PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (Part 1)

I have stated before that a person’s doctrine (belief system) is so very important because it shapes his beliefs about the nature and character of God.  And for those who claim to be Christians, one of the topics of utmost importance is the atonement of Jesus Christ (i.e., the suffering and death that he experienced on the cross over two-thousand years ago) and its effects.

There are several different views of the atonement, and great minds and great scholars have debated this topic for centuries.  Some of the most popular views include (but are not limited to) the “Christ as Ransom” theory, the “Christ as Substitute” theory, the “Penal Substitutionary” theory, the “Moral Influence” theory, and the “Christus Victor” theory.  See this link:

https://andrewspringer.medium.com/five-views-on-the-atonement-of-christ-d71dddca9b84

There is probably at least some merit in most, if not all of, the theories of the atonement out there.      

But for our purposes in this article, we will be discussing the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) view, which seems to be the most popular view in evangelical circles.  In this view, Jesus is said to have received the actual punishment for the sins of all mankind.  He became our substitute in the sense that God punished Him (the innocent) rather than us (the guilty).  He took our sins away (John 1:29) when He suffered and died in our place.  He endured the wrath we so rightly deserve.  But, in turn, we get His righteousness.  This transaction has been rightly labeled “the Great Exchange”:

“God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

One definition of PSA that I’ve heard is this:

“The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself, in the person of His Son, to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.” [Quoted by Mike Winger, from the book, “Pierced for Our Transgressions” written by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey and Andrew Sach].

See here:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=497109820931222

What Do Catholics Believe?

I am not aware of any official view of the Catholic Church on this topic, but most Catholics of which I am aware are against PSA.

They generally believe that Jesus did not experience the Father’s wrath in our place.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church does say that “… Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who ‘makes Himself an offering for sin,’ when ‘He bore the sin of many,’ and who ‘shall make many to be accounted righteous,’ for ‘He shall bear their iniquities’… Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.” (CCC #615)

Ok, so far so good, but it seems that Catholics don’t see Christ’s work on the cross as a literal vicarious (substitutionary) punishment toward Him.  The popular Catholic website, Called to Communion, describes Jesus’ atonement as “… a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him, and thus made satisfaction for our sins… The Passion is a revelation of the love of God, not the wrath of God.”  See here:

https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

They are telling us that what Jesus suffered is NOT punishment, therefore not penal substitution.  They feel that it is Christ’s “positive gift” of love to the Father, rather than God pouring out His wrath on His Son.

Is it Really Wrath and Punishment?

If Jesus died in the sinner’s place, it would logically have to mean that He took the sinner’s punishment.

Dr. Leon Morris, a leading New Testament scholar, ties together propitiation (appeasement, restoration) and God’s anger/wrath concerning the atonement:

“If there is ‘a righteous anger’ of God, and the New Testament is clear that there is, then it cannot be ignored in the process of forgiveness' (The Cross in the New Testament, p. 349). Propitiation, then, a turning away of God's wrath, lies at the heart of Christ's redemptive work.”

See here:

https://thirdmill.org/magazine/article.asp/link/fre_leahy%5Efre_leahy.Wrath.Atonement.html/at/The%20Wrath%20of%20God%20in%20Relation%20to%20the%20Atonement

Morris also implies that propitiation presupposes wrath and he delves into the Greek here:

http://internetbiblecollege.net/Lessons/Propitiation%20Removing%20Gods%20Anger.htm

It’s funny how sometimes the simplest example is the most helpful.  The repentant thief on the cross near Jesus can teach us a valuable lesson here.  In his own simple way, he accurately summed up the doctrine of PSA.  Speaking to the unrepentant thief, he said:

“Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?  And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our crimes; but this man [Jesus] has done nothing wrong.” (Luke 23:40-41 - NASV)

What the repentant thief does next reveals his understanding of Jesus’ work there.  He turns to Jesus (without long prayers or a list of his great accomplishments in life) and simply says, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (v. 42).  He understood that Jesus wasn’t doing this for Himself, but that Jesus was being punished for him, the sinner.

Earlier in this series of events, Jesus spoke of the “cup” of which He was about to partake :

“… the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11)

“…Take this cup from Me…” (Mark 14:35-36)

Compare this with Isaiah 51:17 – “…the cup of God’s wrath/fury/anger… [toward sin]”  Jesus knew He would experience the cup of God’s wrath.  That’s why He used those statements in John 18 and Mark 14 above.

1 Peter 2:24 says that He “bore our sins.”  “Bearing sin” necessarily means bearing the PENALTY for sin, which is God’s wrath.  In spite of what the folks at Called to Communion say, the atonement demonstrates both God’s love (toward mankind) AND His wrath (toward sin).   

“It Just Doesn’t Seem Right”

Many Catholics (and even some Protestants) consider the doctrine of PSA to be “cosmic child abuse” or a “barbarous child sacrifice.”  They believe that something like this can only be done by a “Divine Bully.” 

World famous atheist Richard Dawkins says of the atonement of Jesus Christ that it is “vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent… If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment?”

But is the atonement about an angry, sadistic God with a big stick in His hand?  And why would God punish a holy and pure being for someone else’s sins?  Isn’t He a God of love and isn’t He supposed to be fair?  If He’s all-powerful, couldn’t He just forgive, as Dawkins suggests? 

No, you see, God can’t “just forgive sin” without dealing with it.  He must be angry with sin.  God, Himself, would be evil if He didn’t hate sin.  God never hated Jesus, but hated the sin He bore.  By His own standard, He has to address it.  If not, then He would be indifferent and uncaring about the effects of sin on other people’s lives!  Thus, even His wrath itself is actually one of the expressions of His love. 

The atonement was not a divine temper tantrum, nor a childish emotional outburst of anger on the Father’s part.  There is a difference between human wrath and God’s wrath.  Jesus voluntarily laid down His life (John 10:17-18).  It was a judicial/legal suffering on Jesus’ part.

Again, the atonement was not a “hissy fit” – it was, as someone said, a controlled expression of justice.  Everything about the atonement was done in full agreement between Father, Son and Holy Spirit (the Trinity), and it was decided before the foundation of the world (Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:20).  And speaking of the Trinity…

Does PSA “Destroy” the Trinity?

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

There are some that say that this verse can’t mean what it appears to mean.  They tell us that if the Son really was forsaken, that would destroy the relationship of the Trinity, or at least dismantle it.  It would seem to mean that God was divided against Himself.  So Jesus could not have been forsaken by the Father, right?  But yet, the words are right there in verse 46 and they have to mean something!

I would suggest that it was indeed a separation/forsaking of some kind.  It could not have been an absolute forsaking, but must necessarily have been temporary from a human standpoint.  God seems to have temporarily held back His mercy from His Son while Jesus carried the burden of the sins of mankind.  The Father turned His face away for a moment, since He can’t look upon sin, and Jesus experienced the sense of abandonment that we should have received!  This was something that had never happened before, and it will never happen again.

Jesus did not actually literally become sin, or become a literal sinner, and He was never actually guilty of sin.  Here’s where imputation comes in! (Colossians 2:13-14)  He was simply treated as though He had sin; He was treated as guilty, even though He wasn’t.  The unbearable weight of sin was placed upon Him.  But, being God, Jesus was able to endure that separation and punishment.

This was a divinely planned interruption that the Trinity prepared from the beginning of time for the salvation of the world.  It needed to be this way.  My friends, the Trinity is intact.  PSA does not harm the Father, the Son, nor the Holy Spirit.  Their bond and relationship continues forever.

I would hope that Catholics (and many Protestants) would reconsider their view about the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory, since it is the most graphic demonstration of God’s love toward mankind.

We will continue next time with Part 2.