#1006 Annihilationism and Penal Substitutionary Atonement Once More
August 24, 2026Dear Dr. Craig,
Thank you for your thoughtful response regarding annihilationism (Question of the Week #999). I found your argument internally consistent and helpful.
However, I wondered if one part of the original question deserved a more direct response. The writer stated:
“That substitutionary atonement took place through Jesus’ momentary separation from the Father on the cross.”
It seems to me that this raises a profound Trinitarian question. If Christ is the eternal Son and the Trinity is indivisible, in what sense, if any, can we speak of a “momentary separation from the Father”?
Your reply argues persuasively that Christ could not have been annihilated because He is the eternal Son, but I was hoping you might also address the question of what, if anything, that “momentary separation” means within orthodox Trinitarian theology.
Thank you for your ministry and for your willingness to engage difficult theological questions.
Sincerely,
Robert
United States
Dr. craig’s response
A
The short answer to your question, Robert, is that the separation experienced by Christ at the cross was not an ontological separation, but rather a mental or relational separation. The great Reformed theologian Francis Turretin explained that Christ not only suffered a violent and bitter death but, more importantly, was forsaken by God the Father by his withdrawing from Christ the beatific vision and by suspending the joy and comfort and sense and fruition of full felicity. This can be conceived as transpiring in the human consciousness of Christ.
According to a penal substitutionary view of the atonement, Christ bore vicariously the suffering that we deserved as the punishment for our sins, thereby freeing us from our liability to punishment and affording us the possibility of a divine pardon. If Christ did not bear the suffering that was our just desert, then the demands of God’s essential justice go unsatisfied and our salvation becomes impossible.
Now this puts the annihilationist in a very awkward position. For if our just desert implies annihilation, then it is very difficult to see how Christ can have borne the punishment we deserved. For one must hold that in bearing the punishment for our sins Christ was annihilated. Otherwise, the damned who are annihilated in hell are treated unjustly, punished far beyond what they deserve. But it seems absurd that the person of Christ could be annihilated.
The annihilationist could reply by appealing to some form of so-called reduplicative predication. Just as the orthodox hold that Christ died according to his human nature but not according to his divine nature, so also the annihilationist could hold that Christ was annihilated according to his human nature but not according to his divine nature. That entails that Christ’s concrete human nature was annihilated at his death. But that entails that following his crucifixion, Jesus no longer had a human nature. He had reverted to the state in which the Logos had not yet assumed a human nature but possessed only his divine nature. In that case, not only is the incarnation a merely transitory phase in the life of the Logos, but his resurrection amounts to reincarnation, a conclusion that is as extraordinary as it is unbiblical!
It seems, therefore, that the annihilationist must reject any atonement doctrine that includes penal substitution as a facet. This is enormously significant theologically because it affects the very heart of Christ’s atoning work for the sake of our salvation. The denial of Christ’s penal substitution not only is difficult to square with the biblical data but also will require the annihilationist to advance an adequate atonement theory from which this facet is missing, the prospects for success of which are dim, indeed.
- William Lane Craig