The doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) has long been a cornerstone of the Reformed Calvinistic theological framework. It later became the “gospel message” of several post-reformation protestant denominations, such as Baptist, Evangelical, and Pentecostal.
What is Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)?
Penal Substitutionary Atonement was developed during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century (initiated by Martin Luther and John Calvin) and is an “update” to Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory of Atonement (11th century). Some popular names associated with Penal Substitutionary Atonement are John MacArthur, David Platt, John Piper, Paul Washer, C.J. Mahaney, Voddie Baucham, Mark Driscoll, and others, most of whom are Reformed (Calvinists), Pentecostals & Baptists.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement’s basic premise is that God, filled with wrath and anger due to human imperfection and sin, has no choice but to punish imperfection by casting all people into hell, which, in the Reformed version of hell, means eternal torture in fire. Therefore, instead of punishing humanity, God allegedly substituted humanity with Jesus, torturing and killing Him in our place:
What Scripture tells us is that all of mankind are children of wrath. We are objects of the hatred of God by nature. We don’t deserve His love… God is not unjust to hate mankind. Because mankind is a hateful thing by nature. It ought to be hated[ii]
Reformed Pastor Tim Conway
It is just not true to give the impression that God doesn’t hate sinners by saying, ‘he loves the sinner and hates the sin.’ He does hate sinners.[iii]
Pastor John Piper
God’s anger at sin and hatred of sinners causes him to pour out his wrath [on Jesus][iv]
Reformed-Baptist Mark Driscoll
Who killed Jesus? The Father. The Father killed the Son. Feel God’s love for you revealed in Isaiah 53:10. He crushed his son for you! He crushed Him! He bruised him! He punished him! He disfigured him! He crushed him! With all of the righteous wrath that we deserved. That’s what the Father did. So great was His love.[v]
Reformed Baptist pastor C.J. Mahaney
Jesus bore divine wrath at the cross for our sake, and so protected us from it. This act implies that God hates humans since he would have poured wrath upon humans if not for the work of Christ’s cross.[vi]
Wyatt Graham, director of The Gospel Coalition
Jesus was pulverized under the weight of God’s wrath––as he stood in our place…How can God show both holy hatred and holy love toward sinners at the same time? This is the climactic question of the Bible, and the answer is the cross. At the cross, God showed the full expression of his wrath.[vii]
Baptist pastor David Platt
God’s anger at sin and hatred of sinners causes him to pour out his wrath [on Jesus][viii]
Reformed-Baptist Mark Driscoll
We must remember, however, that sin did not kill Jesus; God did. The suffering servant’s death was nothing less than a punishment administered by God for sins others had committed.[ix]
God put his own Son to death? That is precisely what Scripture teaches.[x]
Pastor John MacArthur
See, at the cross of Jesus, there is hatred for Jesus and love for us…on the cross, the wrath of God was poured out on the Son of God. To say it another way, Jesus took the cup on the cross and drank every single drop of the wrath of God, and he endured it. This was physical, emotional, spiritual, mental suffering to a degree that is incomprehensible.[xi]
Reformed-Baptist Mark Driscoll
Jesus was not swept away by the wrath of uncontrolled men. He was bruised by his Father. Why? To resolve the tension between the Father’s love for his glory and his love for sinners.[xii]
Reformed Pastor John Piper
The ultimate answer to the question, who crucified Jesus? is: God did. It is a staggering thought. Jesus was his Son. And the suffering was unsurpassed. But the whole message of the Bible leads to this conclusion.[xiii]
Reformed Pastor John Piper
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 which God had patiently stored up since the beginning of the world.[xiv]
Wayne Grudem, a Reformed theologian
At the cross the fury of all that stored up wrath against sin was unleashed against God’s own son.[xv]
Dan Wallace, a Reformed theologian
God killed Jesus. I know that might sound harsh and it is, indeed, hard to wrap your mind around. But it’s true. God the Father sacrificed his Son. He killed his Son in order to spare us His righteous wrath.[xvi]
Trevin Wax of The Gospel Coalition
Because of what God did to Him: He crushed Him under the full force of His wrath against us…The Father takes the knife, draws back His arm, and slays His Son…[xvii]
Reformed Pastor Paul Washer
Is it right, in any sense whatsoever, to say that the Father was angry with the Son when He punished the Son in our place and for our sin…He made the Son the object of His just displeasure and anger as the representative who stood in our place to atone for our sin and to propitiate God’s wrath.[xviii]
Nick Batzig, Reformed pastor of The Gospel Coalition
God tortured His son and Himself to release the bondage and grip of sin on His creation.[xix]
A popular magazine for Christian women
The “cup” is not a reference to a wooden cross; it is a reference to divine judgement. It is the cup of God’s wrath. This is what Jesus is recoiling from in the garden. All God’s holy wrath and hatred toward sin and sinners, stored up since the beginning of the world, is about to be poured out on him, and he is sweating blood at the thought of it…At the Cross, Christ drank the full cup of the wrath of God, and when he had downed the last drop, he turned the cup over and cried out, “It is finished.” This is the gospel.[xx]
Reformed Pastor David Platt
Crushed under the wrath of His own father…all the wrath of all mighty God was going to be hurled upon Him and crush Him to pieces…His own father crushed Him.[xxi]
Reformed Pastor Paul Washer
Something was torn in the very fabric of the relationship between Father and Son…the ancient, eternal fellowship between Father and Son was broken as divine wrath rained down like a million Soddoms and Gomorrah’s. In the terror and agony of it all, Jesus cried, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”[xxiii]
Reformed-Baptist pastor and member of “The Gospel Coalition.”
To answer the question of who killed Jesus, I dedicated another article. However, the logic of Penal Substitutionary Atonement can be summarized in this way:
God detests sin, and due to His holiness, PSA believes that He cannot be in the presence of sinners without destroying them. As a result, humanity, being inherently sinful, finds itself estranged from God and condemned to eternal damnation, incapable of experiencing God’s presence or love. Since the dawn of time, God’s wrath against humanity has accumulated, necessitating the satisfaction of this divine anger. However, only a punishment of cosmic magnitude could suffice to appease God’s wrath towards humanity. Therefore, instead of directing this punishment towards humanity, it was God the Father who chose to subject His own innocent Son to brutality, torture, punishment, and death. This act is believed to have led to a temporary separation within the Trinity, with the Son being excluded from the divine union (since He bore sin, and the Father, it is claimed, cannot be near sin).
Pros of Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Before I get to the critical part, there are, admittedly, some pros to Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
1. Reflection of Societal Justice: In societies across the globe, the principles of law and order are paramount. To some degree, Penal Substitutionary Atonement echoes this universal concept by asserting that sin, much like crime, demands punishment. This parallel draws a clear line between right and wrong, offering a semblance of cosmic justice akin to our legal systems.
2. Fulfillment of a Sense of Justice: There is a deep-seated human need for justice. Penal Substitutionary Atonement addresses this need by ensuring that no sin goes unpunished. In a world where earthly justice often fails, the assurance that divine justice prevails can be immensely comforting. However, opponents will argue that the PSA view of divine punishment is not proportional as humans were not created as perfect as God (all-knowing, perfect understanding, etc.), and it will not be fair to punish temporary sin, be it with intention or not, with eternal punishment that has no corrective goal other than mere suffering, likened to sadistic psychopaths who receive pleasure from witnessing other in pain.
3. Accessibility and Simplicity: Penal Substitutionary Atonement clearly outlines the Calvinistic understanding of salvation (men are evil and deserving of punishment; Jesus took that punishment upon Himself,) making it easily comprehensible. This simplicity aids in evangelizing the common uneducated man in the Calvinistic gospel in a straightforward way.
4. Aligns with Human Notions of Justice: Penal Substitutionary Atonement resonates with the primitive understanding of justice: retribution is necessary before forgiveness can be offered. It mirrors man’s vengeful nature ingrained in most people and cultures.
5. Resonance with Human Guilt and Shame: Penal Substitutionary Atonement taps into the complex emotions inherent in the human psyche, particularly addressing the deep-seated feelings of guilt and inadequacy common to many.
6. Cultural Relevancy: In Anselm of Canterbury’s time, extending to that of John Calvin, Europe was largely feudal. Here, commoners were governed by knights who enforced a mix of legal and military codes rather than by judges and juries. Knights, upholding authority through strict punishment, couldn’t forgive transgressions without consequences, as it was seen as a weakness and a risk to their power. Higher up, kings viewed offenses against them as severe, often demanding execution to preserve their honor and prevent rebellion. This culture of authority and fear influenced Anselm-Calvin’s development of the Satisfaction and PSA theories, diverging from the earlier Ransom theory.
Cons of Penal Substitutionary Atonement
1. The Problematic Father-Son Dynamic: One of the most significant criticisms of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the portrayal of a Father who requires the torture and killing of His Son. This image can be seen as creating a disturbing dynamic within the Godhead, suggesting dissonance and conflict where there should be unity and harmony. The idea of the Father inflicting wrath upon the Son can be perceived as endorsing abusive relationships, contrary to the message of divine love and compassion central to Christianity. Professor of Systematic Theology Thomas H. McCall explains:
The “broken Trinity” and “God against God” views run aground on the doctrines of divine impassibility and simplicity as well as the doctrine of the Trinity. According to Christian orthodoxy, it is not even a possibility that the Trinity was broken. If we know anything about the Trinity, we know that God is one God in three persons, and we know that God’s life is necessarily the life of holy love shared in the eternal communion of the Father, Son, and Spirit. To say that the Trinity is broken—even “temporarily”—is to imply that God does not exist.[ix]
2. Ethical Concerns: The moral implications of punishing the innocent to absolve the guilty are deeply troubling. This aspect of Penal Substitutionary Atonement runs counter to our innate sense of justice. For instance, if a judge were to punish a law-abiding citizen for the crimes of a criminal, we would be outraged. This raises the question: How, then, can this scenario, in the context of divine justice, be accepted?
3. The Paradox of Forgiveness: Central to Christian teaching is the concept of forgiveness – an act of grace that releases someone from their debt. However, Penal Substitutionary Atonement implies that forgiveness is only possible through the enactment of punishment. This contradicts the very essence of forgiveness, which inherently involves letting go, not the fulfillment of retribution. The parable of the prodigal son, where forgiveness is freely given without demand for punishment, or the letting go of the woman caught in adultery, or Jesus’s instruction to forgive seventy times seven, stands in stark contrast to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement model. Consider a father forgiving a debt owed by his child. True forgiveness would mean the father absorbs the loss, not transferring the debt to another child or demanding an alternative form of payment. PSA, however, suggests that God’s forgiveness requires a transfer of punishment, contradicting this fundamental understanding of what it means to forgive.
“Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.”
Ephesians 4:32
“Bear with each other and forgive any complaint you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.”
Colossians 3:13
We are supposed to forgive as God in Christ forgave us; if God did that by punishing, torturing, and killing, as PSA suggests, then it means we also must be violent before we may “forgive” others.
4. Overshadowing the Message of Love and Resurrection: In focusing primarily on sin and punishment, PSA can diminish the broader and deeply transformative themes of the Gospel, such as unconditional love, redemption, and resurrection. The emphasis shifts from the life and teachings of Jesus about a loving Father and being kind to one another to a transactional view of God and salvation centered around punishment.
5. Disproportionate Punishment: PSA struggles to address the ethical dilemma of eternal punishment for temporal sins. For example, a mother stealing to feed her starving child, according to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement, deserves to be eternally tortured in the fire. The disproportionality of the Calvinistic view of punishment for finite sins challenges our understanding of a just and merciful God. Even a secular judge, who might not embody the mercy, grace, and kindness attributed to God, would not condemn the impoverished mother to fire. Imagine a legal system where minor offenses, like parking violations, are met with the same severity as major crimes. Such a system would be deemed unjust and irrational. Similarly, the notion of eternal punishment for temporal sins in PSA raises questions about the proportionality of divine justice.
6. Logic of Trauma and Abuse: The abusive logic inherent in Penal Substitutionary Atonement can trigger trauma responses in individuals. The depiction of a God who demands torture as a form of atonement aligns with patterns of abusive behavior, where love is not just conditional but forced and based on meeting certain punitive requirements. This perspective can lead to a skewed and unhealthy view of God:
As somebody said to me years ago, “If you take a half-truth and make it into the whole truth, it becomes an untruth.” And that’s a very serious thing because then the vision of God that people have is distorted, and so many people are actually put off the gospel––they just say, “No, that sounds like a bullying God. If there is a God, he can’t really be like that.” When some people talk about the gospel, you’d think that John 3:16 said: “God so hated the world that he killed his only Son.” Sometimes people say: “That picture is important—wrath and sin and hell and all the rest of it, and it’s because God loves us.” But simply adding the word “love” onto the end of that story can actually be actually even worse. It is like what abusers do when they say, “I love you so much”—it’s hideous.[501]
New Testament scholar N.T. Wright
7. Endorsement of Violence: Penal Substitutionary Atonement, by necessitating violence for salvation, can be interpreted as a divine endorsement of these elements. This view contradicts the teachings of Jesus, who preached love, forgiveness, and peace, often opposing the violence of his time.
8. Limitation on Divine Love: The portrayal of God in Penal Substitutionary Atonement as a judge who uplifts retaliation over mercy can obscure the profound and unconditional nature of divine love and often turns the believer into a religious legalist forming a cult-like community. In the Christian narrative, God is primarily portrayed as loving and merciful, a stark contrast to the image of a deity demanding retribution.
9. Historical and Biblical Discrepancies: From a historical perspective, Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a relatively modern development in Christian theology, emerging prominently in the Reformation period. It diverges significantly from early Christian understandings of atonement and redemption, known as The Ransom Theory. Furthermore, a thorough examination of Old Testament sacrifices (and New Testament teachings) reveals nuances that PSA often overlooks. The Old Testament sacrifices, for instance, were about purification and sanctification rather than punishment, while the New Testament emphasizes reconciliation and restoration more than legalistic penal substitution.
10. PSA and the Issue of Fairness: Our cognitive abilities and belief systems are significantly shaped by factors like our mental and physical conditions. Take, for instance, a person who is hungry, stressed, and fearful; their response to a given situation might be driven by these negative emotions, contrasting sharply with how they might react in a calm, secure environment, such as a comfortable restaurant. Recognizing that God created humans not as omniscient beings but as finite entities with limited knowledge and constrained cognitive capabilities, often swayed by emotions, it becomes apparent that our decision-making is frequently affected by these human limitations pre-created in us by God. Therefore, it would not be fair for God to torture us forever because we are who we are – imperfect creatures.
11. Fear as motivation: Fear as motivation is highly detrimental to emotional, mental, and spiritual growth. In line with this, the scriptures assert, “There is no fear in love” (1 John 4:18). The core message of the Calvinistic PSA gospel revolves around punishment and torture, and therefore it becomes primarily driven by fear, fundamentally conflicting with the concept of a loving and compassionate deity. This contradiction highlights a misalignment between a gospel rooted in fear and the biblical portrayal of a God who embodies and encourages love, not terror.
12: Pagan Influence: The concept of a wrathful deity demanding to torture and kill an innocent sacrifice in order to relax its wrath and fury is an ancient pagan concept:
Tim Mackie, the founder and chief theologian of “The Bible Project,” speaks of it:
Many of us have inherited a story about animal sacrifice, and it goes something like this:
“Animal Sacrifice? Really?”, bibleproject.com
“The gods are angry with me and are going to kill me. But maybe if I kill this animal and make sure the gods get their pound of flesh, they’ll be appeased and happy. Maybe they won’t kill me or send a plague on my family. Sure, it’s barbaric, but so are the gods…”
Much of popular Christian belief has simply imported a pagan storyline into Leviticus and the stories about Jesus’ death on the cross. The result is a tragic irony. What the Bible is portraying as an expression of God’s love gets twisted into something dark. Our version goes like this:
“God is holy and perfect. You are not. Therefore, God is angry at you, and hates you even, so he has to kill you. But because he’s merciful, he’ll let you bring this animal to him and will have the animal killed instead of you. Thankfully, Jesus came to be the one who gets killed by God instead of me. Jesus rescues us from God, so now we can go forever to the happy place after we die and not the bad place.”
Is this story recognizable to you? If so, you’re not alone. The main problem with this story, to be a bit snarky, is the Bible. More specifically, the problem is that this story has enough biblical language in it that it can pass for what the Bible actually says about animal sacrifice and Jesus’ death. However, when you step back and allow Leviticus and the New Testament to speak for themselves, you can recognize this story as an imposter.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the Penal Substitutionary Atonement model addresses certain aspects of human understanding of justice and offers a straightforward explanation of the Calvinistic view of the gospel, it also raises significant theological, ethical, and even emotional concerns. Its portrayal of divine justice, the nature of forgiveness, and the emphasis on punishment and violence warrants a critical reevaluation. The Christian narrative, rich in themes of love, redemption, and transformation, calls for a more nuanced understanding of atonement that aligns with the teachings and life of Jesus Christ. As theologians and believers alike continue to explore this pivotal aspect of Christian doctrine, it is essential to engage in this discourse with both heart and mind, seeking a more holistic and profound understanding of the mystery of the cross.
I invite you to explore this topic further in my book. If you are not into reading books, try this article:
Why Did Jesus Die? 6 Historical Theories of Atonement Every Christian Must Know
