Edgework

We now begin summarizing and evaluating various atonement theories that have emerged throughout the Christian era starting with the penal substitution theory. It is the one that has been most prominent within the Protestant movement generally and still holds sway in most evangelical circles.

The concept of penal substitution begins to emerge in the teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). He held that Jesus’ life and death were offered up as a sacrifice to the Father which was accepted as sufficient satisfaction for man’s sin. But John Calvin (1509-1564) went farther by declaring that this sacrifice was orchestrated by God the Father in order to satisfy the cosmic demands of retributive justice. Calvin formalized and popularized penal substitution, making it the cornerstone of most Protestant theology. His thinking reflected the growing focus of his time on criminal law and the punishment of the guilty. Seen through this lens, God was a “stern judge, a strict avenger of sin.” A few centuries later, Charles Hodge (1797-1878) added his weight to this theory, thus making it the trademark of evangelicalism in North America.

David Clarke gives a contemporary expression to the penal substitution atonement theory in his essay, “Why did Christ Have to Die?” – published in the New England Reformed Journal in 1996:

But when the Lord suffered, the wrath of God was poured out in such measure upon him, that the Father was satisfied…Who can ever begin to grasp the ‘width and length and depth and height’ of the true spiritual suffering of our Lord and our God as his Father turned his back upon him? Who can comprehend the love that drove a Father to pour out his unmitigated wrath upon his dearly beloved Son for such rebellious worms and wretches as us?…Perhaps now we can begin to understand why God had to die for man. Surely only God the Son could bear the unmitigated wrath of God the Father (36).

There are some positive things that could be stated about such a view. On one level it makes some logical sense: God helps us out of an impossible dilemma in a way that can be understood quite readily by persons familiar with the contemporary court system. God deals with the sin problem in a concrete way that is cut and dried and that connects with our deep-seated thirst for retribution. Many people have found their way into the Kingdom via this doorway. Fear of death and hell motivates many people to grasp at any way of escape offered them.

But charges against the penal substitution atonement theory have been cited over the centuries and these voices have become more vocal in recent times. We will highlight some of them here:

1. It pits the Father against the Son. In other words there is a disruption of the holy dance of intimate communion within the Trinity. Although it is only for a brief time, God the Father not only turns his back on the second member of the Trinity, he unleashes unspeakable pain upon the Son. Breaking up the Trinity in this way is unacceptable to true biblicists.
2. It makes God beholden to a standard of law and/or justice higher than himself. God cannot choose to simply forgive because this higher law demands that sin be punished. God cannot get around this reality. That is to say that God cannot choose to simply forgive even if he wants to.
3. It requires that the debt of sin must be paid before forgiveness can happen. But when a debt is fully paid no forgiveness is required. Forgiveness from God’s point of view can never be about absorbing the pain, although we are called to do just that within the faith community.
4. It says that the only way to pay the debt of sin is by punishment because somehow that satisfies God’s internal sense of wrath. This requires us to see God’s nature as being basically retributive and vindictive instead of restorative. Retribution trumps mercy. Such a notion tends to validate a retributive penal system, incite domestic violence and promote a “tough love” approach to parenting.
5. It gives rise to the problematic idea that we need to be saved “from” God, “by” God, “for” God. In other words God is basically against us and we are not useful to God in any way until he acts by beating up on the second person of the Trinity.
6. It makes God complicit in evil because he orchestrates the crucifixion of his Son.
7. It de-emphasizes the entire work of Christ; his incarnation, life and teachings serve basically to prepare a perfect sacrifice and his resurrection is of little consequence because the problem of sin has been dealt with once Jesus has suffered on the cross.
8. Unless you hold that Jesus suffered only for the “elect,” it means that God punishes the same sin twice: first he lays it on Jesus and then he lays it on unrepentant sinners and punishes them for all eternity in hell.
9. It does not require a changed life to be effective. It augurs against the idea that discipleship lies at the heart of biblical faith.
10. It appears to emphasize that Jesus’ main mission was to fix the problem of human guilt instead of restoring a relationship between humans and God.
11. It fails to portray God as being in essence a God of love. The focus is on changing an angry God into a loving God.
12. It legitimizes the victimization of innocent persons. It leaves the message that there is ultimate value in submitting willingly to abuse because something good can come from it.

Because of these deficiencies in the theory of penal substitutionary atonement and others not listed, I recommend that it is time for the evangelical church to renounce this theory as anti-biblical and begin a search for a better understanding about the significance of the work of Christ on our behalf.