Some have questioned whether anything like the satisfaction or penal substitution theories of the atonement can be found before Anselm. I have asserted they can be.
Hear Athanasius in De Incarnatione (On the Incarnation of the Word) (and these are only two selected quotations out of many possible ones):
“And so it was that two marvels came to pass at once, that the death of all was accomplished in the Lord’s body, and that death and corruption were wholly done away by reason of the Word that was united with it. For there was need of death, and death must needs be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be paid. Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as suffering, through His union with it, on behalf of all, bring to nought [sic] Him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (para. 20, 5-6).
“[b]y his death has salvation come to all, and all creation been ransomed. He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all….” (para.37, 7)
Now, my argument is NOT that Athanasius or any church father relied on satisfaction or substitution language exclusively. That’s obviously not the case. But some argue that language cannot be found earlier than Anselm in any church father or theologian and that’s just not true.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In