All the verses you mentioned still do not mention that Jesus paid the "penalty" for sin, or that sins were transferred. The way Jesus took upon sins was through the incarnation, by taking a mortal body inherited from Mary, He could be tempted in all sins. He conquered those temptations, and thus conquered hell. That is how He redeemed humanity. Sins cannot be removed unless it is done through repentance, and in repentance Jesus works within us to remove them.
Doug, I resist the view that incarnation = atonement, because it lessens the cross. Also, I'm not convinced that PSA = payment. The language of sin as debt and the idea of a payment is found in the OT and NT, but not so much in relation to Jesus's death. But that God "condemned" sin in the flesh is clearly penal/punitive and Jesus become a "acursed" for us, in our stead, is also punitive and substitutionary.
You can explain the reason why God had to become incarnate in human form by the fact by doing so, He could fight directly against temptations originating from hell, which were the sins and transgressions of the whole world as Jesus fought against all of hell in this manner until He conquered it. The cross was simply His last temptation before His body was made completely Divine. That by fighting temptations, and glorifying Himself He saved humanity, He declares in John 17:19, afterwards He works the same in repentance in us. PSA runs into several logical issues as well as it goes counter to passages like Ex. 23:7 and Ezek. 18 in the OT, and I am telling Jews that they do not have to reject Christianity because of this. PSA lessens the need for repentance, and encourages people to believe they can convert once and then do nothing else. There is a whole branch of Christianity, the Orthodox church, which does not follow this kind of theory. The Christus Victor view is more logical than PSA and can explain all the verses you quote.
I have to think that we’re missing the boat by creating and applying the name of PSA to the work of God as described in these passages. Regardless of whether elements of it are present in or illustrated by Scripture, it’s an external idea that we’re trying to superimpose. I think the better project is to work outwards from Scripture like a stone rippling to elaborate on the qualitative and phenomenological characteristics of the sacred text.
Only seeing this in 2026! Excellently written, I found this very helpful. I really appreciate the idea of PSA being one view of the atonement that accompanies many others and together paints a beautiful picture of the work of the cross and resurrection alongside Gods love for us. Thank you Michael!
Thanks for the fair treatment and clear exposition. I have one question which you brush up against in your final point regarding atonement as a Trinitarian project. My question is did, as the hymn says, the Father turn his face away from Jesus on the cross? After all, Jesus cries out that God has forsaken him. This creates an obvious Trinitarian challenge. The response I’ve heard is that Jesus is referencing Psalm 22 which, when read in full, affirms the nearness of God, for “You have answered me (v 21). What are your thoughts?
Maybe a little late to the party, but i cannot find the ‘penal’ aspect of PSA in the examples of the church fathers that you mentioned. I understand that the fathers believed in Christ being our substiture, but in the quotes you named theres no such thing as Jesus being punished by the father in our place.
I agree with a lot of the comments here: PSA advocates tend to conflate any mention of Christ’s substitution or even representation of humanity with PSA. They also tend to import PSA into their readings of the OT sacrificial system (were the offerings and sacrifices ritual-punishment?) and then bring those forward into the NT. I’m not saying PSA is absent from the NT, but in many “proof texts”, it seems like confirmation bias is at work.
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.
There’s no single gloss for whatever word you use. My comment is too terse. It comes out of examining the Tanach and finding that we misunderstand what God does and how God works. As I noted above, I take a stand with Job. My understanding of Job is based on Ticciati, Job and the disruption of identity. I can’t put it into a few words. I have a new e-book on presenting the music of Job verse by verse. Music is not explanation. I am not able to seek explanation or understanding. I’m trying to listen and hear with God’s voice. When all is said and done I may have done my duty.
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.
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.
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.
God's perfect creation permitted sin. God's perfect law could not redeem. Only God's perfect presence in the person of Jesus offers hope, perhaps even taking responsibility for the previous shortcomings of creation and the.law.
All the verses you mentioned still do not mention that Jesus paid the "penalty" for sin, or that sins were transferred. The way Jesus took upon sins was through the incarnation, by taking a mortal body inherited from Mary, He could be tempted in all sins. He conquered those temptations, and thus conquered hell. That is how He redeemed humanity. Sins cannot be removed unless it is done through repentance, and in repentance Jesus works within us to remove them.
Doug, I resist the view that incarnation = atonement, because it lessens the cross. Also, I'm not convinced that PSA = payment. The language of sin as debt and the idea of a payment is found in the OT and NT, but not so much in relation to Jesus's death. But that God "condemned" sin in the flesh is clearly penal/punitive and Jesus become a "acursed" for us, in our stead, is also punitive and substitutionary.
This is fine as a statement of preference but not as an argument re: that it “lessens the cross”.
You can explain the reason why God had to become incarnate in human form by the fact by doing so, He could fight directly against temptations originating from hell, which were the sins and transgressions of the whole world as Jesus fought against all of hell in this manner until He conquered it. The cross was simply His last temptation before His body was made completely Divine. That by fighting temptations, and glorifying Himself He saved humanity, He declares in John 17:19, afterwards He works the same in repentance in us. PSA runs into several logical issues as well as it goes counter to passages like Ex. 23:7 and Ezek. 18 in the OT, and I am telling Jews that they do not have to reject Christianity because of this. PSA lessens the need for repentance, and encourages people to believe they can convert once and then do nothing else. There is a whole branch of Christianity, the Orthodox church, which does not follow this kind of theory. The Christus Victor view is more logical than PSA and can explain all the verses you quote.
I have to think that we’re missing the boat by creating and applying the name of PSA to the work of God as described in these passages. Regardless of whether elements of it are present in or illustrated by Scripture, it’s an external idea that we’re trying to superimpose. I think the better project is to work outwards from Scripture like a stone rippling to elaborate on the qualitative and phenomenological characteristics of the sacred text.
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.
Only seeing this in 2026! Excellently written, I found this very helpful. I really appreciate the idea of PSA being one view of the atonement that accompanies many others and together paints a beautiful picture of the work of the cross and resurrection alongside Gods love for us. Thank you Michael!
Thanks for the fair treatment and clear exposition. I have one question which you brush up against in your final point regarding atonement as a Trinitarian project. My question is did, as the hymn says, the Father turn his face away from Jesus on the cross? After all, Jesus cries out that God has forsaken him. This creates an obvious Trinitarian challenge. The response I’ve heard is that Jesus is referencing Psalm 22 which, when read in full, affirms the nearness of God, for “You have answered me (v 21). What are your thoughts?
Good to show some respect toward both sides at the very least. It can be very aggressive unfortunately
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.
Maybe a little late to the party, but i cannot find the ‘penal’ aspect of PSA in the examples of the church fathers that you mentioned. I understand that the fathers believed in Christ being our substiture, but in the quotes you named theres no such thing as Jesus being punished by the father in our place.
I agree with a lot of the comments here: PSA advocates tend to conflate any mention of Christ’s substitution or even representation of humanity with PSA. They also tend to import PSA into their readings of the OT sacrificial system (were the offerings and sacrifices ritual-punishment?) and then bring those forward into the NT. I’m not saying PSA is absent from the NT, but in many “proof texts”, it seems like confirmation bias is at work.
Thanks for this Mike! I'm curious whether you see PSA in the church fathers, or just SA?
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.
There’s no single gloss for whatever word you use. My comment is too terse. It comes out of examining the Tanach and finding that we misunderstand what God does and how God works. As I noted above, I take a stand with Job. My understanding of Job is based on Ticciati, Job and the disruption of identity. I can’t put it into a few words. I have a new e-book on presenting the music of Job verse by verse. Music is not explanation. I am not able to seek explanation or understanding. I’m trying to listen and hear with God’s voice. When all is said and done I may have done my duty.
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.
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.
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.
God's perfect creation permitted sin. God's perfect law could not redeem. Only God's perfect presence in the person of Jesus offers hope, perhaps even taking responsibility for the previous shortcomings of creation and the.law.