In a prior article (here), I explored how the second-century work the Epistle to Diognetus clearly affirmed the full divinity of Jesus–a doctrine that some say did not come around until the fourth century. I continue this theme by exploring yet another doctrine that some suggest is a late invention: substitutionary atonement.
The average internet-level narrative goes something like this: the earliest Christians had no clear understanding for why Jesus died on the cross and what it accomplished. The idea of a substitutionary atonement is a late invention designed to retroactively explain the (otherwise embarrassing) death of Jesus. In fact, it was not until Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo (Why the God-Man?) in the middle ages that someone came up with the idea that Jesus died in place of sinners.
Of course, such a narrative can be readily refuted just examining the writings of the New Testament itself–particularly the letters of Paul. However, it is also worth noting that this view was held by some of the earliest Christian writers; in this case, by the author of the Epistle to Diognetus in the early second century. Here are some excerpts from the author that affirm key aspects of substitutionary atonement:
The Seriousness of Sin
The author writes:
And when we had demonstrated that we were powerless to enter the kingdom of God on our own, were were enabled by the power of God. For our unrighteous way of life came to fruition and it became perfectly clear that it could expect only punishment and death as its ultimate reward (9.1-2).
Here is a clear affirmation of human inability to save ourselves (akin to total depravity), and a full acknowledgement that sin deserves the ultimate penalty of death.
The Grace and love of God toward Sinners
The author writes:
But then, when the time arrived that God planned to reveal at last his goodness and power (Oh the supreme beneficence and love of God!), he did not hate us, destroy us, or hold a grudge against us (9.2).
God’s response to our sin, though deserving of death, is not to bring judgment but to show mercy.
Christ Bore Our Sins on Himself
Here is where we get to the crux of substitutionary atonement:
But [God] was patient, he bore with us, and out of pity for us took our sins upon himself. He gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the innocent one for the wicked, the righteous one for the unrighteous, the imperishable one for the perishable, the immortal one for the mortal. (9.2).
Here is a remarkable passage. Undoubtedly, the author views the work of Christ on the cross as an exchange, a swapping, of the righteous for the unrighteous, that we might be saved. And he says plainly that Christ “took our sins upon himself.” He stood in our place and bore God’s wrath for us.
Christ’s Righteousness Covers Us
Incredibly, the author even seems to affirm what Reformed folks refer to as the doctrine of imputation. This doctrine says that our justification is not only about having our sins taken away, but having Christ’s positive righteousness cover us. The author of the Epistle to Diognetus states:
For what else could hide our sins but the righteousness of that one? How could we who were lawless and impious be made upright except by the son of God alone? Oh the sweet exchange!…That the lawless deeds of many should be hidden by the one who was upright, and the righteousness of one should make upright the many who were lawless!
This is a significant passage because it doesn’t dwell on just our sins being taken away, but dwells substantively and primarily on the righteousness of Christ. And what does that righteousness do? It hides our sins. And it “makes upright” the lawless. And this happens in a “sweet exchange.” If we are looking for an ancient writer who describes the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, this comes awfully close.
In sum, the Epistle to Diognetus shows that the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement, and also the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, are not late inventions, but were present very early in the history of Christianity. Did some Christian groups hold other views of such matters? Sure. But, the continuity between the teachings of this epistle, and the writings of Paul himself (see especially Romans 5), make it evident that the substitutionary atonement/imputation view goes back very early indeed.
BetterThanSacrifice says
A helpful article, Dr. Kruger, thank you. Is it useful to point out typos? If so: ‘particular[ly] the letters of Paul’, ‘The Serious[ness] of Sin’.
anaquaduck says
It would also strongly connect with the OT teachings & practises (passover & priestly duties). As in John 1:29.& Heb 9:22. In a way God was preparing the lesson over a long period of time (with great patience), the Hebrews would of understood this better than others at first. Harmony in Scripture.
allenmickle says
John Aloisi at Detroit Baptist Seminary does a great job of addressing this issue: https://www.dbts.edu/journals/2009/Aloisi.pdf
Paulus says
Dr Kruger,
Is this epistle generally regarded as orthodox within the patristic writings and later writers?
Michael Kruger says
Yep. It is part of what we call the “Apostolic Fathers” a collection of writings that are (mostly) from the second century, and were generally regarded as orthodox in the early church.
Chris Cavalli says
Thank you Dr. Kruger for taking the time to write these articles. Speaking as one who has been a Christian for many years but has just begun to intently study Church history, it is a real blessing to be able to learn from orthodox scholars such as yourself.
Marlene Osborn says
I think understanding of covenants is crucial to understanding how Jesus came to be the atonement of sin. It is something I struggled with for years until my Precept upon Precept study of the covenants last fall.
George Kleinert says
Ah, a ransom. Yes, that is one kind of substitution. But it raises the curious question of to whom the ransom is paid. If you are inquisitive enough, Gregory Nazianzus famously addresses this very question in his Second Paschal Oration (Oration 45).
Bruce Symons says
“And he says plainly that Christ “took our sins upon himself.” Maybe not so “plainly”, since the writer of the epistle says “But [God] … took our sins upon himself.” It may be quite easy to refute the “average internet-level narrative” but there are other narratives out there and they are surely the ones that need to be engaged.
John S says
Yes, this is an important observation and one that I hope Dr. Kruger will address. According to the text, the one who “took our sins upon himself” is the same one who “gave up his own Son.” This makes it hard to see, Dr. Kruger, how you can gloss “took our sins upon himself” as “bore God’s wrath.”
Cory says
It’s not difficult from a Trinitarian position.
John S says
It’s difficult precisely from a Trinitarian position. The text says it’s the Father who “took our sins upon himself” (autos tas hemeteras hamartias anedexato). But Dr. Kruger’s gloss changes the subject from the Father to Christ. So the point is: if “took our sins upon himself” means “bore God’s wrath,” then this particular text is saying “God the Father bore God’s wrath.”
Michael Kruger says
It is you who has misread the text, John S. If you read the epistle carefully you will notice that the author does not say that God “the Father” bore our sins, but simply that “God” bore our sins. You added the words “the Father” in your own statement, but they are not in the text. The fact that the author can say God bore our sins, is perfectly consistent with the Trinity.
John S says
Hi, Dr. Kruger. Thanks for the answer. The very next words after the ones I quoted are “autos ton idion huion apedoto lutron huper hemon.” So, all together: “he himself took our sin, he himself gave his own Son.” I think it’s safe to say, then, that the Father is the subject of both clauses.
Michael Kruger says
No, you are still reading that into the text. Textually, and factually, the clause under discussion does not say God “the Father” bore our sins. The fact that the author may have God the father in view in the next clause does not change this fact. It is quite common for authors to move fluidly from speaking of God in a general way to speaking of a particular member of the Godhead. And apparently that is what the author is doing in this instance. This sort of fluidity is precisely what you would expect from the nature of God as three-in-one. Ambiguity about which member of the Trinity is in view (and transitions between members of the Trinity) is also quite common in NT texts. So the author is doing nothing unusual here.
John S says
Here’s the whole passage in Lake’s translation: “But when our iniquity was fulfilled and it had become fully manifest, that its reward of punishment and death waited for it, and the time came which God had appointed to manifest henceforth his kindliness and power (O the excellence of the kindness and the love of God!) he did not hate us nor reject us nor remember us for evil, but was long-suffering, endured us, himself (autos) in pity took our sin, himself (autos) gave his own Son as ransom for us, the Holy for the wicked, the innocent for the guilty, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal.”
For your interpretation to work, you need the first “autos” to refer to the Son, and the second “autos” to refer to the Father. There is no grammatical case to be made for this. And, unless you are a modalist, the Father and the Son really are different grammatical subjects. I simply don’t see how to make your reading comport with the text as it actually stands.
Michael Kruger says
You assume Lake’s translation is the only way to read the passage. Ehrman’s translation, the most recent Loeb version, actually places a sentence break between the two clauses in question (in both the Greek and English). So, merely quoting Lake proves nothing.
Moreover, you continue to misunderstand how trinitarian language works. When talking about God, it is quite natural for an author to move fluidly from one person of the trinity to another person of the trinity without any sort of announcement or obvious transition. In as much as one discusses the various actions God has performed, and in as much as those different actions are formed by different persons of the trinity, such transitions are inevitable. So, your argument that “autos” must refer to the same member of the trinity, merely on the basis of proximity, simply doesn’t work.
As an example, take John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” Notice in this verse, the first “God” and the second “God” each refer to different persons of the trinity. According to your reasoning, this is impossible since both words are the same word and are in such close proximity to each other.
John S says
Dr. Kruger, I make no such assumption. I just used Lake’s translation because it’s what I have at hand, but I read the Greek, too. I don’t think “merely quoting Lake proves anything.” The purpose of the extended quotation was simply to give a wider sense of the context of the whole passage. Ehrman’s punctuation, for what it’s worth, doesn’t change the fact that you have two consecutive clauses that both use “autos” — i.e., they have the same subject. The Staniforth/Louth translation similarly has “He bore with us, and in pity He took our sins upon Himself and gave His own Son as a ransom for us…” The beginning of section 9 also suggests that the default referent of “God” for the author of the epistle is the Father: “Next, after making these dispositions in His mind with the Son, He left us to live for the meanwhile as we pleased…” (Staniforth/Louth). (Lake has “Child,” since the word there is pais.) I guess I would just ask you to read the whole section again and ask whether you’re exegeting what it actually says or importing a particular theory of the atonement that then determines what the first “autos” “must” mean.
I think I do understand how Trinitarian language works. At least, I have expended a great deal of effort over a long period of time trying to understand it. In the case of John 1:18 and similar texts, context and grammar do indicate the change in Trinitarian referent (e.g., the modifier “monogenes” before the second “theos”; the use of “tou patros”). So this is decidedly not an example of “mov[ing] fluidly from one person of the trinity to another person of the trinity without any sort of announcement or obvious transition.” The fact that “monogenes theos” is specified as “ho on eis ton kolpon tou patros” is just such an “announcement”!
There are no such indicators in the passage from the Epistle to Diognetus. The text provides no reason to suppose that there is a change of referent from the first “autos” to the second.
I suppose at this point I’ll let the readers — and yourself — decide which is the most natural reading of the text and which is “reading into it.”
All the best.
Michael Kruger says
You have too easily dismissed John 1:18. Basically, you have accepted only certain kinds of textual indicators and not others. Why is the use of “monogenes” a valid indicator that the Son is in view, but the phrase “he took our sins” (in Diognetus) not a valid indicator that the Son is in view? You appeal to the fact that the text says “at the Father’s side.” But, that basically sets up a standard which requires a text to use explicit words like “father” and “son” before you will concede they refer to a certain member of the trinity. What if “at the Father’s side” were not in John 1:18? Would you say that it therefore cannot refer to the Son?
My point all along is that there is nothing in Diognetus that requires the first “autos” to refer to the Father. And you have not proven otherwise.
John S says
Okay. I think I’ve made just that case. That’s how the pronoun “autos” works. It means, as you know, “the very same one.” So the same one who “bore our sins” is the one who “sent His Son.” That’s what the text says.
Michael Kruger says
You are grammatically confused, John. That is not how “autos” works here. The word can function that way in some contexts, but it is not warranted here. It simply means “He.”
John S says
Please show me any Greek lexicon that says that “autos” in the nominative “simply means ‘He.'” I’m serious. If I’ve always been wrong about the meaning of “autos” in the nominative, I want to know.
Michael Kruger says
John, I am genuinely perplexed by your question. There are countless places where “autos” in the nominative means “He.” English translations do this all the time. Just read Matt 3:11 where “autos” clearly means “He” and is translated as such. Moreover, don’t miss the obvious fact that Ehrman translated the disputed clause in Diogentus as “He.” Perhaps you are thinking about “outos” which is the demonstrative pronoun? It can be translated as “this one” (e.g., see John 1:2).
Just read chapt 12 in Mounce’s grammar for a basic explanation of the uses of “autos.” Another possibility is that you may be thinking of the “identical” use of autos, which can mean something like “the same…”. But, usually this requires the definite article in Greek, and that is missing in the Diognetus text.
Bruce Symons says
But Dr Kruger, doesn’t the reader still have to assign reference to the pronoun? On what basis did you assign ‘Christ’ as the ‘subject’ of “took our sins upon himself” when the immediately identifiable participant was ‘God’?
Michael Kruger says
Because Jesus is God.
Read the extensive interaction I had with John S. in the comments below.
John S says
For what it’s worth, I think the key to the passage is that the verb used is “apodechomai,” not “anaphero” as in Hebrews 9:28 and 1 Peter 2:24. In the context of the argument of Diognetus 9 as a whole, the sense seems not to be “bore” (as in Heb 9 and 1 Pet 2) so much as “dealt with.” The following clause specifies how God “dealt with” our sins: by sending His Son as a ransom for us, and so forth. I think that makes the most sense both grammatically and contextually.
John S says
Sorry, that should be “anadechomai,” not “apodechomai.”
Craig Benno says
What do you mean by God’s wrath John S? Seems to me that Scripture is clear that the punishment for sin is death. Christ died for our sins. Where does “Wrath come into this?
Jason Stewart says
Regardless of the grammatical considerations attended to above, the paragraph from Diognetus is fully compatible with a Catholic understanding of justification.
Theodore A. Jones says
“When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin” Jn. 16:8 JC
He says the same problem you assume his murder resolved is to be the remaining unresolved inclusive problem after his murder. counter 1.
1. Cor. 2;8 states that the actual purpose for Jesus Christ’s murder was not knowable or known prior to his murder for if the reason for his murder could have been known he would not have been murdered. Substitutionary atonement is a preexisting pagan soteriological religious assumption and practice. counter 2.
“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13 Paul is not referencing the Sinai code of law.
counter 4.
Substitutionary atonement has about as much value for your salvation as a fifteen dollar bill has for paying for your lunch.