Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration

by William Lane Craig

Through his death on the cross, Christ atoned for sin and so reconciled people to God. New Testament authors drew upon a range of metaphors and motifs to describe this salvific act, and down through history Christian thinkers have tried to articulate various theories to explain the atonement. While Christ’s sacrifice serves as a central tenet of the Christian faith, the mechanism of atonement―exactly  how  Christ effects our salvation―remains controversial and ambiguous to many Christians. In  Atonement and the Death of Christ , William Lane Craig conducts an interdisciplinary investigation of this crucial Christian doctrine, drawing upon Old and New Testament studies, historical theology, and analytic philosophy. The study unfolds in three discrete  Craig first explores the biblical basis of atonement and unfolds the wide variety of motifs used to characterize this doctrine. Craig then highlights some of the principal alternative theories of the atonement offered by great Christian thinkers of the premodern era. Lastly, Craig’s exploration delves into a constructive and innovative engagement with philosophy of law, which allows an understanding of atonement that moves beyond mystery and into the coherent mechanism of penal substitution. Along the way, Craig enters into conversation with contemporary systematic theories of atonement as he seeks to establish a position that is scripturally faithful and philosophically sound. The result is a multifaceted perspective that upholds the suffering of Christ as a substitutionary, representational, and redemptive act that satisfies divine justice. In addition, this carefully reasoned approach addresses the rich tapestry of Old Testament imagery upon which the first Christians drew to explain how the sinless Christ saved his people from the guilt of their sins.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Christianity, Religion, Faith, Book Club

328 pages, Hardcover

Published July 1, 2020

About the author

William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He and his wife Jan have two grown children.

At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until assuming his position at Talbot in 1994.

He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.

Reviews

[Christian Barrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an incredibly brief book on an incredibly dense subject, yet Craig does an incredible job of laying out his case for penal substitutionary atonement and defends biblically and philosophically. Craig pulls from biblical texts, church history, philosophical thought, and modern day court rulings to argue the logic of the atoning work of Christ. This is a worshipful and academic book. A must read for those looking to understand and defend penal substitutionary atonement.

[Patrik Axelsson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bra bok om försoningsläran om du är intresserad av hur man bl.a. kan filosofiskt och teologiskt förklara Jesus som juridiskt ställföreträdande offer. Craig ger en balanserad redogörelse (tycker jag) av olika bibliska motiv, kyrkohistorian och ett filosofisk försvar. Det största fokuset ligger på den objektiva försoningsläran som lägger grunden för och berättigar de andra aspekterna av försoningen.

[Chelsea · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have been heavily contemplating and reading extensively about the doctrine of atonement, especially the theory or motif of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). This theory is one I am quite familiar with and already affirm as biblically accurate. Because of this and the fact that I have recently been doing other reading for and against PSA, this book was highly helpful and interesting for me. Craig has researched the case for PSA biblically, historically, and philosophically. His book is very thorough and well-organized without being too lengthy. He cites the ideas of many other writers and church fathers who have touched on the ideas of PSA, both supporting and disagreeing with it. He also clearly shows how God’s love is shown greater in the presence of His justice - Christ’s Self-sacrifice in our place. I really enjoyed the ideas shared in parts 1 and 2. Part 3 (philosophical) seemed to drag on for me a bit more but still contained many interesting points or arguments. Overall, this is probably the most well-researched and thorough book about PSA, but as such, it may only appeal to those like me who are already heavily contemplating and meditating on Christ’s atonement, which we all probably should at some point. For others, I would probably recommend a less academic book on the topic.

[Jack Hayne · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful analytic work on the atonement. Craig manages to pack a remarkable amount into relatively few pages while remaining both clear and cogent. He helpfully begins with three biblical motifs: servant, sacrifice, and divine justice—each undergirded by the theme of representation. These motifs comprise the atonement, though none of them is the atonement in itself. From there, Craig offers a broad survey of Patristic and Medieval views before turning to contemporary critiques. The final chapters engage directly with Murphy’s objections to the idea of punishment and Stump’s emphasis on union, which Craig characterizes as a kind of “Neo-Socinian” account. He refutes each in turn, ultimately defending a forensic account of penal substitutionary atonement—drawing insightfully from Scripture, church history, and legal theory.


97% we are pardoned with grace in an act of mercy

[Jared Mindel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Was pretty good, especially the exegetical portion. Wish he spent more time on the exegesis as opposed to responding to philosophical objections via the justice system, but it was pretty good nonetheless.

[Justin Effler · Rating 5 out of 5]

The atonement, or rather, the means by which man is reconciled to God, through Christ’s vicarious death and resurrection has become more and more under fire in the present age we live in; particularly the aspect of atonement theory known as, “penal substitution” by Liberal or Progressive Christians. Craig defines Penal Substation as

“…the doctrine that God inflicted upon Christ the suffering that we deserved as the punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment.” P. 147

This is an important topic, in fact, “of first importance”, as the Apostle Paul states “that Christ died for our sins” in 1 Corinthians 15:3. This begs the question of “Well, how did Christ die for our sins and what did he do? What makes it of first importance?” Craig dives into this.

I have always assumed penal substitution. Up until recently I have been challenged with these claims. This is where I took up Craig’s book to test the claims of the Progressive Christian Left that claim things like “The early church never believed in penal substitution” or “the Bible doesn’t teach penal substitution” and that “it’s made up by Anselm in the 11th century and the reformers”. I came to not only learn that these claims from the Progressive Left are flat out lies, but that It’s deepened my faith to love and reaffirm not only penal substitution and what Christ did for me but to appreciate the depths of Christs atonement motifs. Unfortunately many have come to the unnecessary conclusion of pinning, atonement theories against each other when in reality what Christ accomplished through his atonement, is a “multifaceted jewel” (p.4) with penal substitutionary atonement being its “central facet thereof” (p.4).

This book essentially took me almost 2 years to complete. I won’t get into every aspect but it’s broken down into 3 parts:

1.) Biblical Data Concerning the Atonement
2.) Dogmatic History of the Doctrine of the Atonement
3.)Philosophical Reflections on the Doctrine of the Atonement.

I will list which parts stood out to me the most.

Part 1

William Lane Craig’s, The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52:13-15, 53:1-12

This section is probably the most compelling passage of scripture, in my opinion, regarding the concrete evidence that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a biblical doctrine. In fact,

“Ten of the twelve verses of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah are quoted in the New Testament” p. 39

Showing the writers of the New Testament connected Isaiah 53 to Christ.

Prior to this section, Craig builds up the case of the 4 various offerings (Burnt, Peace, Sin, Guilt) , accompanied with the Day of Atonement (known as “Yom Kippur”). This was where the Jews spread the blood of the pascal lamb over the doorposts to “Passover ,” them in judgement from the Angel of Death prior to being manumitted from Egyptian slavery.

This servant “suffers vicariously for others” and “bears the sins” or “carries the iniquities of many” which, when used of sinners, means “to be held liable to punishment” and lists off Leviticus 5:1, 7:18, 19:8, 24:15 and Numbers 5:31, 9:13, 14:34. P. 40-41

Divine Justice

Was a thorough dive into Paul’s view on Christ’s propitiated work by his death on the cross for our sins in relations to God’s wrath. Particularly Romans 3:25, which stares,.

“whom God put forward as a propitiation (hilastērion) by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3‬:‭25‬ ‭

Some interpretations of the word used for “propitiation” or “hilastērion” in the Greek, as allusion to the temple “mercy seat”. Some interpreters use mercy seat to devoid the wrath and penal aspect of atonement weather than propitiate (to placate or satisfy a deity). The issue lies on the literal vs metaphorical understanding of the linguistics, Craig states,

“Now if Paul is describing Jesus as the mercy seat, then he is obviously using hilastērion as metaphor ally, and so the question arises as to the meaning of the metaphors.” P. 67

Craig goes on into a number of meanings within hilastērion such as a blood sacrifice offering similar to the day of atonement as well as God’s demonstration of his righteousness is punishing sin.

You see this in Pauls further explanations of satisfaction and legal status.

“Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭5‬:‭9‬ ‭

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭1‬ ‭

Represent and Redemption

was a fascinating section where Craig reasonably proves that the Levitical sacrifices, particularly, the Scapegoat in Leviticus 16:17 demonstrates or alludes to “…the priest acting as a personal representative on behalf of the people. We should not think of the scapegoat as the representative of the people, for it is merely the symbolic vehicle for carrying away their sins, out of the community, into the desert.”

You see this beautiful fulfillment of Jesus carrying our sins away on Calvary, sent off by the chief priests and leaders.

Part 2

Now onto the topic of how the early fathers viewed Penal substitution and atonement or the claims that Penal substitutionary atonement is a later convention. The Patristics diverse views of the atonement was quite interesting. Craig goes into the early Fathers and patristics and their views of the Atonement. You will see that after diving into that claim that its baseless and many early fathers believed in Penal Substitutionary atonement. Unfortunately,

“Embroiled as they were in Trinitarian and Christological controversies concerning the person of Christ, the Church Fathers devoted little time to reflection upon what later theologians were to call The Work of Christ (His achieving atonement).” p.92

“…no ecumenical council ever pronounced on the subject of atonement.”p. 92

Off the bat, we get a mixed view regarding this topic, as it wasn’t the issue of focus during that time, whether assumed or unchallenged, there wasn’t much controversy on the work of Christ as Christology had been.

To name some of the early Fathers that he shows held to penal substitutionary atonement, you have the following:

Eusebius, Origen, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine

Below are a few quotes that he pulls from:

“The Lamb of God…was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins.” Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel 10.1

“….and laid on Him all the punishment due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging and shameful blows and the crowning trophy of the cross”. 1.10

“For all the outrages which we heaped on Him in return for his benefits, he not only did not punish us,but gave His son. He made him to be sin for us—that is, he allowed him to be condemned as a sinner and die as one accursed. He made him to be a sinner and sin, who, far from having committed sin, knew no guile.” -St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Corinthians, Homilies 2

“God was about to punish them, but he forbore to do it. They were about to perish, but in their stead He gave His only Son.” —St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 7.3

“Christ though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away without punishment.” —St. Augustine, Against Faustus, 14.4

I know I mention a lot about penal substitution but I wanted to reiterate that Penal Substitution is not the only valid form of atonement theories, as Christs work is vast. Christus victor, Recapitulation, Ransom, models and others all play a vital work but the topic is regarding penal substitution and that was what I was after. He mentions many others.

However there were some bizarre theories that went too far that he mentions. First that the ransom theory of atonement was paid TO SATAN. This was first observed Chronologically in Irenaeus, Origen and finally Gregory of Nyssa.

Craig on Irenaeus in leu of Against Heresies 3.23; 5.1, “Satan had certain legal rights over man in virtue of his sinning that God, as perfectly just, had to respect.” p. 100

Gregory of Nyssa had an even more bizarre view take on on Origen’s view of Ransom theory that “that men had freely sold themselves into slavery to Satan; hence Satan’s right over man must be respected (Catechetal Oration, 22) and since Satan was a deceiver it was just “for God to deceive Satan in return” p. 101

Interestingly enough, the other Gregory (of Nazianzus) was vehemently opposed to this view. (See his Orations 45:22)

Part 3

Philosophical Reflections and the Doctrine of the Atonement

This section was the most philosophical and legally technical that it took extra long for me to follow. This section was the most difficult to digest but nevertheless important and interesting.

Craig brings up the encounters of Francis Turretin and Unitarian Faustus Socinus, whom Craig considered the best ever to argue against Penal Substitution. This section goes into the coherence, or lack-thereof, of penal substitutionary atonement. This section was largely reflecting on the criticisms of individuals from contemporary (E. Stump, Murphy) and reformation period critics (Faustus Socinus).

The heart of the focus was the underlying premise that an innocent man dying on behalf of the guilty is unjust and therefore contrary to the righteousness of God. But as Craig points out much of the objections are based on misunderstandings rather than substantive critics of the view itself. In other words, folks like Stump are caricaturing a straw man. Stump unnecessarily pins up God’s love against God justice/wrath against sin.

Penal substitution theory of atonement “is incompatible with God’s love.” However, she fails to understand that it’s God’s LOVE that moves for divine justice to be satisfied in God’s Son. Not God’s Son must be punished IN ORDER for God to love sinners. She’s got it backwards.

Her criticisms of “unconditional love” is misinformed and biblically wrong,

Craig states, “God’s forgiveness is, indeed, unconditional in the sense that it requires nothing of sinners, but that does not imply that it is not based on Christs satisfaction of divine justice on behalf of sinners.” p. 165

Finally in one of the later sections Craig draws the justification for penal substitution in regards consequentialist views that not only does divine punishment must be in order but that it is “deterrence of a crime” and that “sequestration of the wicked from the redeemed”. P. 175

There is a lot more Craig gets into regaining the philosophical and legalities on penal substitution but at this point, I will leave it at this. Penal substitution is as early as it goes, not only understand through the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 and the Old Testament motifs but that the early church held to various models of the atonement, including penal substitution. The theory wasn’t made up in later centuries but has its origins in the early church at the root of the levitical sacrificial system and historical lineage.

“We have thus arrived at a rich, multifaceted atonement theory featuring penal substitution, satisfaction of divine justice, imputation of sin and divine righteousness, pardon, and moral influence.”
P. 272

[Dadjei GH · Rating 5 out of 5]

This masterpiece of Prof. Bill Craig is interesting with biblical reference. On the subject of penal substitution is a theological concept that remains unabated. I admire his philosophical approach of explaining theological issues. It is systematic. A must read for skeptics and christians.

[Carl · Rating 4 out of 5]

‘Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical and Philosophical Exploration’’ is the result of years of study for William Lane Craig on the subject of the atonement. Cambridge University published in 2018 a shorter treatment (106 pages) by William Lane Craig on this subject called ‘‘The Atonement’’. ‘‘Atonement and the Death of Christ’’ is the more detailed treatment. The book is divided in three sections: 1) Biblical data concerning the atonement, 2) Dogmatic history of the doctrine of the atonement and 3) Philosophical reflections on the doctrine of the atonement.

Craig has written a very important book on the subject of the atonement. The level of research that he did to write this book is truly impressive. The amount of footnotes and interaction with other writers shows that he took serious time to deal with the data and with objections to his view. First off, I have to say that this is the first book that I read that is dedicated to the subject of the atonement. I’m a theology student. I had some notions on the subject prior to this book but nothing advanced. So what I write is not an in depth review. I can’t allege to be able to spot flaws in Craig’s view and provide a detailed appreciation. I leave that to seasoned scholars, because, yes, for those who wonder, this is a scholarly work.

Leaning on my protestant roots, I tend to agree with Craig that penal substitution is the centre of the theory of the atonement. Any book on the atonement trying to put aside penal substitution will have a hard time surviving criticism. I think Craig has done a great job of defending it. Craig have sometimes been criticised by Christians for putting philosophy ahead of theology in his argumentations. Whether this critique is accurate or not, Christians can give him credit for beginning his survey with biblical data and for stressing that it’s the most important aspect of the study. He is quick to emphasize that a theory of the atonement cannot be a Christian theory if it is not backed up with biblical data.

This first part of the book, the biblical data, is useful to establish the meaning of the atonement as both expiation and propitiation. This section is the most accessible of the book. In my opinion, his examination of the OT as the background for the atonement, especially in relation to the various sacrifices, was thorough and helpful. However, I wish he would have gone in more detail with the NT data. He spends more time in the OT than in the NT, although the NT has a greater depth on the subject. I understand that his intention was not to do an exhaustive study of the biblical data and a deep exegesis of the passages but I feel there was a missed opportunity to delve deeper into the NT and expound on the correlations between OT and NT.

In the second part, I think he did a good job of looking at the various atonement theories that have been proposed down the ages. He spent most of the chapters presenting the views of the adherents and their opponents rather than giving his opinion. He very skillfully interacted with the proponents of the theories. You can clearly see that he read those ancient authors and immersed himself in their ideas. By doing this he seems to have fairly represented them. He is able to recognize when there are misrepresentations of the views, which is usually a sign of a good appropriation of a view. He is also able to appreciate the theories even if he doesn’t ascribe fully to them. I agree with him that the various atonement theories can be used to construct what he calls a ‘‘multifaceted theory of the atonement’’. They all have useful notions that help to describe the atonement in different aspects. He was able for example to offer good practical applications of the moral influence theory even though it is the least attractive theory as a whole. On the other hand, I found the text to be at times dense and hard to follow, especially when he discussed opposing views to the theories. It was sometimes difficult to understand the main ideas of the atonement theories. I had this impression especially in the description of the governmental theory. Apart from that, I think he submitted a good presentation and analysis of the atonement theories.

The third part of the book, the defense of the coherence of penal substitution from a philosophical standpoint, was the most challenging part to read. It is the most detailed and difficult section of the book. The analogies that Craig makes between penal substitution and notions from philosophy of law are truly what sets him apart from other writers on the subject. There probably exists no book with that depth that is able to deal as much with philosophical law notions and apply them to the atonement. The amount of sources that he interacts with is indeed impressive. His quotations and footnotes are, again, very detailed. If you’d like to know more about notions of law  like crime, guilt, punishment, pardon, retributive and consequentialist theories of justice, legal fictions, vicarious liability then this part will interest you. He also deals extensively with opposing views and debates on these subjects. The perseverant layman should be able to go through the chapters. But, for many readers, the details might be overwhelming.

Craig says in that third part that he doesn’t give analogies from philosophy of law to try to ‘‘construct a doctrine of the atonement based on human justice systems (…) one is not engaged in such a silly project. Theological construction of a doctrine of the atonement will be based on the teaching of Scripture. Rather (…) one is merely offering a defeater of the objection raised to penal substitution that it is unsatisfactory’’ (p.201) because it goes against our penal system of justice. He also upholds its usefulness with, for example, the subject of punishment: ‘‘Still, legal theorists and philosophers of law have for several centuries poured an enormous amount of thought into the theory of punishment, and so, given the widespread presence of forensic and judicial motifs in the biblical texts pertinent to the atonement, we may expect to learn a great deal from them’’ (p.150). So some technical details in this section will be of interest for the critique of penal substitution, but could also be useful for Christians to enrich their understanding of the atonement.  As a Christian, I cannot say that these analogies with our penal system were really eye opening and enlightening in my understanding of the atonement. I did find some sections informative and insightful, while I sometimes had a hard time following Craig’s discourse. It could certainly be a lack of understanding on my part. I can understand that some individuals appreciate the analogies and that it gives them a richer view of atonement. I think this section is more useful for those who critique the penal substitution theory of the atonement. I think Craig made a very persuasive case to defend the coherence and rationality of the theory from its critics.

Overall, ‘‘Atonement the Death of Christ’’ is an interesting book on the subject of the atonement. The three areas of study (biblical, historical and philosophical) give a wider and fuller treatment of the subject of the atonement. The philosophical section is really ground-breaking. His combination of philosophy of law and biblical atonement is truly unique and I believe it will open the door to more study on these subjects.

See the full review on my blog for a summary of the chapters : https://carlouimet.blogspot.com/2020/...

[Taylor Simpson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. William Lane Craig has remarked in multiple places that this book, Atonement and the Death of Christ (ADC), is the most important work of all his published writing.
Having not had the pleasure of reading all of his published writing (yet), I do not know if I can unqualifiedly agree with that suggestion. However, I do think that this book is important.

ADC, like most of Dr. Craig's other work I've read, is very straight-laced: no frills, no gimmicks, no flash, and no qualms about lacking any of these things - and I love it. I would much rather have a no-nonsense assessment of important, controversial Christian doctrine than have a car-salesman-of-a-theologian hamstring me into believing some kind of faddy heresy with a bunch of bells and whistles. There is nary a bell nor whistle in this compact, condensed little treatise on the doctrine of the atonement, yet it seems to... ring... some of my... bells... or something. (I can't always come up with the best metaphors and segues, okay!) My point is that it was good and I liked it in spite of it being more on the dry side. Dr. Craig has maybe four or five jokes, and none of them work their way into this book, but that doesn't make any difference to me - that's what I'm trying to say!

Without going into too much detail, the essential objective of Craig in ADC is to lay out the relevant information on the doctrine of the atonement and provide a coherent and satisfactory explanation and assessment of that data from the standpoint of a Christian philosopher.

Spoilers: he succeeds.

The book is broken up into three main parts:
1. The biblical data that every theory of the atonement needs to account for - things like expiation of sin, propitiation of God's wrath, the substitutionary element of Isaiah's Servant of the Lord, among others
2. A short excursus on atonement theories throughout Church history - from what the Patristics believed about Jesus being a literal ransom for people to be released from God's wrath, to the weaker moral influence theories, and up through the Reformation theory of penal substitution
3. A lengthy philosophical analysis and synthesis of the biblical data into a coherent theory of the atonement of Christ based on the penal substitution concept - very few stones are left unturned as the simplest and most complex (and obscure) aspects of justice, punishment, and every other related topic are examined

Craig has a painfully logical way of working through his material which contributes both to the dryness of his work and the effectiveness of it. Arguments are laid out; objections are considered in turn; dead-ends, fallacies, and irrelevancies in those objections are exposed; and defenses of certain premises and concepts are hammered out methodically on the anvil of Craig's merciless mind. It's beautiful to watch, honestly. Admittedly, I am a huge fan-girl (in spite of my gender being male) of Dr. Craig, but even if one remains unconvinced by his objections and defenses of these premises, it's beyond the pale to not appreciate and respect his ability to clearly articulate and defend his positions.

One especially interesting part of ADC is getting to dive into the world of the philosophy of law, which might sound agonizingly boring to some, but if you're already reading a book about philosophical analysis of Christian doctrines, it's too late for you, sorry - you're already a nerd and you deserve to be forced to read about philosophy of law. It was just very intriguing to learn about the ins and outs of different legal terms and how these things relate (or are disanalogous sometimes) to divine justice motifs. Interesting and obscure case law is brought up that I would likely never hear about otherwise; however, now I'm aware of, for instance, of a case wherein ships were legally considered to be people in order for justice to adequately be served in one instance. Incredible (and I'm only being a tiny bit sarcastic, honestly. It really was cool to read about, although it sounds pretty lame to repeat to others now...).

I won't keep any secret about Dr. Craig's personal view and final analysis of the subject at hand, and I'll reveal that, indeed, penal substitution is the 'main facet' of any adequate theory of the atonement of Christ, according to the author. Craig does an incredible job of laying this all out and I would be very interested in seeing how detractors would respond to some of these seemingly airtight arguments and defenses of Craig's view.
Unashamedly, I also find myself attracted to this theory of the atonement - Craig is a convincing dude.

Although I have to admit I have read not much on this topic, and that Dr. Craig's name and reputation are major factors in reading this book, I still think this is about as near to a perfect book on this subject as you could hope for, regardless of where you fall in your personal views on the matter. Only one or two parts were less-than-adequately explained or defended as well as they might have been, but a couple of disappointments in a book this dense and 273 pages long can easily be forgiven and overlooked.

As I mentioned at the beginning, Dr. Craig has said that ADC is the most important work he's yet published. He says this because the atonement of Christ is literally the central facet of the Christian faith. Understanding this aspect of our belief system and being able to articulate and defend such a belief is a crucial part of every person who claims to follow Jesus Christ - we should be taking this seriously, and we now have access to a terrific defense of a great model that offers an incisive explanation of this intricate, yet central, doctrine.

Craig has earned every star I've ever given him, and ADC gets five big ones out of five.

[Jeroen Pelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautiful resource on the atonement of Jesus Christ. Craig starts his defense of his penal substitution theory of the atonement by exploring the biblical data. Craig could have extended this section by describing Gods wrath in the Bible, and thereby propitiation, a bit more in depth. After a church history section, the major part of this work starts, the philosophical part. Craig uses philosophy of law to defend penal substitution in a convincing way.

In the end, he concludes with his main findings. Christ's atonement was a penal substitutionary atonement, whereby He met the demands of Gods righteousness by paying the price of His life. In faith we can respond to the legal pardon that God grants us, namely that He accepts Jesus' sacrifice so that we can be free of sin and guilt. Furthermore, Craig extends his theory with the moral influence of such a substitutionary atonement. However, he does not really conclude anything about Christus Victor theories, other than that the power of Christ's enemies has been broken since we are in Christ. It would have been an even better book if he would have elaborated a bit more on that.

[Sawyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a well-researched book by WLC that succeeds in demonstrating and substantiating an essential quality of the atonement: penal substitution.

Although Craig champions the substitutionary nature of Christ’s atonement whereby he takes upon Himself the penal consequences of sin, Craig does not do so at the expense of other scriptural motifs. He affirms the moral influence of Christ’s cross-bearing and the victory Christ secures over Satan. However, he successfully argues that the Christus Victor model and Moral-Influence model (along with its Governmental iteration) are insufficient on their own to make sense of the cross and our subsequent redemption.

Craig also masterfully sifts through a variety of court cases to demonstrate how there are countless instances of judicial precedent where an innocent party bears the penal consequences of another’s guilt.

Far from unjust, penal substitution exemplifies God’s justice and His mercy. God takes the punishment upon Himself. As Craig so wonderfully retorts, “Who is to gainsay God?”

I highly recommend this book.

[African Reader · Rating 5 out of 5]

Masterful!

As an aspiring lawyer, I particularly enjoyed exploring all the analogies between our justification and various ideas in the legal field. If you, like me, are a theological layman, do not allow that to be a reason for you to avoid this book. While the subject matter is incredibly dense, Dr Craig makes it digestible. Sure, some stuff, maybe a lot of stuff, will go over your head. Even so, I am certain you will find this work valuable in many respects.

Reading this significantly increased the respect I have for the author, despite me already putting him on a theological pedestal. In these pages, he presents the best theological and philosophical objections to penal substitutionary atonement, steelmans them as far as possible, and obliterates them. To say I am impressed would be an understatement.

[Will Standridge, II · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was not terribly hopeful about this book, as WLC’s view of the Trinity is at best heterodox. I’ve often found myself at odds with him on other issues as well. That said, this book is an absolute masterpiece.

His first two sections give a good biblical overview of Penal Substitutionary Atonement and a serviceable historical overview.

His third section is worth the price of the book and more. WLC takes on common (and uncommon) philosophical objections to PSA and provides the best defense of PSA’s coherence and justness I have ever read.

This book is easily in the class with Stott’s “Cross of Christ” and Rutledge’s “Crucifixion.”

Any Christian scholar (or educated layperson) will do themselves a great service by reading this book.

[Stuart Fear · Rating 5 out of 5]

A deep dive into the theory of Atonement and Penal Substitution. This is complete and thorough look at the topic with arguments for and against both being discussed throughout the pages. Dr.Craig goes into great lengths to dissect all previous study and theories. He looks through thousands of years of Church doctrine and thought to show his bulletproof case for the atonement.
Still one of the most complete studies of the atonement.

This is not a book to be taken lightly, this isn't a simple before bed style of read. Without any previous knowledge on the subject or on early church doctrine it can be difficult in parts and you mind find yourself re-reading paragraphs and entire chapters.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the best contemporary defense of penal substitution that I have read. Craig would do well to improve this book by studying the theories of more post-Reformation theologians who promulgate particular atonement. But the small complaints I have about his explanation of universal atonement is not enough to make me put down the book! It contains some of the best argumentation I've seen in regards to both early Church theories of the atonement, as well as judicial argumentation about the grounds for penal substitution.

[Michael Brooks · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best work on the atonement that I have ever read. A great work in all regards but most importsntly--his defense of biblical atonement from a philosophical standpoint. It cannot be overstated how important it is to know that this most important part of our Christian faith is rational, coherent, and just.

[Chad Harris · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was impressive. Craig writes in such a way that I have to read and re-read to understand what he is saying, but his research and respect of the church fathers and reformers on the work of atonement is extensive. I appreciate that he beings with the scriptures and then moves to his field of expertise, philsophy.

[Connor Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bought this mainly for the philosophical discourse and I wasn't disappointed. Learnt a good number of new things, particularly in relation to legal philosophy, theories surrounding our justice system and how they help inform our understanding of the Atonement as helpful analogies. A masterclass apologia of PSA.

[Stuart Houghton · Rating 4 out of 5]

William Lane Craig competently argues for a forensic doctrine of Christ's Atonement. He successfully defends Penal Substitution on Biblical, Historical and Philosophical grounds. I only wish he had done more on the Christus Victor view; that would have made this book 5 stars for me.

[Matthew Potts]

An excellent defense of penal substitutionary atonement (though Craig would not limit the atonement to that facet only). Also there is a very interesting exploration of the philosophical merits of the issue, which I found very helpful.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an important and unique work on the atonement. I will be rereading it.

[Curby Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely stellar work demonstrating that penal substitution is the key facet (though not the only one) of Christ's atoning work. Must have for anyone interested in this topic.

[Brian Park · Rating 5 out of 5]

A robust biblical and philosophical defense of penal substitution. The survey of civil and criminal law cases to show that penal substitution is not foreign to us was especially appreciated.

[Derek Kreider · Rating 4 out of 5]

I disagreed with a good amount in this book, which you can see from all the red highlights in my kindle notes, but I think it’s worthy of 5 stars for a number of reasons.

1. It’s very comprehensive and covers a whole lot of ground and angles.

2. There are a lot of real world analogies (though this is also a fault, since there are huge assumptions present about an example being analogous in a 1:1 way).

3. Craig rightly acknowledges the multifaceted nature of the atonement and praises random theory and moral influence as necessary aspects. I so often hear psa people arrogantly and blindly assert that this encompasses all the atonement, and that just clearly isn’t the case.

My two big complaints from Craig are that he misrepresents reformed doctrine and he doesn’t answer some big questions adequately.

I think he misrepresents reformed thinking at several places. The biggest one is in regard to limited atonement. While I don’t like LA, Craig completely avoids the problem LA seeks to solve, which is John Owns’s double punishment argument. It’s mind boggling that he misses this right in the middle of talking about Justice! He argues that God is just for requiring all that he’s owed as payment, and that he’s actually unjust if he doesn’t get all he’s owed. But logic follows that God is also unjust if he takes more than he’s owed.

So when Craig immediately goes into how Jesus paid an infinite price for all people, that is hugely unjust! So God was paid for the sins of unbelievers, yet he punished them anyway? Forget Craig’s pardon example here because this isn’t just a semantic pardon or legal fiction, Jesus actually served the time, so to speak. Someone may be able to refuse a pardon, but if their debt is paid they can’t be held in prison any longer. They’re released even if they want to remain. I thought Craig really dropped the ball in regards to Justice here.

So if Justice is a big deal, Jesus only paid for some (LA), or he paid for all and universalism is true.

[Jaden A · Rating 4 out of 5]

Craig’s book is divided into three parts:

I: Biblical Data Concerning the Atonement
II: Dogmatic History of the Doctrine of the Atonement
III: Philosophical Reflections on the Doctrine of the Atonement

Whereas one might gather information pertinent to sections I and II from a different source, they would miss Craig’s frequent insights that remain unavailable elsewhere.

Section III is the section of the book that stands out from other works on the atonement, because other books do not dedicate sufficient time to philosophical objections. Craig is the foremost defender of penal substitution among contemporary philosophers, and people should avail themselves to this work of Craig's, perhaps despite some of his other quirky theological views.

Not only does Craig refute theological arguments against penal substitution, but he also labors to show that contrary to the opinions of some, there are actual components analogous to penal substitution that we simply take for granted—legal fictions and vicarious liability in particular.

Overall, this is a must read for those interested in analytical theology. Additionally, for the “spark notes” of this book, a person can watch, listen to, or read 'Doctrine of Christ (Part 8): The Work of Christ (1) – Christ’s Death and Atonement' through 'Doctrine of Christ (Part 24): The Work of Christ (17) – Atonement, Redemption' from Craig’s Defenders Podcast: Series 3.

[Jacob Wigley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This pushed my brain to full stretch: please be clear that this is not an introductory book! The exegetical work and the dogmatic history were very helpful and concise, but of course it is in the philosophical discussions that Craig comes into his own. As far as I can tell, any scholarship seeking to refute penal substitutionary atonement will have to engage with this book. It is the most robust and sophisticated defensive of the doctrine I have found, and pays genuine attention to all the misconceptions and nuances surrounding the conversation.