Penal substitution: response to 20 questions

This is a response to 20 questions set by 'Nick' to my last blog. For the questions please refer to his comment of 13th May.

1. If 'wrathful Father punishing an innocent Son' were biblical, I would have no problem with it. But it is an inaccurate way of describing the atonement(for example, the Father's love is the source of the atonement, which is a Triune work, and the Son is also angry against sin , and wholly willing to be made a substitute) so the phrase is best avoided. It is the kind of phrase used by people who accuse penal substitution (PS) of being 'cosmic child abuse' etc.

2. (i) It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that when blood is shed in a sacrificial context, it is punishment. The penalty for sin is death. The sacrifice is a substitute for the offeror, dying instead of him.
(ii) No single type (such as the sacrifice of an animal) can tell the whole story of the atonement, so the priest is of course involved to apply the blood to the mercy-seat - that is, Godwards. This simply explains another part of the atoning work of Christ. The fact that it is applied to the mercy-seat / altar tells in favour of PS rather than, as you claim, representing 'the value of life'. If the value were in the life, why should it be applied to the mercy seat / altar? Indeed, why kill the animal at all?
(iii) The blood of Christ is of infinite value because of the infinite Person of Christ.

3. You do not dispute that the atonement is 'to avert God's wrath'. Then you make a distinction between wrath re-directed , and God being 'appeased through pleasing him through some alternative'. In another question you talk about wrath being 'turned away' but not 're-directed'. Let's remember that wrath is a personal reaction, the self-consistent hatred that a holy God expresses against sin. He has stated that the soul that sins shall die. This is not a mere decision of his will that can be changed for it is a reflection of his character which is unchangeing. The penalty for sin is death. There is no acceptable substitute for the penalty, though God in his mercy has ordained and accepted a substitute Person. His wrath is 're-directed' to that Person to whom sin is imputed by virtue of his federal union with the people for whom he dies. As a result of that death his wrath is turned away from them. 'Re-direction', if you want to use the word, is therefore in a sense a description of the atonement, 'turning away' is a result of it. 'Appeasing through some alternative' has no part in it. The justice and the wrath of God are satisfied at the cross. The arrow of judgement flies through history from Genesis 3 to calvary, picking up interpretative weight as it goes, all the types and teaching adding meaning to the sacrifice of Christ but ultimately explained and explicable only in him.

4. Exodus 11:7 certainly speaks of God making a difference between the Egyptians and the Israelites. But if that were all there were to it, why did a lamb have to die at all - even to represent the application of blood to our souls in the Eucharist, as you claim? The fact is that the destroying angel would have slaughtered both Egyptian and Israelite had the blood of the lamb not been on the doorpost. A dead son in an Egyptian home and a dead lamb in an Israelite home - a clear picture of substitution. In NT terms, the elect need the blood of the lamb even though a distinction has been made between them and the lost in eternity.

5. I said that the agony in Gethsemane strongly suggests that the anguish of the cross was for Jesus far more than physical or emotional suffering. It was spiritual suffering consisting in the bearing of human sin and the punishment for it. As you say, he had the unique task of atoning for human sin. And of course he understood the damage sin caused in a way we cannot imagine. But that does not in itself account for the anguish of Christ before the cross. He knew the 'damage' of sin all through his life, but never did he experience such agony as he did in the garden - until calvary itself.

6. If it were God's anger against the wicked men who killed Jesus, why did it last only three hours and why is it tied in closely with Christ's cry of dereliction (Matt 27:47,48)? It seems much more reasonable to interpret it as symbolic of the wrath which Jesus bore. Why did it not get worse when Christ actually died, but in fact passed before he said 'It is finished'?

7. In 1 Corinthians Paul makes clear that believers will still die but their death is different because of Christ's death. In 1 Cor. 15:56 Paul says 'But the sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law'. He is here saying that death is a terror because of sin ie it is a penalty for sin. It is the law that condemns sin . When the law is satisfied, there is no longer any condemnation, and people who are freed from that condemnation are therefore no longer to fear the sting of death. They will pass through it but it has no terror for them. It is a passage, a transition, but not a punishment. And that is so because of Christ's PS. He has been raised as the firstfruits, but when he comes all his people will be raised with him: 15:23.

8. Good!

9. Athanasius: 'Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all' ('Against the Arians', in 'Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers', ser II, vol 4, sect 60.)
'Now that the common Saviour of all has died on our behalf, we who believe in Christ no longer die, as men died aforetime, in fulfilment of the threat of the law. That condemnation has come to an end..;' ('On the Incarnation', sec 21).
Augustine: 'Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that he might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment' ('Against Faustus', sect 4.)
'But as Christ endured death as a man, and for man, so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as he died in the flesh which he took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in his own righteousness, he was cursed for our offences, in the death which he suffered in bearing our punishment' (ibid, sect 6).

Anselm: his whole system is about Christ dying as a satisfaction to God, but certainly he speaks of satisfaction instead of punishment. A more biblical approach led to satisfaction and punishment being seen as one and the same thing.

Aquinas: 'As therefore Christ's passion provided adequate, and more than adequate satisfaction for man's sin and debt, his passion was as it were the price of punishment by which we are freed...' ('Summa Theologiae' quest 48. art 4).

For other texts from the 'Fathers' see 'Pierced for Our Transgressions' chapter 5).


10. 'Propitiation' means that God's wrath is somehow appeased or assuaged and he is 'made favourable' in the sense of his justice having been satisfied, enabling him to be just and the justifier of those who have faith; to say it means 'turned away' is fine, but not then to say that it is not 're-directed', as this is comparing different elements of the process (see above, qu. 3). In Romans Paul begins his summary of human spiritual history with the fact of God's wrath (1:18). What deals with it is the propitiation (3:25) of the cross. The best and natural explanation of propitiation is PS - that Christ bore the wrath and therefore took it from his people. To define propitiation as you do then say Paul rules out PS by speaking of propitiation, is a tad arbitrary!

11. (i) I believe the prophecy of Isa 53 can be interpreted on its own terms though it is seen most clearly in the light of the NT.

(ii) I would not argue for PS from Matt 8:16, 17 though I am right to say it does not deny it. Matthew is simply pointing out another aspect of the atonement - restoration of creation as foreshadowed in the miracles.

(iii) I am not sure which Calvin quote you are referring to. However, of course there is a distinction between retribution and chastisement. Whether this obviates the argument for PS in Isaiah 53 is another matter. Many commentators do not think so. After all, it is clear that the Servant is 'wounded for our transgressions' and 'crushed for our iniquities' and 'bore the sin of many'; the chastisement that brings us peace was upon him. However interpreted, chastisement is punishment of some form and he bore it and we benefit from it. Moreover, the Hebrew word for 'he bore' (our griefs, v 4; the sins of many, v 12) is often associated with the bearing not only of guilt but of punishment - Gen 4:13; Lev 5:17; 24:14-16; Num 5:31; 14:34; Lam 5:7). The presence of PS in Isaiah 53 is too strong to be dismissed.

(iv) As I have said, the context of 1 Peter is the example of Christ, but when Peter uses phrases like 'he bore our sins in his body on the tree (the 'cursed place') and 'By his wounds you have been healed' it seems clear that he is going beyond the exemplary element in Christ's work and pointing Christians to the basis of their hope - the atonement and in particular to PS. This is clearer if anything in 1 Peter 3:18 - he 'suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous'.

12. Good' certainly as number 4 speaks of God laying the sin of his people on the servant and punishing him.

13. The necessity of intercession if the atonement was 'finished' is a difficult issue and I have struggled with it. But it is biblical! It is interesting for example to see 1 John 1:2:1,2 speaking of Christ being our advocate and then speaking of his also being our propitiation. The fact is that the work of atonement and intercession are integral parts of the one work of the High Priest , as I said last time, and the work that is finished on earth is constantly present to God by the work in heaven. It is Christ who saves, not merely his work or any part of it. But the PS in Christ's death was an integral part of that work which without it would not have been complete. (Hugh Martin ,'The Atonement', is excellent on this).

The work of Christ is sometimes seen in firstly his work as representative and secondly as substitute. He was representative in all aspects of his work, including his presence glorified in heaven. He was substitute in respect of those things which were part of the Fall - sin, death and the curse - the penalty for sin. One should add, the dominion of Satan. He bore those as our substitute, but everything that God restores (typified by the resurrection) is borne by Christ as our representative; in other words we share in them (whereas we do not share in what he bore as substitute).

14. I can only refer to what I have said above. Gal 3:13 is all about the substitutionary curse bearing of Christ and I don't see the references to the 'tree' you mention as denting that interpretation at all.

The Mosaic law carries forward the penalty inflicted on Adam; redemption is a purchase at a price - which is the death of Christ.

15. The word for sin / sin offering may well mean different things in the references you give because the context demands it, but that is not persuasive when in 2 Corinthians 5 the word is clearly best translated the same way.

16. Romans screams out the need for righteousness and it is the righteousness of Christ, to the precept and penalty of the law that answers that need. In Rom 5:18,19 we are said to be made / constituted sinners / righteous by virtue of our federal union with Adam / Christ respectively. It is the one act of disobedience / obedience respectively that creates our status before God. We also receive a righteousness from God ( Phil 3:9). As well as 2 Cor 5:21. Nothing but the perfect righteousness of Christ satisfies God's law.

17. That is the issue - penal substitution or no gospel!

18. We cannot expect any single OT text or type to say all there is about the work of Christ. Certainly even PS does not say all there is to be said . Phinehas was a type of Christ as an intercessor. The plague was stopped when the guilty parties died. It is not a PS situation though it points to a more gracious intercession than that of Phinehas where the Lord died for the guilty ones.

19. 'Losing salvation' ( or not as the case may be) is not irrelevant to the question of PS ; indeed the security of salvation is an important consequence of it. But to go into all your texts would take me too far off the central theme of this debate - though I may do so another time!

20. I agree.

What was the death of Christ? Was it simply an extension of the incarnation into the experience of death? Or was it also an infliction, an imposition by God of something extra - something no-one else had to bear? That is, vengeance, wrath, punishment? Certainly his perfect obedience was an integral part of it but even that was not sufficient to appease God, certainly not as an alternative to the penalty of the law. Christ had to fulfil both aspects of the law, the sanction or penalty as well as the precepts or command. This entailed an infliction , brutally borne especially at the cross and expressed in the cry of dereliction most poignantly. Without Penal Substitution there is no salvation.