Penal substitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Penal substitution is a theory of the atonement especially cherished by Evangelicals particularly of the Reformed tradition. Penal substitution simply means that Christ is punished (penal) in our place (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice, so God can justly forgive. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Christ's death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment. It is also a specific form of satisfaction doctrine which focuses on God's justice being satisfied by Christ's bearing the punishment meant for sinners.

Contents

[edit] Background

Penal substitution is rooted in the idea of making a “satisfaction” for sin. The origin of “satisfaction theory” is traditionally credited to Anselm of Canterbury's work “Cur Deus Homo” which he wrote in 1098 AD. The 16th century Reformers (particularly John Calvin) saw Anselm's doctrine as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. It is important to note that Calvin, typical of Reformation thinking, does not see penal substitution as a development of doctrine building off of the rationalist arguments of Anselm, but bases his view directly on Biblical texts.

[edit] Key Bible texts

  • Isaiah 53:4-6, 10, 11 - "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes 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 ... It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin ... By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities." (RSV)
  • Romans 3:23-26 - "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus." (NRSV)
  • 2 Corinthians 5:21 - "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (RSV)
  • Galatians 3:10, 13 - "All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.' ... Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us - for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree'" (RSV)
  • 1 Peter 2:24 - "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness."(RSV)
  • 1 Peter 3:18 - "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God" (RSV)

[edit] Propitiation language

"The language of propitiation specifically implies God's hatred of sin and emphasizes the gracious work of Christ as sin-bearer (Rom. 3:25). The Bible further includes the forensic, legal language of justification (Rom. 3:20-26, 4:25, 5:16-18). These images make clear the reality of our guilt and the required penalty." Dever

See main article on Propitiation.

[edit] Statements of Penal Substitution

Theologians who teach penal substitution are keen to define the doctrine carefully. J.I. Packer, for example, expresses it thus:

"Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgement for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory".[1]

Major proponents of penal substitution such as John Stott, J.I. Packer, James Denney, all have sharply criticized inaccurate statements of penal substitution. Stott critiques loveless caricatures of the cross as “a sacrifice to appease an angry God, or...a legal transaction in which an innocent victim was made to pay the penalty for the crimes of others” as being “neither the Christianity of the bible in general nor of Paul in particular” and further that “It is doubtful if anybody has ever believed such a crude construction”[2]

Packer critiques any attempt to found it on human models of retributive justice and that suggests that it be seen not as a mechanical explanation (how it works) but rather than kerygmatically (what it means to us).[3]

Denney critiques the idea that it is forensic and judicial, saying that these are impersonal cold terms. "Few things have astonished me more than to be charged with teaching a 'forensic' or 'legal' or 'judicial' doctrine of Atonement... There is nothing that I should wish to reprobate more whole-heartedly than the conception which is expressed by these words"[4]

All of these critiques do not seek to debunk the theory, but rather to rescue it from its "cruder" forms.

[edit] Penal Substitution and the Early Church

[edit] Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caeserea, Augustine

Following the witness of the Scriptures, the Church Fathers conceptualise the significance of the death of Christ in a number of ways. Thus they also affirm that Christ is a penal substitute, bearing the curse of God and suffering punishment on behalf of sinners.

Justin Martyr c.100-165 "For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them’ [Deut 27:26] ... The Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all." (Dialogue with Trypho, XCV)

Eusebius of Caesarea c.275-339 "The Lamb of God ... was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us." (Proof of the Gospel)

Augustine of Hippo 354-430 "He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment." (Against Faustus)

Further extracts from ancient texts that teach penal substitution can be found here

[edit] Athanasius and the penalty of death

Athanasius in his treatise "On the Incarnation" frequently uses the language of punishment and penalty. Typical of the Greek Fathers, Athanasius defines sin in terms of corruption leading to death, "Men, having turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come inevitably under the law of death."(Ch 4). Athanasius explains that in breaking our communion with God, we cut ourselves off from the very source of Life, and thus return to the state we were created out of: nothing, "returning, through corruption, to non-existence again" Ch 1.4. Being separated from the source of Life, we die. Sin makes us nothing. "Inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone Who exists." Ch 1.4

Based on this, Athanasius argues: "It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption." Ch 2.6

Athanasius does not define sin merely in the legal terms of transgression. Because sin was not simply a transgression of the law, but also involved a sickness of the soul, repentance was not enough, we needed to be transformed on the inside "Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough"Ch 2.7

Thus in Athansius, Christ both bore the curse of death in our place, and at the same time overcame death and the devil. Since though sin we are subject to corruption leading to death, the way we get out of this state is by being recreated in Christ. “What else could He possibly do, being God, but renew His Image in mankind” Ch 3.13. The idea of humanity being “recreated” is a form of Atonement theory known as “Recapitulation” which is classically credited to Irenaeus. In the classic formula of Irenaeus, Christ became what we are, so we could become what he is. As Athanasius writes, “only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men” Ch 4.20. Thus, in the thinking of Athanasius, the Atonement is inseparably tied to the Incarnation because God, by becoming human, can confront sin and death as us. "It was [the Word] alone, the Image of the Father Who could recreate man made after the Image. In order to effect this re-creation, however, He had first to do away with death and corruption. Therefore He assumed a human body, in order that in it death might once for all be destroyed, and that men might be renewed according to the Image."Ch 3.13

[edit] Anselm and Aquinas

Anselm of Canterbury, in his 11th century work Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Human), defended the idea that Christ's death was needed as a satisfaction for sin, paid to God on our behalf. This contrasts firstly with the idea that it was the devil to whom a ransom had to be paid, and secondly with the notion that the atonement needed only to effect moral reform in the sinner (the Moral Influence Theory associated with Peter Abelard who developed the idea in response to Anselm's theory). Operating within a feudal society, Anselm conceived of this satisfaction in terms of compensating God for the honour lost when people rebelled against him. The principle is taken from the legal courts of the time where a person would either be required to pay a fine, or if they could not afford it they would be punished instead. In Anselmian Satisfaction, since we cannot ourselves make satisfaction and restore God's honor since even if we led a perfect life we would only be giving what is our due, we are headed for punishment. So Christ not only lives a sinless life, which is again his due, but also is willing to endure death for the sake of love. This goes beyond the call of duty and thus honors God, restoring God's honor which Anselm saw as the central problem of the Atonement. Anselmian satisfaction contrasts with Penal Substitution in that Anselm sees the satisfaction (i.e. restitution) as an alternative to punishment "The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow" (bk 1 ch 8), whereas penal substitution views the punishment as the means of satisfaction

In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas continued the vocabulary of "satisfaction" in his magnum opus, the Summa Theologiae but he also re-introduced the language of punishment. Aquinas carefully comments that "God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them" (FS, Q. 87-A3) and stresses that "Christ bore a satisfactory punishment, not for His, but for our sins." (FS, Q. 87-A7) It is essential that Christ took this punishment upon himself voluntarily rather than having it inflicted upon him from outside for "If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment... If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal" (FS, Q. 87-A8).

[edit] The Protestant Reformation

The 16th Century Reformers John Calvin and Martin Luther (Luther's support is contested.[5] but see, e.g., this extract from one of his sermons ) put "penal substitution" at the heart of their theology, emphasising that Christ has fully satisfied God's wrath for those who belong to Christ, rejecting the understanding of mass as a sacrifice, the need for Penance rites and Purgatory.

The doctrine of penal substitution was assumed across much of the theological spectrum throughout the 17th century[citation needed]. Compare, for example, two mid-century English divines. None who know the work of the famed Puritan theologian John Owen could be surprised at his arguments for penal substitution in his 1648 Of the Death of Death in the Death of Christ and his 1653 Dissertation on Divine Justice. But John Wilkins, subsequently Bishop of Chester and well-known for his catholicity and moderation, was in full agreement with Owen. Wilkins wrote, in his 1651 work, Of the Gift of Prayer, "He [Christ] hath satisfied for us as our surety, and hath suffered the punishments that were due unto our sins; and it cannot stand with the justice of God, to require a debt twice over, to punish them again in us when he hath already punished them in Christ"(p.131).

[edit] Debates on Penal Substitution

[edit] Gustav Aulen

Gustav Aulen in his book Christus Victor argues that penal substitution is not rooted in a biblical understanding but instead in the Catholic idea of penance (which the Reformers rejected). He further argues that the early church fathers' primary model of the atonement was the dramatic image of Christ overcoming sin, death, and the devil which as come to be known as the "Christ Victor" view of the atonement.[6]

A majority of Evangelical theologians, while they would give primacy to the penal substitution view, acknowledge that penal substitution is one of many ways Scripture speaks of the atonement. One prominent example is John Stott, who sets out his position in the classic "The Cross of Christ"[7]

See main article on Christus Victor.

[edit] Is Penal Substitution unjust?

Penal substitution is based on a concept of justice, which demands punishment for transgression. It states that Jesus Christ, though perfectly sinless, took upon himself the punishment that was justly due to sinners.

Critics argue that it is unjust to punish the innocent in place of the guilty. Peter Abelard, for example, criticized what he saw as the inherit injustice of Anselm's theory, and Faustus Socinus in his polemic De Jesu Christo Servatore (Of Jesus Christ the Saviour).

"What Socinus did was to arraign this idea as irrational, incoherent, immoral and impossible. Giving pardon, he argued, does not square with taking satisfaction, nor does the transferring of punishment from the guilty to the innocent square with justice" J. I. Packer

Proponents of penal substitution connect Christ's substitutionary death with the doctrine of faith union, arguing that Christ is not a third party unconnected with the sinner, but rather that sinners who have faith in Christ are considered by God as one with Christ. J. I. Packer writes:

"[On the cross] Jesus, as Luther and Calvin put it, carried our identity and effectively involved us all in his dying — as Paul says, ‘one died for all, therefore all died’ (2 Cor. 5:14). Nor is this sharing in Christ’s death a legal fiction, a form of words to which no reality corresponds; it is part of the objective fact of Christ, the mystery that is ‘there’ whether we grasp it or not. So now Christ’s substitution for us, which is exclusive in the sense of making the work of atonement wholly his and allowing us no share in performing it, is seen to be from another standpoint inclusive of us, inasmuch as ontologically and objectively, in a manner transcending bounds of space and time, Christ has taken us with him into his death and through his death into his resurrection." [1]

[edit] Does Penal Substitution Necessitate Universalism?

Some have argued that if Christ fully satisfied God's justice, taking the judicial punishment for sin, then the salvation he achieved must be universal:

"It seems logical that if the death of Yeshua satisfied God's need for justice, and if humans made no contribution to the process, then salvation and atonement should be granted to everyone -- to Christian believers and unbelievers alike. It is unclear why only those individuals who trust Yeshua as Lord and Savior will attains salvation, atonement, and Heaven." [2]

However, if penal substitution is understood to depend on faith union, by which believers are inextricably joined to Christ, then the application of the atonement is not to all sinners but only to those who trust in Jesus.

[edit] Steve Chalke and "Cosmic Child Abuse"

In the UK, prominent member of the Evangelical Alliance Steve Chalke has popularised an attack on penal substitution which argues it portrays God as vengeful and unable to have a loving relationship with his son Jesus. Steve Chalke has said that penal substitution is "a theory rooted in violence and retributive notions of justice" and is incompatible "at least as currently taught and understood, with any authentically Christian understanding of the character of God." Banner of Truth

Chalke's statements have been opposed in detail by Garry Williams [3] and Adrian Warnock [4].

[edit] Is Penal Substitution based on Natural Theology?

J.I. Packer argues that penal substitution was formulated during a period when "Protestant exegesis of Scripture was colored by an uncriticized and indeed unrecognized natural theology of law. . . drawn from the world of contemporary legal and political thought" [5]. Natural theology refers to knowledge of God drawn from our world around us (in this case from their own judicial concepts) as opposed to knowledge of God contained in the revelation of Scripture. Although Packer rejects basing penal substitution on the Natural theology of law and limiting the concept to retributive language, he argues for the "substantial rightness of the Reformed view of the atonement."

[edit] Does Penal Substitution limit the scope of the cross?

See main article on definite atonement.

Some tend to reject the penal-substitutionary aspect of the atonement because it seems to imply a limited or definite design in the atonement. However, it is worth noting that some scholars holding to penal substitution maintain that definite atonement is not a corollary of the position (see for instance, I. Howard Marshall's paper linked below, footnote 68).

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ J. I. Packer, Celebrating the Saving Work of God(Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998).
  2. ^ John Stott, The Cross of Christ, (InterVarsity, 1986) p. 172
  3. ^ J.I. Packer, “The Logic of Penal Substitution” in Celebrating the Saving Work of God (Paternoster , 2002) p. 88. Packer's essay is also available online Here
  4. ^ James Denney, Atonement And The Modern Mind, (Hodder And Stoughton, 1903) p.271, as quoted by Packer in note 28 of his essay above
  5. ^ This is for example argued by the Lutheran theologian Gustav Aulen in Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, (Macmillan:New York, 1977) pp 101-122.
  6. ^ Gustav Aulen (transl. by A. G. Herber) Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, (Macmillan:New York, 1977)
  7. ^ Stott, Op Sit,p. 165ff

[edit] Resources

[edit] Favorable

  • Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998) Chap. 17 The Character of the Cross Work of Christ.
  • J. I. Packer, Celebrating the Saving Work of God (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1998) chap. 8 "What Did the Cross Achieve?" Chap. 9 Sacrifice and Satisfaction.
  • J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downer’s Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1973) chap.15 "The Wrath of God"; chap. 18 "The Heart of the Gospel".
  • Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) Chap. 8 The Cross in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
  • Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
  • John Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove: IV Press, 1986).

[edit] Critical

  • Stephen Finlan, Problems With Atonement: The Origins Of, And Controversy About, The Atonement Doctrine, ISBN 0814652204
  • Norman McIlwain, 'The Biblical Revelation of the Cross', EAN 9780955102905

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Favorable

[edit] Critical

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/n/Penal_substitution.html"