In the last post I asked, “What is Penal Substitutionary Atonement?”
I summarized Thomas Schreiner’s position in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views as fairly as possible.
Now I’m going to offer my own review of the biblical materials.
Just How Biblical Is Penal Substitution?
Advocates like Schreiner say their view is the most biblical version because it reads the Bible most plainly.
But is this really the case?
The penal substitution view, in review, claims that
1) human sinfulness
2) before a holy God,
3) requires a sacrifice to pay the penalty of sin.
Certainly human sinfulness finds broad support in the Bible. As does the holiness of God. And the fact that Israel offered sacrifices and Jesus’ death is viewed as a sacrifice is undeniable.
So in broad strokes the penal substitution view seems to be biblical.
But while quoting chapter and verse for the broad strokes of the theory, penal substitution makes unbiblical assumptions about the details.
And usually the “logic” or “theology” of penal substitution does most of the heavy lifting rather than close attention to the biblical text.
False Assumption and True Biblical Positions
1) Holiness
False Assumption: Holiness requires a penalty for sin.
When penal substitution advocates talk about the holiness of God, say in Isaiah 6, sin certainly becomes an issue for Isaiah in the presence of God.
But while there is often a penalty for sin. This isn’t always the case.
True: God’s holiness requires our cleansing of sin.
To be truly biblical, we must look at what the Bible really says about Isaiah’s situation. Isaiah doesn’t cry out, “I am a sinner in need of punishment!”
He says, “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips” (Is. 6: 5).
And the solution isn’t to transfer his sin to another who is punished. Rather the solution is to purify Isaiah with a burning coal (which takes away his guilt and accomplishes atonement, v. 6-7).
Similarly, 1 John 1:7 tells us that Jesus’ blood “cleanses us from all sin.”
And we are told that the entire point of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), the linchpin of many substitutionary atonement theories, is specifically for cleansing. Here is the summary statement for the Day of Atonement: “For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you to cleanse you, so that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord” (Lev. 16:30).
The Bible clearing makes links between holiness and being clean, not between holiness and punishment.
2) Wrath
False: God’s Wrath is Connected to being a Judge
Penal substitution advocates link God’s wrath to his holiness and justice (attributes of God). They look to the logic of God’s attributes as all working together such that justice and holiness lead to God’s personal wrath against sin.
This sounds all well and good…and logical. But it doesn’t fit the pattern of biblical revelation.
True: God’s Wrath is Connected to a Covenant Relationship
Especially in the prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, God’s wrath is revealed toward Israel because God had entered into a covenant relationship with Israel and Israel had forsaken it for other gods.
God’s wrath is that of a jealous lover who see his beloved throwing her life away, destroying herself foolishly.
God’s wrath isn’t a judicial reaction.
God’s wrath is a marriage reaction of “How could you do this?”
God’s wrath must be connected to God’s love primarily, rather than God’s holiness or justice. When God’s covenant love encounters the sin of unfaithfulness, wrath is the result.
Now God’s wrath is a big topic, and there are certainly passages in Numbers and Deuteronomy where God seems to want to destroy (punish) Israel for sin.
For more on wrath check out But What About God’s Wrath?: The Compelling Love Story of Divine Anger.
3) Wrath and Sacrifice
False: God’s Wrath is Appeased through Sacrifice (the death of something).
Penal substitution advocates claim that God’s holy and just wrath is appeased through the just punishment of the one who deserves it, or the substitution of another, and that sacrifices in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament are this substitution upon which divine wrath falls.
(How it is that justice is served by punishing one besides the person committing the crimes is how to square with justice, but that is another matter.)
True: The Sacrificial System was NOT set up to extinguish wrath or fulfill justice.
There are some, a few, biblical texts that seem to suggest (very metaphorically) that God is satisfied or appease by sacrifices.
But NO WHERE in the book of Leviticus, which explains the entire sacrificial system, are we told that God wrath is appeases or satisfied through sacrifice.
The word “wrath” doesn’t even appear in the book!
So if we are to be biblical in the details, not just in theory, we need to understand what the sacrifices are doing according to the biblical book that speaks most about sacrifices (rather than letting a couple verses elsewhere determine the means for us…because that is bad Bible study).
Does this mean that sin and justice aren’t important? No. Of course not. Just that the sacrifices didn’t deal with justice in the way that penal substitution advocates think.
See this for more on sacrifice and atonement.
4) Sacrifices and Substitution of Sin
False: Sacrifices receive the transfer of a person’s sin
Penal substitution advocates claim that the sacrificial animal in Leviticus receives the sins of the one making the sacrifices, becoming a substitute and receiving the penalty of death. They point how the one offering the sacrifice lays a hand on the animal (Lev. 1:4; 3:2; 3:13; 4:4; and many other texts).
The assumption is that “laying on a hand” is a type of transfer of sin so that the animal can be a substitute.
The Bible, however, never says this. It is an inference.
But is it a good inference? No, it isn’t.
True: Only the Scapegoat on the Day of Atonement Receives the Sins of the People
Is there a place that we are told—explicitly—that someone’s sins are transferred onto the sacrificial animal?
Yes.
In Leviticus 16, in the description of the Day of Atonement.
I’ll quote it in full.
20 “When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. 21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task. 22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:20-22)
Notices two things.
1) Two hands are placed on the goat as the priest confesses the sins of the people over it.
All the other verses speak only of one hand on the animal, and they never explicitly say that sins are confessed over the animal.
2) The goat is not sacrificed! It doesn’t die! It isn’t killed! All the sins of Israel are “carried away” by the goat that doesn’t die.
So, the only place in Leviticus that tells us explicitly that sins are confessed, transferred, or substituted onto a sacrifice, is also the time when that animal doesn’t die.
Do it is hard to understand the assumptions that sacrifices are necessarily a substitute for sin, and receive the penalty of death, when the one text that makes the link between a animal and sin ends with the animal not being killed.
5) Blood is Given as the Substitute of Death
False: Blood represents the death of one substituted for the death of another.
Penal substitution advocates claim that blood represents death. And death is the penalty paid for sin.
The two go to texts to understand the significance of blood are Hebrews 9:22b and Leviticus 17:11.
These say that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22) and that “the life of a creature is in the blood, and I [God] have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar” (Lev. 17:11).
But again, these texts outside their context is trading on dangerous assumptions, distorting the details of the Bible.
True: Sacrificial Blood is Given as a Gift of Life
What does the full verse of Hebrew 9:22 says?
“The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22).
So cleansing is the purpose of blood and the process through which forgiveness occurs (which we already looked at above).
And what about Leviticus 17:11? Well, that verse claims that it is the LIFE that is in the blood.
And maybe it is the “life” of the sacrifice that counteracts, rather than compensates for, the death caused by sin?
Maybe it is the “life” of the sacrifice that suspends the reign of death, rather than substituting one death for another death.
Indeed, when the “life” of the sacrifice is coupled with the idea that sacrifices are for cleansing, it makes sense that the “blood” is something like a ritual-spiritual detergent that cleans what is stained by sin and death.
See this for more on the Blood.
Primary Problematic Assumption
The primary problematic assumption is that penal substitution advocates see the main problem in the Bible as one of individual sin needing forgiveness.
But when you step back and look at the entire story of the Bible we find that our sin problem is not the main problem.
And because we have lost the presence and purposes of God, we have become enslaved to the perverted powers and principalities.
So, while we certainly do need forgiveness of sin, we also are captives to sin and need redemption from sin.
Which, thankfully, the Bible speaks abundantly about.
TOMORROW, I’ll write about another view of the atonement called the Christus Victor view (here is a sneak peak).
—
If you want to know all my thoughts on the sacrifice of Jesus, especially the parts we are likely to forget, check out The Forgotten Sacrifice of Jesus.
Otherwise, so you don’t miss the next post because of social media’s crazy algorithms, sign up for my newsletter.
If you need spiritual direction on this issue, please contact Cyd Holsclaw
6 replies on “Critiquing Penal Substitutionary Atonement”
Excellent! Simple and accurate. One of the few things I have read recently that makes sense with our world today.
Great critique of PSA! I think your focus on cleansing from sin is central to understanding the atonement. Thank you for this piece.
https://faithalone.net/topical-articles/articles/false-doctrines/rejection-of-penal-substitutionary-atonement.html
Think about what your promoting for a second.
God the Father does not teach that of whom He declares a legitimate child being written in the book of life(the book He has written Exodus 32:32) is reserved for His Wrath. for to die under Divine Wrath one is declared by God a enemy as a unforgivable sinner! Such a person to die in sin under such reserved Wrath/orge is not only enslaved to sin but also is spiritually dead(separated from God) thus remains spiritually dead partaking in the Second Death(everlasting separation from God) in the lake of fire. which is the 2nd death where God’s Wrath remains forever upon those not written in the book of life thus will never be quenched as there is no ending to such punishment.
So your promoting hopefully in ignorance of the whole of scripture that the eternal Son declared as YHVH in both testaments was never a legitimate Son wether pre-incarnate nor incarnate. Severing the union that the scriptures reveal of the Godhead.
PSA also further subverts the purpose of the supernatural and unblemished conception of Yeshua by rendering Yeshua a abomination in ones place to Father. who in being sent to fulfill the offerings and sacrifices came to offer himself upward to Father. Of which God would reject Yeshua as a offerer and offering to bring about redemption.
If God required an blemished person as the offering to redeem and atone, then there was no point in Yeshua being born.
PSA grossly subverts the Impassible and imputable nature and character of The Godhead.
I have many other points, but this should be sufficient for the Holy Spirit, to utilize as a instrument of conviction, if you belonging to Father, to with Godly Sorrow come to confession and repentance.
I think you can add that the method of sacrificing the animal was not punitive or wrathful. It was rather human and relatively painless to the animal. Penal substitution would beating the animal or suffocating or strangling it.
In Eden, we left spiritual dependence, but we still need His Spirit. So God shares His Spirit with believers. In this spiritual relationship: We take the role of Christ’s body, and Jesus takes the role of Head toward God. We bring sin into this relationship. But He filters it out, because the Head knows better. How? Whatever Jesus bears outside of His control is God’s responsibility. The Head of us doesn’t intend to do those sins of His body. Therefore, He would not offer to God those sins. Therefore, God doesn’t count those sins. (It’s not sin- unless it’s against God.)
Then what happens to the sin? It falls into His death outlet. Even beyond the death outlet and into the spiritual realm, God doesn’t ultimately have to count sin, because He owns all. This means that neither the body nor the responsible Head would suffer the spiritual realm’s curse for those sins as God is happy without frustration. However, in the physical realm, He must die.
That’s what we’re zooming into here. He dies under the physical curse. Sin is intertwined with the physical curse (for our hope.) The physical curse is what we all experience through life, especially at the end. Spiritually blind people, or even animals manipulate this curse. (But not too much since it’s pinned by the spiritual realm.) I mean, we can punish the wrong person, or else save lives with air bags. This physical realm then, give us time to repent, and gives Jesus a chance to die- so to speak. If we die in our own sins, we’d have to go to hell, that is, the spiritual curse. I hope that’s clear.
Now, I’ll use different aspects to show the same thing: Thorns were part of Adam’s curse. Christ’s Head took thorns, although He was nailed by the body’s limbs. Ok, this next one is interesting: The hand is put over the Head of the sin offering. We are His hands, you remember, our sins are laid on His Head. From that point, two things happen. The goat representing sin, is taken out. The other is offered to God. So we see, what I call filtration. He is not offering our sins to God, but filtering them out. So our sins end, nailed at the cross; while He goes on to offers HimSelf to God Spiritually. You know the story, He gives up His Spirit to God after death to distribute to those who assent to His invitation.
I have something maybe more interesting now. 2 Cor 5:21 “For he hath made him to be sin over us,” (the Greek word here is hyper, meaning over… like Head.) Then it say, ” who knew no sin;” (obviously, the perfect One to Mediate.) Then it says, “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” We are God’s righteousness in this world, His hands, His body. God works through us. This verse shows Him being our spiritual Head, meaning He is our way of sinning, that sounds strange. But it’s so interesting, that He is the filter through which we must do all of our sins. Again, we’re His hands to do good, He’s our Head to choose bad- but He doesn’t. He doesn’t offer our shared sins to God, for God to count. (That would be a bad Head.)
We’re stuck in two important ways. 1. God doesn’t consider us family without the family Spirit. And not being family, He refuses to like anything we do. And at the same time 2. we do things that He doesn’t like, which do not encourage Him to bring us into His family. These two reasons play off each other, rendering us helpless.
Anything that God’s people steal, He can give them for free. It’s unexplainable Grace. And if they give it back, He’ll reward them. But the only way to join His family and receive such a benefit is to go through the gate of forgiveness. Now, forgiving would be the same as giving. But for-given means that you’re given something that you already stole. Basically, He turns what you stole, into a donation. (Besides, He knew that you’d do it.) Of course, He has more for anyone than they could steal, but some reject Him anyway. Giving those sins afore, by bearing them in His flesh- that’s actually forgiveness.
It’s God’s honor to give, as well as forgive, to the helpless. Forgiveness makes him valuable to us. And it’s valuable for Him to get us. He cut off from HimSelf, what that you stole. When He FOR-Gave He didn’t cut off His glory, He revealed it by having more. He glorified His Unique Eternal Spring which we receive. No one pays God to turn the cheek; He wants to be exemplary. It’s our job to be undeserving. Let us then, do the same, and cut off those sins for reward.