civic
Well-known member
III. The penal substitutionary view
We strongly reject, therefore, every explanation of the death of Christ which does not have at its centre the principle of ‘satisfaction through substitution’ … ‘substitution’ is not a further ‘theory’ or ‘image’ to be set alongside the others, but rather the foundation of them all, without which each lacks cogency.32a.
Penal substitutionary atonement Thomas Schreiner summarises PSA in the following terms:The penalty for sin is death. Sinners deserve eternal punishment in hell from God himself because of their sin and guilt. God’s holy anger is directed against all those who have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And yet, because of God’s great love, he sent Christ to bear the punishment ofour sins. Christ died in our place, took to himself our sin and guilt, andbore our penalty so that we might receive forgiveness of sins.33
By the time of the Reformation, feudalism had been superseded by the Roman view of criminal law, under which the only satisfaction that could be offered was punishment. Impressed by Anselm’s argument that divine justice required satisfying, Calvin and the other Reformers simply reworked it in terms of their criminal law. This resulted in a theory within which God does pass the sentence that the law demands, but carries it out on a substitute. Paul Fiddes summarisesit in the following terms:
When Calvin built a theory of atonement upon the principle of divine justice, he therefore concluded that ‘the guilt, which held us liable to punishment, was transferred to the head of the Son of God’. God’s law had been infringed through human sin, and so penalty must be inflicted upon offenders in order to maintain the moral order of the universe. In the act of atonement, Christ pays the debt to justice by bearing the necessary punishment instead of humankind.35Already, then, we are struck by a very different way of perceiving imagery of the atonement, where penal substitution functions as a ‘central hub’ from which‘all of these other doctrines fan out.’36 All the various models offer a positive contribution, but penal substitution is regarded as controlling – ‘the sine qua non of evangelical soteriology’37 and ‘a distinguishing mark of the world-wide evangelical fraternity.
The act of God is no more than an abstention from interference with their free choice and its consequence … [Paul] has therefore succeeded in disassociating the fact of retribution from any idea of an angry God visiting his displeasure upon sinful men, even though he retains the old expression‘the Wrath of God’.54Leon Morris and Grant Osborne, however, are among those who reject this‘ingenious argument’;55 God’s wrath against sin is ‘too comprehensive in Scripture to allow such a reinterpretation’.56 The idea that the wrath of God is exercised against sin ‘runs through and through the OT’ and is ‘intensely personal’.57If this is the case, though, asks Green, is it not significant that God’s wrath isnever developed in the OT in sacrificial terms and that we find no exposition of sacrifice as satisfaction or penalty?58 Finding, in Rom. 3, an implicit need to assuage God’s wrath is based on a false presumed relation of wrath, sacrifice and atonement in the OT.59Examining the role and function of sacrifice in atonement to test these points is not an entirely straight forward hermeneutical exercise. Firstly, biblical sacrifices were made not just for sin;60 sacrifice ‘is a grander idea and does not in itself require a narrative of God’s judicial wrath needing to be satisfied’.61 There is a‘kaleidoscope of images which together constitute the NT characterisation of Jesus as sacrifice’,62 as different strands of the OT language of sacrifice are applied to Jesus in different ways,63 each in its own way bearing witness to a dimension of Jesus’ work.64What then of the meaning of kipper? Penal substitution’s interpretation(propitiation) is not universally accepted. According to Jacob Milgrom, the root meaning of kipper lies in wiping off or removing, suggesting that it means ‘topurge’, to expunge impurity. Furthermore, some scholars understand He therefore sees both the Day of Atonement rituals and Rom. 3:25 in expiatory, ratherthan propitiatory, terms.65Since it seems significant that Jesus apparently chose Passover (a time for celebrating and remembering liberation) rather than the Day of Atonement (a time for atoning sins) to explicate the significance of his death,66 we will briefly consider the Passover lamb.
Though it is often assumed that penal substitution lies at the heart of the Passover, this is not self-evident. Clearly, the Passover lamb was ‘sacrificed’, atleast in modern terms, although in precisely what capacity we cannot be definitive.67 Milgrom is clear that the sacrifice of the lamb is not a sin-offering (hatta-’t);neither is the verb kipper used in the texts on the paschal observance.68 Stephen Finlan points out that the Passover sacrifice was ‘completely different from other sacrifices … having nothing to do with cleansing, forgiveness, or reparation.’69Neither is there any developed idea of sacrifice, in the manner of the later atonement offerings.Moreover, there are further problems here. If Passover was a penal substitutionary event, why was its application limited to Israel’s firstborn sons? Why notthe entire nation? Equally, if the lamb is a penal substitute to avoid Israel suffering the fate of God’s judgement against the Egyptians, it seems odd that this arrangement of protection should be required only for the final plague. The objectheretofore has been God’s punishment exclusively upon Egypt.Whatever the origins of Passover, it was understood at the time of Jesus as agift-offering of praise and thanksgiving to God for his deliverance.70 The first century Pesah was fundamentally a national celebration designed to keep freshthe memory of the exodus and reassure the people that God ‘would smite all future tyrants as he had Pharaoh’ – celebrating God’s past liberation and anticipating his future liberation.71 The ritual identifies the nation that Yahweh’s action isredeeming. Through its obedient cultus participation, Israel is ‘marked out’ asthe redeemed, distinguished from Egypt and ‘set apart’ as those upon whom hisblessing rests.72 This fits well with the meaning of pesah as ‘protection’. It was ‘aGod-given covenant meal that identified his people as exempt from judgementand ready for deliverance.’73By choosing Passover to explain his death, then, instead of the Day of Atonement, Jesus was choosing images of divine protection and liberation.74
Although the Last Supper is commonly assumed to be a Passover meal,75 supporting evidence is far from clear, and the balance of scholarship today is shifting away from that conclusion.76 Given that sacrifice in covenant ratification had no substitutionary function, let alone a penal one,77 it is notable that the Synoptics and Paul posit the Last Supper’s sacramental significance in covenantal terms.78 This does not preclude a forgiveness element, but this comes by sharingin the new Passover – entering covenant by participation in his meal, drinkingfrom his cup.79 The absence of reference to the lamb is curious, too. Why wouldJesus not have applied the more-natural theme of ‘this lamb is my body’ rather than the bread?80 If Passover had direct correspondence in Jesus’ thought, McKnight sees this as ‘a virtual soteriological necessity’.81 Accordingly, he concludes the supper took place in a Pesah setting, with Jesus turning a regular Passover week meal into ‘a kind of Pesah’.82In another key passage, the Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah, a central question is whether Jesus thought of himself in these terms. Notably, in none ofthe sayings attributed to Jesus does he designate himself as the Servant. If one has this conclusion in mind already, of course, it is easy to find numerous ‘servant’ and ‘suffering’ references to support it. An important hermeneutical question here is whether a NT quotation from the OT indicates the whole original passage is to be brought to mind, or just the text quoted.83 Adopting the former view broadens the material available to support such an hypothesis.84 Otherwise, though, the verses from Isaiah cited in e.g. Matt. 8:16-17, Matt. 12:18-21and Luke 4:16-21 indicate different characteristics of Jesus and his mission. If a vicarious bearing of sin by the Servant is in mind, it is surprising this is not somewhere stated explicitly, especially in Jesus’ predictions of his death. One might argue the Servant was the only basis Jesus could have had for interpreting his sufferings, but this is reading into the silence. The Servant passage is a unique OT reference to vicarious atoning suffering,85 even though the idea of enduring suffering and subsequent vindication is certainly not. Paul makes no use of the Servant figure, even though he twice quotes from the fourth Song.Only in 1 Pet. 2 do we find ‘the full identification of Jesus with the Servant in all its Christological significance’.8
Although Christian orthodoxy has never required the adoption of one particular theory of atonement, Reformed and evangelical proponents of penal substitution (PSA) insist on its pivotal role. It is argued that the roots of this thinking liein Enlightenment epistemology and Modern thought, corresponding to the advent of evangelicalism. PSA’s claims to be the controlling understanding are difficult to affirm on the biblical evidence and, problematically today, its paradigm of law, justice and punishment derives from pre- and early-modern eras. The‘kaleidoscopic’ view offers a broader biblical perspective on the nature of both‘the problem’ and ‘the solution’ and is more accessible to post-Modern thoughtforms. For the sake of evangelical mission, however, seeking after synthesis is encouraged, which might be explored through a renewed centre-point in ‘recapitulation/interchange’ or ‘covenant’ imagery.
EvangelicalQuarterlyAn International Reviewof Bible and Theologyin Defence of the Historic Christian FaithVol. LXXXIV No. 4 October 2012Editors: I Howard Marshall, John-Paul Lotz, John G F Wilks. Beyond the kaleidoscope:towards a synthesis of views on theatonementStephen J. Burnhope
We strongly reject, therefore, every explanation of the death of Christ which does not have at its centre the principle of ‘satisfaction through substitution’ … ‘substitution’ is not a further ‘theory’ or ‘image’ to be set alongside the others, but rather the foundation of them all, without which each lacks cogency.32a.
Penal substitutionary atonement Thomas Schreiner summarises PSA in the following terms:The penalty for sin is death. Sinners deserve eternal punishment in hell from God himself because of their sin and guilt. God’s holy anger is directed against all those who have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And yet, because of God’s great love, he sent Christ to bear the punishment ofour sins. Christ died in our place, took to himself our sin and guilt, andbore our penalty so that we might receive forgiveness of sins.33
By the time of the Reformation, feudalism had been superseded by the Roman view of criminal law, under which the only satisfaction that could be offered was punishment. Impressed by Anselm’s argument that divine justice required satisfying, Calvin and the other Reformers simply reworked it in terms of their criminal law. This resulted in a theory within which God does pass the sentence that the law demands, but carries it out on a substitute. Paul Fiddes summarisesit in the following terms:
When Calvin built a theory of atonement upon the principle of divine justice, he therefore concluded that ‘the guilt, which held us liable to punishment, was transferred to the head of the Son of God’. God’s law had been infringed through human sin, and so penalty must be inflicted upon offenders in order to maintain the moral order of the universe. In the act of atonement, Christ pays the debt to justice by bearing the necessary punishment instead of humankind.35Already, then, we are struck by a very different way of perceiving imagery of the atonement, where penal substitution functions as a ‘central hub’ from which‘all of these other doctrines fan out.’36 All the various models offer a positive contribution, but penal substitution is regarded as controlling – ‘the sine qua non of evangelical soteriology’37 and ‘a distinguishing mark of the world-wide evangelical fraternity.
The act of God is no more than an abstention from interference with their free choice and its consequence … [Paul] has therefore succeeded in disassociating the fact of retribution from any idea of an angry God visiting his displeasure upon sinful men, even though he retains the old expression‘the Wrath of God’.54Leon Morris and Grant Osborne, however, are among those who reject this‘ingenious argument’;55 God’s wrath against sin is ‘too comprehensive in Scripture to allow such a reinterpretation’.56 The idea that the wrath of God is exercised against sin ‘runs through and through the OT’ and is ‘intensely personal’.57If this is the case, though, asks Green, is it not significant that God’s wrath isnever developed in the OT in sacrificial terms and that we find no exposition of sacrifice as satisfaction or penalty?58 Finding, in Rom. 3, an implicit need to assuage God’s wrath is based on a false presumed relation of wrath, sacrifice and atonement in the OT.59Examining the role and function of sacrifice in atonement to test these points is not an entirely straight forward hermeneutical exercise. Firstly, biblical sacrifices were made not just for sin;60 sacrifice ‘is a grander idea and does not in itself require a narrative of God’s judicial wrath needing to be satisfied’.61 There is a‘kaleidoscope of images which together constitute the NT characterisation of Jesus as sacrifice’,62 as different strands of the OT language of sacrifice are applied to Jesus in different ways,63 each in its own way bearing witness to a dimension of Jesus’ work.64What then of the meaning of kipper? Penal substitution’s interpretation(propitiation) is not universally accepted. According to Jacob Milgrom, the root meaning of kipper lies in wiping off or removing, suggesting that it means ‘topurge’, to expunge impurity. Furthermore, some scholars understand He therefore sees both the Day of Atonement rituals and Rom. 3:25 in expiatory, ratherthan propitiatory, terms.65Since it seems significant that Jesus apparently chose Passover (a time for celebrating and remembering liberation) rather than the Day of Atonement (a time for atoning sins) to explicate the significance of his death,66 we will briefly consider the Passover lamb.
Though it is often assumed that penal substitution lies at the heart of the Passover, this is not self-evident. Clearly, the Passover lamb was ‘sacrificed’, atleast in modern terms, although in precisely what capacity we cannot be definitive.67 Milgrom is clear that the sacrifice of the lamb is not a sin-offering (hatta-’t);neither is the verb kipper used in the texts on the paschal observance.68 Stephen Finlan points out that the Passover sacrifice was ‘completely different from other sacrifices … having nothing to do with cleansing, forgiveness, or reparation.’69Neither is there any developed idea of sacrifice, in the manner of the later atonement offerings.Moreover, there are further problems here. If Passover was a penal substitutionary event, why was its application limited to Israel’s firstborn sons? Why notthe entire nation? Equally, if the lamb is a penal substitute to avoid Israel suffering the fate of God’s judgement against the Egyptians, it seems odd that this arrangement of protection should be required only for the final plague. The objectheretofore has been God’s punishment exclusively upon Egypt.Whatever the origins of Passover, it was understood at the time of Jesus as agift-offering of praise and thanksgiving to God for his deliverance.70 The first century Pesah was fundamentally a national celebration designed to keep freshthe memory of the exodus and reassure the people that God ‘would smite all future tyrants as he had Pharaoh’ – celebrating God’s past liberation and anticipating his future liberation.71 The ritual identifies the nation that Yahweh’s action isredeeming. Through its obedient cultus participation, Israel is ‘marked out’ asthe redeemed, distinguished from Egypt and ‘set apart’ as those upon whom hisblessing rests.72 This fits well with the meaning of pesah as ‘protection’. It was ‘aGod-given covenant meal that identified his people as exempt from judgementand ready for deliverance.’73By choosing Passover to explain his death, then, instead of the Day of Atonement, Jesus was choosing images of divine protection and liberation.74
Although the Last Supper is commonly assumed to be a Passover meal,75 supporting evidence is far from clear, and the balance of scholarship today is shifting away from that conclusion.76 Given that sacrifice in covenant ratification had no substitutionary function, let alone a penal one,77 it is notable that the Synoptics and Paul posit the Last Supper’s sacramental significance in covenantal terms.78 This does not preclude a forgiveness element, but this comes by sharingin the new Passover – entering covenant by participation in his meal, drinkingfrom his cup.79 The absence of reference to the lamb is curious, too. Why wouldJesus not have applied the more-natural theme of ‘this lamb is my body’ rather than the bread?80 If Passover had direct correspondence in Jesus’ thought, McKnight sees this as ‘a virtual soteriological necessity’.81 Accordingly, he concludes the supper took place in a Pesah setting, with Jesus turning a regular Passover week meal into ‘a kind of Pesah’.82In another key passage, the Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah, a central question is whether Jesus thought of himself in these terms. Notably, in none ofthe sayings attributed to Jesus does he designate himself as the Servant. If one has this conclusion in mind already, of course, it is easy to find numerous ‘servant’ and ‘suffering’ references to support it. An important hermeneutical question here is whether a NT quotation from the OT indicates the whole original passage is to be brought to mind, or just the text quoted.83 Adopting the former view broadens the material available to support such an hypothesis.84 Otherwise, though, the verses from Isaiah cited in e.g. Matt. 8:16-17, Matt. 12:18-21and Luke 4:16-21 indicate different characteristics of Jesus and his mission. If a vicarious bearing of sin by the Servant is in mind, it is surprising this is not somewhere stated explicitly, especially in Jesus’ predictions of his death. One might argue the Servant was the only basis Jesus could have had for interpreting his sufferings, but this is reading into the silence. The Servant passage is a unique OT reference to vicarious atoning suffering,85 even though the idea of enduring suffering and subsequent vindication is certainly not. Paul makes no use of the Servant figure, even though he twice quotes from the fourth Song.Only in 1 Pet. 2 do we find ‘the full identification of Jesus with the Servant in all its Christological significance’.8
Although Christian orthodoxy has never required the adoption of one particular theory of atonement, Reformed and evangelical proponents of penal substitution (PSA) insist on its pivotal role. It is argued that the roots of this thinking liein Enlightenment epistemology and Modern thought, corresponding to the advent of evangelicalism. PSA’s claims to be the controlling understanding are difficult to affirm on the biblical evidence and, problematically today, its paradigm of law, justice and punishment derives from pre- and early-modern eras. The‘kaleidoscopic’ view offers a broader biblical perspective on the nature of both‘the problem’ and ‘the solution’ and is more accessible to post-Modern thoughtforms. For the sake of evangelical mission, however, seeking after synthesis is encouraged, which might be explored through a renewed centre-point in ‘recapitulation/interchange’ or ‘covenant’ imagery.
EvangelicalQuarterlyAn International Reviewof Bible and Theologyin Defence of the Historic Christian FaithVol. LXXXIV No. 4 October 2012Editors: I Howard Marshall, John-Paul Lotz, John G F Wilks. Beyond the kaleidoscope:towards a synthesis of views on theatonementStephen J. Burnhope
Last edited:
