In a previous article I pointed out how Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, and Athanasius all described the atonement similar to terms used by Calvin.
Note: This article was written before the author’s conversion to Orthodoxy.
John Calvin wrote that Jesus Christ was “made a substitute and a surety in the place of transgressors and even submitted as a criminal, to sustain and suffer all the punishment which would have been inflicted on them” (Institutes 2:16.10).
In this article I will quote five more Early Church Fathers that said similar things to the same effect and issue a challenge. Is there a single Early Church Father that endorsed the “Satisfaction” theory of atonement, that being Jesus Christ satisfied the Father’s due need for honor?
First, six more quotes that show an understanding of Penal Substitution:
1. Theodore of Heraclea, Fragments on Isaiah–quoted in Ancient Christian Commentay on Scripture, Old Testament XI, p. 164.
He bore the sum of human evils and every form of transgression, as well as their recompense and punishment. And as if he were our debtor, the only-begotten Word of God, coming into the world alongside us, fulfilled every law and all righteousness and did not stumble over sin but received it willingly so as to change our punishment into peace and harmony. For undergoing temptation he carried our rebukes and punishments, and by faith we make our own his suffering, and dying together with Him we are saved by grace. He was not delivered by force but by an act of obedience.
Theodore gets bonus points not only for plugging Penal Substitution, but fully endorsing the “Great Exchange” (i.e. the double imputation of Christ’s righteousness onto us and our sin onto Him.)
2. Hilary of Poitiers, Homilies on the Psalms, Psalm 54, Chap. 13:
[I]t was always necessary to go through this whole sacrificial action because the addition of a curse to the commandment forbad any trifling with the obligation of the 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 who 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…Of which offering the holy Apostle thus speaks: “This He died once for all when He offered Himself up,” securing complete salvation for the human race by the offering of this holy, perfect victim.
3. Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Galatians
For all have sinned, and are under the curse (Homily 3, Gal 3:10).
You see how he proves that they are under the curse who cleave to the Law, because it is impossible to fulfill it…But, you may ask me, how I prove that this curse is not still of force? Abraham lived before the Law, but we, who once were subject to the yoke of bondage, have made ourselves liable to the curse; and who shall release us therefrom? Observe his ready answer to this (Homily 3, Gal 3:12)?
In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law.
Deuteronomy 27:26 To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree.
As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth.
Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22 And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it (Homily 3, Gal 3:13)?.
Some people might point out, “Look, in bold Chrysostom said that Jesus did not literally pay the penalty for sins!” I consider this a misunderstanding of Chrysostom’s point. Chrysostom is just making clear that Christ did not personally accrue the curse of transgression, because He did not actually transgress the Law. As Severus of Antioch states, “The One who offered Himself for our sins had no sin of his own. Instead, He bore our transgressions in Himself and was made a sacrifice for them” (Catena, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI, p. 96).
4. Theodoret of Cyrus, On Divine Providence, 10:26:
Christ was nailed to the cross, paying the penalty not for His own sins but paying the debt of our nature. For our nature was in debt after transgressing he laws of its maker. And since it was in debt and unable to pay, the creator Himself in His wisdom devised a way of paying the debt. By taking a human body as capital, he invested it wisely and justly in paying the debt and thereby freeing human nature.
5. Eusebius of Caesarea, Proof of the Gospel quoted here.
[Jesus was] chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty he did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so he became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because he received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonor, which were due to us, and drew down upon himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.
As an added bonus, Eusebius wrote in Ecclesiastical History, Book X, Chapter 4, Par. 12, “But he alone having reached our deep corruption, he alone having taken upon himself our labors, he alone having suffered the punishments due for our impieties, having recovered us who were not half dead merely, but were already in tombs and sepulchers, and altogether foul and offensive, saves us, both anciently and now…”
In closing, my challenge to Roman Catholics: I just quoted eight Early Church Fathers in two articles, and there are more quotes. Without nitpicking that any of these quotes do not fully encompass what Calvin or whomever else said about Penal Substitution in one of their writings, can you bring up one ECF who wrote anything suggestive of the Satisfaction Model of the Atonement?
Orthodox Christian Theology 
So I’ve been reading lots of Augustine lately, trying to understanding his account of sacrifice as well as the mode by which Christ’s death brings about our salvation. I went through City of God, Book 10 (mostly on sacrifice) and am still working through De Trinitate, Book 4 (generally on how he dies for us). I will put together my research in a tidy article at some point. In general, it seems to me that it is the love of Christ (united to and culminating in his suffering unto death) that satisfies our debt to the Father, for this is pleasing to God and the fulfillment of the Law (Gal 5:14, Rom 13:8). I think Augustine agrees with this on the basis of how he defines sacrifice. The suffering of Christ is pleasing to God (so it seems to me), only insofar as it is a sign of the love of Christ.
[This is not immediately related to this post, though perhaps is the beginning of response to your challenge about finding Fathers that support the “Satisfaction model”. I will post a more relevant comment shortly.]
Let me point you here on Augustine, where he appears to have a well formulated opinion against Penal Substitution: http://www.thepoorinspirit.com/post/117552605096/st-augustine-and-penal-substitutionary-atonement
In this comment, I want to go over the quotes you presented to see the extent to which they support the Penal Substitution view rather than the “Satisfaction model” (as I understand it).
1. Theodore certainly seems to fall on your side of understanding. Many Catholic writers (and indeed Scripture) speak of Christ bearing iniquities, sins, etc. I want to think more how this can be, while upholding Heb 4:15, “yet without sin.” I am inclined to say it refers either to taking on our human nature (“the likeness of sinful flesh”), or to the passion and death themselves, which are due to sin.
2. Hilary agrees with Thomas Aquinas’ account of Christ as priest and victim. The difference depends on how one understands why sacrifice is pleasing to God. III, q.22, a.2, and III, q. 48, a.3. (I started looking at Augustine because of your comment about difficulty understanding the Summa. I think Augustine is as clear about these things in City of God X).
3. Chrysostom. He seems to speak about two distinct curses, and Christ taking the one (suffering = cross) instead of the other (transgression). He seems to say that Christ was able to take on the curse of hanging because he was free from the curse of transgression. And further that he takes on the one curse to free men from the other, rather than that he simply suffers the same curse. I do not think this is a definitive support of Penal Satisfaction.
4. Theodoret. Again, this seems to agree with either model.
5. Eusebius. Christ certainly dies for our benefit, and this death is certainly due to our sins. Yet this passage does not speak to whether this suffering is itself pleasing to God, or whether it is the willingness (namely, the obedience and love) with which Christ suffers that is pleasing to God.
As for my one ECF (hoping the “E” means early and not Eastern), I do think that Augustine’s understanding of Sacrifice in City of God X would indicate that it is not the destruction but the will that is pleasing to God (you can skip the parts about not worshiping demons, though it is also interesting). As for the extent of his death, I think De Trinitate IV is clear that he suffers only an outer death that heals both our inner and outer death (as mystery of the inner, and type of the outer).
Thank you for gathering and presenting the Fathers on these matters! Reading Scripture alongside them is key for getting at these matters.
“2. Hilary agrees with Thomas Aquinas’ account of Christ as priest and victim. The difference depends on how one understands why sacrifice is pleasing to God. III, q.22, a.2, and III, q. 48, a.3. (I started looking at Augustine because of your comment about difficulty understanding the Summa. I think Augustine is as clear about these things in City of God X).”
When Hilary says, “by means of a voluntary victim the curse which attended the discontinuance of the regular victim might be removed” I think this shows there has been a substitute. Otherwise, I agree that the term “victim” one may only infer penal language. Can you reference the exact part of the Summa where it states that Christ was priest and victim?
“3. Chrysostom. He seems to speak about two distinct curses, and Christ taking the one (suffering = cross) instead of the other (transgression).”
The portion is dispute is as follows: “It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others.”
I think that it is an error in interpretation that what Jesus is, according to Chrysostom, is a replacement curse or a different sort (and not absorbing the penalty of the transgressor.) In the above, when Chrysostom says that Christ took upon Himself NOT the curse of transgression, this CANNOT mean that Christ did not pay the penalty for the sins of others. Why? Because of the word “for.” Chrysostom compares Christ’s sacrifice to “an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment [i.e. execution.]” So, CHrysostom is not backtracking from what he said about Christ being the substitute, but rather he says “for” to show the Christ did so without actually BEING a transgressor. THis is why I quoted Severus of Antioch to show that he held a similar idea.
“4. Theodoret. Again, this seems to agree with either model.”
I personally disagree as the explicit reference to “debt” equates it with a penalty. You are inferring a reference to the Satisfaction model because you presuppose it, while what Theodoret actually says is that Christ PAID a penalty.
“5. Eusebius. Christ certainly dies for our benefit, and this death is certainly due to our sins. Yet this passage does not speak to whether this suffering is itself pleasing to God, or whether it is the willingness (namely, the obedience and love) with which Christ suffers that is pleasing to God.”
Here is the full passage:
But since being in the likeness of sinful flesh He condemned sin in the flesh, the words quoted are rightly used. And in that He made our sins His own from His love and benevolence towards us, He says these words, adding further on in the same Psalm: “Thou hast protected me because of my innocence,” clearly shewing the impeccability of the Lamb of God. And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: “Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members?” And by the rule that “if one member suffer all the members suffer with it,” so when the many members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our souls? (Proof of the Gospel, vol. 2, Book 10, Chapter 1).
Christ suffered the penalty he did not owe, and according to Eusebius, “made our sins His own.” The passage does not speak of the Father’s need for justice, but it is specific that there was a penalty due, it was imputed to Christ, and He paid it.
“As for my one ECF (hoping the “E” means early and not Eastern), I do think that Augustine’s understanding of Sacrifice in City of God X would indicate that it is not the destruction but the will that is pleasing to God (you can skip the parts about not worshiping demons, though it is also interesting). As for the extent of his death, I think De Trinitate IV is clear that he suffers only an outer death that heals both our inner and outer death (as mystery of the inner, and type of the outer).”
Which specific passages in Book 10 of City of God and Book IV of De Trinitate? I am only aware of Augustine subscribing to the Ransom theory and Penal Substitution once.
God bless,
Craig
Quick response to the inquiry about the Summa. The article in III, q.22, a.2 is directly about Christ as priest and victim.
http://www.dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/TP/TP022.html#TPQ22A2THEP1
The “respondeo” section is especially helpful because Thomas gives a description of sacrifice that comes directly from Augustine. I will post those relevant passages soon, but chapter 5 and 6 of City of God book 10 are probably the most relevant.
God bless,
Max
I just read it. I don’t see where it says to Whom Jesus was a victim. I look forward to your article, I hope in answer to the challenge you try to show that there has been a defense specifically of the Satisfaction model. 🙂
God bless,
Craig
In the sed contra of that article, “On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 5:2): “Christ hath loved us, and hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a victim [Douay: ‘sacrifice’] to God for an odor of sweetness.”” And so it is to God that he is offered as a victim.
I will take a look at the link you posted. I think you will find that Thomas’ understanding of satisfaction includes many elements that you associate with penal substitution, e.g. he speaks of the debt of punishment and and calls the blood of Christ the price of our redemption. In your earlier article, you had narrowed down the distinction between the two views to one point, and as far as I can tell, the difference really depends on why the death of Christ satisfies the justice of God (indeed both views could be seen as different “satisfaction” models, for both recognize a debt of justice to be satisfied).
As I said before, I am not opposed to the Satisfaction Model. I just do not find it explicitly endorsed in the early church and it is really only half of the whole truth, which the “Great Exchange” I believe sums up quite nicely.