Category Archives: Substitution

Biblical foundations of penal substitution 4 – Mark

Walking With Giants Posted on by

Mark 10:45 – a ransom for many

Penal substitution is implied in the word lytron (‘ransom’), and suggested by an allusion to Isa 53 and the substitionary work of the Suffering Servant.  ‘The cup I drink’ (Mk 10:38) is, of course, the cup of God’s wrath (Mk 14:36; Psa 75:8; Isa 51:17; Jer 25:15f; Ezek 23:32-34; Hab 2:16).  This cup of wrath, according to the text just cited, is destined for the wicked, but is drunk by Jesus in their place, as ‘a ransom for many’. …

Biblical foundations of penal substitution 3 – Isaiah 53

Walking With Giants Posted on by

Isaiah 53 (more properly 52:13-53:12) constitutes the fourth ‘Servant Song’.  It has traditionally been regarded as teaching penal substitution, with this teaching fulfilled in the suffering of Jesus.  This interpretation has not gone unchallenged.  R.N. Whybraw, for example, argues that the Servant does not suffer instead of others, as their substitute, but alongside them, as their representative.

But the traditional interpretation is confirmed by the following considerations:-

1.  The Servant suffers ‘for’ others.  There is a repeated contrast between ‘he’, ‘his’, and ‘him’, on the one hand, and ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘we all’ and ‘us all’ on the other. …

Biblical Foundations of Penal Substitution 2 – Leviticus 16

Walking With Giants Posted on by

The Book of Exodus raises the question, ‘How can a holy God dwell in the midst of a sinful people?’  The Book of Leviticus answers this by saying that the divine/human relationship can been maintained only by sacrifice.

The rituals of the Day of Atonement, Lev 16, are central, and foreshadow Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice (Heb 9-10).  These rituals involved two goats, one of which was sacrificed to the Lord, while the other was driven into the wilderness. …

Biblical foundations of penal substitution 1 – Exodus 12

Walking With Giants Posted on by

“The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.”  (Jeffrey, Ovey & Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions, p21).

A while ago, I summarised objections to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement as set out and responded to by Jeffrey et al.

I’d now like to examine the biblical basis for this doctrine, using the same authors as guides.…

Objections to penal substitution 6 – the Christian life

Walking With Giants Posted on by

Here’s the last in this series, summarising responses to objections to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement that relate to aspects of the Christian life:-

1. ‘Penal substitution fails to address the issues of political and social sin and cosmic evil’

Penal substitution seems occupied with the salvation of the individual but fails to address the need for reconciliation between peoples divided by political, ethnic, economic and social barriers. Nor does it provide for the redemption of the entire cosmos from its fallen state.…

Objections to penal substitution 5 – God

Walking With Giants Posted on by

The next set of objections to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement cluster around our understanding of God:-

1. ‘Penal substitution implies a division between the persons of the Trinity’

Critics sometimes argue that the doctrine of penal substition violates the unity of the godhead by depicting the Father and the Son as acting independently. Whereas Rom 5:8 affirms that God demonstrates his love by means of what Christ did, penal substitution implies that in the atonement God did something to Jesus.…

Objections to penal substitution 4 – justice

Walking With Giants Posted on by

Continuing this series that summarises (in order to commend) material within Jeffrey, Ovey & Sach’s book Pierced for our Transgressions, we reach those objections that assert that the doctrine of penal substitionary atonement violates the principle of justice:-

1. ‘It is unjust to punish an innocent person, even if he is willing to be punished’

According to Tom Smail, ‘the penal substitution theory…must answer the question: How can it be just to punish a righteous man for the sins of many unrighteous people?’…

Objections to penal substitution 3 – violence

Walking With Giants Posted on by

Having considered objections to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement that are based on appeals to the Bible and to culture, the authors of Pierced for our Transgressions deal with those that assert that the doctrine is an instance of ‘the myth of redemptive violence’.

1. ‘Penal substitution rests on unbiblical ideas of sacrifice’

It was for this reason that C.H. Dodd objected to the translation of hilasterion as ‘propitiation’, for this would be ‘misleading, for it suggests the placating of an angry God, and although this would be in accord with pagan usage, it is foreign to biblical usage’.…

Objections to Penal Substitution 2 – Culture

Walking With Giants Posted on by

According to Jeffery, Ovey & Sach, the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is sometimes objected to on cultural grounds. Here’s a summary:-

1. ‘Penal substitution is a culturally-determined construct, not a biblical one’

Critics suggest, for example, that it is heavily conditioned by a Roman view of criminal law, and by the pre-occupation in the Western world with guilt-and-punishment ideas about justice.

Response: the fact that penal substitution has been believed and taught over the past two thousand years in many different social and political contexts cast considerable doubt on this objection.…

Objections to Penal Substitution 1 – Bible

Walking With Giants Posted on by

A significant portion of Jeffrey, Ovey & Sach’s notable work, Pierced for our Transgressions, deals with various objections to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement.  Read the book itself to get the full discussion.  But here, as a taster, is a summary of how Jeffrey et al respond to those objections that cluster around the general complaint that penal substitution is ‘unbiblical’:-

1. ‘Penal substitution is not the only model of the atonement’

Response: true, and no proponent of the doctrine ever said that it was.…