal substitution is basically a Reformation doctrine with little or no precedent before the sixteenth century "simply cannot be sustained in the light of the evidence and has been debunked in recent years."² Jean Rivière demonstrated as early as 1931 that both the Latin and Greek Church Fathers used the concepts of sacrifice and penal substitution.³ More recently, Garry Williams has shown in detailed historical research that penal substitution was taught by the early Church Fathers and that its essential elements had reached full form by the end of the patristic era.⁴

Aulén's taxonomy—the "classic" (Christus Victor), the "Latin" (satisfaction/substitution), and the "subjective" (moral influence)—is a useful starting point for organizing the material. But as a historical description of what the Fathers actually taught, it is too neat. Aulén presented the Christus Victor model as the dominant patristic view and implied that it was the only genuine patristic view, with everything else being either a later departure or a minor undercurrent. The problem with this picture is that the Fathers themselves did not make these sharp distinctions. A single Father—indeed, a single passage in a single Father—might include victory language, substitutionary language, sacrificial language, and incarnational language all woven together. Aulén's great contribution was to recover the Christus Victor theme that Protestant theology had sometimes neglected. His error was in treating this recovery as though it required the suppression of the substitutionary theme that exists alongside it.

The scholars Steven Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach devote a substantial section of their book Pierced for Our Transgressions to documenting penal substitutionary language in the Church Fathers. They provide lengthy primary source quotations from writers spanning from the second century to the medieval period, demonstrating that penal and substitutionary themes are a persistent strand in the tradition—not a marginal afterthought but a recurring feature of how the church has always understood the cross.⁴⁹ Similarly, Henri Blocher's important essay "Agnus Victor" argues that the victory and vicarious punishment themes in the Fathers are not competitors but collaborators—the Lamb conquers precisely by bearing the punishment that was due to others.⁵⁰

Second, many modern readers approach the Fathers with a set of categories already fixed in their minds. If you go looking only for Christus Victor themes, that is what you will find—and there is plenty of it. But you may walk right past the substitutionary language that sits alongside it, sometimes in the very same passage. The Fathers did not think in the neat categories of modern systematic theology. They did not write with little labels on their paragraphs saying "this is my Christus Victor section" and "this is my substitution section." They wove multiple themes together organically, because they were immersed in Scripture, and Scripture itself weaves these themes together.

Third, there is a theological motivation at work in some quarters. Some modern Orthodox theologians—sometimes called the "New Soteriologists"—have argued that substitutionary atonement is a Western corruption foreign to the authentic Eastern tradition. Vladimir Moss and others have documented how this prejudice against substitutionary categories arose in modern Orthodoxy, often under the influence of nineteenth- and twentieth-century theological trends rather than careful reading of the patristic sources themselves.⁵ Similarly, some progressive Protestant scholars who wish to move away from substitutionary models find it convenient to claim that the early church was on their side. The result is a kind of circular reasoning: the Fathers did not teach substitution, therefore substitution is a late innovation, therefore we can safely discard it.

We will return to the "New Soteriologists" later in this chapter. For now, let us turn to the primary sources and let the Fathers speak for themselves.

The Eastern Fathers: Substitutionary Language in the Greek Tradition

The claim that substitutionary atonement is a purely Western idea is particularly surprising when we examine the Eastern Fathers. Far from being absent, substitutionary and even penal language appears frequently in the writings of the most respected Greek theologians. Let us look at the evidence, Father by Father.

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373)

Athanasius is rightly regarded as one of the greatest theologians of the early church. He is best known for his defense of Christ's full divinity against the Arians and for his treatise On the Incarnation, where he develops a theology centered on the incarnation and its power to restore fallen humanity. His primary emphasis is often described in terms of what the Eastern tradition calls theosis (θέωσις)—divinization or deification—the idea that God became human so that humans might share in the divine life.

But here is what many modern accounts fail to mention: alongside this incarnational emphasis, Athanasius also uses clear substitutionary language. In On the Incarnation, he writes:

"Taking a body like our own, because we all were liable to the corruption of death, he surrendered his body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father.... Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for him to die, took to himself a body such as could die, that he might offer it as his own in the stead of all."⁶

Notice the phrases "instead of all" and "in the stead of all." This is unmistakably the language of substitution. Christ takes a body precisely so that he can die in our place—as our substitute. The great Fleming Rutledge observes that Athanasius "puts forward the idea of exchange ('in the stead of') as though it were obvious, using the phrase several times."⁷ This is a crucial point. Athanasius does not treat substitution as a controversial novelty that needs to be argued for. He simply states it as if it were the most natural thing in the world. It was woven into his reading of the biblical story.

But there is more. In his Letter to Marcellinus on the interpretation of the Psalms, Athanasius writes even more strikingly about Christ's suffering. Commenting on the Psalms as prophecies of Christ, he states that Psalms 88 and 69, "speaking in the Lord's own person, tell us further that He suffered these things, not for His own sake but for ours." He then continues: "For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, 'Himself bore our weaknesses.'"⁸

This passage is remarkable. Athanasius explicitly says that Christ "bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression." This is not merely substitutionary language—it is penal substitutionary language. Christ bears wrath. That wrath is the penalty of our transgression, not his own. He bears it for us and in our place. It is hard to see how language could be more explicit.

Now, William Hess, in his book Crushing the Great Serpent, concedes that this is "the most PSA sounding passage in all the earliest church writings I have seen," but he argues that Athanasius is simply quoting from the Psalms (which use poetic and hyperbolic language) and that the "wrath" described is experiential rather than punitive—that is, Christ felt as though he was under God's wrath, but he was not actually bearing divine punishment.⁹ Hess draws a parallel with Psalm 22, where the psalmist feels forsaken by God but is ultimately delivered. He suggests we should read Athanasius the same way: Christ experienced suffering that seemed like God's wrath from a human perspective, but this was not actual penal substitution.

I appreciate Hess's careful engagement with Athanasius, but I find his reading unpersuasive for several reasons. First, Athanasius does not say Christ merely felt like he was bearing wrath. He says Christ "bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression." The word "penalty" is doing real work here. Athanasius is drawing a direct connection between our transgression, its penalty, and Christ's bearing of that penalty. Second, Athanasius connects this to Isaiah 53—"Himself bore our weaknesses"—which is the Old Testament's clearest substitutionary passage (see Chapter 6 for our detailed exegesis). Third, even if we grant that Athanasius's primary theological framework is incarnational rather than penal, that does not erase what he actually says here. A theologian can hold multiple things together at once. Athanasius could believe that the incarnation is the fundamental saving event and also that Christ bore the penalty of our sin on the cross. These are not mutually exclusive.

Allen notes that Athanasius "clearly affirmed the substitutionary nature of the atonement" and points readers to key passages in both On the Incarnation and the Four Discourses Against the Arians.¹⁰ When Athanasius quoted Isaiah 53, he consistently "used the imagery of substitution and exchange."¹¹ Rutledge sums it up well: Athanasius's "principal theme is not substitution (or exchange), to be sure, but the concept is present and does not seem to cause any problem for him."¹² The substitutionary dimension was simply part of his biblical inheritance, accepted naturally alongside his incarnational and Christus Victor emphases.

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444)

If Athanasius uses substitutionary language alongside other themes, Cyril of Alexandria is even more explicit. Cyril is one of the most important theologians in the Eastern tradition—the champion of orthodox Christology at the Council of Ephesus in 431, a theologian whom the Orthodox Church venerates deeply.

Cyril wrote that Christ "was stricken because of our transgressions... this chastisement, which was due to fall on sinners... descended upon Him."¹³ Notice the logic here. There is a chastisement—a punishment—that was "due to fall on sinners." It did not fall on them. Instead, it "descended upon" Christ. He received the punishment that was meant for us. This is substitution, plain and simple. And the word "chastisement" carries unmistakably penal overtones.

J. N. D. Kelly, in his classic study Early Christian Doctrines, goes so far as to say that Cyril's "guiding idea" is "penal substitution."¹⁴ Rutledge thinks Kelly probably goes "too far" with this characterization, since Cyril's thought is rich and multi-layered.¹⁵ I tend to agree with Rutledge's caution—it is probably an overstatement to call penal substitution Cyril's "guiding idea." But the very fact that a careful scholar like Kelly could reach that conclusion tells us something important: the substitutionary and penal language in Cyril is not marginal or ambiguous. It is front and center.

Cyril also connected Christ's death to the overthrow of death's power: "When He shed His blood for us, Jesus Christ destroyed death and corruptibility.... For if He had not died for us, we should not have been saved, and if He had not gone down among the dead, death's cruel empire would never have been shattered."¹⁶ Here we see Cyril holding together substitution ("died for us") and Christus Victor ("death's cruel empire would never have been shattered") in a single breath. For the Fathers, these were not competing theories. They were complementary truths.

John Chrysostom (c. 349–407)

John Chrysostom, the "golden-mouthed" preacher of Constantinople, is perhaps the most beloved of all the Eastern Fathers. His homilies are still read and revered across the Orthodox world, and his Paschal homily is proclaimed every Easter in Orthodox churches worldwide.

Chrysostom's language about the cross is remarkably explicit in its substitutionary content. Kelly summarizes the relevant teaching: "Christ has saved us... by substituting Himself in our place. Though He was righteousness itself, God allowed Him to be condemned as a sinner and to die as one under a curse, transferring to Him not only the death which we owed but our guilt as well."¹⁷

Take a moment to let that sink in. According to Kelly's reading of Chrysostom, Christ substituted Himself in our place. God transferred to Him the death we owed and our guilt. Chrysostom is not merely saying that Christ died on our behalf in some general sense. He is saying that Christ took our place, received our condemnation, and bore our guilt. This is substitutionary atonement in the fullest sense.

Chrysostom also preached powerfully about Christ's triumph over death. In his famous Paschal homily, he declares that Christ descended into hell and "destroyed" it, that "Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with... because it was mocked... because it was slain."¹⁸ This is classic Christus Victor language. But for Chrysostom, as for the other Fathers, the victory theme and the substitution theme are not in tension. Christ wins the victory precisely by taking our place, bearing our penalty, and defeating death from within.

What makes Chrysostom's testimony especially important is his enormous stature in the Orthodox tradition. He is one of the Three Holy Hierarchs of Eastern Orthodoxy, alongside Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. His commentaries on the Pauline epistles were the standard exegetical works in the Eastern church for centuries. If any figure can be said to represent mainstream Eastern patristic theology, it is Chrysostom. And Chrysostom uses substitutionary language without hesitation or qualification. This makes it very difficult for modern scholars to argue that substitution is a Western distortion foreign to the Eastern tradition. If it were, how do we explain the fact that the most revered preacher in Eastern history used it so freely?

In his homilies on 2 Corinthians, Chrysostom comments on Paul's statement that God "made him who knew no sin to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21). Chrysostom interprets this in terms of exchange and substitution: the sinless One takes the position of the sinner, receiving the condemnation that rightly belongs to the guilty, so that the guilty might receive the righteousness that belongs to Him. This is the "great exchange" that would later become so important in the theology of Martin Luther, but Chrysostom articulated it nearly twelve centuries earlier. For Chrysostom, the cross is the place where a divine transaction occurs—not a cold commercial transaction, but a loving act of self-giving in which Christ willingly takes what is ours (sin, guilt, condemnation) and gives us what is his (righteousness, life, communion with God).⁵¹

Gregory of Nazianzus (329–390)

Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the three great Cappadocian Fathers and given the title "the Theologian" by the Eastern Church, is sometimes cited by opponents of substitutionary atonement because of his famous rejection of the idea that the ransom was paid to the devil. But Gregory's rejection of the ransom-to-Satan theory should not be confused with a rejection of substitution itself. These are entirely different things.

Gregory's own language about the cross includes clear substitutionary elements. He states that Christ saves us "because He releases us from the power of sin and offers Himself as a ransom in our place to cleanse the whole world."¹⁹ The phrase "in our place" is the defining mark of substitutionary language. Christ stands where we should stand. He receives what we should receive. He offers himself as a ransom in our place.

Gregory also summarized the purpose of the incarnation in sweeping terms: "that God, by overcoming the tyrant, might set us free and reconcile us with Himself through His Son."²⁰ Here the Christus Victor and reconciliation themes stand side by side, as they so often do in the Fathers. The "tyrant" (Satan/death) must be overcome, and we must be reconciled with God. Both are accomplished in Christ.

Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662)

Maximus the Confessor, one of the most profound theological minds of the Byzantine era, is primarily known for his Christological and ascetical theology. His thought is deeply rooted in the themes of recapitulation and theosis. Yet Maximus, too, speaks of Christ's death in ways that carry substitutionary overtones. He describes Christ as voluntarily accepting condemnation and death, taking upon himself the consequences that rightfully belonged to fallen humanity. For Maximus, Christ's voluntary acceptance of suffering and death in the flesh is the means by which he liberates human nature from the bondage into which Adam's sin had plunged it. The voluntary character of Christ's suffering—he did not deserve it, yet he willingly embraced it for our sake—is itself an expression of the substitutionary principle: the innocent one takes on the consequences that belong to the guilty.²¹

John of Damascus (c. 675–749)

John of Damascus, often considered the last of the great Eastern Fathers and a towering figure in Orthodox theology, systematized much of the earlier patristic tradition in his An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. In his treatment of Christ's death, John speaks of Christ offering himself as a sacrifice to the Father on our behalf, and he draws explicitly on the language of Isaiah 53 and the New Testament sacrificial imagery. John describes Christ as bearing our sins and offering himself in our place—language that fits naturally within a substitutionary framework, even as it is integrated with themes of victory and liberation.²²

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339)

Eusebius, the great historian of the early church, also wrote theology. In his Proof of the Gospel, he speaks of the atonement in terms of sacrifice, expiation, and—significantly—vicarious punishment. Allen notes that Eusebius used precisely these categories when describing Christ's saving work.²³ The concept of vicarious punishment—one person bearing the punishment due to another—is the very definition of penal substitution. Eusebius saw nothing controversial about applying this concept to the cross.

The Western Fathers: Substitution in the Latin Tradition

If the Eastern evidence is strong, the Western evidence is equally compelling. The Latin Fathers spoke of Christ's death in substitutionary and penal terms with remarkable clarity.

Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

Augustine is the most influential theologian of the Western church, and his thought shaped virtually every subsequent development in Western theology. Though Augustine wrote no single monograph devoted entirely to the atonement, his treatment of the cross runs through many of his works, and it includes several distinct strands: mediation, sacrifice, substitution, deliverance from Satan, and moral influence.²⁴

Significantly, Augustine spoke of the atonement in terms of penal debt. In his Reply to Faustus the Manichean, he uses language that describes Christ's death as addressing the judicial penalty that humanity owed because of sin.²⁵ For Augustine, the problem of sin was not merely corruption (as some Eastern Fathers emphasized) but also guilt. Humanity stands guilty before God. Death is the result of sin, but the deeper problem is humanity's separation from God—the judicial consequence of Adam's sin. In and through the fall, humanity has incurred God's wrath.²⁶

Allen observes that Augustine's atonement doctrine "differs little from those of the church fathers preceding him," which means that the strands of substitution and satisfaction visible in Augustine were part of a broader tradition, not an innovation.²⁷ Aulén himself, despite wanting to claim Augustine for the "classic" Christus Victor camp, had to acknowledge that Augustine accepted the dramatic view of the atonement alongside other elements. But Aulén tried to minimize this by calling these ideas "relics of common Catholicism"—a dismissive characterization that, as we saw, does not do justice to how central these themes were in Augustine's thought.²⁸

The truth is that Augustine held multiple atonement motifs together without apparent tension. He could speak of Christ's victory over the devil, of Christ's death as a sacrifice offered to God, of Christ as our mediator, and of Christ bearing the penal consequences of sin—all as facets of one great saving act. We should learn from his example rather than trying to force him into one narrow category.

It is also worth noting that Augustine saw the cross as the supreme demonstration of divine love. In his De Trinitate, he reflects at length on how the atonement reveals the love of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working together in perfect harmony for the salvation of the world. For Augustine, the cross is not a scene of divine conflict (Father against Son) but of divine cooperation. The Father sends the Son out of love. The Son goes willingly out of love. The Spirit applies the benefits of the cross out of love. This Trinitarian framework is remarkably close to what John Stott later called "the self-substitution of God"—the idea that in the cross, God himself, in the person of his Son, bears the penalty of our sin (see Chapter 20 for a full treatment of this theme).⁵² The point here is that Augustine's substitutionary language is embedded within a robustly Trinitarian and love-centered theology. He did not pit substitution against divine love. He held them together, because he understood that it is love that motivates the substitution.

Allen places Augustine as something of "the halfway house between the Greek fathers of the church and Anselm in the Middle Ages."⁵³ This is a helpful way of seeing his role. Augustine inherited the multi-faceted patristic tradition, with its themes of victory, liberation, sacrifice, and substitution. He passed these themes on to the Western church, where they would eventually be developed in new directions by Anselm and the Reformers. But the seeds were already there in Augustine—and in the broader tradition he inherited.

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310–367)

Hilary, sometimes called the "Athanasius of the West" for his defense of Nicene orthodoxy, provides a striking example of how Latin Fathers combined recapitulation and substitution. Drawing on Galatians 3:13 ("Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us"), Hilary writes that Christ "offered Himself to the death of the accursed, in order to abolish the curse of the Law."²⁹

Rutledge notes that Hilary "uses 'satisfaction' as a synonym for 'sacrifice' and has been seen as a precursor of Anselm."³⁰ This is significant. Hilary was writing more than seven hundred years before Anselm, yet he was already using the language of satisfaction in connection with Christ's sacrificial death. The roots of what would later become satisfaction theology were already present in the fourth century.

Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–397)

Ambrose, the great bishop of Milan who baptized Augustine, combined incarnational theology with strikingly explicit substitutionary language. He wrote: "Jesus took flesh so as to abolish the curse of sinful flesh, and was made a curse in our stead so that the curse might be swallowed up in blessing.... He took death, too, upon Himself that the sentence might be carried out, so that He might satisfy the judgment that sinful flesh should be cursed even unto death."³¹

The phrase "in our stead" is classic substitutionary language. But notice also the judicial elements: "the sentence might be carried out," "satisfy the judgment." Ambrose is describing a legal reality. There is a sentence of condemnation hanging over sinful humanity. That sentence must be carried out. Christ steps into our place and satisfies the judgment by receiving the curse that was meant for us. This is substitution with clear penal dimensions.

Kelly observes that in Ambrose, "the patristic motif of recapitulation is combined with that of substitution, even with a reference to a penalty suffered." He summarizes Ambrose's teaching: "Because he shares human nature, Christ can substitute himself for sinful men and endure their punishment in their place."³² Again we see the same pattern: the Fathers did not choose between recapitulation, Christus Victor, and substitution. They held them all together.

Leo the Great (c. 400–461)

Leo the Great, whose famous Tome helped settle the Christological debates at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, also spoke of the atonement in terms that include substitutionary dimensions. Leo emphasized that Christ, in his sinless humanity, bore the consequences of sin on behalf of sinful humanity. For Leo, the incarnation was ordered toward the cross: the Son of God became man precisely so that, as man, he could die the death that humanity deserved, liberating us from the dominion of death and the devil. Allen notes that Leo, along with other major figures like Irenaeus, Origen, the two Gregories, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus, Hilary, Rufinus, Jerome, and Augustine, all "advocated some form" of the broader Christus Victor framework, while "most patristic theologians also held to some form of a satisfaction/substitutionary atonement."³³

Gelasius of Cyzicus (Fifth Century)

One of the most explicit patristic statements of penal substitution comes from Gelasius of Cyzicus in the fifth century. Gelasius declared:

"There were many holy men, many prophets, many righteous men, but not one of them had the power to ransom himself from the authority of death; but he, the Saviour of all, came and received the punishments which were due to us (tas hemin chreostoumenas timorias) into his sinless flesh, which was of us, in place of us, and on our behalf.... This is the apostolic and approved faith of the church, which, transmitted from the beginning from the Lord himself through the apostles from one generation to another, the church sets on high and has held fast until even now, and will do forever."³⁴

This statement deserves careful attention. Gelasius says that Christ "received the punishments which were due to us" (tas hemin chreostoumenas timorias). The Greek is unambiguous: timorias means "punishments," and chreostoumenas means "owed" or "due." Christ received the punishments that were owed to us. He received them "in place of us, and on our behalf." And Gelasius identifies this as "the apostolic and approved faith of the church" handed down from the beginning. He does not present this as his own novel theory. He presents it as the received tradition of the church going all the way back to the apostles.

Allen observes that Gelasius's statement "affirms two things: The atonement is penal and substitutionary in nature, and it is universal in extent."³⁵ The reference to "sinless flesh, which was of us" underscores the incarnational basis, while "in place of us, and on our behalf" establishes the substitutionary character, and "the punishments which were due to us" makes the penal dimension explicit.

The Witness of Melito of Sardis: Substitution in the Second Century

We can push the evidence even further back. Melito of Sardis, writing in the second century, produced a breathtaking Easter homily (Peri Pascha, "On the Passover") that weaves together multiple atonement themes in a single dazzling passage. Speaking in the voice of Christ himself, Melito writes:

"The Lord... suffered for the sake of him who suffered, and was bound for the sake of him who was imprisoned, and was judged for the sake of the condemned, and was buried for the sake of the buried. So come, all families of human beings who are defiled by sins, and receive remission of sins. For I am your remission, I am the Passover of salvation. I am the Lamb sacrificed for your sake. I am your ransom. I am your life. I am your Resurrection. I am your light. I am your salvation. I am your King. I lead you toward the heights of heaven. I will show you the eternal Father. I will raise you up with my right hand."³⁶

In just a few lines, Melito draws on at least five distinct atonement motifs: substitution ("suffered for the sake of him who suffered," "judged for the sake of the condemned"), ransom ("I am your ransom"), sacrifice ("the Lamb sacrificed for your sake"), victory and resurrection ("I am your Resurrection"), and divine revelation ("I will show you the eternal Father"). These are not competing theories for Melito. They are different facets of one great reality.

The substitutionary pattern in Melito's homily is especially clear in the repeated structure of "for the sake of." The Lord suffered for the sake of him who suffered. He was bound for the sake of him who was imprisoned. He was judged for the sake of the condemned. He was buried for the sake of the buried. In each line, Christ occupies the position that properly belongs to the sinner. He takes the suffering, the binding, the judgment, the burial that belongs to us. This is substitution—clear, unmistakable, and eloquent. And it comes from the second century, long before Anselm, long before the Reformers, long before anyone could accuse the church of importing Western legal categories into the gospel.

What is also remarkable about Melito's homily is the way it transitions from the substitutionary theme to the victory and exaltation theme without any sense of rupture. Christ suffers in our place, and then—precisely through that suffering—he conquers and rises and leads us to the Father. The cross is simultaneously an act of substitution and an act of triumph. The Lamb who was slain is the King who leads us to heaven. For Melito, these are not two separate doctrines to be debated against each other. They are one seamless reality.

Karl Barth found this testimony of Melito compelling evidence that "the Judge judged in our place" motif was present as early as the second century.³⁷ If Barth is right—and I believe he is—then the substitutionary theme was present in Christian reflection on the cross from the very earliest post-apostolic period. It did not suddenly appear in the eleventh century with Anselm or in the sixteenth century with the Reformers. It was there from the beginning.

Victorinus and Other Early Witnesses

Rutledge notes that Victorinus, a contemporary of Hilary of Poitiers, "speaks of substitution rather than sacrifice."³⁸ Similarly, Peter Ensor has demonstrated in his study "Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Later Ante-Nicene Period" that penal and substitutionary language appears in several writers of the ante-Nicene era—that is, before the Council of Nicaea in 325.³⁹ The evidence is not confined to one or two isolated writers. It represents a genuine strand of early Christian reflection on the cross.

Orthodox Liturgical Texts: The Church at Worship

One of the most powerful pieces of evidence that substitutionary atonement is not a Western invention comes from an unexpected source: the liturgical texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church itself. The hymnography—the hymns and prayers used in Orthodox worship—contains extensive substitutionary language. This is particularly significant because liturgical texts are not the private opinions of individual theologians. They represent the faith of the church at prayer. The ancient Latin maxim lex orandi, lex credendi ("the law of prayer is the law of belief") tells us that what the church says in worship reflects what the church actually believes.

Fr. Joshua Schooping, an Orthodox priest, has documented substitutionary language across the Eastern patristic and hymnographic tradition in his work An Existential Soteriology. His research shows that the church's own worship has consistently used substitutionary language across the centuries.⁴⁰ The Orthodox services for Holy Week and Pascha (Easter) are saturated with language about Christ dying "for us," "in our place," "bearing our sins," and "accepting the punishment that was due to us." The hymns of the Octoechos (the eight-tone hymnal used in weekly worship), the services of Great Lent, and the festal hymns repeatedly describe Christ's death in substitutionary terms.

Consider, for example, the Holy Week services. The Matins of Great and Holy Friday—the central liturgical commemoration of the crucifixion—describes Christ as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, who is "led to the slaughter" (echoing Isaiah 53), who "endures the cross for our sake," who "bears our griefs and carries our sorrows." The hymns speak of Christ being "condemned in our place," "accepting death that we might live," and "taking upon himself the curse that was ours." The language of exchange and substitution pervades these services. Christ takes what is ours (sin, death, condemnation) and gives us what is his (righteousness, life, communion with God). This is the very heart of the substitutionary concept.

The Paschal Canon of St. John of Damascus, sung at the great Easter vigil, celebrates Christ's victory over death in resounding Christus Victor tones. But this victory is achieved through his substitutionary death. He conquers death by dying. He breaks the chains of hell by descending into hell. He defeats the curse by becoming a curse. The victory and the substitution are not two separate events; they are two dimensions of one great act of redemption. The liturgy holds them together naturally, without any sense of tension or contradiction.

This liturgical evidence is devastating for the claim that substitution is foreign to the Eastern tradition. If substitution were truly a Western corruption, why is it all over the Orthodox Church's own worship? The hymns were written by Eastern saints—Romanos the Melodist, John of Damascus, Andrew of Crete, Cosmas of Maiuma, and others—and they were accepted by the church as authentic expressions of the faith. You cannot dismiss substitutionary language as a Protestant novelty and then go to Vespers and sing hymns that use that same language. The tradition refutes the revisionism.

Furthermore, the liturgical texts carry a unique kind of authority in the Eastern tradition. In Orthodox theology, the liturgy is not merely a human composition—it is a Spirit-guided expression of the faith of the whole church. The principle of lex orandi, lex credendi means that the church's prayer life is a primary source for understanding the church's belief. When the Orthodox Church, in its most solemn and sacred worship, uses substitutionary language to describe Christ's death, this is not an accident or an oversight. It is an expression of what the church has always believed: that Christ died in our place, bearing the consequences of our sin, so that we might live.

Engaging with the "New Soteriologists"

In recent decades, a movement within Eastern Orthodox theology has sought to argue that substitutionary and penal categories are fundamentally alien to the Orthodox tradition. These scholars—sometimes called the "New Soteriologists"—maintain that the authentic Eastern understanding of salvation is centered on theosis (divinization), Christus Victor (victory over death and the devil), and recapitulation (Christ undoing what Adam did), with no room for substitutionary or penal concepts.

Vladimir Moss has documented how this anti-substitutionary prejudice developed in modern Orthodoxy, arguing that it represents a departure from the broader patristic tradition rather than a faithful preservation of it.⁴¹ Moss shows that the rejection of substitutionary categories often arose under the influence of modern theological trends—particularly a desire to distinguish Orthodox theology from Western Protestantism—rather than from careful study of the patristic sources themselves.

I want to be respectful and fair toward Orthodox theologians, because I believe the Eastern tradition has enormous gifts to offer the wider church—particularly in its emphasis on theosis, the cosmic scope of redemption, and the transformative power of the incarnation (see Chapter 23 for a fuller discussion). But I also believe that the New Soteriologists have overcorrected. In their understandable desire to articulate what is distinctive about Orthodox soteriology, they have sometimes ended up denying what their own tradition actually says.

The historical situation is more nuanced than the New Soteriologists allow. It is true that the Greek Fathers placed greater emphasis on the incarnation, theosis, and Christus Victor than the Latin Fathers typically did. It is true that the systematic formulation of "penal substitutionary atonement" as a distinct doctrine came later, in the Reformation era. It is true that some modern Protestant versions of PSA have been formulated in ways that are theologically problematic—particularly when they divide Father and Son, depict God as vindictive, or reduce salvation to a purely legal transaction with no transformative power. Orthodox theologians are right to criticize these distortions.

But criticizing distortions is not the same as rejecting the whole category. And this is where the New Soteriologists go wrong. They move from the legitimate observation that Eastern theology has different emphases than Western theology to the illegitimate conclusion that Eastern theology excludes substitutionary categories altogether. The patristic evidence we have surveyed in this chapter shows that this conclusion simply cannot be sustained. Athanasius used substitutionary and penal language. Cyril of Alexandria used it. Chrysostom used it. Gregory of Nazianzus used it. The Orthodox liturgy uses it. If these theologians and these worship texts represent the authentic Eastern tradition—and they surely do—then substitution is not a Western import. It is part of the Eastern tradition's own inheritance.

Some Orthodox scholars have recognized this. Fr. Joshua Schooping, mentioned earlier, is an Orthodox priest who explicitly defends penal and substitutionary categories from within the Orthodox tradition. He argues that substitutionary themes are present not only in individual Church Fathers but throughout the hymnographic tradition of the Orthodox Church—a tradition that is foundational to Orthodox identity and theology.⁵⁸ Schooping represents a growing voice within Orthodoxy that is willing to acknowledge the substitutionary dimension of the patristic heritage without abandoning the other dimensions that make Eastern theology so rich and distinctive.

The problem is not that Eastern Orthodoxy emphasizes theosis and Christus Victor—of course it does, and it should. The problem is when these emphases are treated as excluding substitutionary themes that are clearly present in the Eastern Fathers and in the Orthodox liturgy. The patristic evidence we have reviewed in this chapter shows that the great Eastern theologians—Athanasius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others—all used substitutionary language naturally and without embarrassment. They did not see any conflict between incarnational theology, Christus Victor, and substitution. Neither should we.

The real issue, I suspect, is not with the concept of substitution itself but with certain distorted versions of penal substitution that the Orthodox rightly reject—versions that portray an angry Father venting his rage on an innocent Son, that divide the will of the Father from the will of the Son, or that reduce the atonement to a purely legal transaction with no transformative power. I reject those distortions too (see Chapter 20). But rejecting distortions is not the same as rejecting the whole category. The Fathers knew the difference. We should too.

Engaging with Hess: The Historical Case Revisited

In Chapter 13 of Crushing the Great Serpent, William Hess devotes significant space to surveying the Church Fathers. He acknowledges that the Fathers are not "as authoritative as scripture" but believes "they shed important light on how Early Christianity viewed Christ's work."⁴² His survey focuses heavily on the Christus Victor, ransom, recapitulation, and moral example themes in the Fathers, and he concludes that the early church's emphasis was on "the motif of Christ's victory over the forces of darkness."⁴³

I agree with Hess that the Christus Victor theme is prominent in the Fathers. That is not in dispute. Where I part company with Hess is in his treatment of the substitutionary evidence. When Hess encounters clear substitutionary language—as in the Athanasius passage we examined above—he tends to reinterpret it in non-substitutionary terms. The substitutionary elements are explained away as poetic language, as the psalmist's feelings rather than theological reality, or as something we are "misunderstanding" due to our Western lens.⁴⁴

But this approach has a significant weakness. It requires us to believe that when Athanasius says Christ "bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression," he does not actually mean what the words naturally say. It requires us to believe that when Chrysostom speaks of Christ "substituting Himself in our place" and receiving "the death which we owed," this is not really substitution. It requires us to believe that when Gelasius says Christ "received the punishments which were due to us," the word "punishments" does not mean punishments. At some point, this interpretive strategy becomes implausible. If we cannot trust these writers to mean what they say in such clear and direct language, then we cannot trust them to mean what they say about Christus Victor either.

Hess is right to note that one feature of reading the Church Fathers is that "they might use the same word but have a different meaning than we are used to."⁴⁵ Context does matter, and we should not carelessly read later systematic categories back into earlier writers. But there is a difference between being cautious about anachronistic readings and systematically explaining away evidence that does not fit a predetermined narrative. The substitutionary language in the Fathers is too widespread, too explicit, and too deeply rooted in their reading of Scripture to be dismissed as a misunderstanding.

Moreover, we should note what the substitutionary language in the Fathers does not look like. It does not look like a cold, mechanical legal transaction detached from divine love. It does not look like an angry Father punishing an unwilling Son. It does not look like "cosmic child abuse." What it looks like is what John Stott would later call "the self-substitution of God"—the Triune God, acting in unified love, bearing the consequences of sin in the person of the Son, so that sinners might be rescued, forgiven, and transformed.⁵⁴ Stott argued that the heart of the atonement is not a third party being punished by an angry God, but "God in Christ" substituting himself for us. "The righteous, loving Father humbled himself to become in and through his only Son flesh, sin and a curse for us, in order to redeem us without compromising his own character."⁵⁵ This is precisely the pattern we find in the Fathers: substitution embedded in love, penalty absorbed by the One who imposed it, justice and mercy meeting at the cross.

Philippe de la Trinité, writing from a Roman Catholic perspective, makes a similar point when he argues for what he calls "vicarious satisfaction" rooted in "the preeminence of mercy." For Philippe, Christ is the "victim of love"—he suffers vicariously, bearing the consequences of sin, but he does so in union with the Father, motivated by love, not crushed by retributive wrath.⁵⁶ This Catholic formulation is strikingly compatible with the patristic evidence we have examined. The Fathers described Christ as bearing the penalty of sin in our place, but they consistently framed this within a theology of divine love and Trinitarian unity. The distortion comes not from the concept of substitution itself but from versions of that concept that tear apart the Trinity and turn the Father into a cosmic tyrant. The Fathers would have rejected such distortions just as firmly as modern critics do—but they would not have thrown out substitution along with the distortion.

The Cumulative Weight of the Evidence

Let me step back now and summarize what we have found. The following Church Fathers—both Eastern and Western—used clear substitutionary and/or penal language when describing Christ's atoning death:

Eastern Fathers: Athanasius of Alexandria (Christ "bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression" and died "in the stead of all"); Cyril of Alexandria (the chastisement "due to fall on sinners... descended upon Him"); John Chrysostom (Christ saved us "by substituting Himself in our place," bearing "the death which we owed" and "our guilt"); Gregory of Nazianzus (Christ offers Himself "in our place"); Eusebius of Caesarea (used the language of vicarious punishment); Maximus the Confessor (Christ voluntarily accepted the consequences due to fallen humanity); John of Damascus (drew on Isaiah 53 and sacrificial imagery in substitutionary terms).

Western Fathers: Augustine (spoke of the atonement as penal debt); Hilary of Poitiers ("offered Himself to the death of the accursed, in order to abolish the curse of the Law"); Ambrose ("made a curse in our stead" to "satisfy the judgment"); Leo the Great (Christ bore the consequences of sin on behalf of sinful humanity); Gelasius of Cyzicus (Christ "received the punishments which were due to us... in place of us").

Early Witnesses: Melito of Sardis (second century—Christ "suffered for the sake of him who suffered... judged for the sake of the condemned"); Victorinus (spoke of substitution).

Liturgical Evidence: The hymns and worship texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church contain extensive substitutionary language, composed by Eastern saints and received as authoritative expressions of the faith.

This is not a handful of isolated proof-texts. It is a broad, deep, cross-traditional pattern of testimony. When Garry Williams concluded from his research that penal substitutionary atonement "had reached its full form by the end of the Patristic era," and that "none of the key elements of the Penal doctrine was missing" by the end of the sixth century, and that "even the Reformers of the Sixteenth did not add anything new to it," he was not exaggerating.⁴⁶

Why This Matters: The Multi-Faceted Patristic Witness

I want to close this chapter by explaining why I think this evidence matters so much—not just for historical accuracy, but for how we think about the atonement today.

The great lesson of the Church Fathers is that the atonement is too big for any single model. The Fathers did not force the cross into one neat category. They spoke of Christ's victory over death and the devil (Christus Victor). They spoke of Christ recapitulating the history of humanity, undoing what Adam had done (recapitulation). They spoke of Christ restoring fallen human nature from within through the incarnation (theosis). They spoke of the moral power of Christ's self-giving love to transform those who contemplate it (moral influence). And they spoke of Christ dying in our place, bearing the penalty of our sin, taking the punishment that was due to us (substitution). All of these themes coexist in the Fathers—sometimes in the very same paragraph.

This is exactly the model I am advocating in this book: a multi-faceted atonement with substitution at the center (see Chapter 24 for the full integration). The Fathers give us precedent for holding all of these truths together. They show us that we do not need to choose between Christus Victor and substitution, or between theosis and penal categories. The cross is rich enough to hold them all.

What the Fathers did not do—and what we should not do either—is pit these models against each other as if affirming one requires denying the others. The modern tendency to set Christus Victor against substitution, or to claim that the Eastern tradition supports only incarnational and victory themes while the Western tradition supports only legal and penal themes, is a distortion of the actual historical record. The primary sources show a more complex, more interesting, and ultimately more biblical picture.

I want to stress this point because I think it has enormous practical significance for the church today. One of the most damaging developments in modern atonement theology has been the assumption that we must choose between atonement models—that if we affirm Christus Victor, we must reject substitution, or that if we affirm substitution, we must minimize the victory theme. This assumption leads to impoverished theology on all sides. Those who reject substitution lose the profound biblical truth that Christ bore the consequences of our sin in our place. Those who reject Christus Victor lose the thrilling biblical truth that Christ has conquered death, sin, and the powers of evil on our behalf. Those who reject theosis lose the transformative truth that through Christ's incarnation and resurrection, we are drawn into participation in the very life of God.

The Fathers refused to make these false choices. They held it all. They preached a cross that was simultaneously substitutionary and victorious, both a satisfaction of divine justice and a defeat of demonic powers, both a legal resolution of the problem of human guilt and a cosmic healing of the problem of human corruption. And they did this not because they were muddled thinkers who could not see the differences between these concepts, but because they were faithful readers of Scripture who recognized that the biblical testimony about the cross is irreducibly rich and multi-dimensional.

Gathercole reminds us that substitution—defined simply as "Christ in our place"—is a broad and deeply biblical category that need not be reduced to any one systematic formulation.⁵⁹ The Fathers exemplify this breadth. They spoke of Christ in our place without always specifying the precise mechanism or systematizing the relationship between substitution and other atonement themes. That lack of systematic precision is sometimes cited as evidence that the Fathers did not really hold to substitution. But I think it is better understood as evidence of theological maturity. The Fathers were comfortable with the richness and mystery of the cross. They did not feel the need to force it into a single tidy formula. They let the biblical language—with all its layered imagery—speak for itself.

As Rutledge concludes her survey of the patristic evidence: "It is not accurate to state that the theme of substitution emerged with Anselm, and it is not responsible to suggest that we can escape from it into the Christus Victor motif."⁴⁷ The two themes "coexist creatively in the Scriptures and interpret one another, as they did in the Fathers long before Anselm and the Reformers."⁴⁸

I could not agree more. The Fathers are not our enemies on this point. They are our allies. They show us that the church has always recognized the substitutionary dimension of the cross—not as the only dimension, but as a real and essential one. And they show us that this recognition does not require us to abandon victory, or incarnation, or transformation, or any of the other glorious truths that the cross accomplishes. The cross is big enough for all of it.

Conclusion

We began this chapter by confronting a widespread myth: that substitutionary atonement is a post-Reformation invention with no roots in the early church. We have seen that this myth does not survive contact with the primary sources. The Church Fathers—Eastern and Western, Greek and Latin, from the second century through the seventh and beyond—used substitutionary and penal language when describing what Christ accomplished on the cross. They spoke of Christ dying "in our place," "in our stead," "instead of all." They spoke of Christ bearing the penalty of our transgression, receiving the punishments due to us, taking the curse that should have fallen on sinful humanity. They said these things naturally, as part of their biblical inheritance, alongside and interwoven with their themes of victory, recapitulation, incarnation, and transformation.

The Reformers did not invent substitutionary atonement. They inherited it—from Scripture first, and also from the patristic tradition that mediated Scripture's teaching across the centuries. What the Reformers did was give the substitutionary and penal dimensions more systematic and explicit formulation than the Fathers had provided. That is a genuine development, and it is one I believe was warranted by the biblical evidence (as argued in Chapters 6–12 and 19). But it was a development of something that was already present in the tradition, not a creation out of nothing.

Williams puts this point with admirable precision: "It would, therefore, be anachronistic to conclude that the Fathers were less committed to the Penal doctrine than the Reformers—it suffices to say that they only rarely needed to emphasize the Penal doctrine for polemical purposes."⁵⁷ This is an astute observation. The Fathers did not write treatises defending penal substitution because they were not debating it. Nobody was attacking it. The substitutionary dimension of Christ's death was simply part of the air they breathed theologically—so much a part of their biblical inheritance that it did not require explicit defense. It was the Socinian critique in the sixteenth century, and later the Enlightenment critiques, that forced the church to articulate more precisely what it had always believed (see Chapter 18 for these developments). But the substance was there all along.

What, then, should we take away from this survey? I think there are three main lessons. First, historical honesty demands that we acknowledge the presence of substitutionary language in the Fathers. Scholars who claim otherwise are either unfamiliar with the primary sources or are selectively reading them through a predetermined theological lens. The evidence is simply too extensive to deny.

Second, the Fathers show us how to hold multiple atonement themes together without pitting them against each other. The modern tendency to treat Christus Victor and substitution as competing alternatives is foreign to the patristic mind. The Fathers held victory, incarnation, recapitulation, moral transformation, and substitution together as complementary facets of the one great act of redemption. This is precisely the multi-faceted model I am advocating in this book—substitution at the center, with the other models arranged around it as genuine and complementary dimensions of the cross (see Chapter 24).

Third, the patristic evidence supports a form of substitutionary atonement that is Trinitarian, love-centered, and transformative—not the caricature that critics rightly reject. When the Fathers spoke of Christ bearing the penalty of sin in our place, they did so within a framework of divine love, Trinitarian unity, and the cosmic scope of redemption. Their substitutionary language was always connected to incarnation, to victory, to transformation. It was never an isolated legal mechanism disconnected from the love of God. The best versions of substitutionary atonement—whether in Stott, in Philippe de la Trinité, or in the constructive proposal I will develop in Chapter 19—are deeply continuous with this patristic inheritance.

The record has now been corrected. Let the Fathers speak. And let us listen.

Bibliography

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

Athanasius. On the Incarnation (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei). In Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, edited by Archibald Robertson. Vol. 4 of NPNF². Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Athanasius. Four Discourses Against the Arians (Orationes contra Arianos IV). In Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, edited by Archibald Robertson. Vol. 4 of NPNF². Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Athanasius. Letter to Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms. In Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, edited by Archibald Robertson. Vol. 4 of NPNF². Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Augustine. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan. Translated by Richard Stothert. In St. Augustin: The Writings Against the Manichæans and Against the Donatists, edited by Archibald Robertson. Vol. 4 of NPNF¹. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

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.

Blocher, Henri. "Agnus Victor: The Atonement as Victory and Vicarious Punishment." In What Does It Mean to Be Saved? Broadening Evangelical Horizons of Salvation, edited by John G. Stackhouse Jr., 67–91. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Ensor, Peter. "Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Later Ante-Nicene Period." Evangelical Quarterly 87, no. 4 (2015): 331–46.

Eusebius. The Proof of the Gospel. 2 vols. Edited and translated by W. J. Ferrar. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.

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

John Chrysostom. Homilies on Second Corinthians. In Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, edited by Talbot W. Chambers. Vol. 12 of NPNF¹. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

John of Damascus. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (De Fide Orthodoxa). In John of Damascus: Writings, translated by Frederic H. Chase Jr. The Fathers of the Church 37. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1958.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. Rev. ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.

Louth, Andrew. Maximus the Confessor. London: Routledge, 1996.

Melito of Sardis. On the Passover (Peri Pascha). In On Pascha and Fragments, edited by Stuart George Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.

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

Rivière, Jean. Le Dogme de la Rédemption: Étude Théologique. 3rd ed. Paris: Librairie Victor LeCoffre, J. Gabalda, 1931.

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

Schooping, Fr. Joshua. An Existential Soteriology.

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

Williams, Garry J. "A Critical Exposition of Hugo Grotius's Doctrine of the Atonement in De satisfactione Christi." PhD diss., University of Oxford, 1999.