Introduction

When is the last time you went out of your way to do something kind for someone? Maybe you washed your spouse’s car, or bought a friend lunch, or simply held the door open for someone. Remember that time? Now imagine that someone forced you to do that action. Would it maintain that beautiful nature of true kindness? Or would it divulge into plain obedience? That is a part of the question of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Understanding the nature of his sacrifice, and the nature of God’s intention for that sacrifice has massive implications for the life of Christians. 

In recent years, the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) has come under renewed skepticism and confusion in academic, pastoral and popular theological contexts. This debate goes beyond the walls of academia; but trickles down into our churches, homes, and hearts to shape our sense and view of God’s ultimate character and nature. The Biblical doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is necessary for understanding the character of God’s justice, the effective salvation of man, and as various theologians have put it, “the heart of the gospel.”[1]

Several theological voices have argued against PSA or simply disregarded it in favor of views that emphasize Christ’s death as a moral example and act of love; therefore, diminishing the understanding of a wrath of God and ultimately, His justice. There are views that the penal nature of PSA is cruel or somehow impersonal while others can be uncomfortable with the divine wrath or substitutionary punishment involved with PSA. James Alison, for example, argues that the idea of penal substitution simply states that God desires vengeance and blood-shed to be satisfied, mentioning God needs “some blood to be shed in order to assuage his either real or potential wrath against humanity.”[2] Alison’s view paints the picture of a bloodthirsty, angry God at opposition with the Son.

PSA matters because it gives Christians a fuller understanding of the nature of a just and loving God. Under the light of the Old Testament, the transaction of substitution enlightens our New Testament understanding of Jesus’s death on Calvary. Furthermore, it provides us with greater assurance and security in the righteousness that was purchased for us by our Savior.

This paper will engage critically with James Alison, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Rowan Williams, and other Catholic and Anglican theologians who emphasize love and morality as the core themes in the sacrifice at the cross. We will argue from the reformed point of view that penal substitution atonement is crucial for preserving the nature of atonement and divine justice. Without this biblically rooted doctrine, but we lose the full understanding of God’s justice, the full purpose of Christ’s death, and the gospel’s power to secure the sinner’s favor and reconciliation.

Overview of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution

            The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement dictates that Jesus Christ bore the penalty for human sin at Calvary, and that his substitution satisfied the wrath of God’s divine judgement. All of mankind is fallen in sin[3] and therefore we, each deserve death[4]. This penalty of death is the retribution that needed to be made as a result of sin, and God, being immutable, just, and truth itself, must have divine justice accomplished. A penalty for this transgression had to be paid and, since even our best efforts are tainted with sin,[5] someone else must satisfy God’s divine wrath and justice for us. Out of his love, God provided his own son, a willing sacrifice, as this substitute through his death on the cross. Therefore, Christ’s people are delivered from God’s righteous wrath and judgement for all time.

            The sacrifice of Jesus Christ not only saved people from their sins, but propitiated[6] them. The RSV and NEB versions of the Bible do not include the word, propitiated, in the 1 John chapter 2 text, but instead include the word expiation. That word expiation denotes the covering up, putting away, or rubbing out of sin so that it is no longer a barrier between man and God. The use of the word propitiation, however, has a different meaning since it includes the characteristics of the word expiation, while also meaning to pacify the wrath of God.[7] Thus, the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ abolished God’s anger against us and ensured that this treatment of us forever after would be propitious and favorable.[8]

Biblical Foundation

            The framework for discussing any doctrine must be done so according to the scriptural basis. We will endeavor to survey parts of the Old and New Testament for understanding what PSA is, and how it is deeply rooted in scripture through the book of Leviticus and the priesthood. Next, we will turn to the book of Isaiah for the foreshadowing of Christ’s death and what the prophet said his life and death would be like. Finally, we will look into the book of Romans for understanding Paul’s view of the atonement before finishing with a few verses describing Christ’s own understanding of his death.

The sacrificial system of the Old Testament lays the theological groundwork for understanding the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, particularly in the book of Leviticus. The framework of punishment for sin and the ensuing retribution to be made through blood sacrifices is prevalent throughout the book. A sinner is called to lay hands on their sacrifice which symbolizes a transfer of guilt.[9] Apart from the shedding of blood through sacrifice, there can be no forgiveness of sins.[10] These blood sacrifices show that death is the penalty for sin, but God is willing to accept a substitute in the stead of the sinner.[11] As Kevin DeYoung points out, these sacrifices were not merely pedagogical tools; but the real answer to dealing with sin.[12] Leviticus chapter sixteen demonstrates that making atonement is directly connected with turning away the wrath of God. This chapter involves the use of animals as atoning sacrifices for the nation of Israel in which priests would lay their hands on the head of a sacrificial goat as if to acknowledge the transfer of the punishment for sin on to the creature. This Old Testament ritual provides the backdrop for what took place on Calvary. The day of atonement (Yom Kippur) was the yearly ritual in which the Levitical priest would make atonement for himself and the entire nation through the sacrificial system using two goats. There was a sacrificial goat which was killed, and his blood would be sprinkled on the mercy seat.[13] The other goat, the scapegoat, symbolically bears the sins of Israel and is left to go out into the wilderness.[14] Both of these goats point to Jesus, who is slain to satisfy God’s divine justice once and for all mankind, and who bears away all our sins.

The prophetic Old Testament book of Isaiah describes a one suffering servant that is depicted as an instrument for bringing salvation to sinners. This servant is to faithfully bring justice to the nations[15] and to submit to suffering.[16] Clearly indicating a transmission of guilt, this suffering servant is “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities.”[17] These transgressions are ours, but the punishment for them is born by another. The punishment that is prescribed and transmitted is one of chastisement and wounds, the consequence for sin.[18] Isaiah teaches that “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all,” exclaiming that the guilt for which we are due has been laid on the servant, a guilt which has been placed by God.[19] This work is evidently done by the will of God to make this guilt offering on behalf of those who deserve the just punishment for sin.[20] The word here in Hebrew (asham) is the same that is used in the Levitical guilt offering.[21] By this sacrifice, the divine wrath of God is indeed satisfied and by this many are accounted as righteous, and the servant personally bears their sins. [22]

Paul’s letter to the Romans is perhaps the New Testament book that most thoroughly articulates the gospel, including the mechanisms of salvation. Paul states that all of mankind is fallen in sin[23] and that something must satisfy God’s wrath.[24] God clearly and justly put forward his Son as the propitiation, to be received in faith[25] which points to Christ bearing wrath in our place. The result of this payment for sin is we get to enjoy peace with God.[26] We have been justified, in the judicial sense, and the guilt due to us from our sin has been pardoned because it has been atoned for in Christ.[27] Paul goes further to proclaim the good news that this satisfaction is full and complete for all of time, for there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ.[28]

Jesus Christ died on the cross to save man, but what was his view on the matter? We know that Jesus descended to earth in order to serve others, rather than to serve himself.[29] At the last supper, Jesus states that the blood which he will spill is going to be poured out for the forgiveness of many, indicating that he knew what his sacrifice would mean.[30] Now that we have established the biblical foundation for PSA, we will turn to a few of the reformed theologians and texts that have added to the conversation regarding this doctrine.

Historical Roots in Reformed Tradition

            The Reformers saw Christ’s substitution as the undergoing of vicarious punishment to meet the claims on us of God’s holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice).[31] The early reformer John Calvin taught the idea of penal substitutionary atonement. “The guilt that held us liable for punishment has been transferred to the head of the Son of God. We must, above all, remember this substitution, lest we tremble and remain anxious throughout life — as if God’s righteous vengeance, which the Son of God has taken upon himself, still hung over us.”[32] Calvin notes also that Jesus paid for what he did not steal[33] and that Christ was burdened with another’s sin rather than his own sin.[34] Calvin claims also that the guilt which had previously held us liable for punishment has been transferred to Christ.[35]

            In the Westminster Confession of Faith, Christ’s substitutionary atonement is central to the gospel for the purchase of righteousness and enduring life. In Chapter 8 of the Westminster Confession, we read that “The Lord Jesus…fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven.”[36] The Confession also says in Chapter 11 that “Christ… did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf.”[37] Clearly, the historical view in the reformed faith is one of atonement for people through the sacrifice of the Son and the satisfaction of the Father.

            The Reformed Anglican theologian J.I. Packer also held a strong belief in the penal substitutionary atonement and believed it essential to the gospel. In fact, he says that “The gospel is not properly understood until it is seen as a proclamation of God’s work of delivering sinners from guilt and wrath through the penal substitution of Jesus Christ.”[38] Packer argues that the penalty for sin was born by Christ on the cross in place of sinners, and that it satisfied both the love, and the justice of God.[39] In his work “What Did the Cross Achieve?,” Packer goes so far as to say the “The doctrine of penal substitution is the gospel.”[40] Clearly, there is a deep tradition of PSA in the Reformed world, but that is not the case everywhere. Now, we will turn to look at other views of PSA and how some disagree with various aspects of the doctrine.

Catholic and Anglican Influence

            Many theologians involved with Catholic and Anglican denominations do not disregard the redemption that was accomplished through Christ’s work on the cross. They affirm that Jesus Christ redeemed humanity and offered a type of hope to all humans by suffering and dying on the cross. These same voices tend to emphasize love, mystery, and participation rather than acknowledge the legal satisfaction that was had through the substitution of Jesus. These views are not heretical, but can serve to misrepresent God’s eternal plan and his nature.

The contemporary Roman Catholic Theologian James Alison critiques PSA as wrongly portraying God as requiring violence to achieve reconciliation, suggesting instead that the cross reveals the violence of humans and God’s nonviolent response. Alison states that “the cross is not about Jesus being punished instead of us, but about Jesus exposing the mechanism of human violence and offering us a way out of it.”[41] Alison holds that humans are projecting a type of angry divinity onto God that does not exist, and that God is not so crude that he demands satisfaction through bloodshed.[42] While he is right that humans can be, and often are, violent out of fear, greed, anger, etc., this does not imply that PSA applies this sinful state onto God.  Alison goes further to argue that God is entirely without vengeance and is “without substitutionary tricks.”[43] To state that PSA is a trick is misguided to say the least, as we know that God intentionally laid sin on Christ, and Christ accepted it willingly.[44] God is not violent for the sake of being violent, and Christ willingly took the punishment that was meant for us. Would we not merit the same “violence” that Jesus took on?

            The Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar emphasizes the mystery of the cross and the self-emptying love of God that was displayed through Christ’s death. While he does not refute the idea of atonement, he warns that the doctrine of PSA diminishes the theme of God’s love that is revealed in Christ. Balthasar states “the cross is the ultimate revelation of the God who loves, not of a God who punishes.” This view sounds nice, but to state that God is loving apart from the punishment that was inflicted is to disregard the death of Christ and what it accomplished. As we have said, there had to be satisfaction of God’s divine justice in order for humans to know and come to God. This is a great act of love, but it is just as well a great aspect of legal justice.

            Like Balthasar, the contemporary Catholic theologian Rowan Williams promotes the self-dying love of God manifested through Christ’s death, but tends to ignore the penal aspect of the atonement. Wiliams says that “The cross if not the satisfaction of a requirement, but the manifestation of the uttermost free self-giving God.”[45] The intention of Williams’s view appears to be for the sake of preserving the relationship between the Father and Son instead of causing division between them. Again, this view disregards the willingness of Christ’s death as well as that penal nature of the substitution that took place on calvary.

            These Anglican and Catholic theologians offer insights into the beauty, mystery, and love of the cross, that sometimes comes at a price. When you downplay the doctrine of PSA, you seriously risk misunderstanding the nature of God, and therefore his actual love for us. We cannot suppose that God is only love and forgiveness in ways that are not biblical at the cost of knowing how just and righteous He is. 

Answering Objections

A common rebuttal against PSA is one that calls God a “wrathful, violent God” and suggests that he is inferior because of his inability to forgive without bloodshed. This view misrepresents and in fact creates a false logic to the nature of who God is. God, according to his perfect and holy nature, is incapable of being unjust, just as much as he is incapable of sin.[46] God did not forcefully and maliciously murder his son, but the son became a willing sacrifice on our behalf.[47] The doctrine of PSA does not depict such an angry, immoral God, but rather one who is just and loving as he is the one who executes judgement as well as the one who provides the  means for redemption.[48] God’s wrath against sin and his love towards sinners are not in opposition, but are reconciled in the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The theologians Gregory Boyd, Steve Chalke and others have argued that the doctrine of PSA portrays God as being a “cosmic child-abuser.” In their view, PSA infers that God is a father who prefers to punish his child for something that he did not deserve, and if he were a truly loving God, he would not prefer such harshness. The Father and the Son, however, are in harmony with one another and in perfect unity. The son freely and joyfully gave himself up to the cross to be punished.[49] God’s motivation and intent in the sacrifice were entirely loving and just, and once the proper view of the Trinity is understood, the child-abuser argument falls apart because of the unity of the Father and Son.

Another argument against PSA is that it is a modern invention, and one crafted the legalist modern reformers who are not interested in the historical Christianity and the teachings of the early church. This claim incorrectly suggests that PSA was disregarded by the early church, when actually the ideas of substitution and wrath being satisfied were prevalent in much of the early church’s theology. Athanasius, in On the Incarnation, argues that the Word had to take on a human body and die to satisfy the law of death pronounced upon humanity for sin: “For death must needs hold dominion over men… the Word of God, who alone is both able to suffer on behalf of all and is also above all, fulfilled this.”[50]

Conclusion

The doctrine of PSA is crucial for Christian’s to understand in his or her own life because of the implications it has for our devotional, ministerial, and evangelical lives. Christians can be assured that the redemption that was accomplished at calvary was secured by Christ for all eternity, and that Jesus was a willing sacrifice. God is perfectly just and righteous, and he always accomplishes what he promises. He is not a forceful, violence, vengeful God that is always seeking retribution regardless of our say in the matter. We can rejoice to worship a God who not only sacrifices for us, but because a sacrifice for us. We can also learn lessons of self-sacrifice from Jesus who took on a punishment on behalf of others. C.S. Lewis provides us with an interesting view that combines God’s justice and love, although not a perfect example:

“Now it is a strange story. But when you really think about it, it’s not so strange. The really strange thing is not that God should take the punishment, but that He should be willing to do so. The idea of a perfect man dying for the guilty is not hard to follow—it has a certain beauty. But the idea of a perfect man who is also the judge, voluntarily stepping down to die for the criminal who hates Him—that is something entirely different.”[51]

The doctrine of PSA can and should create more gratitude in the hearts of Christians, lead us to confess our sin, and instill humility in our lives. We have all experience what it is like to be sacrificed for and we have felt and seen that love. That love is only multiplied to us because we know that the one who sacrificed for us did so willingly and finally.

The justice of God has been more than a retributive-seeking goal, but a total restoration of community and eternal peace with God. The biblical doctrine of penal substitution is necessary for understanding the character of God and the effective salvation of man. This has attempted to engage critically with several Catholic and Anglican theologians who place the emphasis in Christ’s sacrifice on the love of God over the transaction that occurred, in an attempt to downplay the wrath and judgement of God. This paper has defended the traditionally reformed view that penal substitution is crucial for preserving the nature of atonement and divine justice. Penal substitutionary atonement is not only rooted in scripture, but it is necessary for understanding God’s character, the salvation of Christians, and the true nature of Christ’s sacrifice.

---

[1] J. I. Packer, Knowing God, 182

[2] James Alison, “Scapegoat: How Civilisation Harms and How the Cross Heals.”

[3] Rom. 3:23 ESV, 1 Jn 3:4, Ps. 51:5

[4] Rom. 6:23

[5] Isa. 65:6, Deut. 27:26, Gal. 3:10.

[6] 1 Jn. 2:1-2 (KJV)

[7] J. I. Packer, Knowing God, 182.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Lev. 1:4, 4:15. 

[10] Heb. 9:22.

[11] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 359–361.

[12] Kevin DeYoung, The Biggest Story Bible Storybook, 112.

[13] Lev. 16:15-16, 17:11.

[14] Lev. 16:21-22.

[15] Isa. 42:1-4.

[16] Isa. 50:6-8.

[17] Isa. 53:4-10.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Lev. 5:14-6:7.

[22] Isa. 53:11-12.

[23] Rom. 3:10.

[24] Rom. 1:18.

[25] Rom. 3:25.

[26] Rom. 5:1.

[27] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 359-370.

[28] Rom. 8:1.

[29] Mark 10:45.

[30] Matt. 26:28.

[31] J. I. Packer, What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution.

[32] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.16.5.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] WCF 8.5.

[37] WCF 11.3.

[38] J. I. Packer, Knowing God, 179-199.

[39] Ibid.

[40] J. I. Packer and Mark Dever, In My Place Condemned He Stood: Celebrating the Glory of the Atonement, 21.

[41] James Alison, “Scapegoat: How Civilisation Harms and How the Cross Heals.”

[42] James Alison, Perspective on Faith blog.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Isa. 53:6, 10.

[45] Williams, The Wound of Knowledge, 146.

[46] Rom. 1:18.

[47] Jn. 10:28.

[48] Rom. 3:25-26.

[49] Eph. 5:2.

[50] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 9–10.

[51] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 59.