The Problem With Penal Substitionary Atonement

Penal substitionary atonement was a refinement (by Aquinas and Calvin) of the satisfaction theory of the atonement doctrine as developed by Anslem. Anselm’s theory was a reconfiguration (and rejection) of the ransom theory of atonement which had prevailed in the Church from the Patristics on down. Certainly Anselm’s theory was a great improvement on the understanding of the doctrine, but I do think that its developments by Aquinas and Calvin (who both advocated the idea that Christ paid the penalty for man’s sin and bore God’s wrath) is correct. It is an idea that goes no further back than the 13th century. The fact that it is a relatively recent doctrine does not make it wrong but it should give us pause. Inerrancy is a very recent doctrine but I think it is correct.

Christ did atone for Man’s sin. Christ was the substitute in our place. Indeed, Jesus did satisfy the wrath of God. But Christ did not in any way pay a penalty for us or receive God’s wrath. A completely false idea.

1) Scripture does not teach this anywhere. It is completely absent from the teachings of Jesus, Paul and the other NT writers. Again, it is a very recent formulation of the atonement doctrine. It does not have historical validity.

2) It completely misses the meaning of sacrifice. In a sacrifice, the sacrifice itself does not receive any punishment. God does not punish the sacrifice for the sins of the one who sacrifices. In a sacrifice, the one who sacrifices is expressing his love and devotion to God by sacrificing (destroying) something that is of value to the sacrificer. If we read the Old Testament, this is always the purpose and meaning of a sacrifice. No where are we given the idea that the sacrifice is punished instead of the sacrificer. This is why different sacrifices were required for different social statuses. It was deemed more of an act of devotion for a rich man to sacrifice an ox than a dove. For a poor person, a dove could be a big sacrifice. This is why God often dismisses OT sacrifices when they are not done out of devotion. He says through his prophets that sacrifices without devotion are sickening to Him. Such sacrifices not only mean nothing but show general contempt for God who they believe will be satisfied by simply a sacrifice and not devotion.

Thus the atoning work of Jesus was a sacrifice to God not because He received our punishment in our stead, but because He showed absolute devotion to God in His life and unto death. God saw this devotion and rewarded Jesus with resurrection and eternal life. Man as sinners fall short of the devotion and sacrifice necessary to receive such a reward. Therefore, God the Son became incarnated as Jesus to be identified with Man, to make reconciliation between God and Man due to Man’s break with God. Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and Man. Jesus lived the perfect life as a Man and devoted Himself to God sacrificing Himself to God. He was then able to provide atonement for our sins because, though we can never make such a sacrifice, those who are identified with Christ is then seen by God through Jesus. God looks at the believer and sees us through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus and then gives us the reward that He gives to Jesus Christ.

Jesus’ life and death were substitutionary in that He lived in died in our place because we could not do so ourselves with the same effect. However, it was not substitutionary in two ways: 1) we as believers are a part of the body of Christ and are identified with Him and thus in a spiritual sense were on the cross with Him. Paul makes this very clear in Galatians and elsewhere. 2) We are called to follow Christ and expected to make such a sacrifice unto death (“He who would follow me must carry his cross”).

Jesus’ life and death did satisfy the wrath of God because Man sins and does not deserve to have eternal life with God. Man was created out of nothing and, though made in the image of God, rebels against God and does nothing which merits that God should continue to keep Man existing. However, Jesus, by identifying Himself with Man, acts as Man’s advocate and supplies the satisfaction required by God to give undeserving Man an eternal fellowship with Him.

Jesus did not receive a punishment. His death on the cross was not a punishment from God. His life and death were acts of love and devotion from God and to God. Jesus’ death did not repulse God; it showed how close God and Jesus were.

3) The basic idea of the penal substitionary atonement theory as developed by Aquinas and Calvin (particularly the latter) is a legal model which argues that God’s justice must be satisfied. This is quite untenable. First, even if we presume that God had to have His justice met, we still have a problem. Jesus death on the cross was the most unjust thing. He did not deserve to die, by either the standards of God or of Men. That Jesus took the punishment of Men is unjust. Justice is not met. It’s a travesty of justice. The idea that God HAS to punish someone for their sins is not a Scriptural idea. We are forgiven by grace. Grace is not justice by definition. Regardless, where is the justice for the unjust killing of Jesus? Jesus would have had to have paid the penalty for the sin of putting himself to death. And what is the punishment for sin? Death, complete and forever. Those who are not redeemed by Christ face the penalty of eternal damnation. Thus, if Christ had not redeemed us, then our penalty would have been eternal damnation. If Christ took our penalty, then that penalty would have been eternal damnation. But quite the opposite. He was resurrected.

The point of the cross was not that Jesus was punished. The complete opposite. The world thinks that it was punishment. The Jews and Gentiles saw it as punishment and evidence of God’s disfavour. It wasn’t evidence of God’s wrath; it was evidence of His love. Christ did not take our punishment; He removed the possibility that any punishment was necessary for either Him or us. Christ’s resurrection was evidence that He was not punished by God.

Therefore, penal substitionary atonement completely contradicts the whole purpose of the atonement. It is not Scriptural. It is not historical in so far as it only goes back to the 13th century. It certainly is not reasonable.