The Early Church’s Affirmation of Penal Substitutionary Atonement: A Dialectical Reassessment

J. Neil Daniels

Introduction

Modern theology often treats penal substitutionary atonement as a doctrinal latecomer. Gustaf Aulén’s classic study Christus Victor cast the early church as preoccupied with cosmic victory rather than legal satisfaction.¹ Paul Fiddes went further, claiming that penal substitution was “developed in the Reformation period,”² while others have argued that substitutionary motifs betray a peculiarly Western legal cast alien to the Fathers.³ And in the popular realm, critics such as Steve Chalke have caricatured the view as “cosmic child abuse.”⁴

The force of such claims is not trivial. If penal substitution is absent from the first millennium of Christian theology, then its defenders must shoulder the burden of proof. Nor is the question simply academic: if the Reformers truly invented the doctrine, then its claim to catholicity is fatally compromised.

And yet, when one surveys the actual sources of the early church, the picture is more complex than the caricature allows. Certainly the Fathers did not write scholastic treatises on “penal substitutionary atonement,” nor did they exclude other models such as Christus Victor, recapitulation, or moral influence. But scattered throughout the first five centuries are unmistakable affirmations that Christ bore the penalty of sin in the place of sinners. Sometimes these appear as passing allusions, sometimes in more extended theological reflection, but always with the same central intuition: the righteous One suffered the punishment due to the unrighteous, that the guilty might be reconciled to God.

This essay will briefly sketch the biblical foundations of penal substitution before surveying patristic testimony from Clement of Rome through Cyril of Alexandria. Along the way, it will engage the most common objections—anachronism, plurality, and selectivity—showing why the early church, though diverse in its atonement theology, nonetheless affirmed the penal and substitutionary dimensions of Christ’s death.

The Biblical Grammar of Substitution

It is difficult to discuss the Fathers’ theology without first noting the biblical categories they inherited. The Old Testament sacrificial system itself was deeply substitutionary. The laying on of hands upon the victim signified transfer of guilt (Lev. 4:15; 16:21), and the scapegoat bore the people’s sins away into the wilderness (Lev. 16:22). These rites were not mere symbols of cleansing but enacted a transference of penalty.⁵

The New Testament takes up this grammar with striking clarity. Jesus describes His mission as “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45), the preposition anti indicating substitution.⁶ At the Last Supper, His blood is said to be poured out “for many” (Mark 14:24), echoing Isaiah 53’s Servant who was “pierced for our transgressions.”⁷ Paul makes the penal dimension explicit: Christ “redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). Likewise, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). Peter, too, writes that “He himself bore our sins in His body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24).

Scholars dispute whether Paul’s term hilastērion in Romans 3:25 means “expiation” or “propitiation,” but either way the substitutionary nature of Christ’s blood is undeniable.⁸ If the Fathers spoke of Christ’s death in substitutionary terms, they were not innovating but extending the biblical grammar they received.

Clement of Rome

Our first extra-biblical witness is Clement of Rome, writing around AD 95. In his epistle to the Corinthians, Clement declares: “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.”⁹

A skeptic might argue that such rhetoric is merely devotional, not doctrinal. But the very casualness of Clement’s statement suggests otherwise. He was writing to correct schism, not to expound atonement theory. That he could invoke substitutionary language without controversy indicates it was part of the church’s shared vocabulary.

Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius of Antioch, martyred around 107, likewise affirms: “He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved.”¹⁰ To be sure, Ignatius’ primary concern was combating Docetism, not defining penal substitution. But precisely in his insistence that Christ truly suffered, he identifies the salvific reason: he endured sufferings “for our sakes.” In the grammar of early Christian theology, suffering for us meant suffering in our stead.

The Epistle of Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 70–135), probably from Alexandria, interprets Isaiah 53 with explicit substitutionary reference:

“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.”¹¹

Later the author adds that Christ “offered in sacrifice for our sins the vessel of the Spirit.”¹²

Skeptics sometimes suggest that Barnabas is merely allegorizing Scripture without doctrinal precision. Yet the text’s logic is unambiguous: Christ’s flesh is delivered “that we might be sanctified,” his blood effects remission, and his death is “for our sins.” The categories are sacrificial and substitutionary, not merely exemplary.

The Epistle to Diognetus

Perhaps the most poetic witness comes from the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus (second century):

“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.”¹³

The writer bursts into doxology: “O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! … That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors.”¹⁴

Here, skeptics often concede substitution but deny its penal character. Yet the text speaks of iniquities borne, wickedness hidden, transgressors justified. The judicial setting is unmistakable.

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165) presents one of the earliest apologetic formulations. In his Dialogue with Trypho, he appeals to Deuteronomy’s curse: “The whole human race will be found to be under a curse … If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all … why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things as if He were accursed?”¹⁵

Here the penal logic is explicit: the curse of the law is transferred to Christ. A skeptic may counter that Justin is simply proof-texting for Jewish debate. But the very choice of Galatians 3’s logic—curse-bearing—shows that substitutionary atonement was already a recognized apologetic resource.

Eusebius of Caesarea and Emesa

Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 275–339) is unusually clear:

“The Lamb of God … was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed … receiving 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.”¹⁶

It is difficult to imagine a more precise statement of penal substitution. Skeptics sometimes argue that this is too late to be representative. But if the fourth century could produce such clarity without controversy, the underlying logic must have been long in circulation.

Eusebius of Emesa (ca. 300–360) echoes the same, albeit succinctly: “His wounds became our saviors.”¹⁷

Hilary of Poitiers

Hilary (ca. 300–368), writing on Psalm 53, declares that Christ “redeemed us, when, as the Apostle says: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made curse for us … offering Himself voluntarily a victim to God the Father.”¹⁸ Again, skeptics may reply that “curse” language was biblical idiom. But Hilary’s integration of voluntariness, curse, and victimhood shows a sophisticated reflection on penal substitution’s inner logic.

Athanasius of Alexandria

Athanasius (ca. 300–373) is remembered for his Christology, yet he also affirms substitution with unusual consistency. In On the Incarnation he writes: “He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father … so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished.”¹⁹

Elsewhere he insists that Christ “took on Him the curse which lay against us”²⁰ and that his body was “a sufficient exchange for all.”²¹ For Athanasius, only by bearing the penalty of death could the Word abolish corruption. Skeptics who emphasize his doctrine of deification often overlook this penal substratum. But Athanasius himself saw no contradiction between the two.

Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus

Basil the Great (330–379) affirms cleansing through Christ’s blood.²² Gregory of Nazianzus (330–390) sharpens it: Christ was “called a curse, Who destroyed my curse; and sin, Who taketh away the sin of the world.”²³ Critics sometimes accuse Gregory of mere rhetorical flourish. Yet his insistence that Christ “makes my disobedience His own” is no metaphor of empathy but of substitution.

Ambrose of Milan

Ambrose (339–397) affirms that Christ was “made sin for us” and “a curse” in our place.²⁴ For him, Christ bore infirmities so that “for me and in me was He humbled.”²⁵ Skeptics may argue this is pastoral language of solidarity. Yet Ambrose anchors it in Paul’s forensic idiom: “Who knew no sin, but was made sin for us.” The penal exchange is at the core.

John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom (ca. 350–407) illustrates substitution with a vivid parable: a king gives his son to be slain in place of a condemned criminal, transferring both guilt and death.²⁶ Skeptics might dismiss this as homiletic hyperbole. But Chrysostom’s analogy only works if his hearers recognized the logic of substitutionary exchange.

Augustine of Hippo

Augustine (354–430) speaks with perhaps the greatest precision. Replying to Faustus, he insists that Christ “submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death.”²⁷ Elsewhere: “He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without deserving it, that we through Him might obtain grace without deserving it.”²⁸ Here is the penal and substitutionary logic in distilled form.

Skeptics often concede Augustine’s testimony but treat it as the beginning of something new. Yet Augustine’s citations of Paul and his continuity with Ambrose suggest he was inheriting, not inventing, the logic.

Cyril of Alexandria

Cyril (ca. 378–444) continues the pattern, affirming that the Only-begotten “bore a body … in order to bear the sins of all.”²⁹ His Christological precision ensured that substitution was grounded in the hypostatic union: the Word truly suffered in the flesh, and thus truly bore the penalty of sin.

Patterns and Objections

Surveying this evidence inevitably raises questions, and skeptics have voiced three objections in particular. 

The first concerns anachronism. Did the Fathers really mean “penal substitution,” or are modern readers simply imposing Protestant categories onto texts that only use the words “for us” in a loose sense? It is true that no Father wrote a treatise titled De Substitutione Poenali. Yet the issue is not whether they used our terminology, but whether they expressed the underlying reality. Again and again, we find language of Christ bearing a curse, enduring penalty, offering Himself as a sacrifice in the stead of sinners. These are not Reformation inventions but biblical categories, carried forward by early writers who read Scripture as their authoritative grammar. The continuity is not verbal but conceptual. When Augustine says Christ undertook punishment without deserving it, or when Eusebius insists that he “suffered a penalty he did not owe, but which we owed,” the substance is clear enough, regardless of the later label applied.

A second objection is that of plurality. Wasn’t the early church more interested in Christus Victor, recapitulation, or moral transformation than in substitution? Certainly, the Fathers spoke in many registers, sometimes giving more emphasis to Christ’s cosmic victory or to the renewal of human nature. But to acknowledge this plurality is not to erase penal substitution. In fact, the Fathers rarely treated these as competing options. Athanasius could speak in one breath of Christ abolishing corruption through His death and in the next of his body as “a sufficient exchange for all.” Gregory of Nazianzus could exalt Christ as the destroyer of death while insisting that He was “made a curse” on our behalf. These writers did not slice the atonement into isolated theories; they wove motifs together into a rich tapestry. If Christus Victor supplied the cosmic horizon, substitution gave content to the victory by explaining how sin’s penalty was broken. Far from being marginal, penal substitution was one indispensable note in the larger symphony.

A third objection is that defenders of penal substitution cherry-pick quotations, lifting out isolated phrases that sound congenial while ignoring other contexts. Yet it is precisely the incidental quality of many of these statements that makes them persuasive. Clement of Rome was not writing an atonement treatise but a letter about church order, and yet he speaks without hesitation of Christ giving “His flesh for our flesh.” Chrysostom, in a homily, sketches an analogy of a king sacrificing his son in place of a criminal. These are not strained prooftexts but passing remarks, which suggests the ideas were widely assumed and not controversial. Moreover, the evidence spans centuries and geographies: Rome in the first century, Antioch in the second, Alexandria in the fourth, and North Africa in the fifth. Such catholicity of witness makes it difficult to dismiss penal substitution as a local or late aberration.

In sum, the objections sharpen the discussion but do not overturn the evidence. The Fathers may not have offered a systematic treatise on penal substitution, but their language of curse, penalty, exchange, and sacrifice places them in continuity with the scriptural logic later articulated more fully by the Reformers. Other atonement motifs were present, but substitution remained a consistent strand woven into the fabric of early Christian theology. And the breadth and casualness of its appearance testify to its acceptance as part of the church’s common confession.

Conclusion

Penal substitution was not an invention of the Reformers, nor an alien imposition upon early Christianity. The Fathers did not write treatises under that title, but they consistently affirmed the reality: Christ bore the penalty of sin in the place of sinners. Clement’s “life for our lives,” Ignatius’ “he suffered … for our sakes,” Diognetus’ “sweet exchange,” Justin’s curse-bearing, Athanasius’ “sufficient exchange,” Augustine’s “punishment without deserving it”—all testify to the same underlying conviction.

The early church knew, with the apostles, that “He Himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.” To deny this is not to defend the Fathers, but to silence their voices. Penal substitution was never the only atonement motif, but it was an enduring and indispensable strand of Christian confession, woven through the fabric of the church’s earliest centuries.

---

Notes

1. Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement (New York: MacMillan, 1969).

2. Paul S. Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1989), 89.

3. Cf. Stephen Finlan, Options on Atonement in Christian Thought (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007).

4. Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 182.

5. Michael Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 456.

6. Ibid., 458.

7. Isa. 53:4–6; cf. Mark 14:24; 1 Pet. 2:24.

8. Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 135–56.

9. 1 Clement 49.6.

10. Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 2.

11. Epistle of Barnabas 5.

12. Epistle of Barnabas 7.

13. Epistle to Diognetus 9.

14. Ibid.

15. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 95.

16. Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 10.1.

17. Eusebius of Emesa, in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: 1 Peter.

18. Hilary of Poitiers, Homily on Psalm 53.

19. Athanasius, On the Incarnation 34.

20. Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians 4.

21. Athanasius, On the Incarnation 35.

22. Basil, On Baptism, in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture.

23. Gregory of Nazianzus, Fourth Theological Oration 5.

24. Ambrose, On the Christian Faith 9.

25. Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit 9.

26. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Corinthians 6.

27. Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 6.

28. Augustine, Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.6.

29. Cyril of Alexandria, De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate 3.

Bibliography

Belousek, Darrin W. Snyder. Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

Craig, William Lane. “Is Penal Substitution Unjust?” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 83, no. 3 (2018): 231–44.

Ensor, Peter. "Clement of Alexandria and Penal Substitutionary Atonement." Evangelical Quarterly 85, no. 1 (2013): 19-35.

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

Ensor, Peter. “Tertullian and Penal Substitutionary Atonement.” Evangelical Quarterly 86, no. 2 (2014): 130-42.

Gathercole, Simon. Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

Holmes, Stephen R. The Wondrous Cross: Atonement and Penal Substitution in the Bible and History. Paternoster, 2007.

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

Johnson, Adam J. Atonement: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: T & T Clark, 2020.

Kreider, Glenn R., and Eitan Bar. Who Killed the Son of God?: In Defense of Penal Substitution without Divine Murder. Fort Worth: Independently published, 2020.

Packer, J. I. The Logic of Penal Substitution. Wheaton: Crossway Short Classics, 2023 (original lecture 1973).

Vlach, Michael J. “Penal Substitution in Church History.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 20, no. 2 (Fall 2009): 199-214.

Williams, Garry J. “Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Church Fathers.” Evangelical Quarterly 83, no. 3 (Fall 2011): 195-216.