I have argued elsewhere that the Church Fathers’ understanding of the atonement was rooted in a model
of restorative justice, rather than retributive justice.1 Recently, Garry Williams has written a rebuttal of
my article, entitled ‘Penal Substitution and the Church Fathers’ that argues the opposite point.2 While
both of our respective articles are focused on the patristic views of the atonement, there is a larger issue
at stake which touches on the very core of our faith:
At stake here is not simply what the early church believed, but how we are to understand God’s
justice, what the cross means, and how we are to be ambassadors of the crucified one. Is God’s justice
ultimately retributive or restorative? Does the cross model God’s demand for retribution and violence,
or does it model God’s act of nonviolent restorative justice? Our answers to these questions—whether
we see divine justice as retributive or restorative—will naturally have profound ethical consequences,
because the model of justice that we see in God will necessarily shape how we apply ‘justice’ in our
world as well. Will we advocate for punitive violence in the name God? Or will we see the way of
Christ calling us to towards a restorative model of justice?
Click here to read the rest of this article