When you think of the word “substitute” what do you think of? Substitute sugar? Substitute teacher? Around this time of year, you might think of Jesus as our substitute on the cross. But what does this mean?
I have often said in my preaching and teaching, and have heard many others say the same, that Jesus died in the cross so that we don’t have to. It is often explained that because of sin, and since the wages of sin is death, everybody who sins must die.
God must punish sin, we are told, and so since we are sinners, God must punish us. But Jesus came along and took our place on the cross, so that we would not have to suffer and die like He did. God’s wrath against us was poured out upon Jesus instead.
Typically, that is how penal substitutionary atonement is explained. But is this correct?
Well, parts are. But other parts, not so much.
The Correct Parts
First, the parts that are correct. Yes, we are all sinners. Yes, the wages of sin is death, and so yes, all must die. Yes, Jesus died on the cross, and yes, it is there in Jesus that God dealt with our sin. Jesus took our sin upon Himself so that we might gain His righteousness.
That much is correct.
…And Not So Much
But what about the “not so much” parts?
The main issue is why Jesus died on the cross as our substitute. Again, to reiterate what is often taught, many say that the reason why Jesus died on the cross was because God had to punish someone for our sin. He had to pour out His wrath upon someone. And so rather than condemn and punish us, He condemned and punished Jesus.
But does this ever strike you as somewhat…unjust? As somewhat…abusive? As somewhat…ungodly? And also, as somewhat…unbiblical?
Steve Chalke, in his book, The Lost Message of Jesus, points out the problem better than I:
The cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offense he has not even committed. …If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by His Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and refuse to repay evil with evil (p. 182f).
Substitution is not the idea that God wanted to punish us but punished Jesus instead. No, God wanted to condemn sin, which He did in the Jesus Christ (Rom 8:3). Jesus bore the condemnation of sin in His body rather than in ours. As NT Wright says in one of his online articles:
The multiple strands of idolatry, sin, evil, wickedness, oppression, violence, judgment and all the rest throughout the Old Testament come rushing together and do their worst to Jesus. He takes their full force, and do so because that was God’s purpose all along.
God never wanted nor desired to deal with sin in our own bodies, primarily because He never would have been successful in doing so. Because we are sinners, God could not defeat sin in us. When we die, even if we were to die a horrible death on a cross like Jesus, sin would not be defeated. Instead, sin would forever be victorious.
The only way for God to deal with sin is to deal with it himself. He must take it on. He must fight the battle.
It is not, as many of us like to say, “Because of sin, someone must suffer, either Jesus or us.” No, for even if we suffered, it would accomplished nothing. Once sin entered the world through Adam, there was only way to defeat it, and that was for God to take it upon Himself, which He did in Jesus Christ. Again, this was not because He is mad or angry at us, and transferred this anger upon Jesus, but rather, He did this because of His great love for us, and because He desired to see us freed from sin and death.
Why does it matter?
It matters because we must not get the wrong picture about God from what happened on the cross.
God is not an angry, wrathful, bloodthirsty being who wants to torture and kill people when they disobey Him, but Jesus came along and convinced God to pour out this wrath on Himself instead of upon us.
Was there a substitution that took place? Absolutely. But it was not us for Jesus; it was rather our sin for His righteousness. He took our sin, and in His own body, on the cross, condemned sin, destroyed death, and rose victoriously from the grave, because of His—and God’s—great love for us.
For more on this, see the following:
- Penal Substitutionary Atonement – Greg Boyd
- The Cross and the Caricatures – NT Wright
- Evil and the Justice of God, Chapter 3 – NT Wright
I read Chalke”s book and the line you quoted from it was what gave it a thumbs down from me. To present substitutionary atonement as cosmic child abuse makes a mockery of the gospel and completely disregards the holiness of God. I see it time and time again from those who deny penal substitution and Hell. Sin and the consequences of sin are seen as bad for us but not as an offense to a thrice holy God.
Penal substitution is not child abuse, it is not unjust, abusive, ungodly,and certainly not unbiblical. I like much of what you write Jeremy and I appreciate how you question everything but make no mistake. The implications of what you write here deny the very real wrath of God against those who mock his holiness. Gods wrath is very real, it always has been and it always will be.
To say the least, I am disappointed in this post. I’ve seen these kinds of arguments before. They play on the emotions of your readers and cast God in a bad light because He would dare exact justice against those who clinch their fist in His face. You should put down your fist and tremble, not for fear of wrath, but in awe of majesty.
Bobby,
Well, I am not denying the penal substitutionary atonement, or the wrath of God. I strongly affirm both. And I think Chalke does too, if I am reading him properly. But maybe I have read him wrongly.
What do you think of the writings of NT Wright on the subject? Have you read Evil and the Justice of God? How about that article of his I link to in my post? It’s free and I would be curious to know what you think of it.
Yes, I read the article you linked to last night after my comment. I should have read it first, but then again, if I had we wouldn’t be having this conversation now. The article was very helpful in seeing some of the differences between different types of penal substitution. Overall the article was very good. One thing did jump at me that gave me pause. That was the lack of coverage of the legal demands that Christ took upon himself and how his being a sacrifice like that of bulls and goats (yet much greater) met that requirement once and for all. He did mention sacrifice but only to say we need to study it deeper. This may be because the accepted understanding of that aspect of the atonement makes this a both/and discussion rather than an either/or.
As I understand it, Christ both took our punishment (legal requirement) and absorbed the full force of sin upon Himself (Christus Victor). I don’t think we should play down the legal requirement and Christ meeting that requirement or use misleading caricatures of it in order to advocate another understanding. It comes across as deceptive to me, especially when someone disagrees with the very caricature they use as a proper understanding of penal substitution. It would be better to show both in how they are biblical and build a much more round understanding of the multifaceted atonement for our readers. This is a very big job to take on.
I appreciate you providing the articles to help me understand where you were coming from.
Bobby,
I am new to this whole way of viewing penal substitution also, so I appreciate you being a sounding board. That article certainly raised lots of questions for me as well. You are right about the legal requirements, especially since the concept of justification is a legal term, right? It certainly requires a lot more study.
Did you write anything anywhere on that book by Chalke?
“It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13
FYI a law has been added to the law by Jesus’ crucifixion. Therefore your salvation is predicated upon the Way this additional law must be obeyed.