William Lane Craig's Atonement and the Death of Christ is a vigorous defense of a penal substitutionary view of the atonement, grounded in arguments that draw from biblical, historical, and philosophical sources. Craig develops a theory of the atonement designed to explain how Jesus Christ's death removed the sin that separated us from God and enabled our reconciliation with God. Although he provides important biblical, historical, and philosophical grounds for a penal substitutionary view, Craig could strengthen his argument by engaging more of the recent flurry of interest in atonement theology.

In Part I of the book, Craig highlights biblical passages that show how various forms of sacrifice in ancient Israel underlie New Testament views of Jesus’ death on the cross. Craig argues that the sins of humanity were ‘legally imputed’ or transferred to Christ, who suffered their just punishment. Christ bore the curse of those sins and suffered the righteous wrath of God against sin. Through Christ's death, those who deserved God's punishment were pardoned of their sins and credited with the righteousness of Christ. Craig considers this understanding of Christ's death—Christ as our substitute suffering the penalty we deserved so that we can receive the benefits of his righteousness—to be the core of a penal substitutionary view.

In Part II, focusing on historical sources, Craig considers several theologians from the early church, the mediaeval, Reformation and post-Reformation periods. He argues that although theologians in the early church held to a Christus Victor model, whereby Christ's death is seen as a victory over sin, death, and the powers of evil, they also saw Christ's death as ‘a sacrificial offering to God for human sins’ (pp. 110–11). The Christus Victor model alone, argues Craig, would not show how Christ's victory ‘achieves forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God’ (p. 111).

Craig's analysis of mediaeval theories of the atonement is relatively brief, with attention to Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas. Craig notes that, for Anselm, forgiveness and salvation are not possible without divine justice being satisfied, whereas, for Abelard and Aquinas, they are.

After a brief nod to Martin Luther and John Calvin (with superficial observations that they favor penal substitutionary views of atonement), Craig offers rather thorough analyses of the thought of Faustus Socinus, Francis Turretin, and Hugo Grotius. These figures are often mentioned in discussions of the atonement, but not often analysed at the depth found in Craig's presentation. Craig argues that both Grotius and Turretin provide effective responses to Socinus's sharp criticisms of penal substitutionary theories. But Craig's historical study stops short of investigating what he calls ‘the bewildering variety of atonement theories characteristic of modernity’ (p. 144).

In Part III, Craig addresses several philosophical questions related to penal substitution, which he sees as essential to atonement theology. Much of Craig's argument is a response to Eleonore Stump's recent work, Atonement (OUP, 2018). After defending penal substitution from the charge of being incoherent or incompatible with God's love, Craig argues that God's act of punishing Christ in our place was not unjust. Because Christ's being our substitute is a key element in penal substitutionary theories, Craig canvasses legal and philosophical accounts of one person standing as both a substitute and a representative for another. Noting that atonement also involves God's pardon of sinners, Craig offers extensive analysis of various understandings of pardon in the law. In the end, he ties together both Christus Victor and penal substitution: ‘Our liberation from sin and death and hell and our victory over Satan, so emphasized by the Christus Victor theory, is achieved via a divine pardon procured as a result of Christ's atoning death, which satisfied the demands of divine justice, so that we might go free’ (p. 235). Craig introduces an Abelardian motif by noting that the powerful display of God's love toward us in the death of Christ moves us to respond to God in faith.

Overall, this book has a number of helpful features. It rightly recognises that both Scripture and the early church offer a variety of images and metaphors to describe the atoning work of Jesus Christ. It brings the thought of Socinus, Grotius, and Turretin into contemporary reflection on the atonement. It engages in thoughtful analysis of various philosophical issues at the heart of atonement theology. And it introduces legal theory into what, in Craig's view, is essentially a legal transaction on behalf of sinners. Perhaps most importantly, Craig offers a clear statement of penal substitutionary atonement, which he summarises as follows:

Among its shortcomings, this book fails to engage what Craig calls the ‘bewildering variety’ of modern and contemporary theories of the atonement. Modern and contemporary criticisms and alternative interpretations of penal substitutionary theory lurk in the background, but without receiving careful analysis and response. In addition, although Craig holds that penal substitution includes the notion of ‘propitiation, that is to say, the appeasement of God's just wrath against sin’ (p. 195), he does not provide an extensive analysis of what God's wrath really is or what it means that Christ appeases it. And finally, Craig often engages more in debate with other scholars than in explanations that help orient his readers. As a result, this book is more useful for those who have already entered into the issues than for students who need to be introduced to atonement theology. Nevertheless, Craig's book deserves the attention of both adherents and detractors of penal substitutionary atonement theology.