The First Letter to a Friend Who is Questioning The Reality of Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Well, here are some initial thoughts about penal substitution. It was good for me to go back and re-think this doctrine, and these thoughts are just a sketch of what I have been reading. As I mentioned when we got together, I am not at all against re-thinking and looking even at doctrines that have been considered central to the Christian faith, because what is essential I believe can bear the test of scrutiny. The Scriptures are the ultimate arbiter, as we would both agree, so I will spare you the “the church has believed this for centuries” approach. While not unimportant, and to be taken seriously, this is simply not determinative.
The first thing I would say by way of preface, is that I do believe “the message of the cross” has taken on a way more central part of the gospel than the Scriptures themselves bear witness to. It is clear that the main point of Christ’s ministry was the raising up of new creatures to bear His image in the world, and the cross was a crucial means to that end; the cross was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of God’s saving work. We were never meant to just “sit at the foot of the cross” and contemplate our sins and Christ’s mercy, as Luther would seem to have it. It is striking that the presentation of the gospel in the book of Acts never, to my knowledge, involves a detailed discussion of how Jesus paid for our sins by the washing of His blood (though that would be fleshed out in later reflections such as Hebrews.) Plus in at least three notable places when the gospel is summarized, it is resurrection and new life that is the undeniable focus and emphasis. (Such as Romans 1:1-4 [where the cross isn’t even mentioned]; or 1 Peter 2:24; or 2 Timothy 2:8; Rom.8:3,4) Even Paul’s extended discussion in 1 Cor.15 he describes Christ dying for sins as of “first importance,” and he then goes on for the rest of the chapter expounding resurrection. So clearly, the cross is essential if not the end-all and be-all of gospel teaching. As a preacher, I can’t resist an illustration (forgive me!): a hole in the ground in which the foundation is placed is essential for a house, but the point of the hole is the safe and comfortable shelter above. So I am, at least, sympathetic to a critique of contemporary evangelical “gospel teaching” when the Scriptures serve as a guide to something more faithful.
I will cut to the chase, and after reviewing the three texts that follow, I still at this point see the scripture teaching that Jesus’ paid the penalty of our sins in our place. I just wanted to get that up front. BUT, at the same time I really want to hear your response to my understanding of these texts. So I somewhat casually ran into 3 main texts that I would like to get your thoughts on. Basically I sat down and thought, “Hmmm, now, where is penal substitution explicitly taught in the scriptures?” Of course, you and I would agree we don’t need to see the words “penal substitution" in the Bible for it to be taught there. Just the clear meaning of the text being that Jesus took the punishment (penal) for our sins (substitute).
The first text is Galatians 3:10-14. Here Paul writes that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” Here Paul describes Jesus as “becoming a curse for us.” Which is a good rendering of the Greek, as far as I can tell. Penal seems to be evident in that Jesus “became a curse.” What does that mean? Using Paul’s quotation in Deuteronomy 21:23, where the subject of capital punishment is described, “Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse.” (NIV) and “cursed by God” is the ESV. So put this together and it would seem that Paul is teaching that Jesus’ redeeming death was a bearing of God’s curse in our place. Again, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse (penal) for us…” (substitute). Summary: He suffered the capital punishment (Dt.21:23) that God renders on behalf of the guilty. (For the wages of sin is death)This redeems us or sets us free from the guilt and punishment our capital offense of sinful rebellion deserves.
This seems to be prophesied by Isaiah 53, “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted”(v.4).
The second passage is Romans 3:21-26, with a focus on 23-26. This is an amazing passage for sure; loaded with significance. I definitely favor the translation, “This righteousness of God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe (v.22).” This is controversial, but grammatically accurate as is the traditional translation, “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” The second reinforces the imputation view, and so favored by reformed teachers. It struggles though in its redundancy; repeating twice that “righteousness” comes to those “through faith” and “to all who believe.” This is possible but is also very awkward. Rather, Jesus as an expression of God’s faithfulness (righteousness) to keep His promise to redeem Jew and Gentile (God’s promise to bless the nations through Abraham) that is provided to Jew and Gentiles who believe fits very well with Paul’s thought in Romans 3 and 4. This also is congruent to Paul’s statement in Romans 1:17, “For in the gospel a righteousness of God is revealed, a righteousness from faith to faith…” So here Paul is linking Jesus to God’s promise to bless through Abraham, then moves on to pull Gentile and Jew into this blessing. “There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”(v.23). All share the common problem, Jew as well as Gentile. “...and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus”(v.24). Paul now pulls in the exodus language of “redemption” which he continues to allude to in what follows. But before that, the temple sacrifice is also incorporated, “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood.” Jesus’ death, then, is a fulfilled temple sacrifice. “He did this to demonstrate his righteousness (justice), because in his forbearance he left the sins committed beforehand unpunished, he did this to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time”(v.25 NIV). The ESV reads, “because in his divine forbearance he passed over the former sins” which appears to be the more literal. The ESV captures the allusion to the exodus and passover. God passed over the Israelites to punish Egypt and “redeem” Israel from evil. It is hard not to see the Egyptian plagues as a punishment for their tyrannical and evil lordship. The firstborn were executed for the sins of Pharoah and the Egyptian rulers. The analogy is profound if not exact. God has “passed over” the sins of the all, even the faithful Jew, because animal sacrifices were insufficient, and Jesus as the firstborn and passover lamb has taken on the punishment due to all. In this Jesus “redeems” by becoming the victim; by being punished. It is interesting that the NIV translates the passage; “he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.” While this is for sure an interpretive translation; this seems like an accurate interpretation. If God did not “pass over” sins in the sense of not punishing them, then it begs the question, in what sense were they passed over? It seems to make the most contextual sense, when considering the exodus and temple sacrifice as the backdrop, that, while God really forgave the repentant and faithful Jew, his sins weren’t actually atoned for/punished until Jesus’ sacrifice of atonement. God has passed over sins in the punishment of Jesus (a penal substitute).
This appears to be prophesied by Isaiah, “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him…”(Isaiah 53:5).
This is a very dense and complicated passage, so I am looking forward to hearing you on this for sure. This will at least be a start.
The third passage and maybe the most compelling of the three is found in Romans 8:1-4. “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…For what the law was powerless to do…God did by sending his own son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man…”(NIV). Here Paul describes our freedom from condemnation, in part, to be the result of Jesus experiencing God’s condemnation of sinful man; even though He was not a sinner. Jesus came in the “likeness” of sinful man and the cross is a striking and graphic punishment of “the condemned.” On Jesus “he condemned sin in sinful man” which is one reason (also we now do the “righteous requirements of the law”) “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” So here we have Jesus suffering the penalty (condemnation for sin) as a substitute “in the likeness of sinful man.” I would be very interested to hear how this could be understood differently.
Once again, this appears to be prophesied in Isaiah 53:10, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.”
Interestingly, Romans 8:1-4 seems to be a re-statement of Isaiah 53:10,11. “And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature(flesh) but according to the Spirit.”
After looking at these passages it occurred to me that the idea of “sacrifice” is also used as a term of judgment and punishment against God’s enemies. This is initially used in Deuteronomy as the Lord commands the annihilation of an idolatrous Israelite town. Deuteronomy 13:12-16; “If you hear it is said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’....And of it is true…you must certainly put the sword to all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God.’” The destruction of the unfaithful town is called a “whole burnt offering to the Lord your God.” This idea of sacrificial vengeance occurs in the prophets as they look forward to “the day of the Lord” as follows:
Isaiah 34:1-7; “For the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah and a great slaughter in Edom…”
Jer. 46:8-12; “The sword will devour till it is satisfied, till it has quenched its thirst for blood. For the Lord, the Lord almighty will offer sacrifice in the land of the north by the river Euphrates…”
Ezekiel 39:17-20, “Assemble and come together from all around to the sacrifice I am preparing for you…There you will eat flesh and drink blood…”
Zephaniah 1:4-9; “The Lord has prepared a sacrifice, he has consecrated those he has invited. On the day of the Lord’s sacrifice I will punish the princes, and the king’s sons…On that day I will punish…”
And the final, Day of the Lord judgment, is one of fire in which everything is burned up. “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up” (2 Peter 3:10). This brings to mind the sin and guilt offering, which was to be to be burned up completely with nothing left. The fat would be burned on the altar of burnt offering with organs, the rest of the bull would be taken outside the camp to be burned.(Lev. 4:1-12)
When taken together, it would appear that sacrifice is essentially an instrument of judgment and of wrath. Destruction and blood and fire is crucial for the sin offering. Likewise, in the end, sinners will be “cut down,” their blood will be spilled and then they will be burned. As the guilty person lays his hand on the bull before killing it, it is appropriate because it is for the sin of the person that the bull must die. For the guilty, the sacrifice is a merciful provision that enables the one offering the sacrifice to escape the great sacrifice and fire on the day of the Lord.
Coming back to Jesus, it is interesting (at least!) that the phenomena that happens at the time of crucifixion, are the phenomena that occurs in God’s judgment in the Old Testament judgment event over Egypt and prophesied in Revelation(Ex.10/Rev.6). “From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land”(Mt.27:45). This is when Jesus cries the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Of course, this is quoting Psalm 22. In that Psalm the subject never considers God to be his enemy, but it is a cry of innocence at being “forsaken” into the hands of evil men. It is in the end God’s doing, or the cry makes no sense. Interestingly, the plague of darkness is right before the killing of the firstborn in Exodus 10,11; with Jesus we have 3 hours of darkness before The Firstborn “gave up his spirit”(Mt.27:50). Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not! After darkness comes the earthquake(Ex.19/Rev.11). “The earth shook and the rocks split”(Mt.27:51). So darkness and earthquakes are emblematic of God’s wrath and judgment. With darkness and the earthquake Jesus’ sacrifice is consistent with “sacrifice” as a place of God’s judgment and covenant vengeance.
In writing the letter, refreshed to me from the Scriptures was this idea of “sacrifice” as God’s “vengeance.” I would encourage you to read the Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Zephaniah passages in full that I took excerpts from above. It is hard to nor hear Revelation 19:11-21; where the Rider on the white horse who “with justice, he judges and makes war” and “treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.”
So it would seem to me, that on the cross, an instrument of capital punishment and torture, Jesus was cursed by God, condemned, and took the punishment we are guilty of committing. God is “passing over” us and striking down the “firstborn” so that we can go free. To this point this seems like the most reasonable reading of Scripture. But I do look forward to your response, and am open to critique, or another way of thinking of these texts. I know this is a lot, so feel free to interact with as much or as little as you are able.