The Fuss Over Penal Substitutionary Atonement What is Penal Substitutionary Atonement? Well, to parse the terms, we are dealing something penal (a punishment that is meted out), something substitutionary (Christ dies in our stead), and an atonement (what reconciles us to God). To expand upon that, according to John Stott “evangelical Christians believe that in and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favor and adopted into his family.”
agreed, the correct atonement theory is all of them at once since they are all in scripture and don't contradict each other. PSA isn't the only atonement theory that has problems if you don't understand the trinity btw. I think moral influence theory also deflates without a trinity. A God who sits there on a priveledged throne wondering why we can't get our act together and sends their child to be tortured and die so we can admire his good example and do the same is a very different God to one that takes off their privelege, does good at great personal cost even to death and even has to learn what it is like to have to depend on God and trust Him.
PSA doesn't make sense to me, regardless of how Paul describes it. How does Jesus die "in our place," if we still die? And death only lasted for two days - the sacrifice was reversed almost immediately. And other disciples would also "drink the cup" of suffering, so Jesus didn't drink it for them. Further, God punishes sin of his chosen people (Moses, David) AND nation (Israel) for sin - is there any text that says God will punish Jesus INSTEAD of them later on? And NT verses also suggest that we will be repaid for our deeds, both good and bad - not a substitute.
It makes me question the notion that Jesus took our punishment on the cross in the first place. What did Jesus experience that we get to avoid? Why did Jesus suggest that other disciples would also "drink the cup" of suffering? I see his death more as representative than a substitution.
Although I think there are different aspects to Jesus' death, it is difficult to deny the substitutionary atonement teaching of the NT. Scholars such as Simon Gathercole present a strong case. Perhaps 'punishment' is the wrong word to use, but rather 'wrath'. Wrath is God's just consequences on sin. If you are forgiven, you wont face such wrath as Jesus has already experienced it.
Nuance. Definitely. Just leave out the punishment. Consequences if you like but there’s no word for punishment in the Bible particularly where the author is God. Humans punish. God takes on the consequences. I’ll put my money on Job’s final refusal to be the referee.
The trinitarian requirement makes Jesus complicit in his own offering (John 10.18) in the same way that Abraham and Isaac went up the hill 'together' (Gen 22). Without the willingness of the Son, some would be somewhat right to condemn the child abuse.
First, as a 61-year-old with a family history of prostate cancer, I do a double-take every time I see "PSA" in this context.
To the point, I was not aware PSA theology had become emphasized to that extent. At the same time, for whatever reason, it is the only Atonement theology I ever hear taught. Other views are not derided, they are ignored.
Another commenter mentioned the western obsession with law and legal language, which leads to a question that came to my mind: I’m sure I’ve read Orthodox theologians/thinkers somewhere (was it Ware? Jersak? I can’t remember) say that the Orthodox consider PSA a heretical idea. Am I right on this? And if so, what does that mean for how we approach PSA with a broader/ecumenical eye?
I think another concern regarding the emphasis on PSA is the western obsession with law and legal language. Instead of seeing God as loving us so as to heal, restore, etc... and have relationship with Him and others, it instead becomes all about the line of legal standing.
Hi Mike
I believe Jesus has to be God to be an adequate payment for sins against God? Am I mistaken? Is there a verse that supports that view?
Thanks
I agree with you, I think it's the logic of atonement: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
Excellent, Mike! Thanks for this. Have you read Crisp yet? He has some very keen insights. See my https://inchristus.com/2020/02/27/oliver-crisp-on-approaching-the-atonement/
This has to be the best thing I've ever read on PSA... thank you.
James, my pleasure!
That was very informative.
agreed, the correct atonement theory is all of them at once since they are all in scripture and don't contradict each other. PSA isn't the only atonement theory that has problems if you don't understand the trinity btw. I think moral influence theory also deflates without a trinity. A God who sits there on a priveledged throne wondering why we can't get our act together and sends their child to be tortured and die so we can admire his good example and do the same is a very different God to one that takes off their privelege, does good at great personal cost even to death and even has to learn what it is like to have to depend on God and trust Him.
PSA doesn't make sense to me, regardless of how Paul describes it. How does Jesus die "in our place," if we still die? And death only lasted for two days - the sacrifice was reversed almost immediately. And other disciples would also "drink the cup" of suffering, so Jesus didn't drink it for them. Further, God punishes sin of his chosen people (Moses, David) AND nation (Israel) for sin - is there any text that says God will punish Jesus INSTEAD of them later on? And NT verses also suggest that we will be repaid for our deeds, both good and bad - not a substitute.
Given your understanding, does God ever 'punish' a Christian's sinful behaviour, ie after conversion?
Just look at David and others in the OT who were punished directly for their sins.
How does that allign with the view that Jesus took our punishment for sin upon himself on the cross?
It makes me question the notion that Jesus took our punishment on the cross in the first place. What did Jesus experience that we get to avoid? Why did Jesus suggest that other disciples would also "drink the cup" of suffering? I see his death more as representative than a substitution.
Although I think there are different aspects to Jesus' death, it is difficult to deny the substitutionary atonement teaching of the NT. Scholars such as Simon Gathercole present a strong case. Perhaps 'punishment' is the wrong word to use, but rather 'wrath'. Wrath is God's just consequences on sin. If you are forgiven, you wont face such wrath as Jesus has already experienced it.
Nuance. Definitely. Just leave out the punishment. Consequences if you like but there’s no word for punishment in the Bible particularly where the author is God. Humans punish. God takes on the consequences. I’ll put my money on Job’s final refusal to be the referee.
The trinitarian requirement makes Jesus complicit in his own offering (John 10.18) in the same way that Abraham and Isaac went up the hill 'together' (Gen 22). Without the willingness of the Son, some would be somewhat right to condemn the child abuse.
This was really helpful Michael. I never could understand the "child abuse"stance. It's as if the Trinty didn't exist!
Mike, thanks for this post. its been useful in kickstarting some thinking for something I have to write in the new year. Cheers.
My pleasure.
Why am I just now discovering this sub stack? This is the kind of nuance I’m looking for in these discussions. Thank you!
First, as a 61-year-old with a family history of prostate cancer, I do a double-take every time I see "PSA" in this context.
To the point, I was not aware PSA theology had become emphasized to that extent. At the same time, for whatever reason, it is the only Atonement theology I ever hear taught. Other views are not derided, they are ignored.
Hi Norrin, PSA shouldn't be ignored, but it should be placed and preached among its siblings.
Another commenter mentioned the western obsession with law and legal language, which leads to a question that came to my mind: I’m sure I’ve read Orthodox theologians/thinkers somewhere (was it Ware? Jersak? I can’t remember) say that the Orthodox consider PSA a heretical idea. Am I right on this? And if so, what does that mean for how we approach PSA with a broader/ecumenical eye?
I think another concern regarding the emphasis on PSA is the western obsession with law and legal language. Instead of seeing God as loving us so as to heal, restore, etc... and have relationship with Him and others, it instead becomes all about the line of legal standing.