Featured Romans 3:21-26 doesn't support penal substitution

But now apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets: that is, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiatory sacrifice in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins previously committed in the forbearance of God; for the demonstration of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus.

Paul says that in the death of Jesus, the “righteousness of God has been manifested” and again that Jesus’ death “was to demonstrate His righteousness.” How does the death of Christ on the cross manifest and demonstrate God’s righteousness?

According to penal substitution, the need for God to demonstrate His righteousness arises from actions on His part that make him seem unrighteous. Specifically, God’s action of “passing over the sins previously committed in the forbearance of God” is taken to mean that God left sins unpunished prior to the coming of Christ, and therefore has made Himself to look unjust, unrighteous, and unfaithful to His commitment to uphold His own worth and holiness in punishing sin. However, penal substitution will argue, God’s action in “displaying publicly” or “setting forth” Jesus as a sacrifice shows Himself faithful in punishing sin by pouring out the withheld punishment on Jesus on the cross. When the text says that God set forth Jesus as a “propitiatory sacrifice” that word “propitiation” means the averting of wrath. So penal substitution takes that to mean that God withheld wrath from sins past, and displaced that wrath on Jesus instead in the event of the crucifixion.

But let’s ask the question: does a person really come away from the Old Testament feeling like God is not one who punishes sin? Look at this brief sketch of judgment in the Old Testament: humanity is spiritually dead in their own sin, cast out of Paradise and God’s presence and consigned to physical death, a global flood, the scattering of all nations following the tower of Babel, fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, the ten plagues on Egypt including the death of all the firstborn, 40 years wandering in the harsh wilderness, the annihilation of the Canaanites, the persecutions under foreign powers and the wars of the Judges, and then exile to Assyria, then Babylon, then rule under Persia, then Greece, then Rome. Furthermore, when Paul begins his argument in Romans, he begins right off the bat saying that “the wrath of God is revealed (past tense and present tense) from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness.” The following paragraphs of his argument in Romans 1 make all sorts of references to Genesis, making it clear that Paul is arguing about the wrath of God revealed against humanity since humanity’s original Fall. Remember also what Paul says in Galatians 3. The whole problem of Galatians 3 is that Israel is under a curse. So penal substitution advocates have to argue that though Israel is in bondage to the curse of the law, having drank the cup of God’s anger to the dregs, and though the wrath of God has been revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of humanity, God also seems negligent in punishing sin. That makes absolutely no sense. There is no way that Paul or other Jews in the first century would be sitting around thinking, “Gosh, when is this softy, pacifist God going to start taking sin seriously and execute His punishments?” Yes, they were hoping that God would punish Rome, the current foreign empire they were under, but the narrative context for such punishment would be the elevation of Israel to reign over the world. Again, the real question against God’s justice is when He will restore Israel and the rest of the nations through her; any expected outpouring of wrath would fit within the pursuit of that goal.

Look at these strong statements from the prophets Isaiah and Daniel that God has been active in punishing Israel for her sins. In Isaiah 51:17, the prophet says to Jerusalem, “Arise, O Jerusalem, You who have drunk from the LORD’S hand the cup of His anger; The chalice of reeling you have drained to the dregs.” Jerusalem had drained the cup of God’s wrath down to the dregs. Is that compatible with the idea that God seemed to let their sins go unpunished? Similarly, in Daniel 9:11, Daniel confesses that, “Indeed all Israel has transgressed Your law and turned aside, not obeying Your voice; so the curse has been poured out on us, along with the oath which is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, for we have sinned against Him.” Again, it makes no sense to have these verses in mind and then think that there is some major problem of God appearing negligent in punishing sin.

Furthermore, in those instances in which God does withhold punishment from Israel, as in the moments following the incident with the Golden Calf, it is to prove His justice in the sight of the nations (see Exodus 32). As Isaiah 48:9 says, “For the sake of My name I delay My wrath, And for My praise I restrain it for you, In order not to cut you off.” Withholding punishment from Israel proves that He is just, that is, faithful to His promises to bless all nations through Abraham's offspring.

Rather, it makes far more sense that God’s action of “passing over the sins previously committed” refers to His delay in purging and purifying Israel from sin. God’s delay in purging sin may indeed have included certain instances in which wrath was withheld, but the overall charge against God’s faithfulness/justice is that God seems truant in fulfilling His promise to bless all nations through Abraham’s offspring, that is, Israel. The complaint is, “God, if we are the nation through whom you are to save the world and reverse Adam’s curse and crush the serpent, why do we struggle with sin just like the other nations, and why have we been stomped on by wicked and ungodly empires for the last 500 years?” Remember, because of God’s promises, Israel’s failure is God’s failure. If God fails to save the world through Israel, then He is an unjust God.

But through Jesus and his death and resurrection, God has fulfilled his promises to bless all nations through Abraham's offspring. Through his death he has purified humanity of sin, and by his resurrection, brought us out of exile to sin, Satan, and death. God is just (faithful to bless all nations through Abraham's offspring) and the justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus (regardless of whether that person is Jew or Gentile).

 

Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Ransom just means payment of a price to free from bondage. In his death, Jesus pays our debt of obedience (Romans 5). There is nothing that necessitates punishment to satisfy wrath here.

Furthermore, Jesus' words are not meant to be substitutionary, but exemplary and participatory for his followers. See the preceding verses:

"The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized."

"“You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

 

Not quite sure what you are getting at with the question. Again, regarding the cup, Jesus says “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized." That's not substitution.

The cry of dereliction does not support penal substitution.

First, the cry of dereliction is not unique to Jesus. David cried it first, because he is the one who wrote the psalm. Others sang the psalm as well to express their feelings of distress, abandonment, or God-forsakenness. The Psalmist himself, within the psalm, looks to what the fathers did when they were in moments of distress, feeling abandoned and forsaken by God (v. 4-5). So it is hard to argue that the cry of dereliction in Psalm 22 is unique to Jesus and therefore “substitutionary.” The cry of dereliction is participatory, for in it Jesus identifies with David, with all others who have sung the psalm, and with the fathers of Israel that the psalmist looks to as examples. Jesus is “forsaken” so that he can save the forsaken. He is not forsaken “instead of us” so that we will not be forsaken. Once again, we have a verse that belongs in the category of participation or recapitulation and not substitution. (The logic of recapitulation is, “just as, so also.” Just as Jesus felt forsaken, so also David and others felt forsaken).

It is also hard to argue that the cry of dereliction in psalm 22 is “penal.” Both in the immediate context of the psalm and in the context in which Jesus quotes it, the situation is very clearly a Godly man given over into the hands of sinners. Neither the gospels nor psalm 22 depict a “sinner in the hands of an angry God” scenario. Jesus is forsaken into the hands of sinners, but He is not forsaken of the Father’s love, for verse 24 of psalm 22 explicitly says, “Nor has [God] hidden His face from Him, but when he cried to Him for help, He heard.” Preachers often use Psalm 22 to support the idea that the Father turned His face away from the Son, but the psalm clearly and directly says the opposite. Jesus’ struggle on the cross is to love God by obeying Him unto death, and to trust in God’s love for Him in the midst of enduring all of humanity’s sin against him. The cry, “Why have you forsaken me?” is an expression of how the psalmist subjectively feels, not a statement of how circumstances objectively are. The objective reality discovered at the end of the psalm is that God has not forsaken the persecuted.

 

I don't know what your point is. What is your argument for penal substitution, or that Romans 3 supports penal substitution?

 

Still not sure what point you are making? Would you like to make an argument for penal substitution? Or an argument that Romans 3 supports penal substitution?

 

The question of the extent of the atonement (limited or unlimited) is a different discussion than the one in this thread. This discussion is about the mechanism of atonement. That is, HOW the death and resurrection of Jesus reconciles sinners to God. Extent of the atonement is downstream from the mechanism question. Nevertheless, there are many verses that say that Jesus died for "all", even though certainly not all will be saved but many will.

 

I am not sure I agree with the interpretation of the wine mixed with myrrh as a pain killer, but regardless, I scanned through the Spurgeon sermon and I'm not finding much of an argument for penal substitution (certainly not one that mentions Romans 3).

So Jesus refused the wine mixed with myrrh in order that his suffering might be complete. So what? That's not an argument for penal substitution. Usually arguments for penal substitution concerning the cup take the form of "Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath so we won't have to."

Spurgeon has tons to say about participating in Christ's death and fellowship with his sufferings in this sermon: "If your Maker has put you there, to suffer for his name’s sake, do not come down from the cross to which he has nailed you by a daily crucifixion, until you have suffered all; and do not take the myrrh cup of an escape until you have borne all for Christ." Spurgeon is certainly a penal substitution advocate, but not seeing what his argument is in this particular case. Maybe I scanned too quickly.

 

"A surety or 'guarantor' (ESV) is someone who guarantees the debts of a friend or family member and must pay them in full if the friend defaults."

You keep using payment analogies that are totally contrary to penal substitution.

I agree Jesus pays our debt—our debt of obedience. But that is not penal substitution. Penal substitution is that Jesus is punished in our place to satisfy retributive justice.

Jesus pays 1 billion dollars on our behalf. He does not go to the electric chair instead of us (going to the electric chair doesn't restore anyone any money).

Anselm argues that Jesus pays our debt. Yet Anselm does not teach penal substitution. You are confusing the satisfaction of justice via restitution (payment to restore what is broken) and satisfaction of justice via retribution.

For example, if I crash into your car and do $1,000 of damage, you will be angry. Your anger threatens me with punishment unless I do certain things, namely pay you restitution and apologize. So when I tell you my insurance company will pay you $5,000 and tell you that I will drive better in the future, your anger will be gone. You will be propitiated. There is no longer a purpose for the wrath because resources were provided to fix what was broken.

But penalty substitution demands a different definition and different mechanism regarding propitiation. Penalty substitution defines propitiation as “wrath exhaustion via displacement.” This means that the threatened wrath must be exhausted either on the offender or a substitute standing in for the offender. On penalty substitution, it is not enough for the anger to simply be averted. The anger must be vented. It must be carried out, or there is an injustice. Punishment must be carried out for punishment’s sake. It would be as if I came to you with $5,000 to fix your car and you said, “Nope, call up the insurance company and have them instead provide me with a car of equal worth to my own, that I can do $1,000 worth of damage to. I need to exhaust my retributive anger, and justice will not be satisfied until my anger is exhausted. Only then will I be propitiated.” This is ridiculous, and it would do nothing to fix the car, but it is exactly how the penalty substitution advocate understands the cross. God has wrath against humanity because our sin has damaged His infinite worth, and His wrath must be satisfied either on us or on Jesus to an infinite degree. Jesus stands in place of humanity and suffers his wrath, exhausting it via displacement, thus achieving propitiation. But this mechanism of wrath displacement is nowhere in Scripture.

I have commented on 2 Corinthians 5:21 before. Do you have follow up questions to my commentary?