Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done” (Matt. 26:42, NIV) suggests that redemption could only come through the crucifixion. However, in the Summa Theologiae (ST III.46.2), Thomas Aquinas argues that redemption was possible without the crucifixion for two reasons: 1) since God is omnipotent, one cannot say there are no other ways he could have redeemed and 2) since sin is ultimately a personal offense against God, he can justly forgive without requiring satisfaction for sin. However, in On the Incarnation, Athanasius provides an argument for the incarnation that may reveal a gap in Aquinas’s argument. Athanasius locates the impossibility of redemption without the incarnation in humanity’s ontological corruption rather than moral culpability. Since humanity’s corruption runs deeper than its moral culpability, neither humanity’s repentance (On the Incarnation 7) nor God’s fiat (On the Incarnation 44) can heal humanity – an ontological corruption (death) requires an ontological correction (incarnation). Therefore, while Athanasius would agree with Aquinas regarding God’s omnipotence and the requirements of divine justice, he sees a deeper problem in humanity that renders redemption impossible without the incarnation. In this paper, I apply Athanasius’s reasoning to the crucifixion and argue: 1) with Aquinas, that God is omnipotent, and that satisfaction is not necessary for redemption, but 2) against Aquinas and with Athanasius, that redemption is not possible without the crucifixion.