Featured The Case for Penal Substitution

It would take an enormous ego to think I can tread new ground on the doctrine of Penal Substitution. More accomplished theologians have written on this topic with greater clarity and insight. The Reformer John Calvin wrote eloquently on the topic as did the modern English theologian J.I. Packer. Charles Spurgeon also made the doctrine a charge to his ministerial students. The doctrine is often accused of being a modern invention with no foundation in church history from the time of the Apostles to the Reformation. This criticism does not consider the multitude of problems the church dealt with in the early Patristic Age. The Patristic Age was rife with error and often came to erroneous, if not heretical conclusions. By the beginning of the 5th Century, the papacy plunged Christendom into a millennium of increasing error and idolatry. Although there were a few wicks of gospel truth left burning during this time, they were not enough to point the masses to Christ. A temperamental Benedictine Monk named Martin Luther was used by God to challenge the status quo. What became known as the Reformation unleashed a torrent of opposition against Rome. The Word of God was now in the hands of the people and the truths that Rome had suppressed were now being proclaimed; first in continental Europe and then in Scotland and England. One of the most consequential of these truths was the teaching that Jesus Christ died to satisfy God’s wrath against sin and to pay the sin-debt for the Elect. This teaching is better known as Penal Substitution. The word “penal” means “of, relating to, or involving punishment”. Substitution means “the act, process, or result of substituting one thing for another”. Ergo, Penal Substitution teaches that Jesus was punished on behalf of another. Isaiah 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.” Another thread on the Atonement began with a discussion about sin. It is right that this thread starts with the same topic.

One accepted definition of sin by theologians is, “Thoughts, words, or deeds that constitute a deliberate violation of God’s will and law and are thus sinful”. The first example we see of sin is recorded in Genesis 3:6. God expressly commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil under penalty of death (Gen. 2:17). With full knowledge of God’s command, Adam disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit. Because of his sin, Adam experienced two types of death. First, Adam’s body began the slow but deliberate march towards decay and physical death (Gen. 5:5). Second, Adam experienced spiritual separation from God. This is what the Apostle Paul refers to as νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις (nekros tois paraptomasin kai tois harmatias), dead in trespasses and sins. This is commonly referred to as being spiritually dead. All those who are outside of Christ are described this way (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). Being spiritually dead means that the sinner is in a state of sin and separated from a right relationship with God. A person is a sinner for two reasons. First, they are born into a fallen state because of the sin of Adam (Rom. 5:12). The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith describes it thus, “They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.” This view of the imputation of sin is referred to as the Federal Headship View. Adam was the first human being. He was created without sin. Neither his mind nor his body had experienced the corruption of sin. Adam acted as humanity’s fair and just representative. In his federal capacity, Adam acted on our behalf. When Adam sinned it was as though we sinned through his agency. This is where original sin comes from.

continued...

 

Once Adam sinned he was placed in a situation that had no human remedy. Adam was now a sinful, fallen person. There was nothing that Adam could do to restore his pre-Fall relationship with God. The prophet Isaiah wrote, “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.” Paul writes, “For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” And again, “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” Spiritually, Adam was dead (nekros). Just as a corpse is dead in the flesh, the sinner (Adam) was dead to the things of God. It took unilateral action from God to atone for Adam’s sin to restore the relationship. In Gen. 3:21 we learn that God made garments of skin for Adam and Eve in order to clothe them. God’s purpose for this action was not just so Adam and Eve would have suitable clothing. In order to make garments of skin, an animal had to be killed. The animal had not done anything worthy of death. The death of this animal was both penal and substitutionary. This is where we must take a slight detour in our discussion and shift from sin to God’s holiness. We will come back to this part of the discussion.

God is holy. About holiness, McKim writes, “That which is regarded as sacred or able to convey a sense of the divine...That which is godlike by being spiritually whole, well, pure, or perfect.” Isaiah described a vivid scene that occurs at the throne of God. He writes, “In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called out to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.” The Seraphim did not just call the LORD of hosts ‘Holy”. They repeated it three times. Not only is the LORD “spiritually whole, well, pure, or perfect”, He is beyond those descriptors. Human language fails woefully to capture God’s holy character. God’s holiness is beyond our ability to comprehend. It is because of God’s holiness that He cannot abide sin. Anything that is contrary to God’s perfect holiness faces His wrath and condemnation. His holy character can demand no other response. God has no rivals. God must judge sin. Those who begin their study of the Atonement without understanding God’s holiness (to the extent any of us can truly understand the depths of God) will arrive at a conclusion that misses the true problem of sin. They will fail to understand that sin is an open act of rebellion against God Himself. They will see sin as an existential problem, not a personal offense against their Creator God. Sin becomes more of a concept, that while still serious is not quite as grave as James presents it, “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.” God’s holy nature cannot be overlooked or dismissed when discussing the Atonement. In fact, it is the real starting point in the discussion.

Because sin is an offense against an infinite, holy God, the punishment for sin is equal to God Himself. This is where sin-debt comes into play. Every sinner stands under indictment before God. In a court of law, a convicted criminal is often sent to prison to pay his “debt to society”. Once the debt is satisfied the prisoner is released. Because God is holy and cannot abide sin, the sinner faces God’s impending wrath (Rom. 1:18). Scripture reveals God’s wrath in different ways depending on the context. On the one hand, God’s wrath is kindled against His enemies (Psa. 2:12). On the other hand, God’s wrath is poured out on the condemned for all eternity (Rev. 20:14-15). The person who dies in their sin will suffer the wrath of God against a debt they cannot satisfy. Eternal, conscious suffering is labeled as barbaric by some opponents of Penal Substitution. They do so because they have a deficient understanding of God’s holiness and how God views sin.

continued...

 

The good news for sinners is that God, in His mercy, provided atonement for sin in two different ways. Under the Old Covenant economy, the Jewish animal sacrifice system provided atonement for sins of ignorance and sins of volition. This atonement required the ceremonial sacrifice of an animal according to the rules set down in Leviticus. However, sacrifices for the covenant nation of Israel and the individual had to be repeated over and over again. The author of Hebrews explains, “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” The Old Covenant sacrificial system was only a temporary assuaging of God’s wrath against sin. But even as far back as Genesis 3, we read that God had a plan to atone for the sins of His elect that would eliminate the need for animal sacrifices. In Genesis 3:15 we read, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise Him on the heel.” This passage is the promise of the coming Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Earlier I wrote that sin is an offense against an infinite, holy God and, therefore, the punishment for sin is equal to God Himself. Well, if an infinite, holy God justly requires an infinite punishment, how much more is that debt satisfied if the payment is made by one who is equally infinite and holy? That is exactly what Jesus Christ did on the Cross. The Apostle Paul writes in Colossians 2:13-14, “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” What did the Son of God cancel? The certificate of debt consisting of decrees (judgment) against us. The certificate of debt is our sin debt which is satisfied by the finished work of Christ on the cross. By His death on the Cross, Jesus became our propitiation and satisfaction (Rom. 3:25). By His death on the Cross, Jesus put an end to ritual sacrifice (Heb. 9:28).


For the sake of brevity, I will end this opening post. I have made the case for penal substitution and welcome discussion.

1. John Calvin, The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book Second XII.3
2. Merriam-Webster
3. ibid
4. Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, page 260, Donald K. McKim, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996
5. 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 6.3
6. Isa. 64:6, NASB
7. Rom. 8:6-8 NASB
8. 1 Cor. 2:14 NASB
9. McKim, page 130
10. Isa. 6:1-3 NASB
11. Jas. 1:13-15 NASB
12. Heb. 10:1-4 NASB

 

I wrote these posts in Google docs and the footnotes did not format correctly.

 

More than some.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

I attended a decidedly non-Calvinistic Bible college and penal substitution was their view of the Atonement. One can believe in P.S. without being a Calvinist.

 

While I appreciate your honesty and candor, please know that I am not trying to convince you of Penal Substitution. While it gained substantial traction during the Reformation, I believe it to be what the Bible teaches about the Atonement. I was genuine in asking questions about your view in the thread you started. Per your request, I did not make a case for Penal Substitution in that thread. I went over every post in your thread and could not find a convincing biblical argument for what you believe. There was no shortage of opinion and rationalization. I understood the philosophical reason for your view but not the biblical reason. I eventually yielded to other posters that engaged you on that very point because I learned as much as I was going to learn.

I find this to be an amazing statement because this is exactly what you did not do in support of your view. But I do agree with you that the Atonement is a foundational doctrine. It is for the reason that I had to speak out and make a positive case for Penal Substitution in this thread. There is more at stake than just one's view of the atonement. Justification by faith alone is also at risk by an aberrant view of the Atonement. One of the most insidious attacks against the Gospel is the so-called New Perspective on Paul. I will not stand idly by and see the Gospel attacked by a scholar's robe.

 

The Gospel is attacked when foundational doctrines are attacked. If someone attacks the Trinity, the virgin birth, or the resurrection they are attacking the Gospel. While criticizing Penal Substitution does not automatically rise to that level, it could if related doctrines are called into question such as justification by faith. I made that point in my previous post.