Featured The Biblical Basis for Penal Substitution

Here are some observations that we may consider together, brother.

Guthrie notes that Hebrews 13:10 (quoting Lev. 16:27) forms the backdrop of Hebrews 13:11-14 and reiterates the interpretation of Christ as the Day of Atonement sacrifice. There are two parallels between Jesus’ sacrifice and that of Yom Kippur. First, “Jesus also suffered outside the city gate.” The old covenant sacrifices were taken outside the camp, so also Jesus was taken outside the city. The purpose of Jesus’ sacrifice was “to make the people holy.” The high-priestly offering of Jesus was, however, “through his own blood.” The passage is actually defending the superiority of that offering.

FF Bruce attributes the parallel of Jesus’ death and animals burned outside the gate to signify that Jesus died in order to “sanctify the people – bring them to God as worshippers purified in conscience – by means of his blood, the willing sacrifice of his life.

I think it fair to divorce the imagery of the scapegoat from the goat and bull sacrifice as this is exactly what the author of Hebrews does. The symbolism is not Jesus taking our sins outside of the gate to the tomb (he was actually crucified outside the gate), but that his is a superior sacrifice that sanctifies his people. Bruce has noted that Israel considered what was inside the gate as sacred, but what was outside the gate as profane and unclean. Yet Moses set the tent outside the gate. God was rejected in the camp of Israel and manifested his presence outside. What was formerly sacred was now profane and what was formerly common was now hallowed. Given the author's comments regarding the faith of Moses in Hebrews 11, and Moses considering "the reproach of Christ greater than the riches of Egypt," I think it may be a weak argument to highlight the fact that Jesus suffered outside the city.

So while I do not see a strong foundation based on Hebrew passage, or on the fact that Jesus was crucified outside the gate, I do grant that this is part and parcel of bearing our iniquities, which I also see in the scapegoat symbolism. I think that we may agree on much here.

The purpose of the scapegoat was that it symbolized the fact that both people and land had been purged from their iniquity, since the high priest made the confession of communal sin over the goat before it was driven into the wilderness. What the scapegoat offers a symbol that will find its fullest expression in Christ who takes away human sin by his death. It is vicarious in that the scapegoat, while set free, symbolically takes away the communal sin of Israel. Christ’s death, likewise, is vicarious in that he bears not his own but our sin. He suffered for us, and died that we might live. Jesus died in our place, instead of us.

The problem is that what these passages show is a sacrifice, and even propitiation. It shows Jesus dying, taking our iniquities, satisfying the demands placed upon us by our sin, taking away our sins, etc. But what it does not show is penal substitution. What you need to prove is more along the line of Abraham’s willingness to punish Isaac as an offering to God. I am not certain, brother, that an atoning sacrifice can legitimately be considered “punishment” (although “wrath” may be appropriate, and certainly suffering applies).

Penal substitution deals with imputed guilt, not necessarily a sacrifice for us but a state whereby Jesus is literally considered as guilty as us. Having imputed our sins on Christ, God then views him as guilty (although Jesus never sinned, God sees him as evil and unholy…as sin) and justly punishes him with by inflicting upon Christ our punishment for our sin. This is absent in both of your “proofs” thus far. All atonement theories affirm the “proof” that you attribute to penal substitution atonement.

If, however, you are just walking through a development of your case then I understand. This would be your second foundation towards penal substitution, not your second “proof.” Thus far, I think you could take the argument as developed here towards any theory of atonement as we have yet to leave common ground.



(Commentaries I referenced are: George Guthrie, Hebrews and F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews).

 

Yes, all sacrifices point to Christ, I agree. The entire OT Scripture points to Christ, it is all about him.

While I obviously would want evidence from scripture that Christ’s suffering was penal, I agree with Pink regarding outside of the camp being “unclean.” What I like about his comment is the emphasis on the shame of that status and such implications on us as we are to consider the “reproach of Christ” greater than any riches.

I wonder if another aspect of “outside the camp” and “outside Jerusalem” parallels the New Covenant and the Old. Christ fulfilled the Law, but our righteous is found via faith outside of the Law. In this sense, the Atonement is outside of Jerusalem. (Bruce also suggests an element of Gentile inclusion in the term).

It is an interesting subject, and I suppose that you and I would be content discussing our redemption for years to come (if we don’t stumble and make each other mad). But Pink is right that we should approach the subject solemnly, with respect and awe. I suspect that this is why you and I disagree on such strong terms regarding the scope of the penal element in the Atonement. It is not a subject to take lightly, and we need to treat Scripture with utmost care….we need to everywhere, but perhaps more so here.

 

I do understand that when you read those passages you see penal substitution dripping from the words. It may help to know that scholars for centuries have read those same passages but come up with different conclusions. The ability to understand the legitimacy of various views within their (not your) own system of thought is a valuable asset. If this is allusive, however, you can at least rest assured that penal substitution theory was not articulated for quite some time. It has never held prominence as the major view of atonement (although it is, of course, the major view among Protestants).

I held a penal substitution view for most of life. Actually, I pretty much took it for granted and just started questioning the validity of some aspects of that position a couple of months ago. So I do know the arguments, the commentaries, and the presuppositions. What made me question the accuracy of penal substitution was in reviewing a sermon I had just delivered and becoming aware of certain presuppositions I had carried into the text. The more I studied and read of earlier positions the less confident I became in my own. I asked questions, only to discover that no one I asked could provided scripture in defense of “why.” My question was not why scripture states this or that. My question was why we come to certain conclusions and offer certain explanations that are neither explicitly scripture nor the historical position of the church. I wondered if NT Wright had a point when he suggested that there are areas where we look upon Scripture as if we were sixteenth century reformers rather than first century Christians.

I know the history of the theories of atonement. I know the development and building of these doctrines. I can see reflected in many of the views circumstances of a particular age peeking through the curtains. The persecutions of ransom theorists, the medieval worldview approaching the codification of honor in satisfaction theory, the treasury of merit and penance of substitution theorists, and of course the struggle of the Reformation and the replacement of penance and merit, the notions so engrained in sixteenth century RCC thought, with substitutionary punishment in penal substitution. So my question became why. Why do we accept a context other than a first century context in which to view the Atonement? J.I. Packer says that it is because penal substitution was underdeveloped. The elements were there but it was not put together. My question then would be….but for fifteen centuries, when theories had been developed and refined, accepted and rejected, already for at least twelve centuries?

Here is the issue, brother. You have posted Scripture that we all agree upon. But you throw in statements after these passages stating things like “On the cross He bore the punishment due to us and endured the separation from the Father that we deserve that we might live forever in the presence of God.”

That statement is penal substitution. But you have not provided passages that indicate Jesus bore “the punishment due to us,” or that Jesus “endured the separation from the Father.” The scripture that you quote was interpreted for centuries as Christ dying for humanity and taking on human sin in his flesh. They focused more, granted, on the physical death (actually, I’m not sure they were wrong there) than we seem willing. But why? That’s my question. Why should we accept the explanations you weave throughout the biblical text? If we should, then there should be a reason. I’m not, BTW, questioning your scholarship. I am questioning your worldview. I think that this is where the difference lies – in the lens through which we look.

Perhaps Leon Morris had a point when he wrote “We are small minded sinners and the atonement is great and vast. We should not expect that our theories will ever explain it fully.” But I think that we can refine our views and rid, as best we can, our theologies from secular worldviews and presuppositions.

 

Brother, I am highlighting some of the difficulties I am having with your argument. I hope that this will help us work through these things towards at least a better understanding of each other.

Here is where I disagree. God “has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” And then you add “and punished sin in Him.” The text does not support “punishment,” much less the “punishment of sin.” You have taken liberties with the text by inferring the meaning of “punishment” rather than “atonement” or “sacrifice.” The quote you offer is from Isaiah 53 – God lays on him our iniquities and offers him as a guilt offering. There is no indication of punishment. As far as theories go, the closes you can get to this is Aquinas – but he was adamant that this cannot be “our punishment” because that would make God unjust (hence penance).

Again, you speak of scripture but change “He bore our sins” to “He bore the punishment due to us.” I am not sure where this comes from, but it does not come from the text itself. Yes, our punishment is averted. But nowhere does scripture say that Jesus bore our punishment (this is certainly not implied in “atonement”, it is an addition). So why do we automatically make that connection? It is not universally obvious as the early church did not make that conclusion, neither did the Catholics, neither did the Anabaptists. It is a distinctly Protestant view (and not even universally accepted here).

But let’s start here and work through the rest afterwards.

It may be an easier, if you are willing, discussion to walk through and learn how each of us understands the concept as it is a bit more concise. Is there a passage that states Jesus was separated from the Father? If so, in what context?

 

Good morning, Martin. Before I address your answer to the question, I’ll quickly speak to the points that you have brought up. If you would like we can then go back and discuss them in more detail.

I prefer to keep posts brief, but I always fail. In my attempt for brevity I have failed to explain this point. Thank you for bringing it to my attention as I think I can temper your amazement.


“Wounded, bruised, chastisement and stripes” all correspond to Christ’s suffering. In fact, it would be a good idea to pause and read Psalm 22 for emphasis. It deals with what Jesus endured leading up to and on the cross, suffering as an atonement for us. In a sense this is punishment, I grant that. It is punishment on behalf of those men who falsely accused and executed a false judgment upon their Messiah. Peter makes this clear in his first two sermons as found in the Book of Acts. The men killed their Messiah, they falsely accused him and gave him over to the Romans, insisting that he be executed. But they did so out of ignorance. Peter informs them of two things. First, where there is ignorance there is the possibility of forgiveness (this they knew from the Law). Second, even though they did this deed it was the will and plan of God that it occur. The punishment was an act of evil, but it could be forgiven.


God, however, offered his Son as a sacrifice. This was not punishment. Penal Substitution atonement misplaces the intent from men to God. Were this punishment, then God would have either acted out of evil or out of ignorance. Peter leaves us with no other option. Calvin, however, provides one. He divorces “lay our iniquities on him” from “offering him as a guilt offering” and attributes to that phrase imputed sin. Quite literally, Penal Substitution holds that God imputed our sin on Jesus and looked on Jesus as evil. He made him who knew no evil or sin to be evil or sin for us. Therefore God could punish Jesus with the punishment due evil. If you cannot accept that on the cross God viewed Jesus as evil (instead of his “Righteous One,” or his “Obedient one”) then you cannot accept penal substitution theory.


On the part of God (which is what we are talking about here), Jesus was not punished with our punishment. For illustration, when Abraham lay Isaac on the alter to be sacrificed, Abraham was intending to offer his son as a sacrifice in obedience to God. Although Isaac would have suffered (probably did suffer mentally), punishment was not in view.

Sure, my apologies. I’ll do even better – I’ll look through the entire chapter.

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions;he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and theLordhas laid on himthe iniquity of us all.

Yetit was the will of theLordto crush him;he has put him to grief;
when his soul makesan offering for guilt,he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of theLordshall prosper in his hand.
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall seeand be satisfied;
by his knowledge shallthe righteous one, my servant,make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.”

My point is that you have added to this beautiful description of our redemption, of God laying on him our sins as a guilt offering, the phrase “and punished sin in him.” Where, brother, did that come from? It came from your own worldview and your own reasoning which you have placed within the text itself. There is no other explanation for so many have gone before us without coming to that conclusion.

I am Baptist. I do not hold to Catholic doctrine because I believe it heresy. I don’t think Aquinas is “so great,” my point is that your view is a reformation of Aquinas. I am asking you why you lean so heavily on Roman Catholic doctrine reformed? And I am pointing out that the closest you can get to a historical view of penal substation is Aquinas’ divine penance, not that I believe Aquinas to be correct. He was just as wrong as Calvin, but it is perhaps understandable given their circumstances and the milieu in which they refined their doctrines.

 

Habakkuk does say that God has too pure of eyes to look upon evil. Here you are accidentally confirming something that you just denied. You told me that God did not view Jesus as evil, yet you offer this passage in support of that separation between the Father and the Son? Either way, whether mere inconsistence or error, the argument does not pan out.

What you quote is Habakkuk’s second complaint of God, appealing to God’s own nature to act. God cannot condone sin. What you have presented here is a false dichotomy between the Father and the Son. It is an error in understanding the divinity of Christ. Habakkuk applies to the nature of God. It also applies to Jesus. Not only does your argument take the passage out of context, but unless you believe that Jesus ceased being God on the cross this is not an argument you should consider.

Yes, this is descriptive of the punishment that men deserve. The second death, which is also a future judgment when Death and Hades is cast into Hell. We can’t redefine terms to suit our needs. Jesus is Life, and he is that Life that those who are in Hell are separated from. In him everything lives and has their being. Jesus cannot be separated from God and be God. Now if you are saying that what Jesus suffered was infinitely greater than our eternal separation and torment in Hell, and this suffering is accounted to us based on Jesus’ merit (as God suffering for man), then this is the Roman Catholic view.

Here you, again, are adding to the text. Jesus could have been quoting the scripture that he was fulfilling (Psalm 22). I believe that he is. But nothing there indicates separation. In fact, the passage as a whole denies it.

Matthew 27:45-54 45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying,“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”that is,“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”47 And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.”48 And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink.49 But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.”50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. 51 And behold,the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. Andthe earth shook, and the rocks were split.52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said,“Truly this was the Son of God!”

Notice, brother, that when Jesus cried out some thought he was calling Elijah. Not only that, but they wanted to wait and see if he would come and save him. Why? Is it because they understood Jesus to have been separated from God? No, that doesn’t make sense with the text. Jesus was experiencing a physical death as God’s Righteous One. Consider Psalm 91:12 as used when Satan tempted Christ. Here we have a righteous man who is not being delivered from the cross. This is Psalm 22, not Jesus dying spiritually and experiencing the second death.

You are weaving explanation throughout your interpretation of the text, brother. My suggestion is to try understanding first what the text actually says. Then form a commentary if necessary, but never stand on that reasoning.

 

I agree...how could God look upon his Son as sin, but then again I don't hold a penal substitution view. That separation you hold between sin and the sinner is, BTW, of Gnostic origin. Scripture does not differentiate so much between the sin and the sinner. Sins are manifestations of our sinfulness.

But I also realize that we are not always consistent in our views. You can very well view God as punishing Jesus with the "second death" in our stead while all along viewing him as his Righteous One. Scripture certainly insists that God never looked upon Jesus as sin but as righteous and obedient (Ezekiel 36). I question, however, the extent of your penal substitution theory (you seem to have many objections to the reasons leading to the conclusions you hold). Again, we are not always consistent in our reasoning.

 

Laugh I am. I know that my reasoning is not always consistent, that's why I insist here that we rely on Scripture. Thumbsup

 

I ran across this quote, Martin, that speaks to this issue a bit more generally.

“Paul depicts Jesus’ death ‘for me,’ not as something that has happened ‘in place of’ and so outside of himself (per penal substitution), but as something that has happened to himself personally: ‘I have been crucified with Christ.’ And that the death of Jesus is something that has happened to himself rather than ‘in place of’ himself makes all the difference: ‘it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.’ In Romans, Paul connects this transformative ‘exchange’ between dying ‘with Christ’ and Christ living ‘in me’ to the believer’s dying and rising ‘with Christ’ through baptism. Indeed, Paul speaks of such an intimate relationship between Jesus’ death and the believer’s baptism that some commentators interpret Paul to mean that the believer not only symbolically identifies with Jesus’ death but really participates in death ‘with Christ.’” ( Darrin Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace, pg. 314)

 

No, brother, I do get it. What I am saying is that sacrifice is not "punishment." You are taking bits and pieces of scripture and ignoring the whole.
But I'll look over this post more while you are away - I look forward to continuing - hopefully we can find the allusive scripture pointing to the actual "penal" part of the argument so we don't have to considered it implied (that, I believe, is where we disagree the most. It is not actually there, you see it implied but I don't).