Athanasius on Recapitulation and Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Theologians who deny that Jesus on His Cross effected Penal Substitutionary Atonement for sinners often argue against Penal Substitution by: 1. Claiming that a Penal Substitutionary model of the Atonement was unknown in the ancient Church, and was only conceived during the Reformation period; 2. Setting other models of the Atonement against Penal Substitution.

In the above video, it is my intention to offer some quotes from ATHANASIUS [taken from my “Doctrine of the Work of Christ” class notes, which were given by Dr. Stephen Wellum] in order to demonstrate that: 1. Penal Substitutionary Atonement WAS taught in the ancient Church; 2. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the Recapitulation model of the Atonement (one of the primary models often set as a rival against Penal Substitution by today’s scholars).

First, I read selection from Athanasius' De incarnatione Dei:

Jesus “surrendered his body to death instead 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 be abolished because, having fulfilled in his body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men” (2.8). In this way did he become “in dying a sufficient exchange for all” (2.9). “For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all” (2.9). Christ, the incarnate Word, himself offered “the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering his own temple [body] to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression” (4.20). If then, “any honest Christian wants to know why he suffered death on the cross and not in some other way, we answer thus: in no other way was it expedient for us, indeed the Lord offered for our sakes the one death that was supremely good. He had come to bear the curse that was on us; and how could he ‘become a curse’ otherwise than by accepting the accursed death? And that death is the cross, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree’” (4.25). [Emphases added.]

Second, I read selections from Athanasius' Orations Against the Arians:

“Christ endured death for us, inasmuch as he offered himself for the purpose to God” (1.41). He “takes our sufferings upon himself, and presents them to the Father, entreating for us that they be satisfied in him” (4.6). “Laden with guilt the world was condemned of law, but the Logos assumed the condemnation, and suffering in the flesh gave salvation to all” (1.60). [Emphases added.]

As noted in the video, the bold-faced portions above– speaking of Christ dying “instead of,” in “exchange for,” and “on behalf of” all of us– clearly employ Substitutionary language. That this is a kind of PENAL Substitution is obvious as Athanasius writes that Christ died “to settle man’s account with death,” “to bear the curse that was on us,” and that He “assumed the condemnation” that we deserved. Again, the ideas of Penal Substitution are not presented in such a systematic fashion as they occur in later church history, but they ARE there.

Recapitulation is not seen as a rival to Penal Substitution, but as the basis for Penal Substitution– Christ can die for us because He IS us; the Incarnate Word is the true and ultimate humanity, passing through the stages of human life, restoring all to communion with God by His perfect life, His obedience to the point of death on behalf of sinners, and by His resurrection.