Penal Substitutionary Atonement Is Biblical, Historical, And The Very Heart of The Gospel
It has been popular in recent years to cast aspersions on the substitutional nature of Christ’s death on the cross. That is, the fact that Christ took the punishment/penalty we deserve by dying for our sins on the cross is seen as highly offensive and repulsive by some. The doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is the concept that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer the punishment (the penalty of human sin) as a sacrifice of atonement in our place, so that we who are slaves to sin and death might be redeemed and saved of this curse. As a consequence, we can have restored fellowship with our Creator. This is both the biblical teaching as well as the historical teaching of the church.
However, there are those who try and misrepresent PSA as “cosmic child abuse” or to mischaracterize it as God needing to be appeased by getting “his pound of flesh” before He could love humanity. Misrepresentations like these are very bad “straw men” of what Scripture teaches. John 3:16, arguably the most famous verse in the world, teaches that God sent the Son because He loved the world. Romans 5:8 says: “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” And 1 John 4:10 states: “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Right away, we see the order of things. God didn’t need a sacrifice from humans so that He could love us, He provided a sacrifice for our sins because He first loved us. This is fundamentally opposed to historic pagan deities who needed to be arbitrarily “paid off” by humans offering their own sacrifices. Rather, Scripture shows us that God provided the sacrifice on our behalf to make an atonement for sins and to restore the relationship that mankind had ruined by rebellion and sin (Gen. 2:16-17, Gen. 3, cf. Isa. 59:2).
Secondly, Jesus was not an unwilling participant in the redemption plan of God. Jesus says in John 10:17-18, “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” As Kevin DeYoung states, “The Father did not punish the Son as a helpless victim of cosmic child abuse. The Son went to the cross freely and willingly. Likewise, the Son did not appease an angry God as some sort of divine good cop to the Father’s divine bad cop. The Father sent his son to the cross freely and willingly” (DeYoung, 230). Jesus was not some “whipping boy.” He is God who willingly condescended down from transcendent glory, took on human flesh and dealt with sin once for all on our behalf (Phil. 2:6-8, Heb. 10:10). This is one of the most crucial things to understand. God has both provided the sacrifice and IS our sacrifice for sins (cf. Gen. 22:7-14). Nothing we can do, neither good works, nor a sacrifice, can justify us before God. Again, this is fundamentally different from a false pagan deity who requires humans to make some sort of child sacrifice for arbitrary blood lust (as some opponents of the doctrine of PSA would have you believe). I will say from the outset, Jesus as a penal substitutionary sacrifice is not all the cross is, but it is absolutely no less than that. In fact, it is only because of his substitutionary sacrifice that He is victorious over sin and death. That is, He can rightly be called “Christos Victor” (1 John 3:8, Col. 2:15, Heb. 2:14-15, 1 Cor. 15:57, John 14:19) and we can look to Him as our example or “Moral Influence” (Matt. 20:26-28, Phil. 2:5-8, Eph. 5:25, 1 Peter 2:21-23) because of His Penal Substitutionary Atonement. There are many aspects to what Jesus accomplished on the cross, but Penal Substitutionary Atonement answers both the “how” behind all the cross accomplishes and the problem of how a holy and righteous God who cannot dwell with sin deals justly with sin. Most importantly, this is not the invention of man but what Scripture teaches and, as we will see, is something that has been understood throughout church history.
First, to understand the death of Christ on the cross, one needs to have at least a basic understanding of the Old Testament. We cannot fully understand any New Testament passage on how the death of Christ works for our benefit apart from the Old Testament. It points ultimately to Christ and what He accomplished. As Jesus says:
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.” -John 5:46
“Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” -Luke 24:44
“Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” -Luke 24:26-28
As alluded to above, the disobedience of Adam and Eve plunged the world into death and sin against a holy God. After eating from the tree, they became aware of their sin and ashamed of their nakedness before God. Adam Harwood notes, “Neither the tree nor the nakedness was bad. Rather their disobedience to God‘s clear command was the sin that broke their relationship with him and had an effect that cascaded it down to all of humanity (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Tim. 2:12-15) up to and including the present” (Harwood, 435). Ancient church father Irenaeus states: “And wickedness, spreading out for a long time, seized the entire race of men, until there was very little seed of righteousness in them” (Irenaeus ch. 18). Indeed, this is the clear presentation of Scripture. That is, man is very sinful. One only needs to read Genesis or Judges to understand this. Even the “heroes” of the faith including the one said to be “a man after God’s own heart” committed heinous evil (see David, 2 Sam. 11-12). As God makes clear in Gen. 8:21, “for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” The consequence of this sin against God is not life, but death (Gen. 2:17, 3:19, Rom. 6:23). Mankind’s problem is that God is holy, righteous, and just. John Chrysostom states, “God has created a universe governed by moral law in which the consequences of sin are guilt, loss, pain, and death” (as quoted by Thomas Oden, 404). Consider, then, what God’s word teaches us about Him:
“Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Lovingkindness and truth go before You.” -Psalm 89:4
“For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with You. 5 The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.” -Psalm 4:4-5
However, the good news for mankind is that “the Lord longs to be gracious to you, And therefore He waits on high to have compassion on you. For the Lord is a God of justice; How blessed are all those who long for Him” and that God takes “no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live” -Isa. 30:18, Ezek. 33:11.
These two truths can be seen perfectly summed up in Exodus 34:6-7, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”
This leads us to how it is that God can be holy, righteous, and just while also being loving and gracious. For starters, God’s plan since before the foundation of the world (Acts 2:23, Eph. 1) was to provide the means of justification and reconciliation of man to Himself so that He could be both “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Roman 3:26). As Genesis 22 teaches us, it is God who ultimately provides the sacrifice for humanity. This whole passage serves as a “type” for the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Genesis 22:8 states, “Abraham said, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” So the two of them walked on together.” Abraham declares in faith that God will provide, and indeed, God did provide the sacrifice in Isaac's place! For this reason, “Abraham called the name of that place The Lord Will Provide, as it is said to this day, “In the mount of the Lord it will be provided.” -Genesis 22:14. As Kenneth Mathews notes, “The death of the discovered ram “instead of [Abraham’s] son” (v. 13) epitomizes the idea of substitutionary atonement, which characterized the Levitical system” (Mathews, 297).
Certainly, as Paul says in Romans 8:32, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?” Standing behind this is the foreshadowing and typology of Gen. 22 which God fulfilled by providing the sacrifice of His one and only Son in whom He was pleased (Matt. 3:17, cf. Gen. 22:2).
Until Christ came to deal with sin once for all though, the sacrificial system of the Old Testament was not only the temporary means of dealing with the sins of God’s covenant people, but a shadow or template of what was to come by way of Christ (another typology). As Walter Kaiser Jr. puts it, “Mortals, by their sin against God, owed their lives as a forfeiture to God; but God had provided that animals’ lives should serve for the time being, as a picture of what God, who now granted his forgiveness, would one day do when the God-man would later give his life as the only proper and final substitute for the debt of our sins” (Kaiser Jr., 84). Our first big picture of this is in Exodus with the death of the Egyptian firstborn and the passover lamb that spared God’s people from the same judgment. Before God could call the people whom He’d chosen out of Egypt, atonement was made for their sins. As Ezekiel 20:5-9 shows us, they were sinful idolaters no different from the Egyptians (cf. Joshua 24:14). It was the Passover lamb whose blood protected the Israelites from the wrath of God in Exodus 11-12:
“Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats” (12:5).
“Moreover, they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses in which they eat it” (12:7).
“For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the Lord. 13 The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt” (12:12-13).
The New Testament later reveals Jesus to be the true and better Lamb who atones for the sin of man. John the Baptist proclaims of Jesus in John 1:29, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:7, “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” The angels in heaven say with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing” (Revelation 5:12). Jesus, during the Passover meal the night before his crucifixion, makes this connection as He institutes the new covenant. “While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:26-28). Jesus is the the lamb who atoned for sins.
The book of Leviticus (particularly chapters 4, 16, 17) details how God deals with the atonement of sin for His covenant people. That is, the shedding of the blood of animals as a substitute for the blood of humans. This effects the payment for and forgiveness of sins. A crucial verse in understanding this is Leviticus 17:11 (NIV), “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” As Mark F. Rooker sums up, “This verse is one of the clearest texts in the Bible describing the idea of expiation through substitution. God accepts the blood of an animal, which is the life of the animal, in place of human blood and human life” (Rooker, 237). Hebrews reiterates this very point by stating, “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22b).
In Leviticus 16-17 we learn that the Day of Atonement consisted of sacrificing a bull as a sin offering for the high priest; then the goat was to be sacrificed as a sin offering on behalf of the people while another goat (called the scapegoat) carried the sins of the people out of the camp. These two goats represent the propitiation and expiation of sin. That is, the satisfaction of God’s proper wrath towards sin (propitiation) and the removal of sin from the people (expiation). The following are the relevant texts from Leviticus 16:
16:15-16… “Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16 He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.”
16:20-22… “When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. 22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.”
16:30… “For it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you; you will be clean from all your sins before the Lord.”
From Passover to the Day of Atonement, sacrifices for the propitiation and expiation of sin was the method by which God dealt with His covenant people. Yet, while Hebrews 9:22 tells us forgiveness can only come by the shedding of blood, we are also told in Hebrews 10:4, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” How is this resolved? As Kaiser Jr. states; “These were substituted animals, not people; hence, they could only be symbols of that real sacrifice yet to come. Thus in the meantime there was a “passing by” (Rom. 3:25) of the sins of the Old Testament on the basis of God’s declared word until he would later provide his own final substitute who was true man, yet one who had not sinned” (Kaiser Jr., 85).
Having shown all this, I want to address something relevant to the topic at hand that scholars are careful to point out. That is, the mere ritual of sacrificial atonement was not in and of itself sufficient to effect forgiveness. Repentance and a contrite heart were necessary. This is seen in the instruction in Leviticus 16:29, “you shall humble your souls and not do any work” which, as the ESV Study Bible notes (among other scholars), “This term expresses self-denial and self mortification, connected with fasting and prayer (Ps. 35:13; Isa. 58:3; cf. Ezra 8:21).” Even Jewish sources made this distinction. After citing Jewish oral law and commentary in this regard (Tractate Yoma 8:9), Leon Morris concludes:
“But we should not think that the ritual was held to be valid of itself, as though all that was needed was to go through the right actions and recite the right words. Repentance and restitution were seen as necessary, and they were insisted on in strong terms… The Day of Atonement is clearly regarded as important, but only if there are the right internal dispositions, and if the person has done what he can to undo the effects of his sin” (Morris, 80).
Certainly, as in the new covenant with the sacrifice of Christ, this was more than a mere ritual, as if one can recite some magic words and concoct a magic potion with no regard to an actual contrite heart before God. There are plenty of OT verses that speak to this very thing. 1 Kings 21:27-29 is a good illustration of this: “It came about when Ahab heard these words, that he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and fasted, and he lay in sackcloth and went about despondently. 28 Then the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, 29 “Do you see how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days” (see also: Psalm 32). There are also plenty of examples of the negative side of this. That is, expecting a pardon of sins through sacrifice without a humble and contrite heart, or a determined resolve to continue in sin. Proverbs 21:27 states, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination, How much more when he brings it with evil intent!” (cf. Isa. 1:11-14, Amos 5:21-24, Mic. 6:6-7). And as David says in Psalm 51:17, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.” This is clear in the NT as well, where the command is: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2, cf. Luke 13:1-5). This contrite heart is illustrated beautifully by Jesus where he speaks of the tax collector by saying: “the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’” (Luke 18:13). All that being said, the point we should keep in mind is that the entire sacrificial system we see in the OT finds its ultimate fulfillment in the person of Christ. We bring no sacrifice to atone for our sins, that has been done with the sacrifice of Jesus. All we bring is our contrite heart in faith!
This leads to perhaps the most clear picture we get in the Old Testament that speaks of Christ and His work of atonement: Isaiah 52:13-15 and Isaiah 53. This passage speaks of the Suffering Servant that will bear the sin of all and take the punishment for it, thereby making “many to be accounted righteous.”
“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:4-6, ESV).
“Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:10-12, ESV).
It is clear from this passage that the Suffering Servant is innocent, but is suffering on behalf of the sins of others. That is, He is experiencing the penalty of the sins of others. He was pierced, crushed and chastised. He was made to be an offering for these sins so that the unrighteous ones would be made righteous.
What is explicit in the text is that ultimately what this Suffering Servant is experiencing is a direct result of God’s will, not human machinations. “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all… it was the will of the Lord to crush him.” This is why Peter can say in Acts 2:23, “this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (see also Acts 4:27-28). As we see throughout Scripture, God uses even wicked men to accomplish His plans and human agents to bring judgement upon His people (Jer. 25:8-11, Hab. 1:5-11). This is certainly the case with regard to Jesus’ death. “The cross occurred by divine ordering and foreknowing. According to the eternal wisdom of God’s oikonomia (arrangement or plan), which the Father had ordained. God the Son would come to save humanity from sin by means of his sacrificial death” (Oden, 403). Hebrews 10:1-10 speaks to God’s will for a specific, voluntary human sacrifice that replaces the sacrificing of animals, which was never meant to be the solution to sin. The passage concludes by saying that God’s will was for the sacrifice of the incarnate Christ to be the means by which we would be made holy. “And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10, NIV). Reflecting on these verses, Thomas Hewitt writes: “He was willing and ready to offer Himself as a sacrifice for sins to carry out the redeeming will of God. It is the atonement, therefore, which gives meaning to the incarnation and not the latter to the former. The incarnation was a means to an end, and the end was the putting away of the sin of the world by the offering of the body of Christ” (Hewitt, 157).
Not only does Jesus quote from Isaiah 53 and proclaim that He is the one to fulfill it (Luke 22:37), but the apostle Peter quotes Isaiah 53:4 and 12 in reference to Jesus: “and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 25 For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (1 Peter 2:24-25). In Acts 8:30-35, Philip explains to the Ethiopian that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus. After reading from Isaiah 53:7-8, “The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him” (Acts 8:34-35).
Throughout church history, Isaiah 53 has been one of the most well known direct prophecies that was fulfilled by Jesus and was a favorite passage of the early church fathers in showing that Jesus was the Messiah who fulfilled biblical prophecy. Clement of Rome, Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Jerome and many others all recognize this passage of Scripture as describing Christ Jesus. Implicit in this is the affirmation and recognition of what Isaiah 53 teaches (see commentary on Isaiah 53 by Jerome below). The point is, the connection of Isaiah 53 to Jesus is not a new doctrine, but rather something that goes back all the way to the apostles and Jesus Himself!
The gospels spend a disproportionate amount of time focusing on Jesus’ final week of life. The gospel of John alone dedicates nearly 50% of his account to the week leading up to Jesus’ death. This is what the gospel message centers around; the cross and its implications for humanity. By Jesus’ own words, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). With the entirety of the OT and the sacrificial system at the front of Paul’s mind, he states: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3).
A key passage in understanding the substitutionary nature of the atonement of Christ is Romans 3:23-26. I want to devote a decent amount of time to this text. Paul says that as sinners, we have been justified by God's grace through Jesus redeeming us. How did Jesus redeem us from sin? By being a sacrifice of atonement in our place. “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:23-26).
We are justified before God because of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. Here we find a summation of the atoning work of Christ on behalf of sinners. Ben Witherington III states: “The crucifixion of Jesus publicly displays God’s eternal purpose for humanity. Implicit in this way of putting things is that God purposed for Jesus to die on the cross as an atonement. His crucifixion did not happen purely on the basis of human machinations” (Witherington, 108). As Paul has made clear in the chapters leading up to Romans 3, we all deserve the righteous and holy wrath of God due to our sins against Him. That is the major emphasis in the build up to the solution of man’s sin. That is, whether Jew or Gentile, we all have sinned grievously against God and rightly deserve God’s wrath. “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Romans 2:5). The only way to avoid what we deserve is by the atoning work of Christ who takes what we deserve on Himself (Isa. 53). Paul even goes on to say in Romans 5:9, “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
Turning back to 3:23-26, I find that the note on verse 26 in the ESV Study Bible sums it up beautifully and concisely by saying: “God has shown Himself to be just (utterly holy, so that the penalty demanded by the law is not removed, but paid for by Christ), but also the justifier (the one who provides the means of justification and who declares people to be in right standing with Himself) and the Savior of all those who trust in Jesus. Here is the heart of the Christian faith, for at the cross God’s justice and love meet.”
However, some raise an objection with the word “propitiation” in Rom. 3:25. I want to spend some time addressing this contention. Much has been made throughout history of how to translate the Greek word hilastērion in Rom. 3:25. Many translations render it as “propitiation” in this specific verse given the context of Paul’s message up to this point (NASB, ESV, NKJV, etc). The main debate is whether hilastērion means “propitiation” (appeasement of wrath) or “expiation” (a covering for sin). The surrounding context determines how this Greek word is translated. For example, in Hebrews 9:5, this same word is translated as “mercy seat” given the context surrounding it. In that passage, hilastērion is illustrating “expiation” (a covering for sin). However, it’s not a matter of “either/or” as both meanings apply to the sacrifice of Christ. In Rom. 3:25, the context in which this word is used must be taken into account. Considering Paul has gone to great lengths in the first 3 chapters of Romans to point out that we are all sinners under the wrath of God (1:18-3:20), if hilastērion does not mean “propitiation” (appeasement of wrath), then we are still under God’s righteous wrath. As Leon Morris remarks, “unless hilastērion means ‘propitiation,’ Paul has put men under the wrath of God and left them there.” Morris goes on to state that to do justice to what Paul is trying to convey in these first few chapters of Romans, “we must include in our understanding of this passage the idea that part of the meaning of salvation is that God’s wrath is averted” (Morris, 169). Mark Seifrid notes that “Both ‘propitiation’ (the aversion of God’s wrath) and ‘expiation’ (the removal of sin) are in view in the term hilastērion.” Seifrid then goes on to point out that “expiation is thus contingent on propitiation. Propitiation effects expiation” (Seifrid, 620).
F.F. Bruce puts it this way:
“The context does warrant the inclusion of averting divine wrath in the meaning of hilastērion in Romans 3:25. Paul has already said in 1:18 that ‘The wrath of God’ is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men; how then is this ‘wrath’ to be removed? The hilastērion which God has provided in Christ not only removes the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men but at the same time averts the wrath or retribution which is the inevitable sequel to such attitudes and actions in a moral universe. What exactly the “Suffering Servant” suffers “satisfies” The Father and because of this propitiation, many will be counted righteous (His sacrifice will cover their sins)” (Bruce, 106).
Wayne Grudem writes that in addition to our verse here in Romans, 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 the Greek noun hilasmos (a sacrifice of propitiation)is used in the sense of a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God, thereby making God propitious/favorable towards us. Grudem notes that this is “the consistent meaning of these words outside the Bible where they were well understood in reference to pagan Greek religions” (Grudem, 575). In other words, the New Testament writers are not using terms inconsistent with their meaning or contrary to how they were understood in their day. The difference between the false pagan deities and the one true God couldn’t be more evident, however. Morris writes, “It is abundantly clear in the Bible that God cannot be propitiated in the way the pagans held that their deities could be. The God of the Bible is not capricious or arbitrary. He does not impose punishments without reason on bewildered worshipers who must then bribe him back into a good mood with their costly offerings” (Morris, 174). Over and against pagan deities, John Stott points out that of the biblical God, sin is lawlessness and “a defiant disregard for the law of God which deserves the judgment of God. It is this divine judgment upon human rebellion which makes the barrier to fellowship with God; and there can be no expiation of man’s sin without a propitiation of God’s wrath. God’s holy antagonism to sin must somehow be turned away if sin is to be forgiven and the sinner restored” (Stott, 87). The verses in 1 John as well as 3:25 in Romans simply mean that by His sacrifice of atonement on the cross, Jesus appeased the wrath of God that was destined to fall on sinful mankind (and will indeed fall on man if one rejects this sacrifice of appeasement and atonement, cf. Rom. 2:5). Jesus is both the mercy seat (a covering for sins) as well as the propitiatory blood that was sprinkled on the mercy seat to atone for sins. As Paul later says in Rom. 8:3-4, “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
Galatians 3:13 is another key passage in describing penal substitution, for Paul says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”” (see also, 2 Cor. 5:21). Redemption and penal substitution language are both used here. Redemption is the outcome, penal substitution was the method to achieve the outcome. Said another way, He took the penalty the law demanded in our place so that we could be ransomed/redeemed. He cites Deut. 21 to show how Christ’s death on the cross is a fulfillment of OT Scripture. “Paul is saying that Christ's death on the cross meant that he bore the curse that would otherwise have rested on us. He suffered in our stead. He took what was coming to us. He bore the curse that sinners incurred, and this is viewed as a paying of the price, an act of redemption” (Morris, 121). This is paralleled in 2 Corinthians 5:21 when Paul says: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Christ, who was sinless, endured the penalty of sin on our behalf by dying a criminal’s death on the cross. As 1 Peter 3:18 says, “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” Notice the substitution in this verse. Christ was the righteous one dying for the unrighteous. This substitutionary act was “so that He might bring us to God.” Jesus, dying for our sins (bearing the penalty for sins as a substitute) brought about the outcome (to bring us to God). Peter had already made clear his understanding of the death of Christ as a sacrifice for sins in 1:19 and 2:24. In his comments about the phrase “for sins,” Alan Stibbs writes: “The phrase in the singular is commonly used to describe a sin-offering, eg. in the LXX of Lev. 5:7, 6:30 (cf. Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:6,8). Since Christ Himself was sinless this kind of phraseology implies here that his suffering was atoning or propitiatory (cf. 1 John 2:2, 4:10). It was also vicarious or substitutionary, ‘the just for the unjust.’ It was the penalty due to the sins of the unrighteous that He bore in their stead, or the propitiation necessary for their sins that He offered on their behalf” (Stibbs, 141).
The entire book of Hebrews could be given its own essay on how it shows Jesus Christ to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament and the sacrificial system. It might very well be the closest we get to being one of the disciples on the Emmaus road with Jesus as “He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”
Hebrews 9:11-15 is one such passage that speaks to Christ being the fulfillment of the old sacrificial system. As mentioned earlier in the essay, these things in the old testament were “types” of the better thing yet to come (Christ). As the High Priest would sprinkle the sacrificial blood on the altar to atone for the people’s sins, so Jesus did as our better and ultimate High Priest before God in heaven. The difference is that Jesus did not enter before God in heaven with the blood of a goat to make atonement for sins, but with His own blood!
“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Hebrews 9:11-15).
Hebrews 9:23 states that the tabernacle and all that was in it were “copies” of what was in heaven. It was necessary for those things to be covered in atonement blood of animals for it is the earthly copy of heavenly reality that was to be cleansed with a “better” sacrifice; the blood of the infinitely valuable Jesus Christ! Again, the tabernacle, all that was in it, and the entire ritual of the sacrificial system foreshadowed what Christ would ultimately come to do once for all.
“Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Hebrews 9:23).
Hebrews 9:25-28 further shows the contrast between the old and new covenant. Unlike the old covenant where the priest had to enter the holy place every year to make atonement, Christ has entered the holy place to make atonement once and for all! I find David Allen’s comments here helpful as he sums up this section of Hebrews and the implication for the death of Christ:
“The author of Hebrews has shown that the mosaic covenant involved a priesthood, a sanctuary, and a sacrifice. Through careful theological analysis, he has shown how Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of each of these categories. He is a superior priest, who is eternal; he serves in a heavenly sanctuary; and he has offered once for all a sacrifice which not only atones for sin, but which cleanses the inward conscience of believers, something the old Levitical order could never accomplish. The allusion to Isaiah 53 in Hebrews 9:28 that Christ has appeared to “bear the sins of many” affirms that the writer understands the death of Jesus on the cross to be a substitutionary atonement. Hebrews 9 also affirmed the necessity of death and the shedding of blood as the means of ratifying the new covenant and effecting redemption. All theologies that downplay or denigrate the necessity of a sacrificial and substitutionary death and the shedding of blood to procure atonement for sinful people fail to come to grips with the clear teaching of Hebrews, not to mention the New Testament as a whole” (Allen, 489).
Critics of PSA claim that this doctrine was completely absent from the early church and that it is a product of the Reformers (particularly John Calvin). While the Reformers are known for emphasizing the doctrine of PSA, it is certainly a concept that permeates throughout church history as an aspect of what Christ came to do. Indeed, other true aspects of the atonement are found throughout church history (Christos Victor, Moral Influence, Ransom, etc), but the concept of Christ being a substitutional sacrifice on our behalf is also found in ancient church writings and is never not present. In fact, Thomas Oden states that “few points of ecumenical teaching have received such wide consensus as the premise that Christ’s death was a sacrifice for the sins of others” (Oden, 422). Christ bearing the curse (penalty) on our behalf (a substitute) is pervasive not just in Scripture, but in theologians from every era. The thing to keep in mind is that in each era of church history, there were different doctrinal issues to contend with. For the early church, questions around the nature of Christ were certainly center stage and a seemingly disproportionate amount of ink was spilled defending His true humanity and His true divinity. The work of Christ as it relates to His death seems to be assumed and understood in the early church. In the Reformer’s day, a seemingly disproportionate amount of theological study was devoted to the topic of how we are justified before God. Be that as it may, here are several examples from ancient church writers that affirm this aspect of the cross, though this represents but a small sample of what the ancient church fathers said on the matter.
Clement of Rome: Writing in the late first century, we see substitution/exchange language is strong with this quote from Clement of Rome as well as affirming it to be God’s will for Christ to do so:
“Because of the love that he had for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, in accordance with God’s will, gave his blood for us, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives” -1 Clem. 49:6
Epistle to Diognetus:In this early Christian apologetic work (second century), clear substitution language is used to describe the work of Christ:
“In his mercy he took upon himself our sins; he himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the guiltless for the guilty, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? O the sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners!” -Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2–5
Athanasius: In his famous second century work, “On the Incarnation,” Athanasius addresses Christ as a sacrifice on behalf of all to pay the debt/penalty incurred by sinful humans:
“But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.” -On the Incarnation, ch. 20
Eusebius: Notice that in these quotes, Christ is suffering the penalty on our behalf. This is clear penal substitution being understood and taught in the fourth century:
“In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own” - Proof of the Gospel, 3.2
“Yet more—to wash away our sins he was crucified, suffering what we who were sinful should have suffered, as our sacrifice and ransom, so that we may well say with the prophet, he bears our sins and is pained for us, and he was wounded for our sins and bruised for our iniquities, so that by his stripes we might be healed, for the Lord has given him for our sins. So, as delivered up by the Father, as bruised, as bearing our sins, he was led as a sheep to the slaughter.” -- Proof of the Gospel, 4.17
Theodoret of Cyr: Explicit PSA language and understanding of the death of Christ is used here in the fifth century:
“Christ was nailed to the cross, paying the penalty not for his own sins, but paying the debt of our nature. For our nature was in debt after transgressing the laws of its maker. And since it was in debt and unable to pay, the creator himself in his wisdom devised a way of paying the debt. By taking a human body as capital, he invested it wisely and justly in paying the debt and thereby freeing human nature” -On Divine Providence 10.26
Irenaeus: Writing in the late second century, Irenaeus comments in detail on how Jesus voluntarily bore our sins and died a sacrificial death by appealing to Isaiah 52-53. Directly after, he references Isaiah 53:8 and speaks of Christ taking the judgment in our place. Irenaeus makes the distinction that we either take God’s judgment upon ourselves by rejecting Christ, or Christ takes the judgment for those who believe in Him, thereby saving them:
“As for the saying of the prophet, “In the abasement, His judgement was taken,” it signifies the appearance of His abasement, for the taking of judgement was in the form of abasement: and the taking of judgement is for some unto salvation, and for others unto torments of destruction: for there is a taking on by some and a taking away from others. So also the judgment: by some it is taken on, and they have it in the torment of their destruction, while from others, it is taken, and they are saved from it. So those took the judgment on themselves who crucified him, and having treated him thus, did not believe Him, so that by this judgment, taken on them, they will be destroyed with torments; while the judgment has been taken from the believers in Him, and they are no longer under it and the judgment, which will come by fire, will be the destruction of unbelievers, at the end of the world.” -On the Apostolic Preaching (Ch. 68-69).
Jerome, in his commentary on Isaiah 53 (early fifth century) very much affirms the substitutional nature of what is being prophesied about Christ:
“But he was wounded on account of our iniquities, since he says in the Psalm, “They pierced my hands and feet” [Ps 22:16]. Thus he healed our wounds by his wound, and he was bruised or “made weak” for our wicked deeds, so that by becoming a curse for us [cf. Gal 3:13], he set us free from the curse; for “cursed is every man who hangs on a tree” [Deut 21:23]... This is why the chastisement of our peace is upon him. For what we endured for our wicked deeds, he suffered for us, making peace through the blood of his cross, whether with things on earth or with things in heaven [cf. Col 1:20]... “But the Lord has laid on him the iniquities of us all, or “handed him over for our sins,” so that what we were not able to bear on account of the feebleness of our strength, he carried for us, who was offered because it was his own will.”
Augustine of Hippo: Here we have Augustine affirming not only the doctrine of penal substitution, but propitiation of the holy and perfect wrath of God over and against the caricature painted by many who reject the notion that God’s wrath against sin is good:
“Now, as men were lying under this wrath by reason of their original sin, and as this original sin was the more heavy and deadly in proportion to the number and magnitude of the actual sins which were added to it, there was need for a Mediator, that is, for a reconciler, who, by the offering of one sacrifice, of which all the sacrifices of the law and the prophets were types, should take away this wrath. Wherefore the apostle says: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." Now when God is said to be angry, we do not attribute to Him such a disturbed feeling as exists in the mind of an angry man; but we call His just displeasure against sin by the name "anger," a word transferred by analogy from human emotions. But our being reconciled to God through a Mediator, and receiving the Holy Spirit, so that we who were enemies are made sons ("For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"): this is the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” -Enchiridion X.33
*For a more thorough look at what church history teaches on the death of Christ, I recommend Thomas Oden’s Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology (Ch. 10-11).
This doctrine is the very heart of the gospel. That is, we have rebelled and sinned against God and because God is holy, righteous, loving and the just judge of the universe, He will condemn sin. He will by no means acquit the guilty as Scripture tells us. As Scripture also tells us, this means we deserve death. Fortunately for us, God is also patient, gracious and willing to forgive. He sent Christ to be the very sacrifice of atonement for humanity’s sin so that through repentance and faith in Him, we might be forgiven, restored to fellowship with our God, and inherit eternal life. When we strip this aspect of the cross away, we are tearing apart the very gospel and “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3). As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.”
*For a detailed and thorough examination of this topic, I highly recommend this 6 part video series covering church history, New and Old Testament teachings, misconceptions and objections to PSA: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHttVR0rkvhBfA-IKrg5SGcp&si=s0O6j7EYnu0PM9lg
Bibliography:
Allen, David L.- Hebrews, NAC, Vol. 35, 2010
Bruce, F.F.- The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, TNTC, 1983
DeYoung, Kevin- Daily Doctrine: A One Year Guide to Systematic Theology, 2024
ESV Study Bible- Note on Lev. 16:29-34; Rom. 3:26
Grudem, Wayne- Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 1994
Harwood, Adam- Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic, 2022
Hewitt, Thomas- The Epistle to the Hebrews, TNTC, 1979
Irenaeus of Lyons- On the Apostolic Preaching
Kaiser Jr., Walter C.- The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, 1978
Mathews, Kenneth A.- Genesis 11:27-50:26, NAC, Vol. 1B, 2005
Morris, Leon- The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance, 1983
Oden, Thomas C.- Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology, 1992
Rooker, Mark F.- Leviticus, NAC, Vol. 3A, 2000
Seifrid, Mark A.- Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Beale and Carson), 2007
Stibbs, Alan M.- The First Epistle General of Peter, TNTC, 1983
Stott, John W. R.- The Epistles of John, TNTC, 1981
Witherington III, Ben- Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 2004
*Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995): New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved.