PSA in the Church Fathers

My Post (37).png

As way of introduction, this article is a response to the claim that the church “fathers,” as they are often called, NEVER taught anything like Penal Substitution, but rather something more like Christus Victor, or Christ the Victor. However, due to the response I received to my last article on PSA, I feel that I must clarify the purpose of this piece.

My articles on Penal Substitutionary Atonement are just that. ​They are NOT meant to give an exhaustive systematic theology on the atonement. ​Some readers expressed their disappointment with my last article due to the lack of a full spectrum explanation of the atonement as a whole, and if that is what they were expecting, they read the wrong article. These writings of mine are meant ONLY to be a defense of the aspect of the atonement known as Penal Substitution which has come under attack in recent years. I am aware that the doctrine of the atonement is, as William Lane Craig says, “a precious jewel that is multifaceted.” However, such facets such as Christ being victorious over sin, death, the world, and Satan, or the moral influence of Jesus’s sacrifice are ​not​ under attack hardly at all, and thus, I find it unnecessary to defend what is not in the line of fire.

With that out of the way, let’s look at Brian Zahnd’s claim in his opening statement in the “Monster God Debate” that deals with PSA in church history.

“It should be pointed out that the early church fathers and the early Christians taught nothing ​like ​Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory. What ​they ​taught is generally described as Christus Victor, or Christ, the Victor, where in the, not just the death, but in the incarnation, life, death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ, we see Christ victorious over sin and death.” Brian previously claimed that the doctrine of PSA was first developed by John Calvin in the 1500’s, and that the earliest form of this theory was laid out in the late 11th century by Anselm “as he was working from his medieval concept of the offended honour of God.”

Now it is important to point out where I agree and ​dis​agree with what Brian said here: I ​agree​ that the writings of the church fathers included Christ being victorious over sin and death. That much is obvious, just read the church fathers! I ​disa​gree that the church fathers did NOT teach, “anything ​like​ Penal Substitutionary Atonement,” and that there isn’t even a mention of it until the late 11th century, and I will prove in this article that Penal Substitution is in fact taught throughout the writings of the early church fathers.

I am indebted to Michael J. Vlach of The Master’s Seminary (tms.edu) for the information in this article, as they have already done the labor of gathering all of the writings of the church fathers that include the elements of penal substitution, from which I am simply copying and pasting the incredible information that they have compiled. I could not do as good a job as they have and I have included their full online journal entry in the recommended resources (16 pages of content) if you wish to read their entire work, and I encourage you to do so! I do not own the content I have included from their website.

Let’s begin.

First up is Clement of Rome, circa 95 A.D.:

“Clement was a bishop in Rome. Eusebius says Clement became bishop in A.D. 92. Like the apostle Paul, Clement wrote a letter to the Corinthians to deal with their schisms. His Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 95) is the earliest extant Christian writing after the NT. Clement declared that Jesus gave His life in His atonement: “Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls.”” -The Master’s Seminary ​Penal Substitution in Church History pg. 204

Some may say that there is substitution here, but no penalty. Look closely at what Clement says; He says the Lord gave His blood and His body in the place of ours. This is clearly speaking of His death in a substitutionary way. In Romans 6:23 we are told that, “the wages of sin is death.” But wait a second; Jesus never sinned. Jesus was taking the penalty of sinners so that they that repent and put their faith in Him, “will not perish, but have eternal life.”

Next up is Ignatius, writing no later that 107 A.D.:

“Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch in Syria. He may have been a personal disciple of the apostle John, and had a special fondness for Paul whom he quoted and of whom he spoke highly. Ignatius is known for refuting Docetism, an early heresy that claimed that Jesus only appeared to be human. Ignatius believed that Jesus died on behalf of sinners when he declared: “Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved.”” - The Master’s Seminary ​Penal Substitution in Church History ​pg. 204

This one is a bit longer, and there is much in it. This is what The Master’s Seminary says of the Epistle of Barnabas:

“The Epistle of Barnabas is a Greek treatise with features of an epistle. It has been traditionally ascribed to Barnabas who is mentioned in the Book of Acts, though some ascribe it to Barnabas of Alexandria or another unknown early Christian teacher. The epistle was probably written in Alexandria, Egypt, between A.D. 70 and 135. In it are several explicit statements concerning Jesus’ sacrificial death for sins: “For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling. For it is written concerning Him, partly with reference to Israel, and partly to us; and [the Scripture] saith thus: “He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities: with His stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb which is dumb before its shearer.” Moreover, when fixed to the cross, He had given Him to drink vinegar and gall. Hearken how the priests of the people gave previous indications of this. His commandment having been written, the Lord enjoined, that whosoever did not keep the fast should be put to death, because He also Himself was to offer in sacrifice for our sins the vessel of the Spirit, in order that the type established in Isaac when he was offered upon the altar might be fully accomplished.”” -The Master’s Seminary ​Penal Substitution in Church History p​ g. 204-205

I’m going to have to give Isaiah 53 its own treatment (spoiler alert; PSA is crystal clear in Isaiah 53), so let’s look at our next quote.
We see penal substitution so clearly in the Epistle to Diognetus. Listen to this:

“The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus is a second-century work that some believe is one of the earliest examples of Christian apologetics. It also reveals early thinking in regard to Christ’s atonement. This epistle declared that ‘when our wickedness had reached its height. . . . ​He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities​, he gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous.’ It then goes on to say, ‘O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation, O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors.’ This epistle stands as a clear example of early belief that Jesus paid the price for unjust sinners so that they could be forgiven of their sins.” -The Master’s Seminary ​Penal Substitution in Church History p​ g. 205

“The wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors.” Oh the poetry of the Christians of antiquity! Some who deny penal substitution would agree with the second half of this little excerpt: “That the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors,” and yes! Christ’s righteousness was imputed to me, but that isn’t the whole story (quick reminder that we are defending PSA here, not giving a detailed explanation of the atonement). My sin was imputed to (or represented in) Christ (notice that imputation is not infusion. Christ was not actually guilty of sin, but took the penalty of our sin as if He was). Let’s move on to the next one.

You may have heard of this one: Justin Martyr.

“Justin was arguably the greatest apologist of the second century, defending Christianity from both Jewish and pagan critics. He also emphasized that Christ became a curse for the whole human race: For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them’ [Deut 27:26]. And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? 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.”” -The Master’s Seminary ​Penal Substitution in Church History ​pg. 205-206

Here, you may absolutely see “curse” as a penalty for the wrongdoings of sinners. And here Justin correctly says that Christ took upon Him, “the curses of all.” At this point, I would like to suggest that the deniers of PSA who claim that the early church fathers taught nothing like penal substitution (​cough cough, Brian Zahnd​) probably did not look very hard in the ancient literature. Or even do a simple Google search, which would have led them to what they were looking for (if indeed they were looking).

I will include one more church father, and if you want to read even more church fathers on the elements of PSA, you can just click the link below to the Master’s Seminary article I have been quoting quite extensively. Last, but not least, I present to you, Eusebius of Caesarea, probably one of the most influential ancient church historians of the Christian faith. Here is what he says:

“Eusebius was the most important church historian of his time and a religious advisor to the emperor Constantine. He evidenced his belief that Christ became a curse for sinners when he stated, “Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf.” He then stated, “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 upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.” He also declared: “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.”” - The Master’s Seminary ​Penal Substitution in Church History ​pg. 206

Possibly the most clear example yet of the elements of penal substitution in the early church fathers. Read these quotes from Eusebius again just to let it sink in.

“Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf.”

“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 upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.

“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.”

I hope this compilation has helped you understand how the church fathers viewed what we now refer to as Penal Substitutionary Atonement. It is also worth noting that, just as this article is not all the atonement is, neither is PSA the only aspect of the atonement that the church fathers taught. The point is that they did in fact teach that Christ suffered the penalty due to fallen humanity in its place. I urge you to dig into the subject of the atonement more on your own so that you will not have an incomplete understanding of the wonderfully rich knowledge of the cross, and that you will see the incredibly clear heart of the atonement in which God, in His abundant love, mercy, and grace, took the penalty we owed on Himself in the person of the Son, Jesus Christ.

Recommended Resources:
Article:
Penal Substitution in Church History ​The Master’s Seminary
Books: ​
The Atonement​ by William Lane Craig

Pierced for Our Transgressions​ by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach

Videos:
The Real History of Penal Substitutionary Atonement by Mike Winger

Answering Objections to the Atonement With Dr. William Lane Craig by Capturing Christianity ​