Penal Substitution – The problem of God’s wrath

Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) theory is the belief that Jesus died in our place to satisfy God’s wrath and retributive justice and paid the penalty of the law so that God is rendered propitious toward us so He can forgive us. In this view, Jesus is our substitute. He was forsaken by His Father on the cross and bore our sins and God’s wrath so that we wouldn’t have to bear God’s wrath or be forsaken. In addition to this, there is also the idea that our sins were imputed to Jesus when He died and His righteousness was imputed to us so that we have a legal covering of this alien righteousness over us so that when the Father looks at us, He sees Jesus. This atonement theory is the most popular theory among Protestants today and especially among Calvinists. This theory is often held and taught within these circles to the exclusion of all other atonement models since it is viewed by some people as the very heart of the gospel or even the gospel itself. The emphasis of Penal Substitution is almost exclusively in regard to dealing with the problem and satisfying God’s retributive justice because of our sin. Therefore, the main picture we see on the cross is God’s wrath. God’s love gets Jesus onto the cross but the direct mechanism by which we are saved is through the Father pouring His wrath out on Jesus. The law isn’t viewed as separate or distanced from God in any way but a violation of God’s law is seen as a direct offense against God Himself, deserving of God’s retribution.

When thinking about the atonement, we must understand the different between literal, symbolic, and mechanical interpretations. For example, when Jesus purchased us with His own blood: Was this mechanical and legal, or was He just speaking about purchasing our hearts by His love by winning over our devotion? Some might say that the devil owned us and we were purchased from him but could this just mean that our devotion and service was to the devil but now it is to Jesus because Jesus brought our identity back to us? In Penal Substitution when Jesus purchased us with His blood, they see this as more of a literal payment that was made legally and written into the ledgers of heaven. Whereas those who reject PSA, see this more metaphorically.

There are unique doctrines that specifically come out of PSA or are connected to PSA in a more rational or logical way. Here are some examples:

Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) in hell. This view seems to fit better with a PSA framework because there is a ton of wrath in ECT, an eternity of torture in hell to be exact. This is a very big problem and so you need a very big solution to deal with that kind of judgement/retribution. That’s where PSA comes in. Since the value of Jesus is of infinite worth, He is the only one who can take our infinite punishment. Since the essence of PSA is Jesus taking our lawful punishment as our substitute, it is speculated by some that whatever Jesus endured on the cross was a lawful equivalent of the wrath of God that we would otherwise have to face once we die. If Jesus was a literal substitute in our place for the literal law, then logically, Jesus would have to experience an eternity in hell or maybe after He died, He descended into the flames of Hell... But then this would have us question if Jesus was actually a substitute in our place or not because that view seems far-fetched. Would His loving Father allow this kind of reckless love? The Reckless Love song that the Calvinists so much despise, I actually find logically consistent with this view, so maybe they should start singing it so they would be logically consistent with their beliefs. I would reject ECT and find it reprehensible. There is also overwhelming biblical evidence against this view if you’re willing to (1) humble yourself to learn it and (2) look at the overall big picture that the Bible paints for us. For this subject, I will refer you to my Afterlife playlist.

PSA uses ECT subconsciously as a defense of God’s wrath needing to be satisfied. Since ECT paints a starker picture of God’s wrath, PSA language helps to alleviate some of that wrath as the problem that we face. However, if one does not believe in ECT, retributive wrath is not needed on the cross. God’s wrath is still a present reality but it’s postponed until the future eschatological day where His wrath is poured out. Until then, God’s wrath is His wrath of abandonment. So, it's consequential wrath instead of retributive wrath. It’s governmental wrath instead of retributive wrath. It is for these reasons that if you deconstruct ECT first, PSA will be easier to deconstruct. Those who reject PSA would say that the Father did not pour His wrath out on His Son at the cross.

Since I strongly hold to Moral Influence theory and reject both PSA and ECT, I believe these two doctrines are stumbling blocks for the death of Jesus to have the influence on our hearts that it is intended to have. That is, painting a dark picture of who the Father is, prevents the love of God from entering into our hearts through faith to cleanse the corruption of our hearts to both save us and sanctify us. It is for this reason I strongly oppose these doctrines and will be quite frank about it. Some of you may disagree with me but if you were to follow the same path that I did in deconstructing my beliefs to arrive at this point of freedom that I now have with perfect peace that continually abides, then maybe you would understand. I achieved this through faith in God’s love and this was not attainable with my previous beliefs no matter how hard I fought against sin or all of the Christian biblical methods that I tried. It was only God’s love that could cleanse my heart through faith. None of this may make sense to you now but I pray that it will.

PSA advocates do hold to a form of moral influence even if they may not be directly aware of it. They combine this with and in contrast to speaking on the wrath of God according to PSA and ECT. That is to say, they may believe that the harder they preach on God’s wrath and the penalty of sin, the greater we can see our need for forgiveness and the greater we can receive that forgiveness responding in love to God. This probably comes from the idea in Luke 7:47 when Jesus says whoever has been forgiven much loves much but whoever is forgiven little loves little. The idea is that we are more appreciative of God’s forgiveness when we realize just how much we have been forgiven. As a response to this, there are some people in the reformed camp who preach hellfire and brimstone with vivid illustrations, lay on the mighty pounding of the law, and preach how we are wicked, vile, wretched, and despicable worms, whose worth is but a dung pile of filth. Sure, we might be more appreciative of God’s good grace if we believe it. However, the problem comes with believing. When the contrast is set up so stark like this, the preachers make it difficult for already broken sinners to have faith in God’s love or to believe that God would actually want them to have a relationship with Him if His view of mankind is so terrible. Of course, we don’t want to disregard preaching about sin either but there needs to be a healthy balance. On this subject, let me leave you with this thought: Fear might motivate people into believing something but as long as there is fear, there cannot be full faith; and where there is a lack of faith, there is bondage.

Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). This view, not to be confused with Eternal Security, comes out of Free Grace Theology which many would call antinomianism or cheap grace. The belief of OSAS is that once you pray a prayer to be saved like “the sinner’s prayer,” then you’re good to go—you got your ticket to heaven—you got the fire insurance policy. Now, no matter what you do, how you live, or even if you renounce your faith, you’re going to heaven when you die. OSAS is connected specifically to PSA because the underlying premise is that the legal righteousness of Jesus covers us so that we have a right legal standing with God. It’s this whole courtroom analogy that if the judge declares you innocent, then legally, you’re innocent. This legal standing is said to be achieved by Jesus living a perfect life for us on our behalf and this legal perfection is what He imputes to us with or covers us with. There is also the idea that your sins are paid in full by Jesus: past, present, and future. And if your future sins are paid for, your account is settled and that’s that. Now, under a PSA theology, some Christians believe you can lose your salvation, forfeit the faith, or maybe you were never saved to begin with. However, OSAS would not exist if PSA did not exist.

Unconditional Eternal Security. This is the belief that you cannot lose your salvation or apostatize provided that your faith is genuine producing works. If you do apostatize, that means you were never saved to begin with. Without PSA, this is still believed by some Christians but the majority of Christians who do not hold to PSA do not believe this doctrine either. That’s because, without the imputed righteousness doctrine or only a partial imputed righteousness doctrine, your own practical good works are relevant since there is no “legal fiction” to protect you. For this reason, if you were to reject PSA, you might need to find a place to put the “works” doctrine by asking yourself: what place or role does works have in the life of a believer? However, there are plenty of people like the Charismatics who believe one can lose or forfeit the faith who also believe in PSA. Before deconstructing PSA, I would recommend you listen to my YouTube playlist on Can You Lose Your Salvation?

Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement. This theological debate is specific to PSA. Limited Atonement is held by Calvinists because they see it as logically consistent with the sacrifice of Jesus being a substitute. The argument goes: If Jesus died for all, then all would be saved; and if all are saved, then that’s Universalism which is heresy. However, since all are not actually saved, this means that Jesus didn’t actually die for all but for a select group of people that He has chosen to save before the foundation of the world. Everyone else was not chosen for salvation, therefore, there is no actual possibility for them to ever be saved. In this way, Jesus’ death was both sufficient and efficacious for all that He died for. On the other side, those who believe in Unlimited Atonement would also deny Universalism except for, of course, the Universalists. Those who hold to Unlimited Atonement might prefer to call it Provisional Atonement or something else. That is, Jesus’ death was provisional for all. He died for all substitutionally only upon the condition of those who believe through faith in Jesus. It is seen this way as more of a gift that needs to be both received and accepted rather than something philosophically automatic. Therefore, Jesus provisionally died for all and His death was sufficient and efficacious for all that will believe. Both groups would agree that the atonement was limited in some way, semantically speaking, since not all people will finally be saved.

This whole argument is redundant for those who reject PSA because they see that Jesus’ death wasn’t a one-to-one legal substitution. Jesus was more of a representative on our behalf or died to influence our hearts and minds to believe in Him through proving His love toward us or His life, death, and resurrection produced a metaphysical change for us through His indwelling presence and through His actual defeat of sin, death, the law, and the devil for us. For those of you who believe in Limited Atonement, I think it’s too far of a leap to jump from that to rejecting PSA, so I would recommend listening to Leighton Flowers first on Provisionism and maybe William L. Craig on Molinism before deconstructing PSA. Otherwise, it might be very difficult to follow the thought process of these other atonement models since under Calvinism, there is an abundance of presuppositional thought processes.

God’s wrath being satisfied by animal sacrifices. This is a presuppositional belief underlying PSA and to believe in it seems logically consistent with the PSA model. One certainly has to wonder why God required animal sacrifices in the Old Testament. If one believes that God poured out His wrath on the sacrifices, then one would consistently believe that God poured His wrath out on Jesus who was our sacrifice. If one believes that God poured out His wrath on Jesus as He is mentioned specifically as being the lamb of God and a sacrifice, then one would consistently believe that the Old Testament sacrifices were also about God’s wrath. However, if you do not believe in one of these, then it would be consistent to not believe in the other, whichever one you decide to deconstruct first.

The underlying premise of the Old Testament sacrifices was that they were needed to appease God’s wrath so that God could then forgive us. But if that is the case, why does Hebrews 10:4 say, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins”? If the OT sacrifices were never intended to take away sins, then that means they were not required for God to forgive us. Also, if sacrifices were needed for forgiveness, then wouldn’t David have offered a sacrifice for his great sins of adultery with Bathsheba and murdering Uriah? Instead, we see him not offering a sacrifice. Rather, he says to God, “For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.” In Isaiah 1:11 God also says, “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.”

If these sacrifices were not needed to appease God’s wrath, forgive, or take away sin, then why were they instituted? That is a great question, one which I have addressed previously but for more depth, I will refer you to Expedition44, William Hess (The Church Split), and Warren McGrew (Idol Killer). However, the simple answer is that the blood was about expiation, cleansing, fellowship, and covenant. Also, in this way, the death of Jesus wasn’t so much about the death itself but what the death accomplished and produced. Which is, the blood.

Now that we’ve laid the framework for Penal Substitutionary Atonement and its connected doctrines, let’s examine some of these closer up.

Was Jesus Forsaken by His Father? Examining Psalm 22

In PSA, it is said that the Father forsook Jesus on the cross. This is because Jesus cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Mt 27:46). The argument is that up until this time, Jesus always called God His Father but here He calls His Father, God, indicating that His Father forsook Him and turned His face away. There was a relational intimacy that was cut off. The Trinity that had been in perfect fellowship for all eternity was broken. How far PSA advocates take this argument is up to them. R.C. Sproul believed that God cursed Jesus on the cross as if to say, “God damn you!” Reprehensible, yeah, I know. Logically speaking, the result becomes that the perfect union and oneness of God from all eternity was severed. Meaning, the Trinity was severed. But isn’t God immutable? That is, isn’t God never-changing? And if the Trinity were split, then would God turn into a Duo at that point for some time? The implications of this doctrine are disastrous to the unity and immutability of God.

We must understand that Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 and if we interpret Scripture with Scripture, we will find that God never forsook David in this psalm, David only felt forsaken. Would we have a firm foundation then to build this Forsaken doctrine? If we examine the psalm further, we notice that over and over again it’s talking about the wrath of mankind against him and says nothing about God’s wrath. The closest thing we get is the psalmist’s acknowledgement of God’s providence in allowing his suffering to occur (v. 15). But nothing of God’s wrath. For God to sovereignly will something is not the equivalent of the Father pouring out His wrath on Jesus. When we get to verse 24, the psalmist speaks of God and says, “For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.” Well, that sounds like the exact opposite of what PSA teaches. Therefore, according to Psalm 22, the Father did not forsake Jesus or hide His face from Him. Jesus only felt forsaken because of the extreme agony of His body and soul and all the wrath of mankind against Him. We can go so far as to say that maybe God took away from Jesus the feeling of God’s presence like a veil being placed over His heart but we cannot go any further to say that the Father forsook His Son because that would not be biblically accurate.

God did not forsake Jesus vertically but what about horizontally? God did not intervene in Jesus’ suffering against the evil of the world and so in that sense, God forsook Him—God did not help Him. But this wasn’t the wrath of God’s abandonment. It is the human suffering of Jesus who wished He did not have to experience all that suffering and perhaps, sees no rational reason for the suffering to continue longer or for it to be increased. However, it was a necessary crushing so that Jesus could rescue humanity from sin, death, and the devil. But besides Jesus’ human emotional state, we could argue instead that maybe this was a prayer for vindication. He was falsely accused, ill-treated, and abandoned by His followers. The world wanted Him dead but Jesus wanted the world to see that He was the innocent and blameless Son of God who came to rescue them. Maybe Jesus quoted Psalm 22 to bring it to the forefront of people’s minds while He was being crucified so that they would parallel the similarities of His life and suffering to the life and suffering of David to point them to the truth that Jesus is the greater David, the Messiah. Psalm 22 was David’s suffering and rejection before his enthronement. In the same way, it was Jesus’ suffering before His enthronement as the greater David. When Jesus cried, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” It did not incline the onlookers to think He was not the Son of God. Rather, the context shows the exact opposite that when Jesus died, the Centurion and those guarding Jesus concluded, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Mt 27:54). The Centurion also said, “Certainly this man was innocent” (Lk 23:47). Therefore, when the earthquake happened and Jesus died, the conclusion of the people was not that God poured His wrath on Jesus because why would God do that to an innocent man? If anything, the conclusion might have been that God was sad or angry with the people for killing His Son! Therefore, Jesus was not abandoned by His Father. He even mentioned earlier that His disciples would abandon Him but said nothing about His Father abandoning Him (Jn 16:32). Furthermore, if we parallel Jesus to David, we see that God’s Spirit “came mightily upon David from that day forward” (1 Sam 16:13) but never left David even after his great sins of adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah. David prayed to God, “do not take Your Holy Spirit from me” (Ps 51:11) but would not ask this if the Holy Spirit had already left him. So, if David was not forsaken, why would we conclude on the basis of Psalm 22 that Jesus was forsaken? How could God be pitted against God? How could the perfect harmony of the Triune nature be at odds and conflict? To suggest that there was any division of the Trinity nullifies the unity and Oneness of God.

Psalm 22 resource: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?" — The Anástasis Center

Was Jesus Forsaken by His Father? Examining Isaiah 53

Isaiah 53 is also a passage used to promote PSA but if we re-examine this, we will discover that it doesn’t. What does verse 3 say? Does it say He was forsaken by God? Wait, no, it says, “He was despised and forsaken of men.” And who hide their face from Jesus? Was it God? No, it says, “And like one from whom men hide their face.” Did God despise Him? No, it says “He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.” Then verse 4 says, “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted.” Context is important. So far, we have seen that it was the wrath of man against Jesus. It says that “we esteemed Him” as such. That is, this is what we thought was the case. We thought that God was smiting Him. We thought that God was judging Him or cursing Him for some kind of sin or offense because the situation looked so bad. But the reality was quite the opposite. Verse 5 begins with the word “But.” It says, “But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our wellbeing fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.” What is it saying? It’s saying that we were wrong about Him! He was innocent! God wasn’t judging Him—it was us who were judging Him! It was we who were violent against Him. He was a suffering servant. But this innocent one, instead of judging us for our sin and violence against Him, He brought to us healing instead. Those of us who have held to Penal Substitutionary Atonement all our lives, we thought that God was judging Jesus on that cross and in this way, we had evil thoughts about Him. But God wasn’t judging Him. Instead, it was our sins that put Him there. God is so good and so much more loving than we previously thought. Jesus died for His violent persecutors and for those who spoke and said evil of Him and it was His love that willingly brought Him there so that He might heal us! Let the light of His love into your heart and let Him heal you.

If we look at the textual context of Isaiah 53, there is this theme of the suffering servant. The suffering servant was Isaiah but according to the apostles, it was also Jesus. The suffering servant shared and entered into the suffering that Israel was already in. Verses 5-8 about being crushed and cut off is about exile. The very first exile was Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden and then all their descendants were spiritually exiled with them because of sin and death. Often, the descendants in exile were the Israelites and they were physically under exile as well. Moses, Isaiah, the other prophets, and Jesus, experienced this exile with them. The Messiah was also born under the same conditions of exile that the Jewish people were under. In this way, the Messiah suffered with them. Jesus experienced firsthand the oppression of the Roman occupation from His birth to His death. To fix this exile for the people to be restored back to God, the promised land, and Eden, physically, and spiritually, then the sin problem would need to be fixed through healing the corruption of the human condition. Jesus while under exile suffering with Isael, healed the corrupted human condition through perfecting obedience in His own body. This achievement is then infused to us through our continual abiding in Him. In this way, Jesus as the greater Prophet, leads His people out of spiritual exile. In this way, Matthew 1:21 says that Jesus came to save His people from their sins. It doesn’t say He came to save them from their punishment. It is good to have the proper focus here that sin is the cause of our spiritual exile because sin breaks our human condition away from the presence and fellowship of God. God didn’t leave us—we left Him. Here is a quote from the Anástasis Center, “Jesus shared in Israel’s exile, so that he could share with them his restoration from exile.”

In Isaiah 53:10 it says “But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief.” Other translations render this as it was the Lord’s good plan or it was the will of the Lord to crush or bruise Him. The word “pleased” has no indication that God was thirsty for blood. Rather, this is speaking about God fulfilling His purpose with Jesus on the cross to provide salvation for the world. That is what pleased God. It was His sovereign plan but sovereignty is not the same thing as God’s wrath. The crushing Jesus endured was like the crushing of olives to produce oil. Jesus was crushed on that cross to produce for us the oil of gladness. The actual crushing wasn’t pleasurable for God but it produced a plentiful harvest of oil for both God and man. This crushing was Jesus’ sufferings inflicted upon Him by the violence of humanity.

Another way to look at Isaiah 53:10-12 is through the Septuagint (LXX), which is the text that the Apostles used and quoted from. It paints a clearer picture of the suffering servant. It says, “The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound, and if You give an offering for sin, Your soul shall see a long-lived seed. The Lord wishes to take away the pain of His soul, to show Him light, to form Him with understanding, and to pronounce righteous the Righteous One who serves many well; and He shall bear their sins. Therefore He shall inherit many, and will divide the spoil with the strong, because His soul was delivered over to death. He was considered among the lawless, and He bore the sins of many, and was delivered over because of their sins” (OSB). Again, the bearing of sin was about suffering under the sinful condition of humanity against the servant. Verse ten is about cleansing rather than crushing. But to harmonize this, we could say that it was the crushing that produced the cleansing. If Jesus didn’t live among us and die for our sins, then there wouldn’t be the blood to sprinkle us clean.

For more on Isaiah 53, here are some resources: Isaiah 53 — The Anástasis Center

I believe it is a stumbling block to say that the Father was angry with Jesus and it’s important for us to not teach this. I say this because it was a stumbling block for me. It was hard for me to be reconciled to God’s love through believing in full faith. I believed Jesus loved me. That was easy. But to believe the Father loved me as much as Jesus, that was a challenge. Because, the idea is that if it weren’t for Jesus then the Father would hate my guts. Jesus made it so that legally, the Father has to love me now. But what kind of love is that? How can I have confidence in the loveliness of that love? How can I have confidence in the genuineness of that love? My heart could not be healed except by authentic love that really and actually desires me. Otherwise, I would stay in my shame and my shame would produce unbelief. I could not have faith in a love that was forced to love me because He was legally obliged to. It’s like the Father hates my guts and then Jesus steps in to save the day and says, “sign this paper,” and then the Father’s like, “Okay… well… I guess I have to love you now…” This is the unbelief that the PSA doctrine produces. Sure, you can quote John 3:16 and say that the Father was well-disposed toward us even before Jesus died but that still is not logically congruent with the PSA doctrine. God’s infinite wrath of eternal conscious torment was supposed to have been poured out on Jesus on the cross because supposedly, God hated me that much. Though I believed PSA for most of my life, maintained my faith in God, and tried to see God’s love in the best possible way that I could, it still wasn’t enough and it turned out that PSA was a stumbling block for me which prevented me from being healed by God’s love so that I could also conquer my sin through the blood of Jesus. But now I know the truth and the truth has set me free.

At this point, R.C. Sproul is probably turning in his grave, saying, “What’s wrong with you people!” (inside reformed-circle joke). For most people in the reformed camp, their solution to what I said would be to say something like, “well, you just don’t know how wicked and vile of a sinner you are! And how deserving of God’s wrath you are!” Okay, brilliant. Why don’t you just lay on the shame and keep coating it with more layers of shame icing. Maybe that’ll do it. Maybe that will help me have more faith in God’s love. Great idea! (not). Terrible idea. How am I supposed to have faith in God’s love if people just make it harder and harder for me to do so? (telling me I’m a worthless worm and all that). They’re literally achieving the opposite end of their goal with that strategy. I’m convinced that the religious shame culture of the church prevents people from entering into the kingdom of heaven. Like the Pharisees, they make others twice as much a son of hell as themselves. That’s why we see so many Christians in the church who hurt and destroy everyone else. Their hearts are corrupted because the love of the blood of Jesus hasn’t cleansed them.

The Blood of Jesus and Wrath of God?

I do not find a single explicit text that says that the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus. If this was the central doctrine of the cross, wouldn’t we have it in our Bibles? Instead, we have many explicit texts saying that it was the violence of humanity against Jesus on the cross (Ps 22; Isa 53; Acts 2:23, 36; 3:14; 4:10; Zach 12:10). How can this be? Perhaps it’s because God’s wrath was never poured out on Jesus.

In Mark 14:36 Jesus is in the garden of gethsemane and says, “Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will” (cf. Mt 26:39). Throughout the Bible, the cup is most often referred to as the cup of God’s wrath. However, in Matthew 20:22 there is also a cup. The mother of the sons of Zebedee wanted her sons to sit on Jesus’ right and left in His kingdom and Jesus said, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” Then Jesus says that they will drink the cup. Meaning, they would suffer like Jesus was going to suffer. Unless you think that Jesus was saying His disciples would suffer the wrath of God, then no, that’s not what Jesus was talking about. The cup was the cup of Jesus’ sufferings.

Jesus is referred to as the lamb of God quite a few times and specifically as “Christ our Passover” (1 Cor 5:7). Isn’t this a reference to God’s wrath? Well, let’s look at the Passover in Exodus 12. Is there any indication that the lamb was supposed to be a substitute? Or tortured in our place? Or killed by the angel of death? No, in fact, none of the OT sacrifices were tortured before they were sacrificed. If the whole idea is something or someone being punished in our place, then does this fit? (according to ECT?). We see instead that Israel was supposed to keep a lamb in their houses for a few days before they killed it. After they killed it, they ate it. Then whatever was left, they burned up with fire. They used the blood of the lamb to sprinkle/mark the doorpost of their houses so that when the plague of the firstborn came from the angel of death, the wrath of God would pass over them. This wasn’t about substitution, it was about God’s wrath passing over. That’s why it’s called the Passover lamb. So it was wrath averted. But how was that wrath averted? Through faith. Those who were loyal to the Egyptian gods would not kill the icon (the lamb) of their god. Therefore, those who did not believe in Moses’ words from the Lord about how to avert God’s wrath, they did not have faith in God; and because of this, they were not saved. But those who did have faith, followed the instructions and their dwellings were marked with the blood. It was also not about the sacrifice itself but what the sacrifice produced—the blood. It was the blood that produced the mark; and without the mark, they would not be saved. Their faith was an entrance here into the covenant. And what do we see again in the New Testament? Jesus calls the new covenant, the covenant of His blood (Mt 26:28; Lk 22:20). Those who have the mark, that is, they are marked by God, and enter the covenant are those with faith. This is faith in what the death of Jesus produced for us—life. When the blood of the Lamb is placed on the doorposts of our hearts, the wrath of God shall pass over us. Therefore, it is faith in Jesus and His love to die for us that we shall be cleansed and saved.

In John 19:30 before Jesus died, He said “It is finished.” Some people say this means, “paid in full” because that’s what was found on some receipts. But we must be careful to not make the culture the foundation for our interpretation here because this word literally just means “finish,” “fulfill,” or “accomplish” and only twice is it used as “pay” in reference to paying taxes. It would be better to put this phrase in context with Jesus’ role as High Priest, having finished the sacrificial system by His one sacrifice for all time (Heb 10:11-14). “It is finished” was the culmination of Jesus’ life, sufferings, and death to attain victory for us and freedom.

Jesus was the temple, the high priest, God, and the sacrifice. So, Jesus filled all the roles of the sacrificial system when He died on the cross. The sins of the people were laid upon Him in His sacrificial body. He was sacrificed upon the altar of the cross. He consumed the sins of the people from the sacrifice as high priest. Then, as God, the impurities of the body were brought to nothing through the perfect love and obedience of God cleansing it. In this way, God condemned sin in the flesh (Ro 8:3). Being the temple, Jesus brought man into God’s presence through the cleansing of sin and corruption.

Final Thoughts / Questions / Conceptual Understanding

Here are some questions we need to answer: What kind of wrath is displayed or not displayed on the cross? How do we solve the problem of God’s retributive wrath? Do we need to solve this wrath? How is this wrath dealt with? Passing over? Punishment? Free forgiveness? Payment? Substitution? Was the assumed wrath on the cross against Jesus retributive wrath, governmental wrath, or consequential wrath?

If you want, you can reject PSA but still hold onto General Substitutionary Atonement. But for that to work, you would have to get rid of ECT. In this system of General Substitution, Jesus paid the penalty of death by dying because death was the culmination of punishment for all our sins. Jesus paid our capital punishment because that’s how He died. That’s it. You can view this capital punishment as retributive wrath or consequential wrath or both. Retributive wrath would relate to God’s divine law. Consequential wrath would relate to natural law of what will happen in the absence of God. Personally, I see The Day of The Lord as retribution along with the Great White Throne Judgement. But after that, it’s just consequential wrath of the absence of God. Hell is ceasing to be because that’s what happens apart from God who is life.

However, at the cross, I don’t see God’s retribution or consequential wrath. At least, in regard to the Father dealing out that wrath, this I don’t see. There is only consequence to the degree that God allowed Jesus to suffer the wrath of man. Therefore, it wasn’t an absolute absence. We also know that Jesus willingly laid down His life and His death was not purely natural because He said, “into Your hands I commit My spirit” (Lk 23:46) and “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” (Jn 10:17-18). Death did not choose Jesus, Jesus chose death when He said “into Your hands I commit My spirit.” Jesus did not succumb to His wounds so as to die but the moment He willingly committed His spirit over, His body died. We see according to this passage just quoted that the Father had nothing but love for His Son and their wills were both in one divine accord. Therefore, I don’t see any wrath here. What I see is Jesus defeating death in a more metaphysical way to give to us life when His divine presence would come to reside within us to impart and infuse that life to us, Himself being the Vine and we the branches.

If we want to take this another step and say that this is penal, we could say that He died to demonstrate His righteousness to uphold the esteem He had for His own law to uphold the moral order. And/or, He died to break the power of the law which was the curse of the primal transgression. That is to say, He died to reverse the curse of death which Adam brought into the world. In this context, it was more of a natural law of consequence that Jesus broke and defeated. The law of death is a metaphysical one since all men are bound to die.

But if we were to say that this law was more of a law directly established and instituted from God as the penalty for disobedience while maintaining that God’s wrath was not poured out on Jesus, then we could say that Jesus willingly and of His direct volitional choice entered into death. This action does not need to regard any disunity or opposition to the Father in regard to retributional wrath from the Father’s hand. Jesus was able to deal with the penalty this way as we could more properly say, Jesus punished Himself for us. Therefore, the Father did not punish Jesus—Jesus punished Himself. However, at the same time, we cannot simplistically reduce His death down to this because it was the evil of our own humanity that punished Jesus on the cross, though He was absolutely innocent. The devil was also involved in Jesus’ death. However, God did not pour out wrath against God on the cross. It wasn’t about God’s wrath happening but about God’s wrath being averted—passing over the violence of humanity as Jesus said to His Father “forgive them,” and they were both in one accord to avert God’s wrath for crucifying their Creator. All of humanity received a reprieve from God’s judgement until the fullness of all things at the end of the age comes. The passing over of God’s wrath ultimately happens during the eschatological Day of His wrath and this is achieved through the blood of our Passover Lamb through entering into the new covenant of His blood through faith.

What about governmental wrath? Under that system, we could say that Jesus paid the demand of the law which is death and that this payment was to commute our death sentence. The demand of the letter of the law was averted because Jesus died in our place as our representative. The death of Jesus satisfied God to not punish us with death. Yet, He still upheld the moral order. This combines a little bit from Moral Government as well as Satisfaction. But maybe the death of Jesus wasn’t about the law. Maybe it was about showing to us the wickedness and violence of humanity in contrast to and against the perfect Son of God who showed perfect love to us so that we would see the wickedness of our ways to be transformed by His love.

For those who believe in ECT, you’ll have to figure out if that punishment of hell is retribution or consequence. Then, if you believe in PSA, you’ll have to adopt that mode of wrath on the cross. If you adopt a more Eastern Orthodox version of hell, then you can see that wrath as consequence. But in order to say that abandonment happened on the cross, you might need to prove it. However, I have demonstrated so far in this lesson that we cannot prove that the Father abandoned the Son on the cross because there are no texts to explicitly say this. Therefore, something like that would have to be presumed under the PSA framework.

The criticism that PSA advocates would give to the other atonement theories is that they don’t deal with all the problems. In Moral Influence, Jesus was just a good example to motivate us. In General Substitution, Jesus may deal with the first death but not the second death. In Moral Government, Jesus found a legal loophole to save us. In Satisfaction, Jesus just did a good deed and the Father decided to be nice. In Christus Victor, Jesus fights the bad guys. In Ransom, Jesus buys back humanity from the devil. In Recapitulation, Jesus fixes what we broke. On the other hand, the opposing side may give a caricature of PSA and say it’s just cosmic child abuse. So in general, we could make everything as an oversimplified caricature and stereotype in derogatory terms. But in defense of PSA, it does deal with the problem of our sin and God’s wrath in a mechanical fashion that can be quickly and easily explained. It also explains the absolute necessity of Jesus dying on the cross. With the other theories, Jesus just freely forgives people and if God freely forgives people, that begs the question: Did Jesus need to die on the cross? What was the actual purpose of His death? How does God remain just while also pardoning us?

It is said that any cohesive atonement theory needs to reconcile all the divine attributes. That is, it should reconcile both justice and mercy, not just mercy. Because, as they would argue: God is not just love, He is just too. He is holy and righteous. However, we would do right to recognize that the underlying premise of this argument is that God’s love is equal to His justice. So, before coming up with a sufficient atonement theory, we really need to understand the very nature of God. I believe that God is just because He is loving to all His creatures and He is loving to the Triune persons as well. I believe that God’s love is His essence and out of this flows His justice which would be considered an attribute. God’s justice is more something He does rather than something He is in His very essence. Therefore, love and justice are not diametrically apposed to one another. However, I don’t have time to speak of the intricacies of that belief right now so we’ll have to save that for another time.

We could admit that a miracle happened in Jesus’ death and resurrection to give us life and cleanse us from sin. However, our western minds are often not satisfied with merely a miracle. We want an explanation. We want it to intellectually check all the boxes and conceptually make sense—and we want it to be a quick and easy explanation. But there’s this thing called faith—and it’s the foundation of our Christian belief. Even if we were to figure everything out of how the death of Jesus works, that doesn’t grant to us faith. That only means we have an intellectual understanding. But faith is deeper. It’s a deep-seated trust in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to give us life, hope, and forgiveness. It is enough to just have faith just like it is enough to know how to drive a car. We don’t need to know all the mechanical and engineering specifications to know that it works and that we can trust it to get us to where we’re going. This is where having faith in what the Bible says is more important than having faith in a system of theological understanding. And ultimately, it’s not even the Bible itself that our faith rests but in the risen Christ—the person of God Himself.

For more reading on the problems of PSA, William Hess has a great book called Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God punish Jesus?

Here are a few things that the early church fathers had to say on this topic:

When speaking of Cain and Abel, Irenaeus said, “God is not appeased by sacrifice. […] Sacrifices, therefore, do not sanctify a man, for God stands in no need of sacrifice; but it is the conscience of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure, and thus moves God to accept [the offering] as from a friend.” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4.18.3)

Justin Martyr addressed the Jews, saying, “If they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God. The Scripture foretells that they shall be blessed, saying, ‘Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute sin.’ That is, after repenting of his sins, such a man can receive remission of those sins from God. It is not as you deceive yourselves and some others who resemble you in this. For you say that even though they are sinners, the Lord will not impute sin to them, for they know God.” (1.270. Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 354)