Thinking Deeper on Penal Substitutionary Atonement 2

In this post, I will attempt to summarise the key points from some of the essays from The Atonement Debate and The Glory of The Atonement which explore the biblical foundation or basis of PSA.

First up is Ian Howard Marshall’s ‘The Theology of the Atonement’ (Atonement). Marshall begins helpfully by suggesting four views that can be held about PSA (p.50):

• The principle of PSA does not figure in the NT at all

• It is only one of the pictures, metaphors, or analogies used in the NT to express the significance of the death of Jesus Christ. Some might argue that in this case it is of lesser importance or even dispensable

• It occurs to such an extent that it is not only indispensable but also the most important

• It is the underlying principle present in all the others and the factor that makes them cohere.

Marshall contends that though terms like ‘penal’ and ‘anger’ and ‘appeasement’ are open to misunderstanding, when properly understood, they express the heart of the matter (p.51). This is because ‘the reality of final judgement as the active response of God to human sin is an absolutely central part of the predicament from which sinners need to be saved’ (Ibid.) Marshall suggests that such a picture of judgement and condemnation is conveyed by the complex network of terminologies such as punishment, vengeance, wrath, judgement, and destruction and death found throughout the NT. This teaching of judgement and condemnation ‘cannot be pushed to one side as being less important than the other aspects of human sin and need’ (p.53); neither should wrath and judgement be made something impersonal and mechanistic rather than the personal reaction of the living God. He states: “To deny that God feels negatively about sin is a denial of the personal character of God, who reacts to evil that ruins his creation and destroys his relationship with his creatures.” (p.54) Marshall then contends a step further that the NT uses this kind of language about God’s judgement and wrath because he is holy (or righteous) and loving, two irreducible facets of the character of God. Citing the work of P.T. Forsyth, Marshall contends that the holiness of God must figure centrally in any doctrine of the atonement, and that at the cross, holiness is divinely satisfied once for all. Marshall then moves on to ask a further question – even if PSA is clearly present as one NT understanding of the death of Christ, is it principal and determinative? Marshall answers this question by stating how the death of Christ is portrayed in biblical terms in the NT – sacrifice, curse, redemption and ransom, reconciliation, and forgiveness (p.59-61). He states:

“It is clear that essentially the same basic principle is expressed in each of these different understandings of the death of Jesus. The principle of one person bearing the painful consequences of sin is the modus operandi of the different understandings of the cross. There are different nuances [...] But the central action, common to them all, is God doing something in Christ that involves the death of Christ, who bears our sins and the painful consequences of them. Christ’s sacrifice saves us from exclusion from the kingdom of God. The term “penal substitution” appropriately expresses this process.” (p.61).

I found Marshall’s essay to be very helpful in thinking about PSA from the biblical evidence. Without zooming into specific passages (due to lack of space), Marhsall paints broad strokes from the canvas of the NT, with a clear methodology outlining and leading to his conclusion. His book which explores these issues at a wider depth, Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007) will certainly be worth getting.

Christopher Wright explores atonement in the OT in his essay of the same title (Atonement). With broad strokes similar to Marshall, he highlights the problem or predicament as described in the OT under 8 brilliant headings: A relationship that is broken: the relational aspect; The disturbance of shalom: the social aspect; Rebellion against authority: the covenantal aspect; Guilt that necessitates punishment: the legal aspect; Uncleanness and pollution: the ritual aspect; Shame and disgrace on oneself and/or on God: the emotional aspect; An accumulating burden: the historical aspect, and Death: the final aspect. This leads to his conclusion that atonement language is one part of this “putting right”, but the solution requires more than just a satisfaction of the penal or legal aspect of the problem. The other interesting point raised is that regarding the purpose or function of the levite sacrifices – are they expiatory or propitiatory? Wright states ‘both’. He states, “Putting things right, then, includes both a God-oriented and a human-orientated dimension. Sacrifice both cleanses the worshipper and “soothes” the wrath of God.” (p.77). Lastly, Wright also states correctly that ‘the language of sacrificial substitution and vicarious sin-bearing runs through Isaiah 53 unmistakeably’ (p.80).

The third essay is that by Steve Motyer ‘the Atonement in Hebrews’ (Atonement). Motyer begins by stating his conclusion – that ‘penal substitution does not provide a useful summary of Hebrews’ teaching about the atonement, and that Hebrews does indeed say different things about what Jesus did for us on the cross – things that are truly glorious and worship-raising but are not penal substitution’ (p.136). Motyer contends instead that Hebrews presents a picture of the death of Jesus as Jesus who shares in our suffering (with death as its supreme expression), and who because of that, becomes the High Priest who attains perfection and brings his people with him, i.e. a ‘representative leading us to perfection over death’ view of the atonement. While providing an interesting argument, Motyer has one fundamental flaw in his methodology – he assumes a strong discontinuity between the OT and the NT, so much so that he states that ‘the sacrifice of Christ is different from those of the old covenant. This means that we cannot use the Old Testament to explain what God was doing in Christ’ (p.139). Motyer’s presupposition has blinded him to what seems like a clear evidence that the purpose of the writer of Hebrews was not so much to show the discontinuity of Jesus from the OT sacrificial type, but more to show the continuity, and in fact beyond the continuity to show Jesus as the final fulfilment.

Overall, where does this lead us? I hope it is clear that PSA does have a firm biblical warrant or basis from the Scriptures as one way of presenting the atoning death of Jesus. The question is how central or key is this particular way of understanding Jesus’ death? Strange enough, this question does not seem to be the question opponents of PSA are contending against. Rather, they seem determined to keep PSA out of the picture altogether (position 1 under Marshall’s proposal). As what Garry Williams highlighted, this is ironic since opponents of PSA often call for a more ‘multicoloured’ view of the cross, but yet it is they who reduce the historical diversity by rejecting one major model. But agreeing that PSA has biblical warrant as one of the ways of viewing Jesus’ death is but the bare minimum. We can go further than that. As what Marshall suggested, there is evidence across the biblical canvas to suggest that PSA expresses the heart of the matter. Perhaps what is needed is an acknowledgement that we should not speak of discrete ‘models’ of the atonement, but rather we should speak of different aspects of the one atonement, and try to see how these aspects cohere and relate to one another and whether any one aspect of the atonement rightly organises or illumines or takes precedence over the others.