The Penal Substitution Problem
Refuting “Letter to Creationists.com”
Preface
There are many articles on the internet that fail to understand and rightly discern Paul’s theology, including the patristic writers. This common mistake is confusing Paul’s doctrine of the atonement with Penal Substitution, which is a very recent belief that started with the Reformers. The PSA crowd deny the recent development of their doctrine due to misusing verses and misunderstanding simple phrases like “He died for our sins”, “He was a ransom for us”, “He bore our sins”, “propitiation” or “expiation of our sins”, “forgiveness/deliverance of our sins”, “sin offering”, and every phrase you can think of. Penal Substitution is a modern heresy that most churches have failed to reject due to social pressure, bad translations, faulty teachers, contextual ignorance, and so forth. I won’t respond or address every claim since this blog post is very long, but I will attempt to refute the major material rather than every small bit of it. Some might naively assume that I won’t address all of it, because I have no argument for it, but such a mentality is extremely childish. I don’t think it’s worth my time to address some ideas I have already addressed in the past, or ideas that have no compelling force in my perspective. I will address some ideas I have refuted already, while some I might turn a blind eye. I will also cite some of my previous material to refute his citation of the Church Fathers.
Penal Substitution Already Died in the Wars — Let It Go!
The Website says:
The concept of the death and blood of Jesus effecting deliverance and forgiveness for our sins is pervasive in the New Testament, from Matthew:
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. (Mat. 1:21) The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mat. 20:28) This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (Mat. 26:28)…all the way through to Revelation: To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood (Rev 1:5)
The first verse conveys the idea that Jesus is delivering humans (e.g. mostly sinners) from their sins, rather than the concept of forgiveness. The second verse fits well with the Ransom theory, but arguably, I could say that Jesus gave His life in exchange to purify many sinners from their sins, which suggests moral purgation rather than a literal ransom or penal substitution (cf. Titus 2:14). The third verse should be read in context to the other two verses previously mentioned, because the Greek term “aphesis” can literally mean “deliverance” or “liberty” (cf. Luke 4:18 uses aphesin to mean liberty). Jesus is a revelation of God’s forgiveness, not a catalyst; otherwise, the Father appears less forgiving than Jesus despite Jesus being a representative of the Father. The fourth verse confirms that the biblical writers meant freedom from sins, not forgiveness. The Father always forgave sin, and the cross is evidence of this.
In this view, because God is holy and just, he does not simply forgive sin in the sense of shrugging it off and saying, “Ahh, no big deal. I didn’t really mean it with all those commands and expectations of living under my sovereignty. Let’s just forget about it.” From God’s perspective, the ongoing breach in relationship caused by our unfaithfulness is akin to having one’s spouse be constantly unfaithful. It is not the sort of thing that is just casually dismissed as though nothing significant has happened.
Just because God forgives, that doesn’t mean He can’t correct us or judge us with His justice. If God is love and love edifies, then His justice is corrective and redemptive; otherwise, His justice is no different from human vengeance which is inherently sinful and contrary to forgiveness (1 John 4:8; 1 Corin. 8:1). Another problem is if the divine punishment is death, then eternal punishment should be excluded out of their theology. This is evidence that PSA is inconsistent and illogical, especially the fact that God bound everyone to disobedience, so He may show them mercy (Rom. 11:32). If God were really just, He would forgive and seek to correct evildoers to redeem them and shame them out of their ways. If He isn’t capable of that, then the moral philosophy of this deity is extremely inferior and consequently illogical since humans can forgive and justly deal with evildoers.
God’s laws are understood to be good, and to carry with them blessings for obedience and sanctions for disobedience: “The soul that sins, it will die” (Ezek. 18:20). Rebellion against an infinite Creator and abuse of his creation (including abuse of other people) in defiance of his commands merits judgment (“those who practice such things are worthy of death”, Rom. 1:32). Since we owe our very existence to the Creator, he would seem to have the right to decree not only what our behavior and attitude should be, but also the penalties for defying his standards. Theologians have long noted that if God does not apply the sanctions he said he would, that would make him a liar.
The logic behind Ezekiel’s proclamation contradicts the tenets of Penal Substitution since you can’t punish someone for another’s sins. And to blame someone for another’s sins is also unjust, no matter what blind apologist fallaciously claims about Jesus becoming sin as a way to excuse it. God shifting the blame of any sin unto Jesus would make Him a liar since Christ is without guilt. As for the Romans verse, within verses 18 through 31, Paul is forming a mock debate against a self-righteous mentality from the Judaizers. He remarks or comments against them based on verses like “[1] Therefore, you have no excuse, whoever you may be, when you pass judgment on others. For in judging others you condemn yourself, since you are doing the same things” (cf. Romans 2:1–3). Some translations render this interaction difficult to comprehend as a mock debate, but either way, this serves as a warning against self-righteousness in general. But natural death, according to the patristics, served as a remedial purpose and as a natural consequence (rather than as divine retribution) for those bound to sin (cf. Against Heresies III.23.6 by Irenaeus; To Autolycus II.XXVI by Theophilus; Assemani Bib. Orientalis, III, p. 324 by Diodore; Stromata Book VI.6 by Clement).
The other aspects of Christ’s atonement (defeat of evil powers, participating in the divine life through the indwelling Holy Spirit, moral example, etc.) deal largely with our experience of how we can live better from this point on. Penal substitution, however, provides a clear basis for the forgiveness of our past and ongoing sins before a holy God.
Penal Substitution demonstrates the stupidity and lack of compassion of this so-called holy God for not only punishing the innocent (i.e. God), but also needlessly committing evil for something He can already do. There was always forgiveness before God sent His Son on the cross; otherwise, if there wasn’t any forgiveness, then it would have been impossible for Him to send the Son for our deliverance. And no, God isn’t holy for denying our freedom until the punishing His own. Such a god is neither just, nor merciful.
A: Certainly 2 Corinthians 5:21 is a vital passage here: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Many have tied this in with 2 Cor. 5:21, arguing that Paul understands Jesus to have been made a “sin offering” for us….
B: Clearly the idea of substitution is taught here. Compare this with 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 hung on a tree’.” Here we have substitution alright, but a clear penal component as well. Because he was made by God to be sin for us, that meant he took upon himself the curse of the law.
C: These passages hearken back to Isaiah 53 and the coming Servant who would suffer for his people. There we are told there that “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (v. 6). Verses 4–5 make clear how God was involved in all this: “we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities.”
D: Indeed, “it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand” (v. 10).
In passage A, the idea that Jesus became sin is another translation error, and such a verse is totally unrelated to Penal Substitution. Jesus became like a sin-offering, in order that the minds of sinners may be purged by His great love, which renders them righteous in heart (not some legal status). Scriptural examples: Titus 2:14; Hebrews 9:14; 1 Pet. 2:24. Why is Jesus not a literal sin-offering? It’s because the sentence that Paul forms isn’t literal at all. We don’t literally become God’s righteousness, nor is Jesus literally ignorant of the concept of sin, so then, neither is Jesus becoming a sin-offering literal. Sin-offerings were used to remind the giver that sin harms the innocent, which serves as mental purification for the soul.
In passage B, the epistle to the Galatians were primarily meant for Jews who took Mosaic observance seriously. He did not intend this to apply to everyone, but to those who willingly obeyed the law of Moses. Christ redeemed them from the curse of the law by ending its reign over them, and by suffering from the consequences of trying to end the Mosaic law. The curses of the Mosaic law didn’t result from God, but rather such things resulted from demonic powers and human influence, which is why Israel suffered oppression from the Satan and hostile armies like Babylon. Christ was not cursed by God’s wrath, but He was cursed by the Satan’s influence over corrupt humans. It is apparent that Christ is a victim of human tormentors, not God. Paul was mostly stating an Antinomian Influence view of the Atonement, which is God attempting to help the Jews be dissuaded from following the Mosaic law permanently. He became a curse means He chose to be in a state of suffering and humiliation for their psychological and mystical benefit. Some have tried to argue that Jesus was cursed by God based on a verse cited by Paul (cf. Deut. 21:23); however, Paul never cites “by God” which indicates he didn’t believe that Jesus was cursed by God. Paul sometimes takes OT verses out of context as a way to demonstrate a spiritual reading rather than a contextual reading (cf. Galatians 4:21–31; Romans 5:14, 10:18). Some will still try to appeal to the Galatians verse but their argument is based on a poor implication rather than an explicit claim from Paul.
In passage C, Isaiah 53 (aka the suffering servant) is not a reference to a crucified messiah, instead it is a reference to Israel at the hands of Gentile nations (cf. Isaiah 49:7). I know this is a controversial claim, so I address it in this post: Isaiah 53 is not a Crucified Messiah. Anyway, the neo-converted Gentiles are remarking on how God allowed Israel to suffer at their hands in an attempt to reconcile their souls to God (one-sided reconciliation) and purge their sinful minds by converting them into righteousness. Verses 4 and 5 don’t suggest that God was behind a direct affliction, but it predicates on their human assumption of Israel’s suffering (also the LXX omits “stricken by God”).
In passage D, the LXX renders this verse as “the Lord willed to cleanse Him of the beating (or stroke); kai kurios βούλεται καθαρίσαι αυτόν της πληγής”. And His offspring is another problem: Isaiah 53 uses strict terms for the offspring of the suffering servant like sperma (Greek) and zera (Hebrew) to imply physical descendants, rather than terms like huios or ben/banim/בנים used in 54:13 to imply disciples of a guild; however, 54:3 uses zera to convey physical offspring. Paul only uses sperma to convey physical descendants, but never for spiritual (cf. Romans 1:3, 4:13, 16, 18). It is obvious that Jesus has no physical offspring, which renders this prophecy unrelated to Jesus’ suffering.
A: The New Testament teaches that the Old Testament sacrificial system provided a precursor or model for the atoning work of Christ. These things were a “shadow” or “type”, of which Christ’s work was the reality (e.g. Colossians 2:17 , Hebrews 9:11–28, Hebrews 10:1 ). Without getting too deeply into this complex and nuanced topic, we note that key offerings to atone for sin required the death of an animal which had to be without defect:
B: The first [i.e. Mosaic] covenant was not put into effect without blood…In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Heb. 9:18, 22)
In passage A, it is true that the Old Testament is full of types and shadows, which is an introduction into the spiritual reading. The best type and shadows for Jesus’ sacrifice is the Passover Lamb and the nature of Melchizedek’s sacrifice. The Passover Lamb is correlated by Paul with moral purification or sanctification, not forgiveness or legal favor from God (cf. 1 Corin. 5:7). The Passover Lamb saved the Israelite people from the works of the devil (e.g. sin, death, & devil), not God Himself. The Israelite people prefigures the Church, whereas the angel of death prefigures Satan and bondage to Egypt symbolizes bondage to sin. The author of Hebrews and the Church Fathers consider the angel of death as Satan rather than as God or His holy angels (cf. Hebrews 2:14–15; 1 John 3:8; On Pascha v.31–46; The Veil on Moses’ Face v.165–190). The Passover Lamb best represents Christus Victor rather than Penal Substitution. As for the nature of Melchizedek’s offering, it has nothing to do with appeasing God’s wrath, instead he gave bread and wine and prayer to Abraham, which is an image of charity or service to others (cf. Genesis 14:18–19). Even Paul compares service to others to the language of sacrifice (cf. Rom. 12:1).
In passage B, not all offerings were related to blood (esp. the phrase “nearly everything was cleansed by blood”) since we have offerings like the scapegoat and fine flour offerings that are mentioned in the Torah, which means there were exceptions (cf. Lev. 2:1, 16:8–10). And because Jesus is after the order of Melchizedek and because Hebrews contrasts Jesus’ priesthood from the Levitical priesthood, it should be noted that the Levitical priesthood is not an ideal model for understanding Jesus’ sacrifice. Also, the phrase “the forgiveness of sins” is another bad translation since God already promised and demonstrated forgiveness in the Old Testament (cf. Jeremiah 36:3; Jonah 3:6–10).
The Hebrew word for “atone” carries a range of connotations, including “cover”, “wipe away”, “ransom by a substitute”. All of these effects are ascribed in the New Testament to the work of Christ in dealing with our sins. Note that in the Old Testament God himself graciously gave the Israelites the blood as the means to make atonement for themselves; the pardon of their sins was not something wrung from an unwilling deity.
Although, the Hebrew word for “cover” is a form of כָּפַר. And in a play of words not reproducible in English translation, the Hebrew word for “pitch” is כֹּֽפֶר (kopher), “pitch” being something that covers things over. This gives a sense of the original, concrete meaning of the relevant Hebrew word.It is from this concrete meaning of כָּפַר that it derives its more figurative and abstract meanings: “to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel: — appease, make an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile(-liation)” (from Strong’s definition of כָּפַר). The original meaning of the Hebrew term is unrelated to the appeasement of an angry God, but rather to God “covering over” sins, which is a Hebrew idiom for forgiving sins out of compassion. It also has the sense of purging or expelling away sins, which fits with a moral purgative view of the atonement. Even Peter and Matthew understood “He bore our sins or sicknesses” as a matter of moral purification and healing, not appeasing God the Father or becoming ontological sin (cf. 1 Pet. 2:24; Matt. 8:16–17).
Peaceful Coexistence of Atonement Theories: Rather…we ought to witness to the fittingness of the atonement to demonstrate how the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ brings together a wide range of benefits for the reconciliation of all things to God.
If God is directly punishing an innocent person to do something already attainable, it causes sensible souls to despise God’s effort to reconcile sinful souls back to Himself. Jesus cannot become sin if He represents God the Father, nor can Jesus be held guilty of sin if He is demonstrating God’s love on the cross. Penal Substitution is incompatible with the moral purgative view, and it is incompatible with the view that Jesus is a representation of God’s love while those punishing Him are representations of our sins. And if God requires the death of an innocent person to “forgive”, then forgiveness of sins is impossible since requiring and paying a debt negates the very concept of forgiving others.
At the dawn of Christianity, Paul acknowledged the offensiveness of the cross. In regular human thinking, “Christ crucified” seems intellectually foolish and morally repugnant (the Greek word for “stumbling block” here is skandalon, from which we get our word “scandal”):
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. … For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength…
But if such a view is foolish even among sensible Christians, then the argument alone is invalid. One will wrongly appeal to a verse from Isaiah to suggest that God’s ways are beyond our ways, except this verse is referring to the contrast between a path of righteousness (i.e. God’s way) and a path of evil works. Also, Christians are supposed to have the mind of Christ, so then, we are justified in judging such a theory as incongruent and false (cf. Phil. 2:5; 1 Corin. 2:13–16). All that’s left is Christians on the side of PSA and against PSA condemning each other as not being of the true faith, yet this is a meaningless dispute.
Stop Distorting the Church Fathers — None of Them Taught It!
Clement of Rome:
Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. [Chap. 7]
On account of the Love he bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls. [Chap. 49]
There is no mention of a ransom or debt paid to God, and no mention of God being appeased. He gave His flesh and soul for the redemption from sin and death, which don’t convey Penal Substitution. Clement does quote from Isaiah 53, but he intends a spiritual reading rather than the contextual reading. Christ died for the benefit of purging one’s sins from himself, in hopes of rendering them pure of heart. Christ’s appearance and passion offers grace for the sinner to purge himself from his sins by the consuming love of God (cf. 2 Tim. 2:21; Rom. 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:14–15). “Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be an implement for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.”
Pseudo-Barnabas:
For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling. For it is written concerning Him, partly with reference to Israel, and partly to us; and [the Scripture] saith thus: “He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities: with His stripes we are healed. … He himself willed thus to suffer, for it was necessary that He should suffer on the tree. [Chap 5]
Even the so-called Barnabas acknowledges that the contextual reading is related to Israel, whereas the typological reading is related to Christ. Barnabas also acknowledges that His death brought sanctification for the deliverance of sins, which is coherent to the moral purgative view of the atonement, not Penal Substitution. Nowhere does it mention an appeasement to God’s wrath, nor to the idea that we ought to be forgiven.
The strong root of your faith, spoken of in days long gone by, endureth even until now, and bringeth forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death [Chap. 1]
…[Be] not severe in judgment, as knowing that we are all under a debt of sin. [Chap. 6]
How can we be under a debt of sin if Jesus supposedly paid it on the Cross? The debt of sin is unrelated to being cursed by God. The debt of sin simply echoes what Paul said, the idea that we are all bound to sin (Rom. 11:32). But anyway, there is no mention of being punished by God’s wrath, or appeasement. The elements that suggest Penal Substitution is not there.
Mathetes’ Epistle to Diognetus:
But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!
Jordan Cooper writes of this passage, “When one first reads this, he may think it came directly from the pen of Martin Luther or John Calvin. The imputational language in this epistle is obvious.”
It is very easy to distort what Mathetes means. How do they know that he didn’t carry the Ransom atonement view in mind? Again, there is still no verbatim thought of God punishing His Son, which is crucial to indisputably affirm PSA as a true dogma, which we find no evidence still. Mathetes affirms that God sought not to appease His own wrath so as to forgive, but to form a mind conscious of righteousness. “This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness” (Chapter 9b). This follows with the view of a Moral Purgative Atonement. The next quotation he cites: “But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us…,” is actually uncertain to the translators to form a plausible judgement. However, Mathetes could be suggesting that when their sins had reached the goal of revealing its destructive nature and its post-mortem end to all of humanity, God decided to intervene to confer a moral example to the just, moral purification to the sinner, and to confer an immortal life to those who were bound by Hades.
Now to respond to his quotation: “O the unexpected blessings that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners,” which means that Christ conceals one’s sins by rendering them secondary in rank while Christ’s love justifies by leading them to faith, or alternatively, liberates them by making His righteousness through them dominant over their sins, hence, our sinful life becomes hidden because all we see is Christ’s love through us. (The Greek word for justification alternatively means liberation according to Romans 6:7 if one wonders where liberation came from). Paul speaks of their life being hidden with Christ as a reason why they should set their minds on things above, and he also makes reference to the discipline of rejecting malice works which fits my interpretation of the Epistle to Diognetus (cf. Galatians 3:1–5). Paul does mention the wrath of God in verse 6, but not in a literal and vengeful sense. The wrath of God is a metaphor for allowing sin and the Devil to harm sinners, in hopes of them realizing their errors and returning to God for grace (1st Corinthians 5:5; Wisdom 12:27). Christ took the deadly burden of a sinful people to illustrate the extent of His forgiveness towards all those who sin. Jordan Cooper’s Reformed bias is evident and his judgement over the passage is erroneous.
Justin Martyr:
The Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up…His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family. [Ch. 95]
Irenaeus states Jesus “suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts”, and acknowledges a “debt” we owe God because of our sin, and also that Christ’s work on the cross gives us remission of that debt: “As by means of a tree [i.e. the tree in the Garden of Eden] we were made debtors to God, [so also] by means of a tree [the cross] we may obtain the remission of our debt.” Irenaeus elsewhere makes passing reference to Jesus “propitiating God” and suffering death to deliver man from condemnation…
Justin isn’t suggesting that God literally caused suffering upon Jesus, but that He exhorted Christ to suffer at the hands of sinners to be a blessing unto others. Justin most likely takes a Ransom view of the atonement, which is a payment to death, the devil, or the sacrificial law. The blogger also mentions Irenaeus and he uses terminologies similar to “debt” and such, but there’s a guy named Mako Nagasawa who gave a better commentary over Irenaeus’ words than I could. He writes: “Irenaeus does not fall into that problem. When he uses the word ‘debt’ he is actually referring to the responsibility of each human person to undo the damage done to one’s self — damage both from Adam and from one’s own self. He uses the phrase ‘remitting sins,’ which means ‘putting away sins’ or ‘delivering/releasing from sins’ as it does in Scripture. It is not a change of mind in God, but a change of state in us. And correspondingly, in the same chapter, he links ‘remitting sins’ to healing humanity…Irenaeus’ penchant for poetry and sensitivity to the repeated themes of the biblical story shines again. His phrase, ‘As by means of a tree we were made debtors to God,’ means that Adam corrupted human nature by eating from the Tree of Knowledge and inscribed that legacy onto all humanity, creating our obligation to overcome that corruption…By our spiritual participation with Jesus in his death ‘on the tree’ and in his resurrection as the source of God’s renewed humanity, we participate in the remission of the debt we owe to God. Jesus makes humanity whole and healed, first in himself and then in us by the Spirit. I submit that Osborn’s claim that Irenaeus believed in inherited Adamic guilt is an inappropriate reading” (pg. 23–24, Medical Substitutionary Atonement in Irenaeus of Lyons, by Mako A. Nagasawa).
The basic conclusion is that Jesus wasn’t punished by God’s wrath, Jesus didn’t become sin ontologically, and there is no reason to assume the Penal atonement theory into the Fathers and Pauline theology. I advise being honest with the Pauline text, and not being so sluggish and careless to affirm a doctrine that was only derived from 500 years ago (1500s). I encourage believers to be sensible and knowledgeable of what the Pauline texts really mean, including the respect for the Church Fathers.
