A refutation of the doctrine of “penal substitutionary atonement” (part one)

Why Christ died

According to what we read in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, the evangel that Paul heralded among the nations consists of the following two essential facts: (1) “Christ died for our sins” and (2) “He has been roused the third day.” As I’ve argued elsewhere, the expression “for our sins” basically means, “so that our sins would be forgiven” (with “our sins” including the sins of all mankind). And since Christ died so that the sins of all mankind would be forgiven, it means that the sins of all mankind shall be forgiven.

Significantly, there are a number of verses in the letter to the Hebrews in which we find the expression “for sins” used (see Heb. 5:1, 3; 7:27; 9:7; 10:12). And in all of these verses, the author had a “sin offering” in view. In accord with this understanding of what Paul had in mind when he used the expression “Christ died for our sins,” we read in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that God made Christ “a sin offering for our sakes.” 

The sin offering was a sacrifice that resulted in the sins of those for whom it was offered being forgiven. With regard to what this sacrifice accomplished, consider the following verses from Leviticus:

Lev. 4:26

And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings. So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven.

Lev. 4:31

“…and the priest shall offer it up in smoke on the altar for a soothing aroma to Yahweh. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.”

Lev. 4:35

And all its fat he shall remove as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar, on top of Yahweh’s food offerings. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.

The burning of the sacrifice – which was essential to the completion of the sacrificial ritual – represented the giving of the sacrifice to God (whose acceptance of it resulted in the forgiveness that the sacrifice was intended to secure), and the words “for a soothing aroma to Yahweh” express the fact that the sacrifice was pleasing to, and accepted by, God. It was in response to their offering to God, in faith, something that was of relatively great value – i.e., an unblemished animal (the blood of which was considered sacred and precious to God, the Creator of the animal) – that God mercifully forgave the sins of those for whom the animal was offered (hence the words, “…and he shall be forgiven”).

In accord with this understanding of what it means for Christ to have died “for our sins,” it’s evident from Ephesians 1:7-8 and 5:2 that Christ’s death was sacrificial in nature, and that it’s because of Christ’s sacrificial death that we can receive the forgiveness of our sins:

“…in [Christ] we are having the deliverance through His blood, the forgiveness of offenses in accord with the riches of [God’s] grace, which He lavishes on us…”

“…be walking in love, according as Christ also loves you, and gives Himself up for us, an approach present and a sacrifice to God, for a fragrant odor.”

But how does Christ’s sacrificial death result in our sins being forgiven (and, therefore, in our justification)? Romans 3:20-26 is, I believe, a key passage in helping us answer this question. Here’s how these verses read in the CLNT (as updated and shared in Volume 114 of Unsearchable Riches magazine; see page 134):

Yet now, apart from law, God’s righteousness has been made manifested (being attested by the law and the prophets), yet God’s righteousness through Jesus Christ’s faith for all (and on all who are believing it), for there is no distinction, for all sin and are wanting of the glory of God, being justified gratuitously in His grace, through the deliverance, the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus (Whom God purposes for a Propitiatory through His faith, by means of His blood, for a display of His righteousness because of the passing over of the penalties of sins which occurred before in the forbearance of God) toward the display of His righteousness in the current era, for Him to be righteous and to be justifying the human out of Jesus’ faith.

It is in verses 25 and 26 that I believe Paul provides us with the main reason for Christ’s death. In my article The sin-based problem and the cross-based solution, I argued that the righteousness of God referred to in these verses (in the expression “a display of His righteousness”) refers to the righteousness that essentially belongs to God (i.e., the divine attribute according to which God is righteous). According to Paul, God displayed his righteousness by purposing Christ “for a Propitiatory through His faith, by means of His blood.” The word translated as “Propitiatory” here (ἱλαστήριον) refers to that which results in God being merciful to sinners by forgiving their sins. Paul was likely expressing the same basic idea as that found in 2 Cor. 5:21 (see the aforementioned article for a more in-depth defense of this understanding).

Now, the reason Paul gave as to why God had to display his righteousness by purposing Christ as “a Propitiatory” is revealed as follows: “…because of the passing over of the penalties of sins which occurred before in the forbearance of God.” This indicates that, when God forgave sins in the past, he seemed to be doing that which was unrighteous. It also means that, apart from Christ’s sacrificial death having taken place, God would’ve been unrighteous for having forgiven sins in the past, and would be unrighteous for forgiving sins and justifying sinners at the present time. Or to put it another way, if it weren’t for Christ’s death, God would be unjust if he didn’t condemn all sinners to death.

Thus, Christ’s death can be understood as vindicating God by demonstrating how God’s merciful acts – i.e., the forgiveness of sins and the justification of sinners – is consistent with his righteousness. By purposing Christ “for a Propitiatory” – that is, by purposing Christ as a sacrifice because of which he can (and shall) forgive our sins – God displayed that he is, in fact, righteous when he forgives sins and justifies sinners. But how did Christ’s death make it possible for God to justly forgive sins and justify sinners? 

Since God is sovereign and operating all in accord with the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11), we can conclude that sin is an essential part of God’s plan. That is, we can conclude that there wouldn't be any sin in the world if God didn’t intend that there be sin in the world. But we also know that sin is necessarily displeasing to God (and that sin could never cease to be displeasing to God). It’s for this reason that God’s response to sin is referred to as “indignation” or “wrath” (i.e., a strong feeling of displeasure that’s provoked by sin). And it’s through the condemnation of sinners that God acts in accord with his displeasure with sin (which is why unjustified sinners are deserving of death, as we read in Romans 1:23).

However, just as it’s clear that God is displeased with sin, it’s equally clear that God is exceedingly well-pleased with his Son’s sacrifice (which, as I argued in my previous article, was the supreme manifestation of faith in God). As we read in John 8:29, Christ always did what is pleasing to God. And based on the fact that Christ’s faith-based obedience unto death made him worthy of being roused incorruptible by God, given all authority in heaven and on earth and exalted by God far above all other created beings (Eph. 1:20-22; Phil. 2:8-11; Heb. 1:2, 4; 2:8-9), we can conclude that God is exceedingly well-pleased with his Son’s sacrifice. Moreover, given the fact that Christ’s sacrifice is the basis on which God can justly forgive sins and justify sinners (and is the only act of faith and obedience on which our justification depends), we can further conclude the following: God is exceedingly more pleased with Christ’s sacrifice than he is displeased with the combined sins of all people of all time.

It is, therefore, because of Christ’s obedience unto death that God can justly forgive our sins and justify us. For when God forgives our sins and justifies us, he’s doing so in accord with the truth of how pleased he is with Christ’s sacrifice. Just as God manifests his displeasure with sin (i.e., his indignation) through the condemnation of sinners, so God manifests his delight with Christ’s obedience unto death through the justification of the sinners for whom Christ died. And not only this, but because of Christ’s sacrifice, God must justify all sinners. For God to fail to do this (as is believed by most Christians) would be for God to communicate a falsehood (i.e., that he’s more displeased with our sins than he is pleased with his Son’s obedience unto death). Since God cannot lie and must act in accord with the truth, he must justify all on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice.

An opposing view: PSA

According to the most commonly-held view among “evangelical” Christians concerning why Christ had to die, the only reason God can justly be merciful to sinners is because Christ was punished (or penalized) by God “in our place” (i.e., as our substitute) when he was crucified. According to this view – which is commonly referred to as the doctrine of “penal substitutionary atonement” (or simply “PSA”) – God made Christ liable to the judicial consequence of the sins of those whom God wills to be saved, and thus directed his wrath against Christ. This outpouring of divine wrath on Christ is thought to have resulted in the “appeasement” of God’s wrath against sin.

Here are some quotes from well-known Christian leaders who hold to the doctrine of PSA (I include these quotes only to demonstrate and accurately represent what, exactly, is affirmed by proponents of PSA):

John Calvin: “Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance.” (“Institutes of the Christian Religion,” Book 3, Chapter 16, Section 10)

Charles Hodge: “The penalty of the divine law is said to be eternal death. Therefore if Christ suffered the penalty of the law He must have suffered death eternal; or, as others say, He must have endured the same kind of sufferings as those who are cast off from God and die eternally are called upon to suffer.” (“Systematic Theology,” Vol. 2, Part 3, Ch 6, Sec 3)

John Piper: “The judgment was to have God the Father pour out his wrath, and instead of pouring it out on us, he pours it out on [Jesus]. That necessarily involves a kind of abandonment. That is what wrath means. He gave him up to suffer the weight of all the sins of all of his people and the judgment for those sins. We cannot begin to fathom all that this would mean between the Father and the Son. To be forsaken by God is the cry of the damned, and he was damned for us.” (Desiring God)

John MacArthur: “To [Jesus] was imputed the guilt of their sins, and He was suffering the punishment for those sins on their behalf. And the very essence of that punishment was the outpouring of God's wrath against sinners. In some mysterious way during those awful hours on the cross, the Father poured out the full measure of His wrath against sin, and the recipient of that wrath was God's own beloved Son. In this lies the true meaning of the cross.

“Christ died in our place and in our stead – and He received the very same outpouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross. This was the true measure of Christ's sufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion – dreadful as they were – were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him…It's sufficient to understand that all our worst fears about the horrors of hell – and more – were realized by Him as He received the due penalty of others' wrongdoing.” (“The Murder of Jesus,” pages 219-221)

Wayne Grudem: “As Jesus bore the guilt of our sins alone, God the Father, the mighty Creator, the Lord of the universe, poured out on Jesus the fury of his wrath: Jesus became the object of the intense hatred of sin and vengeance against sin that God had patiently stored up since the beginning of the world.” (“Bible Doctrine,” pages 253-254)

According to some proponents of PSA, God’s wrath was “satisfied” as a result of Jesus’ death. It’s this idea that’s being expressed in the following words of the popular hymn, “In Christ Alone”: 

“Till on that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied.”

The problem with this view is as follows: if God’s wrath was “satisfied” as a result of Jesus’ death, then there wouldn’t be (and shouldn’t be) any divine wrath in the future. But God’s wrath (or “indignation”) is just as much a future reality as it is a past reality. For example, Paul declared the following in Rom. 2:5 (which are words directed toward the self-righteous):

“You are hoarding for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will be paying each one in accord with his acts...”

And even those whom God has now reconciled to himself were, prior to being reconciled to God, “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:1-3). In other words, all who are now believers formerly had wrath/indignation “hoarded up” for them before they were justified by God. So God’s wrath wasn’t “satisfied” as a result of Jesus’ death; it’s just as much a future reality now as it was before Jesus died for our sins.

Moreover, for Christ to have become the recipient of God’s wrath necessarily means that, during this time, he was displeasing to God (for as already noted, God’s wrath/indignation is simply a strong feeling of displeasure that’s provoked by sin). Thus, proponents of the doctrine of PSA believe that, on the cross, Christ become exceedingly displeasing to God (or in the words of Wayne Grudem, Christ became “the object of [God’s] intense hatred of sin and vengeance against sin”). However, as we read in John 8:29, Christ always did what is pleasing to God. And we also know that God was exceedingly well-pleased with his Son’s sacrifice. And this fact alone means that it’s impossible for God to have poured out his wrath on Christ. For God to have directed his wrath against Christ on the cross would’ve been completely contrary to the truth of how pleased he was (and is) with Christ’s obedience unto death.

Some proponents of PSA have attempted to soften this view by claiming that, when God penalized Christ on the cross, his wrath wasn’t directed against Christ but against our sins. However, according to PSA, the penalty for sins necessarily involves divine wrath being directed against (or “poured out on”) the one being penalized. Thus, proponents of PSA can’t get around the fact that, if Christ was penalized by God as a substitute for sinners, then he had to have become the object and recipient of God’s wrath (i.e., the wrath that is provoked by our sins). This means that proponents of PSA can’t avoid the conclusion that Christ became “the object of [God’s] intense hatred of sin and vengeance against sin.”

Now, according to proponents of the doctrine of PSA, it’s because sinners are deserving of God’s “eternal wrath” (and because God’s justice demands that sinners be “eternally punished”) that Christ died as a substitute for sinners. If divine justice requires the eternal punishment of those who, because of their sins, are guilty (and who are thus deserving of eternal punishment), then there can be no satisfaction of divine justice apart from this taking place. And this means that the punishment of someone who is innocent – and thus undeserving of any punishment – cannot satisfy divine justice as a substitute for those who, because of their sins, are guilty and deserving of punishment (and this would remain true even if the innocent person volunteered to be “punished”). Only the punishment of the guilty (those who are actually deserving of punishment) can satisfy divine justice.

In order to make Christ’s punishment consistent with this view, proponents of penal substitution will often claim that God must “punish sin” (and then assert that God “punished sin” when Christ was crucified). However, sin is something that one does (or fails to do), and has no existence apart from those who are guilty of having committed it. As such, sin isn’t something that can literally be punished. Rather, it’s those who sin who can be (and are) punished. So, according to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s justice demands that sinners must be punished (and not that sin itself be punished). But since Christ never sinned, he couldn’t have been punished by God. And even if it was possible for Christ to be punished, his “punishment” would fail to satisfy “divine justice.” For according to PSA, the very reason sinners are liable to punishment (and thus ought to be punished) at all is because they’ve sinned. Liability to punishment presupposes that one has sinned and is deserving of punishment (consider, for example, Exodus 20:7; 34:7; Numbers 5:31; 14:18; Proverbs 11:21; 16:5; Jeremiah 25:29).

One proponent of PSA (Rob Golding) has provided the following analogy in defense of the view that Christ was punished in the place of sinners: Suppose a man named Sam steals a judge’s car. However, instead of sentencing Sam to prison (which is the penalty for this particular crime), the judge decides to serve Sam’s prison sentence in his place. According to Golding, the judge does this “because he wants to forgive the thief, but he also wants to uphold the law. Serving the sentence is the only way to do both” (https://theaquilareport.com/defending-penal-substitution/).

Aside from the fact that a more scripturally-accurate analogy would involve the judge sentencing his own son to prison instead of himself (for it was God’s Son – and not God himself – who died for us), the problem with Golding’s defense of PSA could be stated as follows: Despite Golding’s claim to the contrary, the law is not being upheld by an innocent person being punished for someone else’s crime. In Golding’s car-stealing analogy, the only one whose punishment can legally “satisfy justice” (such that the law is “upheld”) is the one who committed the crime (i.e., Sam). It’s his punishment, specifically – and not just anyone’s punishment – that’s needed to “uphold the law” (and this would remain the case even if someone volunteered to be “punished” in Sam’s place).

The following modification of Golding’s analogy should make this point clear: Suppose that, after stealing the judge’s car (and driving off in it), Sam dies in a car accident. Does this mean that the judge must then either “substitute himself” or find some other innocent person to be punished for Sam’s crime – either willingly or unwillingly – so that there can then be justice? No; of course not. The only one who needed to be punished  in order for the law to be upheld was Sam. It would in no way “satisfy justice” for the judge to find some innocent person to be punished for Sam’s crime (even if they volunteered to be punished).

Thus, the very foundation of PSA – i.e., the belief that sinners are deserving of punishment (and that divine justice requires that they be punished) – is contrary to PSA. For if it’s the punishment of those who have sinned (and who are thus deserving of punishment) that satisfies God’s justice, then God’s justice would remain forever unsatisfied by the punishment of one who is perfectly innocent and righteous (and who is thus undeserving of punishment), and the non-punishment of those who sinned (and who are deserving of punishment). If God justly requires the punishment of those who have sinned, it would be contrary to divine justice (i.e., unjust) for God to penalize his sinless, perfectly righteous Son in the place of those whose punishment is required by divine justice.

Proponents of penal substitution will object that, according to their doctrinal position, the guilt of those for whom Christ died was transferred (or “imputed”) to Jesus. But guilt – i.e., that which makes sinners deserving of punishment – is not something that can be transferred. Guilt is, by definition, the fact of having transgressed a certain law, or of having committed a certain offense or crime. For someone to be “guilty,” it must be true that they committed a certain crime or transgressed a certain law (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/guilty). Since Christ never sinned, he can’t be guilty of anything (and it would simply be unjust for God to punish Christ and direct his wrath against him for sins he didn’t commit).

This self-evident principle is in accord with what we read in the following verses:

Deut. 24:16

Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; each shall be put to death for his own sin.

Prov. 17:15 

He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to Yahweh.[1]

Eze. 18:20

The soul who sins will die. The son will not bear the iniquity of the father, nor will the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

From these verses it’s evident that God does not consider guilt to be transferrable. Only those who are actually guilty of having sinned – and not those who are innocent – can be liable to the penalty for the sins committed. An innocent person cannot be justly punished for sins that he or she didn’t commit. Thus, Christ – who is, and always has been, innocent and righteous – couldn’t have been justly punished by God.

Some proponents of PSA have argued that the “guilt” that was transferred to Christ was the liability or legal obligation to “satisfy justice” by suffering the penalty of our sins (for example, Peter Leithart defends this view in his article, “Guilt and Guilt-Bearing”). It should be emphasized that there is a word for “liable to” found in Scripture (ἔνοχος (enochos)). It means “in danger of, guilty of, subject to.” But what, exactly, does it mean for God to have judicially made Christ liable to punishment/legally obligated to suffer the penalty of our sins? And how is God’s justice “satisfied” by the punishment of Christ instead of those who sinned? When we analyze this view we find that it’s simply the same view described earlier, but expressed in more technical legal jargon.

“Liable” means “obligated according to law or equity” (LIABLE), while “obligation” (when understood in a legal sense) refers to “a legal duty, by which a person is bound to do or not to do a certain thing” (OBLIGATION). And “duty” is defined as “a moral or legal obligation” or “an obligation to do a thing.” When we take the concept expressed by these words and put it in a theological context, the idea that’s being expressed is simply this: to be “obligated” or “liable” to suffer a certain punishment means that God wills that you have to suffer the punishment, and intends to subject you to the punishment. What else could it mean? God is the highest authority, and the law of which he is the source is simply what he wills we should or shouldn’t do.

Thus, to say that God made Christ liable or legally obligated to suffer the penalty of our sins is simply to say that God willed/determined that Christ had to suffer the punishment of which our sins make us deserving, and subjected him to this punishment. But again, it would simply be unjust for God to punish Christ/direct his wrath against him for sins he didn’t commit. As has already been pointed out, sin is what makes a penalty necessary, and makes the one who sinned liable to punishment. That is, sin is what results in the state of affairs according to which the one who sinned becomes liable to/ legally obligated to suffer the legal consequence of his or her sin. Thus, to make someone who didn’t sin (and who thus isn’t deserving of death) liable to a consequence that is only necessary because someone else sinned (and is deserving of death) would be inherently unjust. Rather than “satisfying divine justice,” the punishment of a sinless, perfectly righteous man would be the greatest injustice imaginable.

Moreover, in Romans 1:32, we read that it’s a “just statute of God” that those who sin “are deserving of death.” It is, therefore, being “deserving of death” that makes death a just penalty. And since it’s a just statute of God that those who’ve sinned are deserving of death, it would be unjust for God to regard a sinless man as being liable to this penalty.

Another problem that proponents of the doctrine of PSA cannot avoid is that, if Christ died as a penal substitute for all mankind, then it logically follows that all mankind must be saved. This conclusion is, of course, completely unacceptable to most Christians (especially among those who actually hold to the doctrine of PSA). For most Christians believe that many – if not most – human beings will never be saved. The only logically-consistent way for proponents of PSA to avoid the truth that all mankind will be saved is for them to believe that Christ died as a penal substitute only for a limited number of humans (i.e., “the elect”), and not for all mankind. This is the view affirmed by consistent Calvinists, and is commonly known as the doctrine of “limited atonement” (or “particular atonement”). However, many Christians who hold to PSA – including a number of Calvinists – find the doctrine of “limited atonement” to be just as unappealing as the view that all mankind shall be saved.

Many Christians who hold to the doctrine of PSA (and who reject the doctrine of “limited atonement”) will, of course, simply deny that PSA leads to the conclusion that all mankind must be saved. But in order for them to avoid this conclusion (that is, without embracing the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement), they must affirm that, although Christ was penalized for the sins of all mankind as their substitute, God still deals with everyone as if this isn’t true until they believe that it’s true. However, this view involves God acting unjustly.

If Christ was, in fact, penalized for the sins of everyone for whom he died, then those for whom he died ought not to be penalized by God. That is, anyone for whom Christ died as a penal substitute cannot justly be penalized by God. For God to disregard what Christ did and penalize someone for whom Christ died as a penal substitute (and thus deal with them as if Christ didn’t die as their penal substitute) would be unjust. It wouldn’t be in accord with truth. In addition to being unjust, it would make no sense for God to act as if Christ wasn't penalized for everyone’s sins until those for whom Christ died believe that Christ died for their sins. For if Christ was penalized for our sins, then believing this to be true wouldn’t make it true (and not believing it to be true wouldn’t make it false). 

For part two of this study, click here: A refutation of the doctrine of “penal substitutionary atonement” (part two)

---

[1] It may be objected that, if what’s affirmed in Proverbs 17:15 applied to God just as much as it applies to humans, then it would mean that it’s an “abomination” for God to justify anyone who has sinned. However, as is the case throughout much of the Hebrew Scriptures, the words “wicked” and “righteous” are being used relatively (i.e., comparatively) in this verse. One who is “righteous” (in the sense of which we read in this verse) is not one who is absolutely righteous. That is, he is not righteous in the sense of being perfectly sinless and obedient (as Christ was, and is). Rather, he is relatively righteous (relative to other sinful people). Conversely, the “wicked” are those who are relatively/comparatively wicked.

So that which is said to be an abomination to Yahweh is (1) someone who declares a (relatively) wicked person to be innocent of having done that of which he or she is guilty, and (2) someone who declares a (relatively) righteous person to be guilty of having done something of which he or she isn’t actually guilty. According to either action, a falsehood is being promoted, such that one is being treated in a way that is contrary to how things actually are (and are known to be by the one making the false judgment).

However, when God justifies sinners, he’s not declaring them to be innocent of having ever sinned (which would be a falsehood). Rather, he’s declaring them to be undeserving of condemnation (i.e., an adverse judgment/penalty). But the reason God can declare us undeserving of condemnation (i.e., justify us) is because he’s exceedingly more pleased by Christ’s sacrifice than he is displeased by our sins. That is, when God forgives sins/justifies sinners, he’s acting in accord with this truth concerning Christ’s sacrifice. But for God to have condemned Christ and “poured out his wrath” on him would have communicated the falsehood that Christ was actually guilty, and that God wasn’t pleased with his Son’s obedience. Thus, the condemnation of Christ by God would’ve been just as much of an abomination as it would be for someone to condemn another person for doing something of which he or she is innocent.