PENAL SUBSTITUTION:

A DOCTRINE WITH A HISTORY

 CONTENTS

Setting the Scene..............................................................................................................1

Scriptures and Penal Substitution....................................................................................2
Penal Substitution in the flow of Scriptures................................................................2
Penal Substitution in Isaiah 53....................................................................................3
Penal Substitution Defined..........................................................................................5
History and Penal Substitution........................................................................................6
Historical Views of the Atonement.............................................................................6
Penal Substitution in the Early Church........................................................................8
Clement of Rome (c. 30–100).................................................................................8
Ignatius (c. 37–107).................................................................................................8
Polycarp (c. 69–156)................................................................................................9
Justin Martyr (c. 100–165)....................................................................................10
Epistle to Diognetus...............................................................................................11
Irenaeus (c. 120 – c. 200).......................................................................................12
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275–339)........................................................................14
Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300–368)..............................................................................15
Athanasius (c. 300–373)........................................................................................16
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330–390).......................................................................19
Ambrose of Milan (339–397)................................................................................20
John Chrysostom (c. 350–407)..............................................................................22
Augustine of Hippo (354–430)..............................................................................23
Penal Substitution Hereafter......................................................................................24
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................27
Bibliography..................................................................................................................28
 Setting the Scene

The doctrine of Penal Substitution is under attack. Many have raised objection

after objection aiming to disqualify it. These objections, though numerous, fall into two

broad categories:

I. Penal substitution is based on cultures and not on the Bible.

II. It is a traditional doctrine founded during the establishment of

Christendom—4th century and potentiated during the Reformation—16th

century.

The objectors are deadly influenced by the baggage of the Enlightenment—

human reason as the source of objective truth; Modernism—Naturalism as the means to

find objective truth, and Postmodernism, which is the rejection of objective truth. All of

these three are opposite claims to the foundation of the doctrine of penal substitution—

divine source, supernatural and objective truth; Hence, the substitutionary atonement of

Christ is not relevant anymore. However, it is a serious challenge to dispute its

authenticity, for it attacks the message of the Gospel at its foundation.

The thesis of this paper is to show that penal substitution is a biblical doctrine

inherent to the Gospel that was defended by the Early Church. Thus, its centrality to the

Bible will be presented first and its historicity will be discussed second, not to equal

Biblical authority with History, but to prove that the Early Church dearly and deeply held

this doctrine. It was believed, taught, defended and carried on by the Old Testament

writers, Jesus and the Apostles. The fact that today’s generation overrides centuries of

historical understanding must not lead Christians into depreciation for tradition and a

dismissal of the past.

1
 2

Scriptures and Penal Substitution

Penal Substitution in the flow of Scriptures

The substitutionary atonement lies at the heart of the Gospel. The Cross is the key

theme in the Scripture. There are at least 175 direct references to the vicarious death of

Jesus only in the New Testament. It was depicted by the Sacrificial system (Lev. 1:3-17;

3:1-17; 4:1-35; 5:14-6:7; Judg. 13:16; 1 Sam. 7:9-10) and the day of the Atonement—the

most important ceremonial celebration for the Israelites (Lev. 16:11-19);1 predicted by

the prophets of the Old Testament (Isa. 53; Dan. 9:24-26; Zech. 12:10; 13:1, 7), pointed

out by the Psalter (Psalm 22; 34:20; 69; 109:25), proclaimed by Jesus Himself (Matt.

16:21; 20:28; Mark 8:31; 10:45; John 10:11-18; 15:13); central to the message of the

Early Church (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:28-29), Paul (Rom. 4:25; 5:8; 1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 3:13;

Eph. 5:2; Col. 1:20), Peter (1:2, 11, 18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18; 4:1, 13; 5:1), the book of

Hebrews (Hebrews 2:9, 14; 7:27; 9:14, 26, 28; 10:10; 13:12) and Revelations (Rev. 5:6,

8, 12; 6:16; 7:10, 14, 17). 2

If Christianity lacks the atoning vicarious sacrifice of Christ, then Christianity

cannot provide salvation and it becomes a dead religious system:

By giving Jesus as a vicarious sacrifice, God was able (i) to remain true to his
holy nature that cannot overlook sin, (ii) to uphold his law which stipulates that
sin be punished by death, and (iii) mercifully to acquit sinners who were
deserving of death.3

1
The Day of Atonement ritual dramatically depicted the holiness of God, the gravity of sin, and
God’s gracious provision by a vicarious sacrifice (Demarest, 170).
2
Michael J. Vlach, “TH705 Theology III: Man, Sin and Salvation,” (Unpublished course, The
Master’s Seminary, 2010), 115.
3
Demarest, 179.
 3

Penal Substitution in Isaiah 53

Isaiah 52:13–53:12 does not represent the totality of the Biblical revelation

concerning penal substitution, but it is one of the most significant texts. This is a biblical

portion that Orthodox Judaism still ignores today. In words of Hans-Jürgen Hermisson,

“the historical and theological understanding of this great text will remain controversial

until kingdom come…. But this is not reason for resignation.”4 The difficulty of this

passage goes beyond translation and the reconstruction of the original text. It is an issue

of faith. Isaiah 53 presents such a picture of the Messiah that if it would be true—which it

is—then Jesus would be its fulfillment. Moreover, the truth presented in this portion of

the Old Testament makes the substitutionary aspect of the atonement central to the

sacrifice of Christ—without a vicarious sacrifice, atonement is not possible.

Due to the nature of the present paper one cannot develop a full exegesis of this

chapter; however, some key aspects are highlighted. First, notice that Isaiah asserts that

the sufferings of the Servant are not His own (Isa. 53:4–6, 11–12):

The substitutionary character of his suffering is highlighted by the repeated

contrast in Isaiah 53:4–6 between he, his and him on the one hand, and we, us, we
all and us all on the other. The original Hebrew text underlines this even more
forcefully by an emphatic use of personal pronouns…. A similar emphatic use of
pronouns is found in verse 11…, and verse 12…. All this serves to underline the
simple fact that the Servant, who is distinct from God’s people, suffered in their
place, as their substitute.5

Second, the Servant of Yahweh willingly becomes the substitutionary atonement.

Isaiah 53:7 indicates that his sacrifice was not any kind of abuse or forced affliction but a

4
Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, "The Fourth Servant Song in the Context of Second Isaiah," in The
Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. by Bernd Janowski and Peter
Stuhlmacher, 16-47 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 17, 22.
5
Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering
the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007), 54.
 4

voluntary act. He was not caught up in the midst of the events, in fact, He acted according

to God’s plan established before the foundation of the world. Hence, his vicarious

sacrifice is not unfair or unjust since He Himself willed it. This perfectly fits with the

reality that Yahweh Himself laid His people’s sin upon the Servant.

Thirdly, the Servant meets all the requirements to be a substitutionary sacrifice.

He is identified with sinners under condemnation (Isa. 53:8); He is perfectly holy and

sinless without blame (Isa. 53:9, 11), and finally, both He Himself and His sacrifice were

acceptable to Yahweh (Isa. 53:10).6

Finally, the Servant’s sacrifice results in marvelous benefits. Isaiah 53:5 presents

how this vicarious sacrifice becomes the peace and healing of those for whom he suffers.

In other words, the sufferings and the blessings are axiomatically opposed—the Servant

suffers the punishment on behalf of the people.

This brief section concludes that penal substitution is central to the Old and New

Testaments, the message of the Gospel and the person of God. Moreover, passages as

Isaiah 53 portray Christ as the Suffering Servant, who in substitution for His people,

willingly subjected Himself to the just punishment of God due to their sin, which results

in the provision of everlasting salvation. John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian

Religion wonderfully summarizes the biblical teaching of penal substitution:

As Scriptures teaches, that he was estranged from God by sin, an heir of wrath,
exposed to the curse of eternal death, excluded from all hope of salvation, a
complete alien from the blessing of God, the slave of Satan, captive under the
yoke of sin; in fine, doomed to horrible destruction, and already involved in it;
that then Christ interposed, took the punishment upon himself, and bore what by
the just judgment of God was impending over sinners; with his own blood
expiated the sins which rendered them hateful to God, by this expiation satisfied
and duly propitiated God the Father, by this intercession appeased his anger, on

6
See William D. Barrick, "Penal Substitution in the Old Testament," The Master's Seminary
Journal 20, no. 2 (Fall 2009): 166.
 5

this basis founded peace between God and men, and by this tie secured the divine
benevolence toward them; will not these considerations move him the more
deeply, the more strikingly they represent the greatness of the calamity from
which he has delivered?7

Penal Substitution Defined

Penal Substitution’s definition has been purposefully placed after the previous

biblical survey to show that the objective is not to defend a theological system but the

teachings of the Word of God. Hence, Robert L. Reymond defines Penal Substitution as:

The sinless perfection of Christ…, the imputation or transfer of the sinner’s sin to
Christ on the analogy of the Levitical legislation (Lev 1:4; 3:2; 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24,
29, 33; 16:21–22),… the resultant substitution of Christ in the stead and place
of…, because of…, for…, and in behalf of…, those sinners whose sins had been
imputed to him; and the necessary expiation or cancelation of their sins.8

Wayne Grudem, when further explaining the mysteries of the death of Christ,

states that Penal Substitution “is ‘penal’ in that he bore a penalty when he died… and is

also a ‘substitution’ in that he was a substitute for us when he died.”9 Jeffery, Ovey and

Sach share the same understanding, “The doctrine of penal substitution states that God

gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishement and

curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.”10 Then, simply stated in words of

William D. Barrick, “Penal substitution means that Christ gave Himself to suffer and die

in place of the sinner in order to bear the full penalty for sin.”11

7
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge
(Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 325–26.
8
Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1998), 634.
9
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 579.
10
Jeffery, Ovey and Sach, 103.
11
Barrick, 150.
 6

History and Penal Substitution

Historical Views of the Atonement

Now that Penal Substitution has been established as a biblical doctrine central to

the sacrifice of Christ, the argument moves forward to prove its historicity, and as a

context for the discussion, a brief summary of the other major views of the atonement

will be given. Notice two important facts: first, the concentrated theoretical discussion of

this subject does not appear before the Middle Ages, hence most of the other views were

promoted after the XI century. Secondly, the theory that was popular in the early church

besides penal substitution was developed by Origen and Gregory of Nyssa who were

greatly influenced by the school of Alexandria and its allegorical hermeneutics.12

The Classical view sees the atonement of Christ as a cosmic victory over Satan

and the forces of evil. In this context the blood of Christ was understood as the ransom

price offered to the devil. Origen and Gregory of Nyssa claimed that the deity of Christ

was hidden under his humanity, so that God could deceive the devil and pay the price to

free those under his slavery.

Anselm promoted the Satisfaction Theory. Apparently he relies on the idea that

feudal overlords proposed this theory. He suggested that Christ’s death chiefly satisfies

God’s wounded honor, but that sinners cannot accomplish such satisfaction, since they

have nothing to offer. Thus adequate satisfaction must come from the divine Son.

The proponents of the Moral Influence Theory claim that Christ’s death

accomplished nothing. No satisfaction of justice and no placation of wrath were required

12
See Michael J. Vlach, "Penal Substitution in Church History," The Master's Seminary Journal
20, no. 2 (Fall 2009): 201.
 7

on God’s side. Jesus’s sacrifice was a mere demonstration of God’s love. This view is

based on humanity’s essential goodness,the false idea that there was no justice in God to

be satisfied and Adoptionism.

The Governmental Theory defines the atonement as a demonstration of God’s

justice but not as full satisfaction. Christ’s death was a token through which God the

Father upholds his utmost morality while putting aside the wages of sin—breaking the

law. The punishment of the Son was a means to show the gravity of sin It emphasizes its

seriousness.

Last is the Universal Reconciliation Theory. Karl Barth understood the Cross as

the affirmation of the eternal covenant that God made with the human race. In the Son he

elected all mankind, thus Christ’s death achieved a cosmic victory —He purposed to save

everyone. 13

As mentioned earlier, Penal Substitution is the view taught by the Scriptures and

held by the Early Christians as will now be discussed.

Penal Substitution in the Early Church

Clement of Rome (c. 30–100)

As the bishop of Rome, Clement dealt with a major disturbance in Corinth. He

wrote and exhorted the Corinthians to exercise love, patience, and humility and to walk in

obedience as the key to develop sound Christian interpersonal relationships. His Epistle

13
For the present section, “Historical Views of the Atonement,” see Frances Young, "Atonement,"
in Encyclopedia of the Early Christianity, ed. by Everestt Ferguson (New York: Routledge, 1999), 143–48.
Also see Vlach, "Penal Substitution in Church History," 201–203 and Vlach, “TH705 Theology III: Man,
Sin and Salvation,” 110–35.
 8

to the Corinthians (d.95) is of great importance because it is the earliest example of

Christian literature outside of the New Testament.14 In this epistle Clement writes a

chapter to praise love—XLIX—where he clearly displays his belief in penal substitution:

By love have all the elect of God been made perfect; without love nothing is well-
pleasing to God. In love has the Lord taken us to Himself. On account of the Love
he bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His
flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.15

Ignatius (c. 37–107)

Ignatius was the second (or third) bishop of Antioch, and certainly one of the

most prominent Christians of the time immediately succeeding the apostles. He may have

been discipled by the apostle John. Ignatius engaged in debate with tenacity. He mainly

fought the Ebionites—demanded the keeping of Jewish regulations and the Docetists—

believed that Christ only appeared to be human.16

In writing to the Smyrnaeans to warn them about the heresy of Docetism he says:

Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He
suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers
maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be
[Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be
divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.17

14
James P. Eckman, Exploring Church History (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002), 18.
15
Clement, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 49, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (hereafter
ANF), eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 10 vols (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing
company, 1989), 1:18.
16
Mark Galli and Ted Olsen, 131 Christians Everyone Should Know (Nashville, TN:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 359.
17
Ignatius, Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 2, ANF, 1:87.
 9

Ignatius was clearly preparing the stage for his defense of Jesus’ resurrection in

the flesh. Nonetheless, this opening statement in chapter II shows that he believed that

Jesus died on behalf of sinners.

Polycarp (c. 69–156)

Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John and was bishop of Smyrna. As a

young man he probably met with other eyewitnesses of the life of Christ. He wrote a

significant letter to the church at Philippi around A.D. 110. Polycarp died as a martyr at

the fiery stake, giving praise to his Lord in A.D. 155. At his trial he passionately defended

Jesus Christ as his Lord.18

In his letter to the Philippians he uses the language of substitution to describe the

sacrifice of Christ:

Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our
righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, “who bore our sins in His own body on the
tree,” “who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,” but endured all
things for us, that we might live in Him. Let us then be imitators of His patience;
and if we suffer for His name’s sake, let us glorify Him. For He has set us this
example in Himself, and we have believed that such is the case.19

Justin Martyr (c. 100–165)

Justin Martyr was born to Greek parents in Samaria during the early years of the

second century. Very little is known of his pre-Christian life except that he became a

philosopher of the Platonic school and then left in favor of Christianity after a

conversation with a mysterious man. He was also one of the most significant Christian

writers of the second century, exercising a strong influence over other early Christian

theologians. Justin is important for the present discussion because he is within a

18
Eckman, 19.
19
Polycarp, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, ANF, 1:35.
 10

generation of the apostles, so most likely he would have spoken to people who personally

met them.20

Justin’s third most extant work is The Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. It contains

his reflections about his philosophical journey and his theological explanations about the

Incarnation in a conversational format between him and a Jew called Trypho. In this

work, Justin reveals his understanding of penal substitution:

Then Trypho remarked, “Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we
admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to Him. Moreover, I do
also admit that the name of Jesus, by which the son of Nave (Nun) was called, has
inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ should be so
shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is
said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point.
It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but
we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in
the law.”
I replied to him, “If Christ was not to suffer, and the prophets had not
foretold that He would be led to death on account of the sins of the people, and be
dishonoured and scourged, and reckoned among the transgressors, and as a sheep
be led to the slaughter, whose generation, the prophet says, no man can declare,
then you would have good cause to wonder. But if these are to be characteristic of
Him and mark Him out to all, how is it possible for us to do anything else than
believe in Him most confidently? And will not as many as have understood the
writings of the prophets, whenever they hear merely that He was crucified, say
that this is He and no other?”21

After stating that Christ had to die and suffer on account of the sins of His people

Justin continues with his argument and explains why He died on the cross but was not

cursed for His own sins. Justin says that the curse of God rests on humanity because the

Law of Moses curses all those who do not continue with the things written in it, and since

nobody has accomplished it, everybody is cursed. That curse does not rest on Christ,

20
Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform
(Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1999), 59.
21
Justin Martyr, Dialogue of Justin, ANF, 1:244.
 11

since He is the one who saves all that have committed things worthy of a curse. In the

flow of this argument Justin says:

If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take
upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was
dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to
suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do
not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these
things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in
obedience to the will of God.22

In short, Justin believed and taught penal substitution. In fact, for him it explained

why Jesus was crucified even though he committed no sin—He was innocent but bore the

curse and punishment due to humanity’s sinfulness.

Epistle to Diognetus

This epistle written during the second century (around A.D. 130) defended

Christians against the false charges of their persecutors and reveals early thinking in

regards to Christ’s atonement. Its unknown author, referring to the cross as a transaction,

states:23

He himself took up the burden of our sins, He Himself gave His own Son as a
ransom on our behalf, the holy for the lawless, the innocent for the guilty, the just
for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal.
What else could cover our sins but His righteousness? In whom could we lawless
and ungodly men be justified but in the Son of God alone? O sweet exchange! O
inscrutable operation! O unexpected blessings, that the lawlessness of many
should be hidden in one righteous person, and the righteousness of one should
justify the lawless many!24

22
Ibid., 247.
23
See Ronald Wallace, The Atoning Death of Christ. (Westchester, IL.: Crossway Books, 1981),
67.
24
L. B. Radford, Early Church Classics: The Epistle to Diognetus (London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 1908), 76.
 12

This short paragraph stands as a clear example that the Early Church believed in

penal substitution and that at its heart was the love of God.

Irenaeus (c. 120 – c. 200)

Irenaeus was born in Asia Minor. Polycarp tutored him in the Christian faith

passing what he had learned from John, the disciple of Jesus. Around A.D. 150, he was

sent to France to serve among Christian emigrants. In A.D. 177, when Emperor Marcus

Aurelius unleashed a terrible persecution and killed the bishop Pothinus in Lyons,

Irenaeus succeeded him. He is a crucial figure in the story of Christianity because he was

instrumental in defeating Gnosticism, and also because he was a great thinker. His

“recapitulation”25 teaching is famous and well known.

When Irenaeus writes on the humility and taking of judgment of Jesus Christ he

quotes from Isaiah and comments:

Isaiah, then, goes on as follows: By His wounds we are healed. All we like sheep
have gone astray, man hath gone astray in his way; and the Lord hath delivered
Him unto our sins; so it is clear that it came about by the will of the Father that
these things happened to Him, for the sake of our salvation. Then he says: And
through His suffering He opened not the mouth; He was led as a sheep to the
slaughter, mute as a lamb before the shearer. See how he declares His voluntary
coming to death.
But when the prophet says that in humility His judgment was taken away,
he is speaking of the appearance to the form of abasement. And the taking of the
judgment is for some unto salvation, and for others unto torments of perdition; for
there is taking to a person, and taking from a person. So too the judgment has
been taken on some, and they have it in the torments of their perdition; but off
others, and they are saved…. And judgment has been taken off those who believe
in Him, and they are no more subject to it.26

25
Recapitulation teaches that the obedience of Jesus Christ as the second Adam put
each aspect of the disobedience of the first Adam in order.
26
Irenaeus, "Proof of the Apostolic Preaching," in Ancient Christian Writers, translated by Joseph
S. J. Smith (New York: Paulist Press, 1952), 92–93. Italics are in the translation.
 13

Clearly, Irenaeus is using the language of penal substitution. Moreover, in his

work Against Heresies he also uses terminology that shows his vicarious understanding

of the atonement of Christ:

The advent, therefore, of Him whom these men represent as coming to the things
of others, was not righteous; nor did He truly redeem us by His own blood…. As
far as concerned the apostasy, indeed, He redeems us righteously from it by His
own blood; but as regards us who have been redeemed, [He does this] graciously.
For we have given nothing to Him previously, nor does He desire anything from
us, as if He stood in need of it; but we do stand in need of fellowship with Him.
And for this reason it was that He graciously poured Himself out, that He might
gather us into the bosom of the Father.27

Notice how the blood of Christ is central to his argument as a ransom for the

believers, a ransom that sinners could not offer, thus He himself accomplished their

redemption on their behalf. This is overloaded with penal substitution vocabulary.

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275–339)

Eusebius was the bishop of Caesarea. He played a lead role at the Council of

Nicaea and signed the Creed and the affirmation of the full divinity of the Son of God—

consequently defined as one with the Father. He was an indefatigable scholar, the most

important church historian of his time and religious advisor to the emperor Constantine.28

In the VI book of his series The Proof of the Gospel, Eusebius studies the Hebrew

Old Testament oracles regarding the Incarnation and Resurrection of the Word and its

causes. When he examines the Lord’s cry Eli Eli Lama Sabachtani at the Cross taken

from Psalm 22, Eusebius writes:

27
Irenaeus, Irenaeus against Heresies, Book V, ANF, 1:527-28.
28
Benedict XVI, "Eusebius of Caesarea. Wednesday, 13th June 2007, Saint Peter’s Square,"
Church Fathers from Clement of Rome to Augustine (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, June 2007), 54.
 14

His Strong One forsook Him then, because He wished Him to go unto death, even
“the death of the cross,” and to be set forth as the ransom and sacrifice for the
whole world, and to be the purification of the life of them that believe in Him.
And He, since he understood at once His Father’s divine counsel, and because He
discerned better than any other why He was forsaken by the Father, humbled
Himself even more, and embraced death for us with all willingness, and “became
a curse for us,” holly (holy?) and all-blessed though He was, and “He that knew
no sin, became sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Yea
more—to wash away our sins He was crucified, suffering what we who were
sinful should have suffered, as our sacrifice and ransom, so that we may well say
with the prophet, He bears our sins, and is pained for us, and he was wounded for
our sins, and bruised for our iniquities, so that by His stripes we might be healed,
for the Lord hath given Him for our sins.29

Notice all the instances of the preposition for that indicate “in place of.” Hence,

Eusebius clearly taught the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. Although in order to be fair to

him, it is necessary to say that his understanding of the substitutionary death of the Word

led him to hold a Ransom Theory of the atonement; nonetheless, he still asserted the

vicarious nature of the sacrifice:

“Why hast thou forsaken me?” The answer is, to ransom the whole human race,
buying them with His precious Blood from their former slavery to their invisible
tyrants, the unclean daemons, and the rulers and spirits of evil.30

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300–368)

Hilary of Poitiers embraced Christianity at a mature age. In the year 350 he

became bishop of Pictaviensis. Between 356 and 361, he wrote the main work of his life

on the Trinity. He also wrote Commentaries on the Psalms and the Gospel of Matthew.

He was eminent in the Arian controversies because of his steadfast confession and

29
W. J. Ferrar, Translations of Christian Literature: The Proof of the Gospel being the
Demonstratio Evangelica of Eueibius of Caesarea, ed. by W. J. Sparrow-Simpson and W. K. Lowther
Clarke. Vol. II (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920), 220–21.
30
Ibid., 221.
 15

powerful defense of the orthodox faith. “He was a man of thorough biblical knowledge,

theological depth and acuteness, and earnest, efficient piety.”31

In his Homily on Psalm 53 (54,) where he reveals that he embraces a penal

substitutionary understanding of the atonement, Hilary states that everyone who broke the

Law was under God’s curse; that the only way to escape God’s sentence for an Old

Testament believer was through sacrifices and that the New Testament believer has been

freed from that curse. It is at this moment where he introduces his view of the atonement:

For next there follows: I will sacrifice unto Thee freely. The sacrifices of the Law,
which consisted of whole burnt-offerings and oblations of goats and of bulls, did
not involve an expression of free will, because the sentence of a curse was
pronounced on all who broke the Law. Whoever failed to sacrifice laid himself
open to the curse. And it was always necessary to go through the whole sacrificial
action because the addition of a curse to the commandment forbad any trifling
with the obligation of offering. It was from this curse that our Lord Jesus Christ
redeemed us, when, as the Apostle says: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the
law, being made curse for us, for it is written: cursed is every one that hangeth on
a tree. Thus He offered Himself to the death of the accursed that He might break
the curse of the Law, offering Himself voluntarily a victim to God the Father, in
order that by means of a voluntary victim the curse which attended the
discontinuance of the regular victim might be removed. Now of this sacrifice
mention is made in another passage of the Psalms: Sacrifice and offering thou
wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for Me; that is, by offering to God the
Father, Who refused the legal sacrifices, the acceptable offering of the body
which He received. Of which offering the holy Apostle thus speaks: For this He
did once for all when He offered Himself up, securing complete salvation for the
human race by the offering of this holy, perfect victim.32

In this account Hilary uses the language of penal substitution. That is that Christ

offered himself on behalf of cursed sinners, becoming He himself a curse, so that the

curse of God that rested on the sinner would be removed.

31
Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Oak Harbor,
WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), § 174.
32
Hilary of Poitiers, Homilies on the Psalms, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
(hereafter NPNF), Series 2, ed. Philip Schaff, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976), 9:246-47.
 16

Athanasius (c. 300–373)

Athanasius served as archbishop and patriarch of Alexandria for forty-five years

until his death in 373. He spent almost fifteen years in exile due to his defense of the key

terminology of the Nicene Creed. In fact, he has come to be known as the “saint of

stubbornness.”33 He is probably the most important Christian theologian before

Augustine, who also was an explicit promoter of penal substitution. In his work De

Incarnatione Athanasius reveals his understanding of the atonement:34

He [the Word] took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own. Nor did
He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He
could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, he took
our body…. Thus taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable
to the corruption of death, He surrendered his body to death in place of all, and
offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death
all might die, and the law of death thereby abolished because, when He had
fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its
power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had
turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the
appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection.35

Athanasius continues and says:

For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it,
through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a
sufficient exchange for all…. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all,
when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life
of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required…. The Saviour’s own inspired
disciples assure us of this. We read in one place: “For the love of Christ
constraineth us because we thus judge that, if One died on behalf of all, then all
died, and He died for all that we should no longer live unto ourselves, but unto
Him who died and rose again from the dead, even our Lord Jesus Christ.”36
33
Olson, 161.
34
See Harold Smith, "The Atonement in Patristic Writings," in The Atonement in History and in
Life, ed. by L. W, Grensted (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1936), 181.
35
Athanasius, St. Athanasius on the Incarnation, translated by A Religious of C.S.M.V.
Crestwood (Crestwood, NY.: St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 1993),
34
36
Ibid., 35–36.
 17

Some paragraphs ahead, Athanasius taught that man turned away from God,

receiving the sentence of death, and that He could not break His word, since He ordained

that man should die for his transgressions. Hence God could not simply offer forgiveness

in order to remain faithful to His word. Thus the Word took a human body, capable of

death:

But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I
said before, all man were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the
Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He
might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, to settle man’s account with death and
free him from the primal transgression…. The death of all was consummated in
the Lord’s body; yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the
same act utterly abolished.37

Because of Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection, Athanasius asserted that

He wiped away the dead that had come due to man’s sin:

Have no fear, then. Now that the common Saviour of all has died on our behalf,
we who believe in Christ no longer die, as men died aforetime, in fulfillment of
the threat of the law. That condemnation has come to an end.38

Athanasius proclaimed a hopeful message: believers no longer die the death

according to the threat of the Law, for such condemnation has ceased; but because of the

corruption being ended and abolished by the grace of the resurrection, believers simply

endure dissolution as regards to their mortal body at the time God has ordained for each,

“that they may be able to attain a better resurrection:”39

And thus, He re-opened the road to heaven, saying again, “Lift up your gates, O
ye princes, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors.” For it was not the Word

37
Athanasius, 49.
38
Ibid., 50.
39
Smith, 182.
 18

Himself Who needed an opening of the gates, He being Lord of all, nor was of
His works closed to their Maker. No, it was we who needed it, we whom He
Himself upbore in His own body—that body which He first offered to death on
behalf of all, and then made through it a path to heaven.40

In short, penal substitution is central to Athanasius’ thought. He linked it to the

Incarnation so that Christ could die the death which God had laid down as the penalty for

sin on behalf of sinners. Athanasius makes Christ’s vicarious atonement central to past,

present, and future salvation— that is, the Incarnation, the restoration of human society

and the renewal of creation.

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330–390)

Gregory of Nazianzus, ordained to the priesthood in 364, was one of the

Cappadocian fathers who was crucial to condemn Arianism and Sabellianism at the

Council of Constantinople, which he presided over. He gained a reputation as a great

defender of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His most significant theological works are his five

Theological Orations, which earned him the nickname “The Theologian.”41

In his fourth Oration, which is the second concerning the Son, Gregory deals with

various arguments against the equality of the Son with the Father. Some of Gregory’s

opponents argued that if Jesus was submissive to the Father then He was inferior. To this

Gregory says:

But look at it in this manner: that as for my sake He was called a curse, Who
destroyed my curse; and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a
new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His
own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious,
both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called
disobedient on my account. But when all things shall be subdued unto Him on the

40
Athanasius, 55–56.
41
Olson, 178.
 19

one hand by acknowledgment of Him, and on the other by a reformation, then He

Himself also will have fulfilled His submission, bringing me whom He has saved
to God…Of the same kind, it appears to me, is the expression, “My God, My
God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” It was not He who was forsaken either by the
Father, or by His own Godhead, as some have thought, as if It were afraid of the
Passion, and therefore withdrew Itself from Him in His Sufferings (for who
compelled Him either to be born on earth at all, or to be lifted up on the Cross?)
But as I said, He was in His own Person representing us. For we were the
forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not
suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes His own our folly and
our transgressions; and says what follows in the Psalm, for it is very evident that
the Twenty-first Psalm refers to Christ.42

Other opponents argue that if Christ had to learn obedience then He was inferior

to the Father. Gregory replies:

The same consideration applies to another passage, “He learnt obedience by the
things which He suffered,” and to His “strong crying and tears,” and His
“Entreaties,” and His “being heard,” and His” Reverence,” all of which He
wonderfully wrought out, like a drama whose plot was devised on our behalf….
In the character of the Form of a Servant, He condescends to His fellow servants,
nay, to His servants, and takes upon Him a strange form, bearing all me and mine
in Himself, that in Himself He may exhaust the bad, as fire does wax, or as the
sun does the mists of earth; and that I may partake of His nature by the blending.43

Although Gregory is fighting a different battle than the nature of the atonement,

his belief in penal substitution is revealed in the midst of his arguments —If Jesus

became a curse, it is only because he took the curse that was resting on sinners upon

himself. Also, if He became an obedient servant, it is in order for him to serve His fellow

servants and bleed for them. These arguments are overloaded with penal substitutionary

language.

42
Gregory of Nazianzus, The Fourth Theological Oration 5, NPNF, 7:311.
43
Gregory of Nazianzus, The Fourth Theological Oration 6, NPNF, 7:311
 20

Ambrose of Milan (339–397)

Robert M. Grant describes Ambrose of Milan as an “exegete and administrator;

and his convert Augustine, spiritual pilgrim, vigorous antiheretical author, and bishop of

Hippo in Africa.”44 He was the first Latin Church father from a Christian family and born

into power. Christ was central to the person and work of Ambrose:

“When we speak of wisdom, we are speaking about Christ. When we speak about
virtue, we are speaking about Christ. When we speak about justice, we are
speaking about Christ. When we are speaking about truth and life and redemption,
we are speaking about Christ.” So wrote Ambrose, bishop of Milan, biblical
exegete, political theorist, master of Latin eloquence, musician, and teacher; in all
these roles, he was speaking about Christ.45

Ambrose wrote several works against Arianism: On the Faith, The Mystery of the

Lord’s Incarnation, and On the Holy Spirit. He was of great influence in the life of three

emperors, especially Theodosius—the first emperor to try to make Rome a Christian

state.46

Ambrose of Milan believed in penal substitution. Speaking of the Incarnation of

Christ and the Cross, he asserts:

For Christ died for us, that we might live in His revived Body. Therefore not our
life but our guilt died in Him, “Who,” it is said, “bare our sins in His own Body
on the tree; that being set free from our sins we might live in righteousness, by the
wound of Whose stripes we are healed….
Who, then, is He by the wound of Whose stripes we are healed but Christ
the Lord? Of Whom the same Isaiah prophesied His stripes were our healing, of
Whom Paul the Apostle wrote in his epistle: “Who knew no sin, but was made sin
for us.” This, indeed, was divine in Him, that His Flesh did no sin, nor did the
creature of the body take in Him sin. For what wonder would it be if the Godhead
alone sinned not, seeing It had no incentives to sin? But if God alone is free from

44
Robert M. Grant, Church Fathers, in The Encyclopedia of Christianity , eds. Geoffrey W.
Bromiley and Erwin Fahlbusch (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003), 1:553.
45
Galli, 80.
46
Ibid., 81.
 21

sin, certainly every creature by its own nature can be, as we have said, liable to
sin.47

In his Exposition of the Christian Faith Ambrose writes:

Not Thy wounds, but mine, hurt Thee, Lord Jesus; not Thy death, but our
weakness, even as the Prophet saith: “For He is afflicted for our sakes”—and we,
Lord, esteemed Thee afflicted, when Thou grievedst not for Thyself, but for me.48

At a specific point, Ambrose encourages his readers to think of that which is

profitable:

It is profitable to me to know that for my sake Christ bore my infirmities,

submitted to the affections of my body, that for me, that is to say, for every man,
He was made sin, and a curse, that for me and in me was He humbled and made
subject, that for me He is the Lamb, the Vine, the Rock, the Servant, the Son of an
handmaid, knowing not the day of judgment, for my sake ignorant of the day and
the hour.49

Ambrose understood that Jesus died to satisfy God’s justice and that the human

curse was transferred to Him; hence, he held the view of a vicarious sacrifice.

John Chrysostom (c. 350–407)

John Chrysostom was a great preacher of the fourth century. He made his

reputation as a preacher in the Cathedral of Antioch, and was later remembered as

chrysostomos, which means golden mouth. He was astonished at the sacrifice of Christ

on his behalf. He asserted that such a wondrous truth must lead the believer to ascribe

worship to Christ for His person and work.50

During his sermon on 2 Corinthians 5:11–21 he said:

47
Ambrose of Milan, Three Books on the Holy Spirit, NPNF, 10:108.
48
Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Christian Faith, NPNF, 10:230.
49
Ibid., 10:236.
50
Shaw and Edwards, 65–66.
 22

If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under
punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain;
and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was
himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and
clear him from his evil reputation; and then if, having subsequently promoted him
to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory
unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would
not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than
appear guilty of so great ingratitude? This then let us also now consider with
ourselves, and groan bitterly for the provocations we have offered our Benefactor;
nor let us therefore presume, because though outraged He bears it with long-
suffering; but rather for this very reason be full of remorse.51

The context of this quote is an exhortation to not fear death and hell, not the

nature of the atonement. Chrysostom is not trying to expound the doctrine of penal

substitution; he simply states it, making it clear and fully understandable. This not only

reveals that John Chrysostom embraced this doctrine but that it was widely accepted by

his hearers.

Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

Born in northern Africa to a pagan father and a devout godly mother, Augustine

excelled as a student, especially in the ancient art of rhetoric. His conversion took place

in 386. Since then his life was holistically attached to the Word of God, where he found

truth in the person of Jesus Christ; the power to shatter his bondage to lust and self-

seeking glory, and the peace and purpose for life. He became a priest in 391 and the

bishop of Hippo, a city west of Carthage, in 395. His influence is enormous, especially

through his voluminous writing defending the gracious Gospel of Christ.52

51
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians 11, NPNF, 12:335.
52
Eckman, 35–36.
 23

In his book Against Faustus the Manichean Augustine refutes Faustus, who

would not allow that Christ would have been cursed for sinners because he would not

allow that He would die for them, to which Augustine replies:

But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was,
ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, He submitted as
man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in
the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in
His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He
suffered in bearing our punishment. And these words “every one” are intended to
check the ignorant officiousness which would deny the reference of the curse to
Christ, and so, because the curse goes along with death, would lead to the denial
of the true death of Christ.
The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ
is…, cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our
substitute, bearing our punishment.53

Augustine could not state the doctrine of penal substitution more

straightforwardly. Without a doubt he believed Christ bore the punishment for the guilty,

which is the heart of penal substitution.

In sum, this brief overview presents a representative understanding of the sacrifice

of Christ in the Early Church. The thirteen Ante and Post-Nicene Fathers contained in

this section revealed in their writings that they looked at the Cross and saw penal

substitution.

Penal Substitution Hereafter

Given the nature of this paper, the reader may wonder why this section mostly

consists of modern history; however, this brief overview is given to help the reader

understand the relevance of the previous sections. Most attacks against the precious

doctrine of penal substitution occur during modern times. Many have defined the

53
Augustine of Hyppo, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, NPNF, 4:209.
 24

substitutionary nature of Christ’s death as a crude and untenable belief. Sir Alister Hardy

who spent a lifetime investigating several religions asked himself if Jesus would ever

become a Christian and wondered if He would have agreed with this vicarious

understanding of the atonement:

I feel certain that he would not have preached to us of a God who would be
appeased by the cruel sacrifice of a tortured body…. I cannot accept either the
hypothesis that the appalling death of Jesus was a sacrifice in the eyes of God for
the sins of the world, or that God, in the shape of his son, tortured himself for our
redemption. I can only confess that, in my heart of hearts, I find such religious
ideas to be amongst the least attractive in the whole of anthropology. To me they
belong to quite a different philosophy—different psychology—from that of the
religion that Jesus taught.54

Peter Abelard, a medieval French scholastic philosopher, claimed that Christ’s

death accomplished nothing objective. God’s love displayed on the cross is only a means

to persuade sinners to repent and to be reconciled to God. Abelard depicted Christ’s death

as providing a demonstration of God suffering with his creatures.55

Karl Barth, the father of Neo-orthodoxy, although using substitutionary

vocabulary, denied the atonement as penal substitution. He asserted that through the cross

God intended not to save sinners but to declare the eternal covenant that God made with

the human race. The cross signifies the rejection of Christ and the election of humankind

in Him; hence, his claim that Christ will bring in salvation all persons to Himself and this

is not because of a vicarious sacrifice but because of God’s determination to forgive:

His forgiveness makes good our repudiation and failure and thus overcomes the
hurt that we do to God, and the between Himself and us, and the disturbance of
the relationship between the Creator and the creation.56
54
Sir Alister Hardy, The Divine Flame (London: Collins, 1966), 218.
55
Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation. The Doctrine of Salvation (Wheaton: Crossway
Books, 1997), 153.
56
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Reconciliation, vol. 4/1 (London: T&T Clark
International, 2004), 486.
 25

Some, like Joel Green and Mark Baker claim that various cultural norms have

been imposed on Scriptures, leading to an unbiblical doctrine of the atonement. This

doctrine is a result of the Western individualistic and guilty society:

One important reason for the ascendency of penal substitutionary atonement in

the West has been our particular view of justice with its orientation toward guilt
and innocence on the one hand, and toward autobiography on the other. In the
criminal-justice system, the question of guilt is paramount, together with the
infliction of punishment upon the person or entity found guilty of having
transgressed the law.57

Stuart Murray Williams, who works and trains under the Anabaptist Network in

the United Kingdom, asserts that the doctrine of penal substitution is “theologically and

ethically problematic.”58 Moreover its roots are not biblical but historical:

Penal substitution – a relative newcomer among attempts to interpret the meaning

of Jesus’ death – has captured the allegiance of most evangelicals. But it is rooted
in the Christendom system, in imperial and coercive Christianity, in a church
colluding with the powers rather than offering a prophetic challenge or an
alternative vision of justice and peace.
As Christendom unravels, I believe we will need to look again at many
deeply held convictions which are less biblical than we think and more influenced
by a fading and oppressive culture than we realize.59

There are others like Paul Fiddes who claim that penal substitution was developed

during the Reformation period due to Calvin’s understanding that “when the law, whether

57
Joel B. Green and Mark D. Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in the New
Testament and Contemporary Contexts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 24.
58
Stuart Murray Willians, Stuart Murray Williams on the Lost Message of Jesus,
http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/233 (accessed 10 31, 2010).
59
Ibid.
 26

human (‘positive law’) or divine, is broken punishment must always be inflicted.”60

Fiddes continues and asserts:

Moreover the abolition of the death penalty in many western societies means that
we no longer attempt to exact the equivalent penalty for wrongdoing that Calvin
assumed was axiomatic for a doctrine of atonement as transferred penalty. Indeed
every preacher ought to ask himself whether a theory of penal substitution can
even be understood in a society where it is no longer possible to use such words
as “Christ suffered the death penalty for us.”61

The biblical centrality of the doctrine of penal substitution, how its penal and

substitutionary aspects are inherently grounded into biblical foundation and how those

closest to Christ and to the apostles—the most reliable witnesses—believed in penal

substitution have been previously and briefly demonstrated. Thus, the modern denial of

the doctrine of penal substitution must be rejected.

Conclusion

It has been previously stated that the objections against the biblical perspective of

the atonement fall into two broad categories: first, culture-based and second, recent-

development. Throughout this paper both objections have been demonstrated to be

completely false. Clearly, penal substitution is central to the Scriptures—the Old

Testament pointed forward to the vicarious sacrifice, which was fulfilled in Jesus, and the

Apostles pointed back to this atoning work—and that the Early Church remained faithful

to the doctrine of penal substitution. Thus, to claim that this view has a later development

lacks historical support.

60
Paul S. Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement (London:
Longman & Todd, 1989), 102.
61
Ibid., 103.
 27

One may argue that this is a theological debate planned for those who are highly

educated, that in the end it is a “gray area,” hence, it should not become such a big issue.

To that, I myself reply, penal substitution is the essence, heart, foundation, and grace of

the Gospel. If He did not bear my curse and punishment due to my sin, then He did not

save me. Thus I am a pitiful blinded sinner on his way to hell. What is at stake is the

person and work of Jesus Christ, as such, I must not allow for the message of the Gospel

to be distorted and diminished. Take away the vicarious sacrifice of Christ and His

salvific message becomes powerless.

 Bibliography

Augustine of Hyppo. Reply to Faustus the Manichaean. Vol. 4, in The Nicen and Post-
Nicene Fathers, edited by 12 volumes, Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1976.

Ambrose of Milan. Exposition of the Christian Faith. Vol. 10, in The Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, edited by 12 volumes, Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1976.

———. Three Books on The Holy Spirit. Vol. 10, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff, 12 volumes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1976.

Athanasius. St. Athanasius on the Incarnation. Translated by A Religious of C.S.M.V.

Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 1993.

Barrick, William D. "Penal Substitution in the Old Testament." The Master's Seminary
Journal 20, no. 2 (Fall 2009): 149-170.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Reconciliation. 14 vols. London: T&T
Clark International, 2004.

Benedict XVI. "Eusebius of Caesarea. Wednesday, 13th June 2007, Saint Peter's Square."
Church Fathers, from Clement of Rome to Augustine. San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, June 2007. 53-57.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge.

Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.

Chrysostom, John. Homilies on Second Corinthians. Vol. 12, in The Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, edited by 12 volumes, Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1976.

Clement. First Epistle of Clement to the Cortinthinas 49. Vol. 1, in The Ante-Nicene
Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing company, 1989.

Eckman, James P. Exploring Church History. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002.

Demarest, Bruce. The Cross and Salvation. The Doctrine of Salvation. Wheaton:
Crossway Books, 1997.

28
Ferrar, W, J,. Translations of Christian Literature: The Proof of the Gospel being the
Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusibius of Caesarea. Edited by W. J. Sparrow-
Simpson and W. K. Lowther Clarke. Vol. II. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1920.

Fiddes, Paul S. Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement.
London: Longman & Todd, 1989.

Galli, Mark, and Ted Olsen. 131 Christians Everyone Should Know. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Grant, Robert M. Church Fathers. Vol. 1, in The Encyclopedia of Christianity , edited by

Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Erwin Fahlbusch. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans;
Brill, 1999-2003.

Green, Joel B., and Mark D. Baker. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in
the New Testament and Contemporary Contexts. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 2000.

Gregory of Nazianzus. The Fourth Theological Oration. Vol. 7, in The Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, series 2, edited by 12 vols., Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976.

Ignatius. Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 2. Vol. 1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers,

translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmands Publishing Company, 1989.

Irenaeus. Irenaeus against Heresis. Vol. 1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, translated by

Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.

———. "Proof of the Apostolic Preaching." In Ancient Christian Writers, translated by

Joseph S. J. Smith, LXVIII-LXIX. New York: Paulist Press, 1952.

Hardy, Sir Alister. The Divine Flame. London: Collins, 1966.

Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen. "The Fourth Servant Song in the Context of Second Isaiah." In
The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, edited by
Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, 16-47. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Hilary of Poitiers. Homilies on the Psalms. Vol. 9, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff, 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976.

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

29
Martyr, Justin. Dialogue of Justin. Vol. 1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, translated by
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.

Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and
Reform. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1999.

Polycarp. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. Vol. 1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmands Publishing Company, 1989.

Schaff, Philip, and David Scheley Schaff. History of the Christian Church. Oak Harbor,
WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Shaw, Ian J., and Brian H. Edwards. The Divine Substitute: The Atonement in the Bible
and History. Leominster: Day One Publications, 2006.

Smith, Harold. "The Atonement in Patristic Writings." In The Atonement in History and
in Life, edited by L. W, Grensted, 177-97. London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 1936.

Radford, L. B. Early Church Classics: The Epistle to Diognetus. London: Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1908.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville:

Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. The Ante-Nicene Fathers
Vol. I: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Oak Harbor:
Logos Research Systems, 1997.

Vlach, Michael J. "Penal Substitution in Church History." The Master's Seminary

Journal 20, no. 2 (Fall 2009): 199-214.

———. TH705 Theology III: Man, Sin and Salvation. Syllabus, The Master's Seminary,
LA: Unpublished course, 2010.

Wallace, Ronald. The Atoning Death of Christ. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1981.

Williams, Stuart Murray. Stuart Murray Williams on the Lost Message of Jesus.
http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/233 (accessed 10 31, 2010).

Young, Frances. "Atonement." In Encyclopedia of the Early Christianity, edited by

Everestt Ferguson, 143-48. New York: Routledge, 1999.

30