The self-substitution of God

How can we, who are deeply unholy and unrighteous, be reconciled with God, who is gloriously holy and righteous?  How can God express simultaneously his holiness in judgment and his love in pardon?

The astonishing, yet scriptural, answer, is, in the words of Cranfield, that

God, because in his mercy he willed to forgive sinful men, and, being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against his own very self in the person of his Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved.

“God is love, and…”

Steve Chalke’s (and Alan Mann’s) book, The Lost Message of Jesus, is, I suppose, yesterday’s papers telling yesterday’s news.  Published in 2003, it generated more heat than light, and polarised well-meaning people into opposing groups of fans and critics.

It’s all a bit late to be offering a review of the book.  But I fear that its central point (that ‘God is love’ is all that we really need to know about God, and everything else must be forced through this one filter), is not going to go away.

So here I belatedly post something that I wrote a while back.

Biblical Foundations of Penal Substitution – Index of Posts

This series of posts is based on chapter 2 of Pierced for our transgressions, by Steve Jeffery, Mike Overy and Andrew Sach.

1. Exodus 12
2. Leviticus 16
3. Isaiah 53
4. Gospel of Mark
5. Gospel of John
6. Romans
7. Galatians
8. 1 Peter

Biblical Foundations of Penal Substitution 8 – 1 Peter

Christ bore our sins in his body, 1 Pet 2:21-25

The suffering of Christ is certainly presented in these verses as exemplary, but this does not exhaust the meaning.  For one thing, there are clear allusions to Isa 53, and to the Suffering Servant from whose sufferings we benefit.  The ‘bearing’ of sins in Isa 53 implies the bearing of punishment.  And the echo of Isa 53:5 in ‘by his wounds you have been healed’ highlight the fact that he suffered so that we might not – substitutionary atonement indeed.  Again, Peter’s reference to Jesus bearing our sins ‘on the tree’ takes us back (as does the similar passage in Gal 3:13) to the penalty referred to in Deut 21:23.

Biblical Foundations of Penal Substitution 7 – Galatians

Galatians 3:10-13

The image of the crucifixion at ‘hanging on a tree’ in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29 evokes the words of Deuteronomy 21:25 – ‘anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse’.

This raises the question, ‘Why would the sinless Christ be curses by God?’  Gal 3:10-13 supplies the answer.

The argument is simple: Jesus bore the curse that was due to others, thereby redeeming them from that curse.  He bore the penalty in our place.

Certain false teachers were insisting that Gentile converts must be circumcised.  Paul warns that these people are ‘under a curse’.  But why?

Biblical Foundations of Penal Substitution 6 – Romans

Context

Paul teaches in Romans that the universal sinfulness of humankind provokes God’s righteous anger.  This has both a present (Rom 1:18) and a future (Rom 2:5) aspect.

Moroever, Rom 1-3 makes it clear that God’s wrath is personal and active, and not merely the impersonal outworking of some inevitable process of cause and effect, as C.H. Dodd and others have taught.  It is God’s wrath and it is from heaven (Rom 1:18).  It is God’s judgment, Rom 2:5f, 16; 3:5, and God’s verdict, Rom 2:26; 3:7; 3:19.  Death is God’s penalty for sin, Rom 1:32; 5:2-14; 6:23; 7:5; 7:11.

Biblical Foundations of Penal Substitution 5 – John’s Gospel

The Lamb of God

John the Baptist introduces Jesus as ‘the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’ (Jn 1:29).  Later, a link is made between Jesus and the lamb sacrificed at Passover.  This amounts to John’s endorsement of the penal substitution categories found in Ex 12.

Biblical Foundations of Penal Substitution 4 – Mark

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’.  Moreover, the ‘handing over’ of Jesus, Mk 10:33f, carries a sense of being handed over to the wrath of God in place of those for whom he gave himself as a ransom (cf. Psa 106:40f).

Biblical Foundations of Penal Substitution 3 – Isaiah 53

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.

Biblical Foundations of Penal Substitution 2 – Leviticus 16

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.  The purpose of these rituals was to make atonement.

Biblical Foundations of Penal Substitution 1 – Exodus 12

“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 – Index

“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).

I have attempted, in this series of posts, to summarise the arguments and responses that are addressed that excellent book, and I would encourage anyone to go out and get it and read the discussion in full for themselves.