Appeasement of a Monster God? A Historical and Biblical Analysis of Penal Substitutionary Atonement - By Geoffrey Butler

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

--------------

Though this article clocks in at over 6000 words, we were only interested in the section dealing with the author's biblical case for Penal Substitutionary Atonement. That section, quoted below, is about 2450 words.

What we will find is the author is steeped in Reformist/Calvinist theology, so much so that he cannot see any other possibility. He does what all Calvinists do, explain Calvinism. That's what they do at every opportunity. They don't teach the Bible per se, they teach their doctrines.

We therefore must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss Penal Substitutionary Atonement here. We discuss propitiation here.

----------------------

(...)

4. The Biblical Witness

While the testimony of the historic church is indispensable to properly understanding the atonement—or, in fact, any doctrine—the ultimate standard by which any theological claim must be measured is the Word of God itself. For the purpose of understanding the atonement, it must be asked whether the Bible itself supports the notion of penal substitution, beginning in the OT. This requires at very least a basic understanding of how an Israelite in that context would have understood concepts such as atonement, the wrath of God, and redemption. In the first place, the concept of penal substitution rests on the notion that the wrath of God is indeed a fearful reality and that he will carry out retribution against those who violate his holiness.

While penal substitution is far from a developed doctrine in the early chapters of Genesis, God establishes a pattern that he intends all of his creation to abide by: obey his commands and live, or disregard them and face the consequence—death.47 This is the inevitable result of sin and is a direct result of the judgement of God—as the Apostle Paul would put it thousands of years later, “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23 ESV). Moreover, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, while not explicitly laid out in Genesis 22, seems to be foreshadowed as notable parallels exists between the offering of Isaac and the sacrifice of Christ.48 As the passage details Abraham and Isaac journeying up the mountain together, so the Gospels detail Jesus’s journey from Bethlehem to Calvary, communing with the Father and submitting to his will along the way. However, unlike when Abraham lays his son on the altar yet is ultimately permitted to spare him, God the Son is abandoned on the cross (He was not abandoned. Jesus quoted the first verse of Psalm 22 [My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?] to point to the content of this messianic Psalm. He wasn't bemoaning His supposed abandonment, He was showing that this Psalm was being fulfilled right at that moment. We discuss this at length here.)

as he bears the sins of the world;49 there is no goat or ram supplied to serve as a sacrifice, for the spotless lamb bears the wrath of God in the stead of sinners. (This is the matter to be demonstrated, not simply asserted. 

Jesus did not bear the wrath of God. There is no verse that says He did. He as the Lamb of God died to spill His blood: 

Heb. 9:22 ...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

His blood, shed for us, washes us clean and new: 

1 John 1:7 ...the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. 

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!

The blood is completely sufficient. Punishing Jesus is unnecessary.)

Donald McLeod posits that it is this separation that evokes Christ’s cry of dereliction from the cross as he sorrowfully laments his abandonment by the Father.50 (Well, Mr. McLeod is wrong. He was never separated from the Father. Calvinists rarely read the actual psalm, for in verse 24 it says, 

Ps. 22:24 For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.

The author and Mr. McLeod, are either misinformed or they are deceivers.)

While God spares Isaac, he offers Jesus; (Actually, God Spared Isaac and provided a ram to spill its atoning blood.)

while Abraham’s son continues to enjoy fellowship with his father, the Son of God is forsaken by his. (As mentioned, this is false.)

Likewise, in the Levitical Law—and indeed, the entirety of Israel’s story from the Exodus in Egypt through their conquest of the Land—the concept of a blood atonement, (This is true.)

with a substitute offered (This is false. There is no substitution. The blood atones, it does not swap places.

Notice how the author's sparse documentation has completely disappeared.)

to cover the sins of the people, is inescapable. (Inescapable, by the author's assertion only. No evidence has been offered.)

As the angel of death passed through the land of Egypt, prepared to take the life of every firstborn son in an act of divine judgement for that nation’s oppression of God’s people, the Israelites were commanded to paint their doorposts with the blood of a slaughtered lamb so that the wrath of God would not come upon their household as well.51 What deflected the wrath of God, the sentence of death, was not the righteousness of the Israelites; they too would suffer the loss of their firstborn unless they obeyed the command. The difference lay in the blood which lay over the doorpost, indicating that a sacrifice had been made the cover the household. (Well, so the author does understand. The spilled blood atones...)

Thus, the Passover lamb—which would be memorialized for millennia in the Jewish Passover festival—served as a substitutionary, propitiatory role, (...but then he fumbles. Not substitutionary, sir. And in fact, propitiation contradicts substitution. If the spilled blood successfully propitiates, then substitution is unneeded.)

pointing to their future Messiah who would one day serve as the true and perfect Lamb of God.52 And what of Leviticus? The Day of Atonement alone embodies the concept of penal substitution, with its ceremony involving two goats; one to be slaughtered and the other to be sent into the wilderness, bearing the sins of the nation.53 (Neither goat was punished or abused. Neither goat was regarded as guilty. The slaughtered goat spilled its blood [atonement], while the scapegoat carried Israel's sin outside the camp [separation from sin].)

While Calvin may have expounded in depth the concepts of expiation and propitiation in the sixteenth century, one need look no further than this ritual from Leviticus for a prime example of how the two are connected in dealing with human sin. Indeed, the Hebrew word for atonement—כפר—frequently refers to an act of propitiation.54 (Atonement is not propitiation. They mean different things. Atonement [kaphar] means to "cover over." When Noah covered the ark with pitch, he "atoned" [kaphar] the ark. 

Propitiation, [hilaskomai] by contrast, does not cover over sin, it appeases and turns away wrath.)

In Numbers 25:13, for example, Phineas the priest “made atonement [kaphar] for the people of Israel” by driving a spear through a couple caught in fornication—an act that, though gruesome and even somewhat bizarre to the modern reader, satisfied God’s wrath and ended the plague the he had brought upon the nation on account of their idolatry and sexual immorality with the Midianites.55 (Yes, the spilling of blood atones [kaphar] for sin. But in this case certainly, The soul who sins is the one who will die. Ez. 18:4b. Blood atones.)

Finally, no discussion of the doctrine of penal substitution would be complete without a thorough analysis of Isaiah 53, which details the afflictions of one commonly referred to as “the suffering servant”—in the historic Christian understanding, the Son of God himself. (We analyze Isaiah 53 in some detail here. Suffice to say, there is no mention of God's wrath in this passage, no mention of God punishing the servant for our sin, and no mention of substitution. 

Dear reader, if you are able to read Isaiah 53 with fresh eyes and no preconceptions, you will discover that there is no Penal Substitutionary Atonement to be found there, or indeed, anywhere in the Bible.)

What is so striking about this passage is that not only does the servant substitute himself in the place of others, but that, in doing so, he is afflicted by Yahweh himself.56 (Afflicted, yes. Substitutionary, nope. Affliction isn't substitutionary punishment.)

William Lane Craig notes that what God refused to do to Moses—that is, take his life on behalf of the people of Israel—he readily does to the servant.57 Reminiscent of the Levitical Law, he is said to be a “sacrifice for sin,” echoing the language of animal sacrifices prescribed in the Torah. Moreover, verse 10 makes the striking assertion that it “was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief” (Isa 53:10), (Crushed, yes. Punished, certainly. Substitutionary, nope.)

making it abundantly clear that the servant is taking a punishment that is not his own. (Indeed. But who punished Him? The Father didn't. The spotless Lamb of God was crushed, abused, and beaten at the behest of the Father by the Roman soldiers, but again, there is no statement that He was punished for our sin. We once again refer the reader to the prophetic statements of Psalm 22.

Ironically, perhaps, the author is taking the position of what Isaiah issues a correction for: 

Is. 53:4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

"YET we considered him smitten by God." Isaiah is clear that this was a mistaken idea, that he was not stricken by God.)

The surprising element in this passage is that, while God had indeed commanded the Israelites to engage in animal sacrifice, the practice of human slaughter was strictly forbidden—unlike the cults of Israel’s pagan neighbours. In this passage, it seems clear that what Yahweh would not accept from Isaac or Moses, he would accept from the servant—to bear the sins of the people and in doing so incur the divine wrath that should have fallen on them.58 (Jesus did not incur divine wrath. It would certainly be helpful if the author provided a documenting Scripture. At this point, one would be enough.)

Just to demonstrate that the OT foreshadows a penal substitutionary atonement would be insufficient, however; many opponents of the model concede that the God of Israel frequently seems to behave in a brutal manner.59 What should really be of interest in understanding the cross, it is charged, is how Christ and his Apostles understood the atonement. Thus, proponents of penal substitution must be willing to grapple extensively with what the NT teaches as well. (Having failed to demonstrate from the OT that the sacrifices were punished for the sins of the offeror, the author moves on to the NT.)

Throughout his earthly life and ministry, Jesus forthrightly declared that his purpose in coming to earth was to give his life as a ransom.60 (Quite correct. 

1Ti. 2:6 ...who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its proper time.

His death was necessary to spill blood. It was a high price. He paid this price for us: 

1Co. 6:20a you were bought at a price.

This is not substitutionary. 

By way of illustration, if Gary is working his way up the corporate ladder by putting in late nights and Saturdays, one might say that Gary paid the price to obtain his success. However, he did not substitute himself to obtain success, he gave himself up for success. 

Similarly, with Jesus dying on the cross He paid the price for us. He did not substitute Himself, He gave up Himself to save us. It was not a transaction with another party, it was a transaction with Himself as part of the Trinity. 

Again, blood spilled turns away wrath. The blood is enough.)

This sentiment is echoed throughout the NT letters, making clear that his Apostles also viewed his work on the cross as a substitution for others. Scot McKnight, elaborating on Christ’s understanding of his atonement, notes that Jesus depicts his suffering as a necessity; the Son of Man, as he often speaks of himself, had to be delivered over to the authorities and suffer.61 Likewise, in Matthew 20:28, Jesus employs the Greek word αντί—that is, in place of (Nope. We can read it for ourselves. Let's quote it since the author seems reluctant:

Mt. 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

The word in question is "for," a ransom for many. The Greek word is Anti [ αντί], and in this context the meaning is

b. of that for which anything is given, received, endured: Matthew 5:38; Matthew 17:27 (to release me and thyself from obligation); Hebrews 12:2 (to obtain the joy; cf. Bleek, Lünemann, or Delitzsch at the passage); of the price of sale (or purchase): Hebrews 12:16; λύτρον ἀντί πολλῶν, Matthew 20:28

So Jesus gave His life a ransom payment "for" many. 

"Ransom" is the Greek word lutron,

literally, the ransom-money (price) to free a slave. 3083 (lýtron) is used in the NT of the ultimate "liberty-price" – the blood of Christ which purchases (ransoms) believers, freeing them from all slavery (bondage) to sin.

Jesus did not substitute, otherwise he would now be the property of the other side of the transaction [whomever that might be]). Therefore, this is is not substitution.)

—to describe his death on the cross for sinners, demonstrating that he understood his work to be substitutionary in nature.62 During the Last Supper with his disciples, he interprets the OT Passover ceremony as a foreshadowing of his own atonement—the Passover, in which a lamb would be slaughtered in order to cover the sins of the people. (Yes, the author gets it right. Atonement via spilled blood covers sin.)

The bread and wine that he offers to the disciples is his body given “for you” and his blood poured out “for you” (Luke 22:19–20), which would be shed “for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28). It seems (We do not make important doctrinal claims based on what "seems.")

that in Christ’s understanding of the atonement, there is more in view than a cosmic defeat of sin or a moral example; rather, he offers his life as a substitute for them. ("For you" does not mean "substitute." Again, we can read for ourselves. The word  "for" in these verses are actually various Greek words. The most relevant one is Luke 22:19, where we find the Greek word hypér:  

Lk. 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Hypér does not mean substitution:

(hypér) naturally expresses conferring benefit, i.e. for the sake of "betterment" (improvement, extending benefit).

Jesus died for the sake of benefitting, for the betterment of us; He did not take our place, he improved our place.) 

At this point, some critics of the penal substitutionary model posit that it makes God guilty of hypocrisy, for if God requires a sacrifice on the part of Jesus before he forgives, how could Christ, in his earthly ministry, instruct his disciples to turn the other cheek and simply forgive when they are wronged?63 Is God not, in punishing his Son, ignoring his own command to his people? (We've never heard such an argument. We hope the author doesn't consider it the best one. But it's the only one he will cite.)

However, such a charge fails to recognize how the persons of the Trinity, when rightly understood, are not at odds in this understanding of the atonement.64 First of all, the fact that each member plays a different role in accomplishing the atonement does not mean it is not a thoroughly Trinitarian work; on the contrary, this would make the atonement not unlike creation, the incarnation, or the resurrection.65 Christ did not have his life taken against his will; as the Gospels document, he laid it down of his own accord (John 10:18). Thus, on this understanding Jesus is not a helpless victim but a humble savior as Isaiah 53 depicts. As for the charge that penal substitution depicts God as unwilling to forgive others, as Jesus requires of his people, it is certainly possible that Jesus instructs his disciples to forgive those who have wronged them precisely because of his atonement. Whatever wrong one’s human enemies may have committed, the atonement of Christ means that their sin has been dealt with at the cross by the Son of God, indicating his willingness to forgive—thus necessitating a willingness for his people to do the same. Second, the argument that God cannot take vengeance if he instructs his people not to do so runs counter to the NT’s teaching that God’s people must not seek revenge in part because the Lord repays individuals according to his justice.66 Judgment is a prerogative that, while denied to his followers, is reserved for God himself, who always judges perfectly. Finally, because penal substitution is a Trinitarian act, in which God, in the flesh, bears the penalty due humanity, it is essentially God himself assuming that which his enemies should have borne. Does this not parallel the human act of forgiveness—often a painful step—in a very real sense? 

The doctrine is not limited to Jesus’s teaching, however, as it is clearly on display in the thought of Paul. (Since Jesus didn't teach it, we sincerely doubt Paul did.)

The apostle notes that all people are under the wrath of God on account of their failure to acknowledge him for who he is (Rom 1:18). (True.)

The penalty for such an offense is death; (True.)

however, in his writing to the Corinthian church, Paul declares that God made Christ to be sin in a substitutionary sense order to accomplish the redemption of humanity. Brian Vickers explains, that “The Old Testament background of Paul’s language, the concept of reconciliation, and the context all point to a sacrificial interpretation of ‘God made him who had no sin to be sin’ in 2 Corinthians 5:21.”67 (Sigh. Substitution is a premise that must already be in place in order to infer it in this verse. This verse does not mention or even suggest substitution. 

The idea here is that Jesus was imputed with our sin and we were imputed with His righteousness [double imputation]. We discuss imputation here.

See our exposition of 2 Corinthians 5:21 here.)

Harkening back to Leviticus, Paul refers to Jesus as a “sin offering,” and says that those who believe in him have been “justified by his blood” in Romans 5:9.68 (Indeed. This is absolutely correct. We have not been justified by substitution, we have not been justified by His punishment; rather, we have been justified by His blood. Period. End of story. The blood spilled washes us clean. It's a sacrifice, not a tit for tat.)

Further, he says God “condemned sin in the flesh” by sending Christ (Rom 8:3); as the Son bore in his body the iniquity of mankind, (We'll quote the whole verse, since the author only paraphrases it: 

1Pe. 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

The part the author left out, "so that we might die to sins," clearly contradicts substitution.  For if we must die, He did not die in our place. 

Further, "bore" is not the taking of the punishment of sin upon Himself in substitution. The word "bore" is the Greek word anēnenken, bear, bring (carry, lead) up, offer (up). He bore [carried up] our sins to the cross. He did not "bear up" under the Father's punishment.

It's critical we understand the actual meaning of these words, and not color them with our presumptions.)

he took upon himself the condemnation of God.69 (?? Where in the Bible do we find this information? The footnote refers us to a book by G. J. Williams, “Penal Substitution: A Response to Recent Criticisms." This is no help at all. Tell us where in the Bible, sir.)

The Father, then, in Paul’s thought, makes Christ an offering for sin—echoing Isaiah in the OT. (Is. 53:5, most likely.)

In Galatians 3, yet another epistle to a different congregation, he describes how Christ fulfilled the law and defeated the sin of his people by becoming a curse on their behalf.70 (Let's quote the verse:

Ga. 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

The author uses correct language again: "on their behalf," which harkens back to our discussion of hypér, which we noted at the time does not mean "in the place of.")

And what of the other NT authors? Hebrews depicts Christ as the fulfillment of Israel’s sacrifices in the OT,71 which have already been established as propitiatory and expiatory; (Well, the author did discuss propitiation, wrongly. But, he only mentioned the word expiation. He never discussed it.)

such sacrifices were merely a foreshadowing of Christ’s sacrifice, for the author declares such animal sacrifices could never truly take away human sin (Heb 10:4). (Again correct. Recall our discussion of kaphar, atonement, which only "covered over" sin.)

Peter, who followed Jesus throughout his earthly ministry and witnessed firsthand his death, burial and resurrection, declares that Christ suffered on the cross as righteous in the place of the unrighteous in order to reconcile the guilty to God (1 Pet 3:18).72 (Sigh...  The reader has no doubt noticed that the author swerves back and forth between accurate exposition and false teaching. He makes two or three correct assertions then drops a bomb.

Let's quote: 

1Pe. 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

We already discussed "for" ["the righteous for the unrighteous"], which again is hypér, for the betterment of or benefit of, not "in the place of."

We begin tp see how pernicious Penal Substitutionary Atonement is. One must enter the equation with the preconception of substitution in order to see substitution in these verses.)

He references the servant of Isaiah in 1 Peter 2:24, noting he “bore our sins in his body on the cross” and declares that “by his wounds we are healed.” His suffering, his sacrifice, his taking the sins of the world on himself, is ultimately what makes this healing possible. (Sigh again... We discussed this a few paragraphs ago.)

These statements make little sense unless they are taken to mean that Jesus substituted himself in place of the guilty. (This of course is the problem with filtering information through preconceptions. What actually makes little sense is substitution.)

Finally, in his discussion of the rites of the Mosaic Law as “copies of the heavenly things” as a precursor to the New Covenant, the author of Hebrews observes that according to that law, “Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb 9:22–23 ESV). (Ah, the crux of the issue, finally. It's Jesus' shed blood that effects propitiation, not His substitution.)

The biblical witness, then, is clear. Not only are Calvin and his contemporaries not responsible for inventing the doctrine, (Who has claimed this, and why is it important? 

Calvin may not have invented it, but he promulgated it as Bible truth. He popularized it, enforced it, and put down any dissent of it. He is certainly guilty of teaching Bible error, which descends down to us even today.)

but neither are the church fathers who they leaned on so heavily. The true origin of the doctrine lies in Scripture itself. (An astonishing claim. False and true doctrines are derived from Scripture. The author is explaining his doctrines he has derived from the Bible, which may be false or true. 

That's the matter before us.

The author is teaching false doctrines.)

Once again, far from misrepresenting and demeaning the character of God, the saints throughout the ages who have believed and taught the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement have done so in light extensive biblical support for the position. ("Extensive?" did we miss something?)

Thus, it not reasonable to propose that the contemporary church do likewise?

5. Conclusion

Given the rich historical and biblical witness to this doctrine, then, a decisive conclusion may be drawn. This doctrine is not a distortion of biblical teaching, making Yahweh comparable to a brutal pagan deity, nor is it the product of any sixteenth century system. On the contrary, the doctrine of penal substitution is a precious truth that should evoke awe and thanksgiving on the part of those redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. While it may be true, as critics assert, that the substitutionary aspect of the atonement has been overemphasized in some circles to the exclusion of other integral components, this should not mean that penal substitution ought to be dispensed with altogether; on the contrary, it should serve as a catalyst to recover a balanced, Christ-centered theology of the cross. Doing so could come as a much-needed reminder that this understanding of the cross is not inherently a hindrance to recognizing other benefits of the atonement as well. It may also serve as an occasion to demonstrate that the doctrine of penal substitution is not at odds with, but rather perfectly fits into, the larger story of Jesus’s earthly life and ministry—as well as other models of the atonement as well.73 Indeed, in the vein of the historic Christian tradition, the contemporary church would do well to recapture a rich, through doctrine of the atonement that recognizes all that Christ accomplished in his death on the cross, a key component of which is the propitiation of humanity’s sin.


(...)

[48] Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 177. McLeod notes this parallel when addressing the mystery of Christ’s abandonment by the Father, saying of Christ’s bearing the sins of humanity that, “The paradox should not escape us. He was sinless. He was the Son of God. But there, on Golgotha, he was a sinner. He was sin.”

[49] MacLeod, The Person of Christ, 177.

[50] Donald MacLeod, Christ Crucified: Understanding the Atonement (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 48–49.

[51] Barrick, “Penal Substitution,” 9. Addressing the blood painted on the doorpost of every Hebrew home, Barrick explains “the sacrifice appeared to forestall the penalty of death for those who were within the household—especially firstborn sons. Although the lamb signified substitution, the text does not state that the blood atones or expiates; it only protects and preserves the household from divine wrath.”

[52] Barrick, “Penal Substitution,” 10.

[53] Jeffery, Ovey, and Sachs, Pierced for Our Transgressions, 42–43.

[54] See, for example, Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 274. While acknowledging that “Hebrew linguists widely disagree about the nuances implicit in the verb,” Hamilton notes, “It is significant that the Targum of Leviticus from Qumran … translates the Hebrew word kappomret (‘mercy seat, propitiatory’).” Furthermore, in his discussion of the sacrifices outlined in the first seven chapters of the book, Hamilton asserts that the sacrifices required in the case of a guilt or sin offering, “are expiatory or propitiatory in nature. Explicitly, sin and its forgiveness are the issues” (235). See also BDB 497 (כִּפֶּר), which notes that the term can also be used to mean “cover over” or “pacify,” and Jay Sklar, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC 3 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 50–51. Sklar observes that though this term can sometimes be used to denote purification, “in contexts when sin is being addressed … [the focus] is on averting God’s wrath.”

[55] Jeffery, Ovey, and Sachs, Pierced for Our Transgressions, 42–43

[56] See Bernd Janowski, “He Bore Our Sins: Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’s Place,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, trans. Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 48–74. This essay is written as “an alternative to Immanuel Kant’s narrow understanding of representation…which insists that no person can represent or take the place of another in matters of personal guilt” (48). The author charges that in the context of Isaiah 53, “Israel, which is no position to take over the obligation arising from its guilty, must be released from this obligation in order to have any future. This liberation comes from an innocent one who surrenders his own life according to Yahweh’s “plan” … the expression about the vicarious “bearing” of the guilt of others (v. 4a; cf. vv. 11b, 12b) means to say nothing other than this” (p. 69).

[57] William Lane Craig, The Atonement, Cambridge Elements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 13.

[58] Craig, The Atonement, 13.

[59] Zahnd, Sinners in the Hands, 25–26.

[60] Craig, The Atonement, 21.

[61] Scot McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), 62. While McKnight goes on to state on page 347 of his work that Paul’s theology of the atonement is much broader than just a penal substitutionary understanding, and in fact cautions against overemphasizing the importance of any one model of the atonement, he also criticizes those who—unlike the apostle—avoid using the language of substitution because they find some of the implications of it uncomfortable. Though he sees Paul’s theology of the atonement as centered around issues if life and death rather than divine justice—as, for example, in Anselm—he still recognizes that concern as a “real and fundamental issue for soteriology.” In the prologue of his work, McKnight uses the analogy of a set of golf clubs in his description of atonement theories, and cautions against the tendency, common among too many Christians in his view, to rely only on one “club,” as it were, instead of understanding “the value of each.”

[62] Richard L. Mayhue, “The Scriptural Necessity of Christ’s Penal Substitution,” MSJ 20.2 (2009): 139–48. “The phrase to give his life as a ransom for many is one of the clearest statements in the New Testament of the saving effect of Jesus’ death,” according to R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC 1 (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), 297.

[63] G. J. Williams, “Penal Substitution: A Response to Recent Criticisms,” JETS 50 (2007): 72–73.

[64] The issue of how the persons of the Trinity relate in the atonement is another issue raised by Brian Zahnd, for example, as he claims that penal substitution “fractures the Trinity by pitting the Father against the Son in order to vent divine rage,” comparing it to “the cultic practice of ritual sacrifice” (Zahnd, Sinners in the Hands, 106). Thus, perhaps despite obvious disagreement, this question is one that proponents of penal substitution would do well to grant more attention to given the seriousness of this charge.

[65] Keith E. Johnson, “Penal Substitution as an Undivided Work of the Triune God,” TJ 36 (2015): 60.

[66] Williams, “Penal Substitution,” 73.

[67] Brian Vickers, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Imputation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006), 170. Vickers argues that this understanding is not unique to this epistle; he later proposes, in his detailed analysis of “the righteousness of Christ” in this passage, “When one recognizes the sacrificial background for 2 Corinthians 5:21, the substitutionary atonement that background entails supported by the theme of representation in verses 14–15, and the non-reckoning of sin in verse 19 that takes place by Christ’s vicarious bearing of sin—this text begins to look and sound similar to Romans 3:21–26” (p. 183). See also Thomas R. Schreiner, “Penal Substitution View,” in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, eds. James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 72–73.

[68] Craig, The Atonement, 11.

[69] Williams, “Penal Substitution,” 79.

[70] Schreiner, “Penal Substitution View,” 73. In contrast to many critics of the penal substitutionary understanding who claim that it makes true love and forgiveness, as Jesus demands of his followers, incoherent, Schreiner claims just the opposite. “The forgiveness of our sins by virtue of the death of Christ,” he claims, “is the wellspring of ethics; we love God because he first loved us (1 Jn 4:19), and such love is the wellspring of a life of obedience.” Thus, a Christian understanding of ethical behavior may be grounded in this understanding of the atonement; because Christ loved the believer and sacrificed himself for them prior to any expression of love on their part, they are free to do adopt the same posture toward others.

[71] For a detailed treatment of this matter, see R. B. Jamieson, Jesus’ Death and Heavenly Offering in Hebrews, SNTSMS 172 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 57. Hebrews 8 in particular, according to Jamieson, “confirms that Christ offered himself in the only place where he was qualified to serve as high priest, the heavenly tabernacle…. Heb 8:1–5 confirms that, just as the Levitical priests offered their sacrifices in the earthly tabernacle, so Christ offered his in the tent in heaven.”

[72] Schreiner, “Penal Substitution View,” 92.

[73] Boyd’s criticism that the penal substitutionary model “tends to unwittingly drive a wedge between the salvific cross, on the one hand, and every other aspect of Jesus’s identity and mission” cannot be overlooked here (Crucifixion of the Warrior God, 161). Certainly, it is worth considering whether this charge is accurate. However, though some evangelicals may be guilty of such imbalance, it is a mistake to view such a shortcoming as the inevitable result of holding to penal substitutionary atonement. If true, the goal must be to correct this perceived imbalance without making the mistake of dispensing with a doctrine that ought not to be blamed for the problem.