The Doctrine Everyone Hates

Introduction

There is a doctrine that everyone likes to attack these days. The Eastern Orthodox church rejects it.¹ The Catholic Church denies it.² Liberal and Progressive theologians despise it.³ Even very popular non-denominational leaders like Tim Mackie of the Bible Project and John Mark Comer have come out against it.⁴ What is it?

It's what is commonly known today as penal substitutionary atonement or PSA for short. What does that mean? Well, for most of us in modern Baptist or evangelical churches, it's just what we've always believed about what Jesus did for us at the cross. If I asked you what Jesus did for you at the cross you would probably say something like: "Jesus paid the penalty for my sins at the cross." "He bore our sin and its punishment when he died on Calvary." "He atoned for our sins by dying in our place." Penal refers to the penalty or punishment we deserved for our sins. Substitutionary refers to the fact that Jesus took that punishment in our place; he was substituted for us. Atonement in theology refers to what Jesus accomplished on the cross, and biblically it simply refers to a "covering" for sin.

This understanding of the cross is not just found in our theology books and sermons, it's what we often find ourselves singing about:

Common Objections to PSA

So what's the big deal about PSA? Why do so many today reject it? There are a number of reasons that are thrown at it.

1. "It undermines the doctrine of the Trinity." Though some proponents of PSA have at times mishandled the doctrine of the Trinity and have seemed to suggest that the eternal union of essence between the Father and the Son was broken at the cross, this is not at all the accepted view of PSA. We understand that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one in essence and cannot be separated in an ontological sense. But Christ, in his humanity, underwent a penal desertion, in the sense that the manifestation of God's love and favor was removed from him as he was cursed on the cross.⁵ Jesus meant something when he cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34). We can still sing that wonderful hymn, How Deep the Father's Love For Us, though we do have to understand it with biblical and theological precision when it says: "How great the pain of searing loss/ The Father turns His face away/ As wounds which mar the Chosen One/ Bring many sons to glory."

2. "God was showing his love, not his wrath, at the cross." This pits an unbiblical dichotomy between God's love and wrath. As if we can dispense with God's wrath, which is found all over Scripture. Or as if God was limited to only displaying one of his attributes at the cross. We likewise believe God was showing his amazing love at the cross (John 3:16; Romans 5:8, etc.). But that love was shown through propitiation (a wrath-appeasing sacrifice). As 1 John 4:10 says: "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." As Charles Wesley wrote, "Amazing love, how can it be, that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?"

3. "PSA amounts to cosmic child abuse." This claim attempts to manipulate us by a kind of spiritual gas-lighting. It makes us sound like we believe in a terrible, blood-thirsty, tyrant of a god who must vent his anger against someone, and a poor innocent victim gets in the way. There are two issues with this claim. (1) It pits an unbiblical division in the will of God. We teach that it was God's will (the one will of the Triune God) that Christ would come into the world and die for his elect to redeem them. This is what is often called the "covenant of redemption" or pactum salutis. Jesus was not an unwitting victim. He intended to go to the cross, and he willingly did so, even in his human will submitting to that eternal divine will. (2) It frames God's wrath in a very human way. We have to understand that God's attributes are not like ours. He is perfect and infinite and unchangeable. His wrath is not like our sinful, fluctuating wrath. It is perfect, calculated, exact, pre-ordained. To caricature the "PSA God" like he is an out of control, angry tyrant, who vents his anger in a childish manner, is to assume those who believe this doctrine have a very low and base view of God.

4. "PSA wasn't taught for 1500 years of church history." This is a very false and deceitful claim. It's true that the term "penal substitutionary atonement" was not found before the 1800s, but the doctrine is as old as the Bible. Plus, many have shown that the teaching is found throughout church history, from the early fathers, to Thomas Aquinas, to the Reformers.⁶ For instance, take this quote from Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-339): "And the Lamb of God...was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us."⁷ Or this one from Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74): "It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father so treat Christ in whom he inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, He did not spare even his own Son. But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might himself suffer, God gave him one who would satisfy for him. Paul stresses this, saying, He has delivered him for us all, and, God has established him [Christ] as a propitiation by his blood through faith."⁸

5. "There are many theories of the atonement; PSA is just one." People have posed different "theories of the atonement" or they will speak of different "aspects of the atonement." It is true that many theologians throughout church history have posed different ways of understanding Jesus' work on the cross, and have often emphasized different aspects of it that we tend not to emphasize today.⁹ For instance, one theory often called Christus Victor, is the idea that Christ victoriously conquered Satan and his forces at the cross. This is certainly biblical. But it should be stated, not as a theory of atonement opposed to PSA, but rather as a result of the penal substitutionary atonement. We have to ask, how did Christ vanquish the forces of evil at the cross? Well, he did so when he paid our sin-debt at the cross, forgiving our sins, and so destroying the works of the devil (sin) and freeing us from the fear of death by which Satan held us captive! 1 John 3:8: "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil." Colossians 2:13-15: "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him." Hebrews 2:14-15: "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery." The concept of Christus Victor should be integrated together with the penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement, not treated as a separate or different viewpoint. Another view is the Moral Example Theory. This is the idea that Jesus' death provides us with a perfect example of love to follow. Again, this should not be pitted against PSA, but should be seen as the natural outflow of PSA. If we have grasped Christ's love in his substitutionary work for us at the cross, then we will also be compelled to love others with a selfless, sacrificial love like he taught us. John 13:34: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another." PSA is the center of the wheel, and the other effects and implications are its spokes.

The Cross in Mark's Gospel

Briefly, I want to close with several points from Mark's gospel and show how it presents Jesus' death as a penal, substitutionary atonement.

1. Jesus describes his mission this way. Mark 10:45: "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Jesus says he came into this world to serve us in our greatest need, by giving his life sacrificially as a ransom (a price paid to free us) in our place. The word "for" is a Greek term (anti) that means "in place of." The language is sacrificial and substitutionary. By his death on the cross in our place we are freed from sin, and its guilt and condemnation. Jesus' own understanding of the cross in the Gospels is that it was a penal substitutionary atonement!

2. Jesus says he will be stricken with the sword of God's judgment. Mark 14:27: "And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’" This is a quote from Zechariah 13:7, where God says "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd...Strike the shepherd." What sword is God speaking to? The "sword of the Lord" is a metaphor for God's judgment in the Prophets (ex. Jeremiah 47:6). But here, God's sword is lifted up against His Shepherd, the Lord Jesus. It was not for his own sins that he was being judged and stricken, but for ours. As Isaiah 53:8 says: "stricken for the transgression of my people."

3. Jesus submits to drinking the cup of God's wrath. Mark 14:36: "And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus buckles under the weight of what he is about to do. He is overwhelmed with grief because he knows going forward will mean he is to drink a certain "cup." Nevertheless, he resolves to take the cup. What is this language of the "cup"? It is the cup of God's wrath, an image found in multiple places in the OT (ex. Psalm 75:8; Isa 51:17), with a very full description in Jeremiah 25:15-38. There, Jeremiah is told to take the "cup of the wine of [God's] wrath" and make all the nations drink it. All the nations, including Judah, are to drink this cup, which is equivalent with God's sword (vv. 16, 27, 31), punishment (v. 29), judgement (v. 31), and fierce anger (vv. 37-38). The Lord Jesus took up the cup of the wine of God's wrath and drank it for all nations at the cross!

4. Jesus was crucified. Mark 15:24: "And they crucified him." Sometimes we are so familiar with a thing that we forget its basic meaning and impact. Jesus was crucified. To the Jews, this meant that Jesus was surely cursed by God. The law of Moses had said: "a hanged man is cursed by God" (Deut 22:23). Being hanged on a cross was a sure sign of God's curse to the Jews, which is why the Jews falsely assumed that Jesus himself was not the beloved Son of God, and they mocked him for his claims while he died! How could God curse his beloved Messiah? What they didn't understand is what Isaiah explains so eloquently. Though they esteemed him stricken by God for his sins, he was actually pierced for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:4-6)! Paul also clearly lays this out in Galatians 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 hanged on a tree.'" Additionally, in the Roman conception, crucifixion was the summum supplicium, the supreme penalty reserved for notorious criminals, like murderous foreign insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.¹⁰ In dying on the cross, Jesus is taking the place of the worst of sinners, as we are (1 Tim 1:15). This is illustrated vividly when Barabbas, just such a notorious rebel and murderer, is released, while Jesus goes to the cross in his place (Mark 15:6-15)!

5. Jesus died. Mark 15:37: "And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last." Again, we often pass over some basic facts and do not consider the import of them. Why did Jesus die? If he wanted to simply triumph over evil, or be an example of love, couldn't he have done that some other way? But he died, because death is the wage we've earned for our sins (Romans 6:23). The guilty crime of human sin led to its consequence and punishment for all of us: spiritual death, physical death, and eternal death (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12). As Jesus was cursed, judged, forsaken, and finally died willingly in our place, he was bearing this punishment. He "died for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:3). He was "delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Romans 4:25). When he came out of the grave on Resurrection Sunday, he proved he had paid the penalty in full for our sins. Having entered the prison of death in our place, and having served our entire sentence, he broke out of the cell.

Conclusion

My friends, never budge for a second from this glorious truth. There is no hope without Jesus dying in our place. This may be a doctrine that many hate. But every true Christians loves it. When we preach Christ and Him crucified, it will often seem like foolishness, and it will cause many to stumble. But this is the truth we love, we glory in, and we will praise our Lord Jesus Christ forever for it!

Pastor Rory St. John

1. I read of the Orthodox rejection of PSA recently in A Christian's Pocket Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology: An Evangelical Perspective by Panagioti Kantartzis. ↩︎

2. How NOT to Understand the Cross | Catholic Answers Magazine. ↩︎

3. For instance, see Alisa Childers, Another Gospel: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity. ↩︎

4. Review: The Bible Project – Brilliant but Flawed - The Gospel Coalition | Australia; John Mark Comer and Penal Substitutionary Atonement: The Heart of the Gospel ↩︎

5. See the 33rd chapter of John Flavel's Fountain of Life, where he expounds on Jesus being deserted at the cross. He explains the different kinds of desertions God may perform. "And this kind of desertion, which is respective, temporary, and only in regard of manifestation, is justly distinguished from the various ends and designs of it, into probational, cautional, castigatory, and penal. Probational desertions are only for the proof and trial of grace. Cautional desertions are designed to prevent sin. Castigatory desertions are God's rods to chastise his people for sin. Penal desertions are such as are inflicted as the just reward of sin, for the reparation of that wrong sinners have done by their sins. Of this sort was Christ's desertion. A part of the curse, and a special part. And his bearing it was no small part of the reparation, or satisfaction he made for our sins." ↩︎

6. See Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution, 161-204. Or this video by Gavin Ortlund: A "Knockout Blow" to Penal Substitution? Engaging John Mark Comer on the Atonement. ↩︎

7. Quoted in Pierced for Our Transgressions, 166-167. ↩︎

8. Ibid., 184. ↩︎

9. For a survey, see Greg Allison, Historical Theology, chapter 18, "The Atonement," 389-410. It is true that we can and should learn from these different emphases and incorporate them more in our preaching and teaching today. ↩︎

10. See Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, chapter 5.