Substitutionary Atonement - An Essay By Thomas Schreiner

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In our blog we have looked at articles by Mr. Schreiner before, and invariably have found them to be lacking. Today's article is no exception.

Like too many so-called Bible teachers, Mr. Schreiner tells us just enough of the truth to make us nod our heads in agreement, then slips in his doctrine right when we least expect it, completely out of left field.

This is a common technique with Calvinists/Reformists. They begin by accurately conveying a Bible truth in order to set the stage for their Calvinism. They never explain the Bible unless they can include some tenet of Calvinism. It's a disturbing tendency, which suggests spiritual deception is at work.

We consider the idea that the Father would punish Jesus for our sins to be offensive and pernicious. Jesus died to spill His blood as the Lamb of God. His sacrifice is sufficient for our sin. His blood is efficacious. His death is enough. Nothing else is needed for our forgiveness, certainly not the additional act of punishing Jesus. The shed blood is enough.

We cover Penal Substitutionary Atonement in some depth here. Elsewhere we examine the idea that the Father's wrath in fact was not propitiated by the blood if He punished Jesus. 

Lastly, we note that the author will state and restate his premise repeatedly, but never really make the case for it. We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Definition

The penal substitutionary view of the atonement holds that the most fundamental event of the atonement is that Jesus Christ took the full punishment that we deserved for our sins as a substitute in our place, and that all other benefits or results of the atonement find their anchor in this truth.

Summary

All people are in need of a substitute since all are guilty of sinning against the holy God. (This is the matter to demonstrate. We shall not allow the author to presume it.)

All sin deserves punishment (We were unable to locate a Bible verse that says God punishes sin. He certainly punishes sinners, yes, but we don't think He punishes sin.)

because all sin is personal rebellion against God himself. While animal sacrifices took on the guilt of God’s people in the OT, (We are paying attention to the author's phrasing because there are hints of his doctrine. We he writes, "took on the guilt," he doesn't mean that the sacrificed animal atoned for sin, he means the animal became guilty. This is egregiously false.)

these sacrifices could never fully atone for the sins of man. For that, Jesus Christ came and died in the place of his people (substitution), taking upon himself the full punishment that they deserved (penal). (We hope the author demonstrates these, with the Bible.)

While there are other theories of the atonement, which point to other valid aspects of what happened in Christ’s death, the penal-substitutionary element of the crucifixion secures all other benefits that come to God’s people through the death of their representative. (What does this sentence mean?)

Penal substitution is the anchor for other truths about the atonement, whether we are talking about Christus Victor, (???)

Christ as an example, (??)

or the healing that comes in the atonement. (Apparently these are "other theories" of the atonement. 

It's at this point it becomes clear to us that that reader must already possess advanced knowledge of the topic in order to understand the author's more basic presentation.)

Penal substitution means that Christ died in the place of sinners, taking upon himself the penalty and punishment they deserved.

Human beings need a substitute since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). (No, we need a savior.)

Sin separates human beings from God as we see from the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden. Only perfect obedience will satisfy God’s justice, (Maybe this is true, maybe not. Where in the Bible do we find this?)

and we see this in that Adam and Eve were severed from God for one sin. (Were they? Maybe the Bible tells us this, but where? The author is supposed to be a Bible teacher.)

As Galatians 3:10 says, “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, Everyone who does not do everything written in the book of the law is cursed.” The curse falls upon those who transgress God’s commands, and no one is exempted (Rom. 3:9–20, 23). (The author will revisit this below, and we will have some additional things to say about it there.

We think the author is missing the point Paul was making. "The works of the law" and "the book of the law" are specifically regarding Jews who try to obtain righteousness by carefully following Jewish law. It's not about sinners trying to live a good life to earn salvation, although that is certainly futile as well. Therefore, it's not about "Those who transgress God's commands," it's the curse that results from not doing everything the Jewish law commands.)

Sin deserves punishment because God is holy. (He asserts this again and again with no Bible proof.)

Breaking the law is not merely an impersonal reality, for sin represents rebellion against God himself (1 John 3:4). The heart of sin is the failure to glorify God and to give thanks to him (Rom. 1:21). Sin represents a flagrant refusal to submit to God’s lordship, and those who sin rightly deserve the retributive judgment of God. Since God is holy (Lev. 19:2) he judges those who transgress his law. God’s judgment is evident in the flood of Noah, the judgment of pagan nations in the OT, and the judgment of Israel for its sin. John the Baptist warns people to flee the coming judgment of the Lord (Matt. 3:1–12). Human beings are summoned to repent before the coming judgment arrives (Acts 2:14–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–12). Paul often refers to God’s eschatological judgment (Rom. 2:5, 16; 6:23; 9:22; 1 Cor. 1:18; 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:16; Gal. 1:8–9; Phil. 3:18–19; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:14–16; 5:9). The retributive nature of judgment is as clear as it gets in 2 Thessalonians 1:5–9. Paul argues that God is “just” to punish people forever for their sin. (All this is true, regardless of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.)

God’s anger against sin represents his personal response to sin. Judgment is not merely cause and effect, but is God’s holy wrath against sin, which must be distinguished from sinful human anger. God’s anger is holy and in this sense beautiful and right because sin is so horrible that it warrants punishment, and the failure to see this indicates that sin is seen to be a minor defect instead of a destructive and disfiguring cancer. (All this is true, regardless of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.)

We see substitutionary atonement in OT sacrifices, (Here's one of those moments, when after competently explaining truth he inserts his doctrine without any Bible reference or explanation.)

for their fundamental purpose is to obtain forgiveness of sins. People laid hands on the animal to signify that the animal functioned as a substitute for the person, (He merely asserts this with no reference supplied. The animal was not a substitute. In the Bible, the animal is never described this way.)

and their sin was transferred to the animal. (Again, he merely asserts this with no reference supplied. The animal was not a substitute. In the Bible, the animal is never described this way.)

The violent death of the animal (There was no violent death of the sacrificial animals in the Bible. They were dispatched quickly and with no abuse.)

signifies the penalty human beings deserve for their sin. (But... the author previously told us that sin gets punished...)

Thus, the death of the animal functions as a substitute for the worshiper. (It does not. The spilled blood is the agent of atonement: 

He. 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

The author is trying very hard to insert his doctrine. We shall resist him.)

The substitutionary nature of the sacrifices is especially evident on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), the great day once a year when the sins of Israel were atoned for. We see in Leviticus 17:11 that atonement is secured through the shedding of blood, (But, but... The author just told us the sacrifices were substitutionary, but then tells us the shed blood was atoning. Which is it?)

and the shedding of blood signifies violent death. (Why is the author so enamored with the idea of violent death? The animals weren't punished, they were simply put to death.)

Forgiveness only comes through the violent death (!!) 

of an animal, and the animal takes the penalty the worshiper deserved. (Sigh... What about the shedding of blood, which the author just mentioned? How can atonement be anything else but in the shed blood? There is no reason to have substitution if there's atoning blood.)

Animal sacrifices do not and cannot finally atone for sin (Heb. 9:1–10:18), (True, because the blood of animals merely atones, which means to cover over [kaphar]. The author notes below that Jesus propitiated, which is different. Atonement is not propitiation. While kaphar means to cover over, Jesus propitiated [hilaskomai], which appeases and turns away wrath. 

Jesus' blood speaks a better word [Heb. 12:24] because it's a better sacrifice.)

and such sacrifices point to the atoning death of Jesus Christ which secures complete and permanent forgiveness of sins. We see in Isaiah 53 that Jesus as the servant of the Lord suffered death in the place of sinners. “He himself bore our sicknesses, and he carried our pains” (Isa. 53:4). (This is incorrect. The Hebrew word for "bore" is cabal, carry, strong to labour. The word "carry" is the Hebrew word nasa, to lift, carry, take. Jesus did not bear our punishment, he carried, lifted our sin like a burden and brought it to be nailed to the cross. [Col. 2:14]. He did not suffer in place of sinners.)

As the next verse says, “he was pierced because of our rebellion, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on him, and we are healed by his wounds” (Isa. 53:5). He died as a “guilt offering” in the place of sinners (53:10). In his death, “he bore the sin of many” (53:12). ("Bore," nasa again.)

The Lord “was pleased to crush him” (53:10), and Jesus Christ as the Servant of the Lord suffered the wrath of God sinners deserved. (Astonishingly, the author again writes accurately but manages to insert his Calvinism for no reason.

Jesus DID NOT suffer the Father's wrath. It nowhere says this in Isaiah or anywhere else in the Bible.)

Romans 3:21–26 is a central text on penal substitution. (Why not quote it, sir? 

Ro. 3:21-26 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.  

 

25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished — 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Hmm, maybe that's why he only will quote excerpts below. There is no penal substitution to be found here.)

In the preceding section of the letter we see that all without exception are sinners deserving final judgment (Rom. 1:18–3:20). Paul affirms in Romans 3:21–22 that a right relationship with God cannot be obtained through keeping the law (since all sin; Rom. 3:23) but only through faith in Jesus Christ. How can God forgive sinners so that they stand in a right relationship with him? The answer is given in Romans 3:25–26, “God presented him as an atoning sacrifice in his blood, received through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his restraint God passed over the sins previously committed. God presented him to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so that he would be righteous and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus.” The words translated “atoning sacrifice” has a more technical meaning and can be rendered as “propitiation” or “mercy seat” (hilastērion). The word propitiation signifies that God’s wrath has been satisfied or appeased in the cross of Christ. (Well, well... The author gets this right. The cross, where the blood was spilled, satisfied the Father's wrath. The blood is enough. Nothing else is needed. Not even the punishment of Jesus.)

Such an idea fits well with the flow of thought in Romans, for we see in Romans 1:18 that “God wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people.” We are also told in Romans 2:5 that those who don’t repent and soften their hearts are “storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed.” Romans 3:25–26 teaches us, then, that God’s righteousness, God’s holiness and justice, are satisfied in the death of Christ. In the cross of Christ, God is shown to be loving and holy, merciful and just, the “just and justifier” of those who put their faith in Jesus. God has not compromised his justice since Christ has borne the penalty deserved for sin, dying as a substitute in the place of sinners. (Sigh... How is it that the author is able accurately explain the propitiating death of Jesus, writing several correct statements, then right at the end tack on substitution? It makes no sense. Substitution negates the sufficient blood. The blood is enough.)

We see the same truth in Galatians 3:10–13. No one can escape God’s curse by works of the law since all without exception sin. The solution to the evil of human beings is set forth in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” ("For us" is the Greek word hypér. 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, in particular, death to life through the forgiveness of sin.

Another word in the verse, "becoming," is gínomai, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. Therefore, Jesus transitioned into being a curse "for" our benefit. 

The obvious question is [or should be]: What is the curse of the law? 

Deu 21:22-23 If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

The curse of the law is death. So Jesus became that curse, that is, He died "for" our benefit. That benefit is the propitiation of our sins, which results in resurrection life out of death.

He didn't die in our place, He died "for" us, and we must die as well, to be reborn as new creations. Surely the author understands this as a Bible teacher.)

The curse every person deserves is removed (No, the curse is not a potential, to be accomplished or to be avoided, it is actual. The curse is spiritual death. We all begin as cursed:

Jn. 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

"Condemned already." That's what we all were, dead, cursed, and condemned. It's not a fate we were faced with, we were actually dead. This curse, this condemnation, was our default state, a result of Adam's sin [1Co. 15:22], and it got removed when Jesus gave His life [i.e. became the curse]. He was victorious over this curse of death by His resurrection. )

for those who put their trust in Christ, because Christ took the curse we deserved upon himself. (Death.)

He took the penalty we deserved, (No, we already were dead. Jesus became a curse, that is, He died, to spill His blood. His resurrection was triumph over death, and we participate in that through being born again.

We are beginning to doubt the author is a competent Bible teacher.)

fulfilling the words of Deuteronomy 21:23 that those who are hanged upon a tree are cursed.

The same truth is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “[God] made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” We have here the great exchange. Jesus took our sin by dying in our place, and we received his righteousness. (2 Corinthians 5:21 does not mention or even suggest substitution, let alone punishment. See our exposition of this verse here.

He did not die in our place. We must die: 

Col. 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules... 

We must die with Christ in order to be born again. We are growing weary of explaining basic truths over and over again. 

The unstated idea at work here is imputation, that Jesus was imputed with our sin and we were imputed with His righteousness [double imputation]. This is false. We discuss imputation here.)

Nor is this teaching restricted to Paul. Jesus himself clearly teaches penal substitution in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Now we are discussing ransom, which is not Penal Substitution. A ransom is a cost to be paid to bring a desired result, like the price to free a captive for example. Jesus at the cost of His life brought us out of death and condemnation. He did this by spilling His blood, which appeased the wrath of the Father.)

We have an allusion here to Isaiah 53. Jesus as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 is also the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. In surrendering his life in death, he died as a ransom in place of many. (He did not die in our place, since we must die too. As we explained above...)

His death constituted the payment demanded for the sins committed. The same teaching is also present in the Gospel of John: “Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus, as the sacrificial Lamb of God, whether it is the Passover Lamb, the lamb in the sacrificial system, or the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 (or even all three), dies as a sacrifice (Yesss...)

in the place of sinners. (....nope.)

Penal substitutionary atonement is woven into the fabric of the NT. Peter, drawing on Isaiah 53, declares, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree; so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). In the next chapter he declares, “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God” (1 Pet. 3:18). ("For the unrighteous." Here is hypér" again. Which is not, "in our place," rather, it's "for our benefit.")

Penal substitution captures the heart of the atonement, for we see in the atoning sacrifice of Christ both the love and justice of God. Nor should we pit the Father against the Son since the Son willingly and gladly gave of himself for the sake of sinners (John 10:18). As the Gospel of John emphasizes repeatedly, the Father sent the Son, but the Son rejoiced to do the Father’s will.


Further Reading

Charles Hill and Frank James, eds., The Glory of the Atonement
David Peterson, ed., Where Wrath and Mercy Meet
James Beilby and Paul Eddy, eds., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views
J. I. Packer “Penal Substitution Revisited”
J. I. Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution”
J. I. Packer and Mark Dever, In My Place Condemned He Stood. See a brief summary of chapter 2 here.
John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied
John Stott, The Cross of Christ
Leon Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
N. T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began
Robert L. Dabney, Christ Our Penal Substitute
Simon Gathercole, Defending Substitution. See a brief book summary here.
Steve Jeffrey, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions. See a brief book summary here.

This essay is part of the Concise Theology series. All views expressed in this essay are those of the author. This essay is freely available under Creative Commons License with Attribution-ShareAlike, allowing users to share it in other mediums/formats and adapt/translate the content as long as an attribution link, indication of changes, and the same Creative Commons License applies to that material.