Understanding the Atonement: Fleming Rutledge’s Biblical Alternative to Penal Substitution

The death of Jesus Christ on the cross stands at the very center of Christian faith. For two thousand years, believers have proclaimed that Christ died for our sins, that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins, and that through His sacrifice we are reconciled to God. This fundamental truth remains unshakeable. However, the precise way we understand how Christ’s death accomplishes our salvation has been expressed in various ways throughout church history.

Today, many evangelical and Protestant Christians assume that there is only one biblical way to understand the atonement: penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). This theory teaches that God the Father poured out His wrath and punishment for sin upon Jesus Christ, who bore the penalty we deserved. In this view, Jesus experienced the Father’s anger and judicial punishment in our place. While this understanding has become dominant in many Protestant circles since the Reformation, it is neither the only nor necessarily the best way to understand the biblical teaching about Christ’s atoning work.

This comprehensive report presents Fleming Rutledge’s alternative understanding that remains thoroughly conservative and biblical while questioning certain problematic aspects of penal substitution. Fleming Rutledge, in her monumental work “The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ,” offers a view that affirms the genuine substitutionary nature of Christ’s death while avoiding the problems associated with crude versions of penal substitution.

“The crucifixion is not about an angry Father punishing an innocent Son. It is about the Triune God taking into himself the full consequences of human sin and evil, absorbing it and exhausting its power. The Son suffers not God’s wrath but the godless condition that sin creates.”

– Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, Chapter 11

The view presented here affirms without reservation that:

Jesus Christ truly died as a sacrifice for our sins
His death was substitutionary – He died in our place
His blood genuinely cleanses us from sin
Through His death we receive forgiveness and reconciliation with God
The atonement was necessary for our salvation
Christ’s work satisfies divine justice
The Trinity acted in perfect unity at the cross

However, Fleming’s view questions whether:

God the Father was angry at Jesus on the cross
Jesus experienced the Father’s wrath or punishment
The Father treated Jesus as if He were guilty of our sins
Divine justice requires retributive punishment
The Trinity was somehow divided at the cross
God needed to vent His anger before He could forgive

Understanding this distinction is not merely an academic exercise. How we understand the cross shapes our entire understanding of God’s character, the nature of salvation, and the Christian life. If God required violent punishment of His innocent Son, what does this say about divine justice? If the Father turned away from Jesus in anger, what does this mean for the unity of the Trinity? If salvation requires the satisfaction of divine wrath through violence, how do we understand Jesus’ teaching about love and forgiveness?

2. Fleming Rutledge’s Understanding of the Atonement

The Trinitarian Framework

Fleming Rutledge begins with a crucial theological foundation: the atonement must be understood within a proper Trinitarian framework. The cross is not an event where one member of the Trinity acts upon another, but rather the unified action of the one God for our salvation. As she emphasizes throughout her work, “The self-oblation of the Son on the cross proceeded out of God’s eternal, triune inner being.”

This Trinitarian understanding immediately addresses one of the most troubling aspects of crude penal substitution – the idea that the Father is punishing the Son. Rutledge argues that such a view fundamentally misunderstands both the Trinity and the atonement. The Father and Son are not two separate individuals where one can be angry at the other. They share one divine essence, one will, and one purpose.

“In our preaching, teaching, and learning we must emphatically reject any interpretation that divides the will of the Father from that of the Son, or suggests that anything is going on that does not proceed out of love. God’s justice and God’s mercy both issue forth from his single will of eternal love.”

– Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, Chapter 8

The Godless Condition

Central to Rutledge’s understanding is the concept of the “godless condition” that sin creates. Rather than focusing on God’s wrath that needs to be satisfied, she emphasizes the destructive power of sin that needs to be defeated. Sin creates a condition of godlessness – separation from God, bondage to evil powers, and subjection to death. This is what Christ enters into and overcomes.

When Jesus cries out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46), Rutledge does not interpret this as the Father turning away in anger. Instead, she sees it as Christ entering fully into the godless condition that sin has created – experiencing the ultimate consequence of human rebellion while remaining sinless himself. This is substitution, but not penal substitution in the classical Protestant sense.

Substitution Without Punishment

Rutledge strongly affirms substitutionary atonement – Christ died in our place, for our sins. However, she distinguishes this from penal substitution. The difference is crucial: Christ bears the consequences of sin, not a punishment imposed by the Father. He enters into our condition under the power of Sin and Death (which Rutledge often capitalizes to emphasize their status as powers opposed to God) and defeats them from within.

This understanding maintains the biblical language of Christ dying “for us” and “in our place” without requiring that God the Father inflicted punishment on Jesus. The suffering Christ endures comes from the powers of evil, from human sinfulness, and from the godless condition itself – not from the Father’s wrath.

The Unity of Incarnation and Atonement

Another crucial aspect of Rutledge’s theology is her insistence on the unity of incarnation and atonement. The atonement is not just about Christ’s death in isolation but about the entire movement of God toward humanity in Christ. From the incarnation through the resurrection, God is at work reconciling the world to himself.

This holistic view prevents us from focusing exclusively on the moment of death as if it were a transaction separate from Christ’s life and resurrection. The entire life of Jesus – his teaching, healing, confrontation with evil, suffering, death, and resurrection – constitutes God’s saving action.

The Rectification of the Ungodly

Rutledge uses the term “rectification” to describe what God accomplishes in Christ. This term captures the biblical concept of justification while emphasizing that God is setting things right, not merely declaring them right. The ungodly are not just forgiven; they are being transformed and renewed.

This rectification happens through Christ’s substitutionary action, but again, not through penal substitution. Christ takes our place under the dominion of Sin and Death, exhausts their power, and opens the way for our liberation and transformation. We are justified not because Christ was punished instead of us, but because Christ defeated the powers that held us captive.

3. Biblical Foundation for Fleming’s View

Old Testament Sacrificial System

Understanding the Old Testament sacrificial system is crucial for grasping the nature of Christ’s sacrifice. Fleming Rutledge points out that the sacrificial system was not primarily about punishment or appeasing divine wrath. Instead, it was about cleansing, consecration, and restoring communion with God.

Bible Verse	Fleming’s Interpretation	Significance for Atonement
Leviticus 17:11 – “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls”	Blood represents life given to God, not punishment absorbed. God provides the means of atonement as a gift.	Atonement is God’s gracious provision, not a payment extracted by an angry deity.
Leviticus 16:21-22 – The scapegoat ceremony where sins are placed on the goat and sent away	The goat bears sins away, removing them from the community. It is not punished or killed for those sins.	Christ bears our sins away, removing them, not being punished for them by the Father.
Isaiah 53:4-5 – “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows… he was wounded for our transgressions”	The Servant bears the consequences and weight of sin, entering into human suffering to heal and restore.	Christ enters into our condition to heal us from within, not to be punished by God in our place.
Psalm 51:16-17 – “You do not delight in sacrifice… The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit”	God desires repentance and transformation, not blood payment. Sacrifice is about relationship, not transaction.	The cross reveals God’s desire for reconciliation, not His need for violent satisfaction.

Jesus’ Teaching on Forgiveness

Jesus’ own teaching about forgiveness presents a challenge to penal substitution. Throughout his ministry, Jesus forgave sins without requiring punishment or payment. He taught his disciples to forgive without limit and portrayed God as a Father eager to forgive and restore.

Bible Verse	Fleming’s Interpretation	Contrast with Penal Substitution
Luke 15:11-32 – Parable of the Prodigal Son	The father forgives and restores without requiring payment or punishment. Love overcomes sin.	No mention of wrath needing satisfaction or punishment being required before forgiveness.
Matthew 18:21-35 – Parable of the Unmerciful Servant	God forgives enormous debts freely, expecting us to do likewise. Forgiveness flows from mercy, not satisfied justice.	The king forgives the debt without requiring someone else to pay it or be punished for it.
Luke 7:36-50 – Jesus forgives the sinful woman	Jesus forgives sins directly, without mention of future payment through his death. Love and faith bring forgiveness.	No indication that this forgiveness requires Jesus to later be punished for her sins.
Matthew 9:2-8 – Jesus forgives and heals the paralytic	Jesus has authority to forgive sins on earth, demonstrating God’s desire to forgive and restore.	Forgiveness is pronounced without reference to punishment or payment.

Paul’s Understanding of the Cross

The Apostle Paul provides the most extensive theological reflection on the meaning of Christ’s death. While Paul certainly uses substitutionary language, Fleming Rutledge argues that Paul’s understanding is more complex and nuanced than simple penal substitution.

Bible Verse	Fleming’s Interpretation	Key Theological Point
2 Corinthians 5:21 – “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us”	Christ enters into the condition of sin, bearing its weight and consequences, not being punished as if guilty.	Christ becomes what we are (under sin’s power) so we might become what he is (righteous).
Romans 8:3 – “God condemned sin in the flesh”	God condemns sin itself, not Jesus. Christ’s sinless life in human flesh defeats sin’s claim on humanity.	The target of condemnation is sin, not Christ. Victory, not punishment, is the focus.
Galatians 3:13 – “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us”	Christ enters into the cursed condition to free us from it, not to be punished by the Father.	Redemption through solidarity and victory, not through transferred punishment.
Romans 3:25 – “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement”	God provides the means of atonement as an act of love, not to satisfy His own wrath.	God is the subject providing atonement, not the object receiving appeasement.
Colossians 2:13-15 – “He forgave us all our sins… triumphing over them by the cross”	The cross is a victory over powers and principalities, not a punishment absorbed.	Christus Victor theme – defeating evil powers rather than satisfying divine wrath.

The Gospel Narratives

The Gospel accounts of Jesus’ death provide important insights that support Fleming’s interpretation over crude penal substitution.

Biblical Theme	Fleming’s Interpretation	Scriptural Support
The Cup of Suffering	Jesus drinks the cup of human suffering and divine judgment on sin, not the Father’s personal wrath against him.	Matthew 26:39 – “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
The Cry of Dereliction	Jesus experiences the godless condition sin creates, not rejection by an angry Father.	Mark 15:34 – “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (quoting Psalm 22, which ends in vindication)
Father, Forgive Them	Jesus extends forgiveness even while dying, showing God’s fundamental orientation toward mercy.	Luke 23:34 – “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Into Your Hands	Jesus dies in trust and communion with the Father, not under divine wrath.	Luke 23:46 – “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”

4. Understanding Penal Substitutionary Atonement

To properly understand Fleming Rutledge’s position, we must first clearly understand what penal substitutionary atonement teaches, particularly as defended by theologians like William Lane Craig in his comprehensive work “Atonement and the Death of Christ.”

Core Elements of Penal Substitution

William Lane Craig and other defenders of penal substitution argue for several key theological points:

1. Retributive Justice as Essential to God: Craig argues that retributive justice – the principle that sin must be punished – is essential to God’s nature. God cannot simply forgive sin without punishment because this would violate His justice. As Craig states, “God’s essential justice and mercy are both exhibited in the cross of Christ, for Christ by his death satisfies the demands of divine justice, enabling God in turn to pardon our sins.”

2. Christ Bears Divine Punishment: In this view, Christ literally bears the punishment that sinners deserve. The Father treats Christ as if He were guilty of our sins and inflicts upon Him the penalty of divine justice. This is not merely Christ bearing consequences but receiving actual retributive punishment from God.

3. Satisfaction of Divine Wrath: God’s wrath against sin must be satisfied before forgiveness is possible. Christ’s death satisfies this wrath by providing a suitable object for divine punishment. The Father’s anger is appeased through the suffering of the Son.

4. Legal/Forensic Framework: Penal substitution operates primarily within a legal or forensic framework. Sin is understood as law-breaking, God as judge, and salvation as a legal transaction where guilt is transferred to Christ and punishment is meted out.

5. Imputation of Sin and Righteousness: Our sins are legally imputed (credited) to Christ, making Him legally guilty in God’s sight, while Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers, making them legally righteous despite their actual sinfulness.

Historical Development of Penal Substitution

It’s important to note that penal substitution as a systematic doctrine is relatively recent in church history. While Church Fathers used substitutionary language, the specific idea that God punished Jesus instead of us was not clearly articulated until the Protestant Reformation.

The doctrine was developed most fully by Reformed theologians like John Calvin and later Protestant scholastics. Calvin wrote: “The curse caused by our guilt was awaiting us at God’s heavenly tribunal. Hence, when Christ is hanged upon the cross, he makes himself subject to the curse. It had to happen in this way in order that the whole curse—which on account of our sins lay upon us—might be lifted from us, while it was transferred to him.”

By the 19th century, theologians like Charles Hodge at Princeton had systematized penal substitution into rigid formulations using terms like “forensic penal satisfaction” – language that, as Rutledge notes, “does not sound remotely like anything in Scripture.”

Craig’s Philosophical Defense

William Lane Craig provides one of the most sophisticated contemporary defenses of penal substitution, addressing common objections:

On the Coherence of Punishment of the Innocent: Craig argues that through divine command theory, God has the authority to establish what is just. Since God issues no commands to Himself, He can choose to punish Christ without violating justice. Furthermore, Craig appeals to legal fictions whereby guilt can be legally transferred to another party.

On Divine Love and Wrath: Craig maintains that penal substitution actually demonstrates God’s love, since God Himself provides the substitute. The doctrine displays both divine justice (in requiring punishment) and divine mercy (in providing a substitute).

On the Necessity of Satisfaction: Craig argues for a “necessitarian” view – that given God’s essential justice, some form of satisfaction was necessary for forgiveness. God could not simply pardon sin without violating His own nature.

5. Key Differences Between Fleming and Penal Substitution

The differences between Fleming Rutledge’s view and penal substitutionary atonement are profound and significant. Understanding these differences helps us see why this theological discussion matters for our understanding of God, salvation, and the Christian life.

Fleming Rutledge’s View

God’s Unity: The Trinity acts in perfect unity at the cross. The Father and Son share one will and purpose.
Nature of Justice: Divine justice is restorative and reconciling, aimed at setting things right.
Source of Suffering: Christ’s suffering comes from entering the godless condition sin creates, not from the Father’s wrath.
Victory Framework: The cross is primarily about defeating powers of evil, sin, and death.
God’s Character: God is fundamentally oriented toward mercy and restoration.

Penal Substitution (Craig)

Divine Punishment: The Father punishes the Son, treating Him as guilty of our sins.
Nature of Justice: Divine justice is retributive, requiring punishment for sin.
Source of Suffering: Christ suffers the Father’s wrath and judicial punishment.
Legal Framework: The cross is primarily about satisfying legal requirements of justice.
God’s Character: God’s justice requires satisfaction before mercy is possible.

The Question of Divine Wrath

One of the most significant differences concerns the role of divine wrath in the atonement. Penal substitution teaches that God’s wrath against sinners is redirected toward Christ, who absorbs this divine anger on our behalf. Fleming Rutledge offers a different understanding:

“God’s ‘wrath,’ or his ‘violence,’ if you will, is not to be understood literally, as though he were choosing specific moments to unleash his rage and other specific moments to withdraw it. God’s judgment on Sin and Death—incarnated in the Son’s life, death, and resurrection—is in place within his being from before all time. God is against all that is not part of his purpose; that is the meaning of his ‘wrath.'”

– Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, Chapter 11

For Rutledge, divine wrath is God’s settled opposition to evil, not emotional anger that needs to be vented. Christ doesn’t absorb the Father’s rage but rather enters into the sphere where divine judgment on sin operates, defeating it from within.

The Unity vs. Division of the Trinity

Penal substitution, especially in its cruder forms, can imply a division within the Trinity – the angry Father punishing the innocent Son. This raises serious theological problems about the unity of God. How can God be divided against Himself? How can one person of the Trinity be angry at another?

Fleming Rutledge insists on maintaining the absolute unity of the Trinity in the work of atonement. The cross is not the Father doing something to the Son, but the one God acting to save humanity. As she emphasizes: “The self-oblation of the Son on the cross proceeded out of God’s eternal, triune inner being.”

The Nature of Substitution

Both views affirm substitution – Christ died in our place. But they understand this substitution differently:

Aspect	Fleming’s Substitution	Penal Substitution
What Christ Bears	The consequences and condition of sin	The punishment for sin
The Exchange	Christ enters our condition to transform it	Christ receives our penalty so we don’t have to
The Result	Victory over sin and death, opening the way to life	Satisfaction of divine justice, allowing forgiveness
The Mechanism	Solidarity and representation	Legal transfer and imputation

Violence and the Cross

Critics of penal substitution argue that it makes violence essential to salvation – God requires violent punishment before He can forgive. This potentially legitimizes violence and presents God as inherently violent.

Fleming Rutledge addresses this concern directly. In her view, the violence at the cross comes from human sin and evil powers, not from God. God submits to this violence in Christ to defeat it, not because God requires violence for satisfaction. She writes: “If the Son of God submits to a violent death by ‘the hands of sinners,’ how is that violence in the being of God? God is not committing violence. God in the person of the incarnate Son is himself a willing and purposeful victim of the violence that entered the creation as a result of the fall of Adam.”

6. Biblical Support for Fleming’s Position

Fleming Rutledge’s interpretation finds strong support throughout Scripture when we examine the biblical text carefully without imposing a penal substitutionary framework upon it.

The Nature of God’s Love and Justice

Bible Verse	Support for Fleming’s View	Challenge to Penal Substitution
1 John 4:8-10 – “God is love… This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins”	God’s fundamental nature is love. The atonement flows from love, not from a need to satisfy wrath.	If God requires punishment before forgiving, how is this consistent with God being love itself?
Romans 5:8 – “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us”	The cross demonstrates God’s love, not His wrath. God acts for us while we are still sinners.	How does punishing an innocent demonstrate love toward the guilty?
Hosea 6:6 – “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings”	God’s fundamental desire is for mercy and relationship, not payment or punishment.	If God desires mercy over sacrifice, why would He require the ultimate sacrifice?
Micah 6:8 – “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good… to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God”	Divine justice is linked with mercy, not retribution. God calls us to the same.	If God’s justice requires punishment, why does He call us to mercy?

The Servant Songs of Isaiah

Isaiah 53, often cited as support for penal substitution, actually supports Fleming’s view when read carefully:

Isaiah 53 Passage	Fleming’s Interpretation	Key Insight
v. 4 – “Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering”	The Servant bears the weight and consequences of sin, entering into human pain.	The language is of bearing and carrying, not being punished for.
v. 5 – “He was pierced for our transgressions… by his wounds we are healed”	The Servant’s suffering brings healing and restoration, not satisfies punishment.	The result is healing, suggesting restoration rather than legal satisfaction.
v. 6 – “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all”	God places the burden of sin on the Servant to carry it away, not to punish him for it.	Similar to the scapegoat that bears sins away without being punished.
v. 10 – “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him”	God’s purpose works through the Servant’s suffering, but God is not the agent of violence.	God’s will encompasses the whole saving event, not specifically inflicting punishment.

Paul’s Theology of Reconciliation

Paul’s letters provide extensive theological reflection that supports Fleming’s interpretation:

Pauline Text	Fleming’s Reading	Theological Significance
2 Corinthians 5:18-19 – “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ… God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them”	God is the subject of reconciliation, not the object needing appeasement. God doesn’t count sins, rather than demanding payment.	Reconciliation flows from God’s initiative, not from satisfied wrath.
Romans 5:10 – “For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son”	We were enemies, not God. God reconciles enemies, not requiring satisfaction first.	The enmity is on our side, not God’s. God overcomes our enmity through love.
Ephesians 2:14-16 – “For he himself is our peace… His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity… and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross”	The cross creates peace and unity, breaking down walls of hostility through Christ’s solidarity with humanity.	Focus on reconciliation and peace-making, not punishment and satisfaction.
Romans 8:31-32 – “If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all”	God is fundamentally for us, not against us. The cross proves God’s commitment to save.	No mention of wrath needing satisfaction, only God’s determination to save.

The Johannine Witness

The Gospel of John and the Johannine epistles provide crucial support for Fleming’s view:

Johannine Text	Supporting Fleming’s View	Theological Implication
John 3:16-17 – “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son… God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world”	The motivation is love, the purpose is salvation, not condemnation or punishment.	God’s fundamental orientation toward the world is salvific love, not wrath.
1 John 2:2 – “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world”	Christ is the means of atonement (hilasmos) that God provides, not receives.	God provides atonement rather than demanding it.
John 12:31-32 – “Now the prince of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself”	The cross is about defeating evil powers and drawing people to God through love.	Victory and attraction through love, not satisfaction through punishment.
1 John 4:18 – “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment”	God’s perfect love excludes fear and punishment from the relationship.	If salvation is based on punishment (even transferred), how does this eliminate fear?

The Book of Hebrews

Hebrews provides rich sacrificial imagery that, properly understood, supports Fleming’s interpretation:

Hebrews Passage	Fleming’s Interpretation	Key Point
Hebrews 2:14-15 – “By his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—and free those who all their lives were held in slavery”	Christ’s death defeats the devil and frees slaves, not satisfies the Father’s wrath.	Christus Victor theme – defeating evil powers rather than appeasing God.
Hebrews 9:14 – “How much more will the blood of Christ… cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death”	Christ’s blood cleanses and purifies, it doesn’t satisfy punishment requirements.	Cleansing and transformation, not legal satisfaction.
Hebrews 10:10 – “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”	The sacrifice makes us holy/sanctifies us, not just declares us legally righteous.	Transformation and sanctification, not merely forensic justification.
Hebrews 13:12-13 – “Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore”	Jesus bears disgrace and shame in solidarity with outcasts, not divine punishment.	Solidarity with the marginalized, not satisfaction of divine wrath.

7. Philosophical Arguments Supporting Fleming

Beyond biblical exegesis, there are strong philosophical and theological arguments that support Fleming Rutledge’s view over penal substitutionary atonement.

The Problem of Divine Child Abuse

One of the most serious criticisms of penal substitution is that it portrays God the Father as engaging in what amounts to divine child abuse – punishing His innocent Son for the sins of others. While defenders like Craig argue this critique misunderstands the Trinity, the problem remains significant.

Fleming’s view avoids this problem entirely. In her understanding, the Father is not punishing the Son. Rather, the triune God is acting in unity to enter into human suffering and overcome it from within. The violence comes from sin and evil, not from the Father. As Rutledge emphasizes: “God is not committing violence. God in the person of the incarnate Son is himself a willing and purposeful victim of the violence that entered the creation as a result of the fall.”

The Moral Coherence of Punishing the Innocent

A fundamental principle of justice is that the guilty should be punished and the innocent protected. Penal substitution seems to violate this principle by having God punish the innocent Jesus for the sins of the guilty. Craig attempts to address this by appealing to divine command theory – that God determines what is just and can therefore choose to punish an innocent.

However, this solution creates its own problems. If God can arbitrarily decide to punish the innocent, what does this say about divine justice? Is it merely whatever God decides, with no connection to moral reality? Fleming’s view maintains the coherence of divine justice by not requiring the punishment of the innocent. Christ voluntarily enters into solidarity with sinners, bearing the consequences of sin to defeat it, not being punished as if He were guilty.

The Unity of Divine Attributes

Penal substitution can create a tension between God’s love and justice, as if these attributes are in conflict and the cross is needed to reconcile them. God’s justice demands punishment, His love desires forgiveness, and the cross allows both to be satisfied.

Fleming’s view presents a more unified understanding of God’s attributes. Justice and love are not in tension but are both expressions of God’s single will to restore and reconcile. Justice is not primarily about punishment but about setting things right. Love is not merely sentiment but active engagement to overcome evil and restore relationship. The cross expresses both simultaneously without conflict.

The Nature of Forgiveness

True forgiveness, philosophically understood, involves the forgiver absorbing the wrong done and choosing not to retaliate or demand payment. If forgiveness requires that someone must pay or be punished, is it really forgiveness at all? Penal substitution suggests God cannot forgive without punishment being inflicted on someone.

Fleming’s understanding preserves the true nature of forgiveness. God genuinely forgives – absorbing the wrong, bearing the cost in Himself through Christ, and choosing restoration over retaliation. The cross doesn’t enable God to forgive by satisfying His need for punishment; rather, it reveals the costly nature of divine forgiveness already operative.

The Problem of Infinite Punishment

Traditional penal substitution often claims that sin against an infinite God deserves infinite punishment, and only the infinite Son of God could bear such punishment. But this creates logical problems. How can a finite period of suffering (even by an infinite being) equal infinite punishment? And if Christ bore infinite punishment, why isn’t everyone automatically saved?

Fleming’s view doesn’t require these problematic equations. Christ doesn’t bear infinite punishment but enters into the finite human condition under sin to transform it from within. The power of the cross lies not in the quantity of punishment absorbed but in the divine life that enters death and overcomes it.

The Moral Influence of the Cross

How we understand the cross profoundly affects how we live as Christians. If the cross is primarily about violent punishment being necessary for forgiveness, what does this teach us about dealing with wrong in our own lives? Does it legitimize retributive justice? Does it suggest that forgiveness requires punishment?

Fleming’s understanding provides a different moral paradigm. The cross teaches us that evil is overcome through suffering love, that forgiveness involves bearing the cost ourselves rather than demanding payment, and that God’s way of dealing with evil is to enter into solidarity with victims and transform situations from within. This provides a powerful basis for Christian ethics of non-violence, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

8. Theological Implications

The differences between Fleming Rutledge’s view and penal substitutionary atonement have far-reaching theological implications that affect our entire understanding of Christian faith and life.

Understanding God’s Character

How we understand the atonement fundamentally shapes how we view God’s character. Penal substitution, especially in its cruder forms, can present God as primarily wrathful, needing to vent anger before showing love, demanding His pound of flesh before He can forgive. This affects how believers relate to God – often with fear rather than trust, anxiety rather than peace.

Fleming’s view presents God as fundamentally loving and merciful, always working for restoration and reconciliation. God’s justice is not retributive but restorative. God’s opposition to sin flows from love for creation, not from injured pride needing satisfaction. This understanding fosters a relationship with God based on trust, gratitude, and love rather than fear of punishment.

The Nature of Salvation

Penal substitution tends toward a transactional view of salvation – a legal exchange where punishment is transferred to Christ and righteousness is credited to believers. While this preserves important truths about justification, it can reduce salvation to a change in legal status rather than actual transformation.

Fleming’s view presents salvation as comprehensive liberation and transformation. Christ doesn’t just change our legal standing but defeats the powers that hold us captive, enters into our condition to heal it from within, and opens the way to new life. Salvation is not just forgiveness of sins but deliverance from the power of Sin and Death. This is what Rutledge calls “rectification” – not just being declared right but being made right.

The Unity of Christ’s Work

Penal substitution can separate Christ’s death from His life and resurrection, focusing on the moment of death as the payment for sin. The incarnation becomes merely necessary to provide a suitable substitute, and the resurrection merely proves the payment was accepted.

Fleming’s view integrates Christ’s entire work as one saving movement. The incarnation is God entering into solidarity with humanity. The life of Jesus reveals God’s kingdom breaking into the world. The death is the climactic confrontation with evil powers. The resurrection is the victory that makes new life possible. All of these together constitute God’s saving action, not just the moment of death.

The Church’s Mission

If the cross is primarily about satisfying divine justice through punishment, the church’s mission tends to focus on getting individuals saved from hell – helping them benefit from the legal transaction Christ accomplished. While evangelism remains important, this can lead to an individualistic, otherworldly focus.

Fleming’s understanding suggests a broader mission. If the cross is about God overcoming evil, restoring creation, and reconciling all things, then the church participates in this ongoing work. We are called not just to proclaim forgiveness but to embody reconciliation, work for justice (understood as restoration), and witness to God’s kingdom breaking into the world. The church becomes an agent of God’s rectifying work in the world.

Theodicy and Suffering

How we understand the cross affects how we understand suffering and evil. If the cross is about God requiring suffering (even of His Son) for satisfaction, this can lead to problematic views of suffering as somehow necessary or redemptive in itself.

Fleming’s view presents suffering as the consequence of sin and evil that God opposes and overcomes. God doesn’t require or desire suffering but enters into it to defeat it from within. This allows us to name suffering as evil while trusting that God is working to overcome it. The cross shows God’s solidarity with sufferers, not God’s requirement of suffering.

Ethics and Discipleship

Penal substitution can lead to a view of Christian ethics focused on avoiding punishment and earning reward. If the fundamental problem was God’s need to punish sin, and Christ took that punishment, then Christian life becomes about staying within legal boundaries.

Fleming’s understanding grounds ethics in participation in God’s reconciling work. We are called to embody the same kind of self-giving love we see in the cross. Forgiveness becomes not just something we receive but something we practice. Justice becomes not about punishment but about restoration. The Christian life becomes about participating in God’s victory over evil rather than just benefiting from a legal transaction.

9. Practical and Pastoral Implications

The theological differences between these views have profound practical implications for Christian life, worship, and pastoral care.

Preaching and Teaching

How pastors and teachers present the gospel profoundly shapes believers’ spiritual lives. Preaching that emphasizes God’s wrath and the need for punishment can create fear-based faith, where people come to God primarily to escape hell rather than being drawn by love.

Fleming’s approach enables preaching that emphasizes God’s love and determination to save while taking sin seriously. The gospel becomes genuinely good news – not that God’s anger has been deflected but that God has acted decisively to free us from bondage to sin and death. This doesn’t minimize the seriousness of sin but locates the problem in sin’s destructive power rather than God’s need for punishment.

Pastoral Care and Counseling

Understanding the atonement affects how pastors provide spiritual care:

For those struggling with guilt: Rather than simply saying “Christ was punished instead of you,” pastors can speak of Christ entering into our condition to transform it, bearing our burdens to free us from them. This provides comfort without the troubling implication that God needed to punish someone.

For victims of abuse: Penal substitution’s emphasis on necessary violence and punishment can be deeply troubling for abuse victims. Fleming’s view allows pastors to speak of God’s solidarity with victims, God’s opposition to violence, and the hope of transformation without legitimizing the violence suffered.

For those questioning God’s love: If God required the torture and death of His Son, people may reasonably question whether God truly loves them. Fleming’s view presents the cross as the ultimate demonstration of divine love – God entering into our suffering to overcome it, not God requiring suffering for satisfaction.

Worship and Liturgy

Our understanding of the atonement shapes our worship. Worship grounded in penal substitution often emphasizes human unworthiness, God’s wrath, and gratitude that punishment was deflected to Christ. While gratitude is appropriate, this can lead to worship that is more about relief from punishment than celebration of God’s love.

Fleming’s view enables worship that celebrates God’s victory over evil, Christ’s solidarity with humanity, and the transformation made possible through the cross. The eucharist becomes not just remembering a payment made but participating in Christ’s victory and being transformed by it. Confession becomes not just acknowledging laws broken but honestly facing our captivity to sin and receiving liberation.

Evangelism and Mission

How we understand the gospel affects how we share it. Evangelism based on penal substitution often focuses on the threat of hell and the offer of escape through accepting Christ’s payment. While the reality of judgment shouldn’t be ignored, this approach can reduce the gospel to fire insurance.

Fleming’s understanding enables evangelism that proclaims liberation from bondage, transformation of life, and reconciliation with God and others. The gospel becomes about entering into the new creation made possible by Christ’s victory, not just avoiding punishment. This connects naturally with concern for justice, peace, and human flourishing, making evangelism and social action complementary rather than competitive.

Formation and Discipleship

Christian formation looks different depending on our understanding of the cross:

Under penal substitution: Formation often focuses on moral improvement to show gratitude for Christ taking our punishment. The emphasis is on individual holiness understood as rule-keeping.

Under Fleming’s view: Formation becomes about participating in Christ’s victory over sin and being transformed by it. The emphasis is on growing in love, practicing reconciliation, and joining God’s work of restoration in the world. Holiness is understood relationally – growing in love for God and neighbor – rather than merely morally.

Dealing with Conflict

Our understanding of the cross provides a model for dealing with conflict and wrong:

If the cross is about necessary punishment, this can legitimate retributive approaches to justice. Wrongdoing requires punishment; forgiveness requires satisfaction. This can perpetuate cycles of retaliation and make genuine reconciliation difficult.

Fleming’s view suggests a different approach. If God overcomes evil by bearing its consequences and transforming the situation from within, we are called to similar practices. Restorative justice, reconciliation practices, and forgiveness without demanding payment become not just ideals but practices grounded in the very nature of God’s saving work.

10. Addressing Common Objections

Those committed to penal substitutionary atonement often raise important objections to alternative views. Fleming Rutledge’s position has robust responses to these concerns.

Objection 1: “Doesn’t the Bible clearly teach that Christ was punished for our sins?”

Response: The Bible uses substitutionary language – Christ died “for us” and “for our sins.” However, this doesn’t necessarily mean penal substitution. The key question is what “for” means. Fleming’s view fully affirms that Christ died for our sins in the sense that He bore the consequences of sin, entered into our condition under sin, and defeated sin on our behalf. The Bible speaks of Christ bearing our sins (1 Peter 2:24) but bearing and being punished for are not identical concepts.

Consider the scapegoat in Leviticus 16. The goat bears the sins of the people and carries them away, but it is not punished for those sins. It is sent into the wilderness, not executed. This provides a biblical model for understanding how Christ can bear our sins without being punished for them by the Father.

Objection 2: “Doesn’t Isaiah 53 teach that God punished the Suffering Servant?”

Response: Isaiah 53 is crucial for understanding the atonement, but it doesn’t clearly teach penal substitution. Yes, it says “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (v. 6) and “it was the Lord’s will to crush him” (v. 10). However, this can be understood as God’s purpose working through the Servant’s suffering without God being the direct agent of punishment.

The passage emphasizes the Servant bearing our diseases and pains (v. 4), being wounded for our transgressions (v. 5), and bearing our iniquities (v. 11). The language is consistently about bearing, carrying, and taking upon himself – not about being punished instead of us. The result is healing and peace (v. 5), not satisfied wrath.

Objection 3: “How can God forgive without justice being satisfied?”

Response: This objection assumes that justice equals retributive punishment. But biblical justice (mishpat and tzedakah) is primarily about setting things right, not punishment. God’s justice is satisfied not by punishment but by the restoration of right relationships and the defeat of evil.

In Fleming’s view, justice is satisfied through Christ’s work – but not through punishment. Christ defeats the powers that hold humanity captive, breaks the power of sin, and opens the way to restoration. This is divine justice in action – not retribution but restoration, not punishment but transformation.

Objection 4: “Doesn’t this minimize the seriousness of sin?”

Response: Not at all. Fleming’s view takes sin with utmost seriousness. Sin is so serious that it required God Himself to enter into human existence, suffer under its power, and defeat it through death and resurrection. Sin creates a condition of godlessness so severe that only God’s personal intervention could overcome it.

The difference is in how sin’s seriousness is understood. Penal substitution sees sin as law-breaking requiring punishment. Fleming sees sin as a destructive power that enslaves and destroys, requiring divine rescue. The cross shows just how serious sin is – it took the death of God’s Son to defeat it.

Objection 5: “What about God’s wrath against sin?”

Response: Fleming doesn’t deny divine wrath but understands it differently. God’s wrath is His settled opposition to evil, His “No!” to all that destroys His creation. It’s not emotional anger needing to be vented but God’s consistent resistance to evil.

At the cross, this divine opposition to evil is revealed – not by God punishing Jesus but by God in Christ entering into the realm where evil operates and defeating it. The wrath of God is revealed in His determination to overcome evil, not in punishing an innocent victim.

Objection 6: “Doesn’t this make the cross unnecessary if God can just forgive?”

Response: The cross remains absolutely necessary in Fleming’s view, but for different reasons. The cross is necessary not because God cannot forgive without punishment but because humanity needs liberation from bondage to sin and death. We don’t just need forgiveness; we need rescue, transformation, and new life.

The cross is necessary because that’s where God defeats the powers that hold us captive. It’s where divine love confronts and overcomes evil. It’s where God enters into solidarity with suffering humanity to transform the human condition from within. Without the cross, we might be forgiven but still remain in bondage to sin and death.

Objection 7: “How is this different from the moral influence theory?”

Response: The moral influence theory suggests the cross merely shows us God’s love to inspire us to change. Fleming’s view is much more robust. The cross doesn’t just influence us; it actually accomplishes something objective. Christ really defeats evil powers, really bears our sins away, really opens the way to new life.

The difference from penal substitution isn’t that the cross becomes merely subjective but that what it objectively accomplishes is understood differently – victory and liberation rather than punishment and payment.

11. Historical Perspective on Atonement Theories

Understanding the historical development of atonement theology helps us see that penal substitution is not the only or original Christian understanding of the cross.

The Early Church Fathers

The early church fathers emphasized various aspects of the atonement without developing a systematic theory of penal substitution:

Irenaeus (130-202 AD) developed the recapitulation theory – Christ retraces and corrects Adam’s path, succeeding where Adam failed. The emphasis is on Christ restoring humanity, not being punished for humanity.

Origen (184-253 AD) and Gregory of Nyssa (335-395 AD) emphasized the ransom theory – Christ’s death as a ransom paid to Satan to free humanity from bondage. While this has its own problems, it shows early Christians didn’t think in terms of satisfying God’s wrath.

Athanasius (296-373 AD) stressed the incarnation and divine participation in human nature to restore it. In “On the Incarnation,” he writes about Christ conquering death by dying, not about Christ being punished by the Father.

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 AD) explicitly rejected the idea that God the Father required payment or punishment, asking: “To whom was the blood offered that was shed for us? If to the Evil One, away with the thought! If to the Father, how could the Father delight in the blood of His Son?”

Medieval Developments

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) developed the satisfaction theory in “Cur Deus Homo” (Why God Became Man). Contrary to common perception, Anselm didn’t teach penal substitution. He argued that sin dishonors God and Christ’s perfect life and voluntary death provide superabundant honor to God, satisfying divine justice. The emphasis is on honor and satisfaction, not punishment and wrath.

Fleming Rutledge appreciates Anselm’s contribution while noting how it has been misunderstood: “Anselm never used language like this: ‘When the Lord suffered, the Wrath of God was poured out in such measure upon him, that the Father was satisfied.'” Such language comes from later Protestant developments, not from Anselm himself.

Peter Abelard (1079-1142) emphasized the moral influence of the cross – how Christ’s death reveals God’s love and inspires our response. While this alone is insufficient, it captures an important dimension missed by purely transactional accounts.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) synthesized various approaches, maintaining Anselm’s satisfaction concept while incorporating other biblical themes. He understood Christ’s passion as meritorious, satisfactory, and redemptive without requiring divine punishment of the innocent.

The Protestant Reformation

The specific doctrine of penal substitution emerged during the Protestant Reformation:

Martin Luther (1483-1546) emphasized both Christus Victor themes and substitutionary elements. He spoke of Christ bearing God’s wrath but often in the context of Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the devil.

John Calvin (1509-1564) developed penal substitution more systematically. He wrote: “The curse caused by our guilt was awaiting us at God’s heavenly tribunal. Hence, when Christ is hanged upon the cross, he makes himself subject to the curse.” This represents a shift toward understanding the cross in terms of transferred punishment.

Reformed Scholasticism (17th-18th centuries) systematized penal substitution into rigid formulations. Theologians like Francis Turretin developed precise legal frameworks for understanding how guilt is imputed to Christ and righteousness to believers.

Modern Developments

19th Century: Theologians like Charles Hodge at Princeton Seminary promoted penal substitution as the central or only biblical understanding of atonement. The language became increasingly legal and transactional – “forensic penal satisfaction.”

20th Century: Scholars began questioning the dominance of penal substitution:

Karl Barth maintained substitution while reconceiving it in more biblical terms
Gustav Aulén recovered the Christus Victor theme in his influential work
Jürgen Moltmann emphasized the Trinity’s involvement in the cross
Liberation theologians highlighted the cross as God’s solidarity with the oppressed

21st Century: There is now widespread recognition that the Bible presents multiple dimensions of atonement that cannot be reduced to a single theory. Scholars like N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight, and Fleming Rutledge offer nuanced accounts that maintain biblical fidelity while moving beyond crude penal substitution.

Lessons from History

This historical survey reveals several important points:

Penal substitution as a systematic doctrine is relatively recent, not the original or only Christian understanding
The church has always affirmed multiple dimensions of the atonement
Different cultural contexts have emphasized different aspects of Christ’s work
The tendency to reduce atonement to a single theory is a modern development
We can maintain orthodox faith while questioning specific theological formulations

12. Conclusion: The Love of God in Christ

After this extensive examination of Fleming Rutledge’s understanding of the atonement in comparison with penal substitutionary atonement, several crucial conclusions emerge that have profound implications for Christian faith and life.

The Heart of the Gospel

At its heart, the gospel is about God’s love overcoming human sin and evil to restore relationship and bring new creation. Fleming Rutledge’s view captures this good news more faithfully than crude versions of penal substitution. The cross reveals not a God who requires violent punishment before He can forgive, but a God who enters into human suffering to transform it from within.

This doesn’t diminish the seriousness of sin or the costliness of salvation. Rather, it relocates the problem from God’s need for satisfaction to humanity’s need for liberation. Sin is not primarily a legal problem requiring punishment but an enslaving power requiring defeat. The cross is not a transaction to appease God but God’s decisive action to rescue humanity.

A More Biblical Theology

While penal substitution claims to be the biblical view, we have seen that Fleming’s understanding actually does better justice to the full biblical witness. It incorporates the rich variety of biblical metaphors for the atonement – sacrifice, victory, redemption, reconciliation, healing – without reducing them all to a legal transaction.

Moreover, Fleming’s view better fits the biblical portrayal of God’s character. The God revealed in Jesus Christ is fundamentally merciful, eager to forgive, working for restoration. While God opposes evil with settled determination, this is not the retributive wrath of a deity requiring punishment but the protective love of a parent defending children from harm.

Theological Coherence

Fleming’s understanding provides greater theological coherence than penal substitution:

It maintains the unity of the Trinity rather than dividing Father against Son
It integrates Christ’s life, death, and resurrection rather than isolating the moment of death
It unifies God’s attributes rather than pitting justice against mercy
It connects atonement with ethics rather than separating salvation from transformation
It grounds the church’s mission in God’s reconciling work rather than limiting it to proclamation

Pastoral Wisdom

For pastoral ministry, Fleming’s view offers significant advantages. It allows us to proclaim a God who is unambiguously for us, not against us. It enables us to address suffering without suggesting God requires or delights in it. It provides hope for transformation, not just forgiveness. It grounds Christian ethics in participation in God’s work rather than rule-keeping.

This understanding proves especially valuable in ministering to those who have experienced trauma, abuse, or violence. Rather than a God who requires violence for satisfaction, we can present a God who opposes violence and enters into solidarity with victims. Rather than necessary suffering, we can speak of God’s determination to overcome suffering.

The Call to Discipleship

Understanding the atonement in Fleming’s terms transforms discipleship. We are called not just to benefit from Christ’s work but to participate in it. As Christ entered into solidarity with humanity to bring transformation, we enter into solidarity with others. As Christ overcame evil through suffering love, we practice non-retaliation and forgiveness. As Christ reconciled enemies, we become agents of reconciliation.

This doesn’t make salvation dependent on our works but recognizes that salvation includes transformation. We are not just forgiven but are being made new. We don’t just escape punishment but are liberated for new life. The indicative of God’s action grounds the imperative of our response.

The Ultimate Victory

Fleming Rutledge’s view recovers the biblical theme of divine victory that penal substitution can obscure. The cross is not defeat requiring resurrection as reversal but victory achieved through apparent defeat. Christ conquers by submitting to death, overcomes evil by bearing its worst, defeats violence by absorbing it without retaliation.

This victory is not yet complete in human history. Evil still operates, suffering continues, death remains. But the decisive battle has been won. The powers are defeated in principle and will be eliminated in fact. The church lives between D-Day and V-Day, participating in Christ’s victory while awaiting its consummation.

Final Reflections

The debate between different understandings of atonement is not merely academic. How we understand the cross shapes everything – our view of God, ourselves, salvation, ethics, and mission. While penal substitutionary atonement contains important truths and has sustained many believers’ faith, its problems are serious enough to warrant careful reconsideration.

Fleming Rutledge offers a thoroughly biblical, theologically coherent, and pastorally wise alternative. She maintains the genuine substitutionary nature of Christ’s death while avoiding the problems of crude penal substitution. She takes sin with utmost seriousness while preserving God’s character as love. She affirms the necessity and accomplishment of the cross while integrating it with Christ’s life and resurrection.

Most importantly, Fleming’s view presents the cross as good news – genuinely good news. Not that God’s anger has been deflected from us to Christ, but that God in Christ has entered into our condition to transform it. Not that an innocent was punished so the guilty could go free, but that divine love has overcome evil through self-giving sacrifice. Not that a legal transaction has changed our status, but that a new creation has begun.

The cross remains a mystery that no theory fully captures. But some understandings do better justice to the biblical witness and Christian experience than others. Fleming Rutledge’s rich, nuanced, and deeply biblical theology of the cross deserves serious engagement from all who seek to understand and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

As we continue to wrestle with the meaning of the cross, may we always remember that at its heart stands not an angry God demanding satisfaction but a loving God providing salvation. The cross reveals not divine violence but divine love. It accomplishes not merely a change in legal status but transformation of the human condition. It calls us not just to benefit from Christ’s work but to participate in God’s ongoing mission of reconciliation.

This is the scandal and glory of the cross – that God overcomes evil not through superior force but through suffering love, conquers death by dying, and transforms sinners not by punishing a substitute but by entering into solidarity with them. This is the good news that has the power to save, heal, and transform. This is the gospel worthy of our faith, hope, and love.

“The self-oblation of the Son on the cross proceeded out of God’s eternal, triune inner being. In our preaching, teaching, and learning we must emphatically reject any interpretation that divides the will of the Father from that of the Son, or suggests that anything is going on that does not proceed out of love. God’s justice and God’s mercy both issue forth from his single will of eternal love.”

– Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ

In the end, the cross stands as the supreme revelation of who God is – not a wrathful deity requiring appeasement but self-giving love overcoming evil, not retributive justice demanding punishment but restorative justice bringing reconciliation, not violence solving problems but suffering love transforming them. This is the God revealed in Jesus Christ, the God who saves through the cross, the God worthy of our worship and devotion.

May our understanding of the atonement always lead us deeper into the mystery of divine love, further into solidarity with suffering humanity, and onward in the mission of reconciliation until that day when God’s victory in Christ is complete and all creation is restored. Amen.