Is Penal Substitutionary Atonement “Knocked Out”?

Authors: John Stonestreet and Dr. Thaddeus Williams

Earlier this month, pastor and bestselling author John Mark Comer posted that a new book was a “knockout blow” to Penal Substitutionary Atonement or, as theology nerds would say it, “PSA.” I asked Thaddeus Williams, assistant professor of Systematic Theology at Biola University to weigh in on this historic Christian doctrine that is proclaimed throughout Scripture and was championed by several Church fathers. Here’s Dr. Williams:  

“Penal”—as in the word “penalty”—points to the fact that, as Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer says, “man is guilty before the Law-Giver of the universe, doing what is contrary to His character. ... [Therefore] man has true moral guilt.” Guilt isn’t just about subjective guilt feelings. It’s about our objective problem before God the Lawgiver and Judge, a problem that needs a solution, whether or not we feel like it. 

Yes, God as Judge offends postmodern sensibilities in which the only publicly recognized sin is the “sin” of judging others. But we must take our cues from God and His Word, not the feel-good gurus of our age. The Bible speaks of the just God’s wrath when we break His good laws over 500 times. 

The substitutionary part of PSA is what Peter was after when he describes Christ’s suffering as “the righteous for the unrighteous.” This astounding swapping-of-places—what Martin Luther called “the Wonderful Exchange”—is echoed by Paul: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus himself speaks of giving his life “as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Isaiah 53:5, which scholars say, “looks as if it had been written beneath the Cross upon Golgotha,” also speaks clearly of substitution: “He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities.”  

In his book, Andrew Rillera offers three objections to PSA. 

First, many find PSA too legal and, therefore, not relational. Rillera defends “a gospel rooted in divine benevolence and covenant, not in retribution and contract.” This objection makes a false Either-Or out of a beautiful Both-And. Think of marriage. Marriage is, among other things, legal. But newlyweds don’t say, “The ink has dried on our marriage certificate. Relationship over.” No. The legal declaration seals, authenticates, and enhances the relationship. The same can be said for legal adoption. What Jesus accomplished legally on the Cross has everything to do with what we can say relationally, that we are God’s beloved children and Christ’s cherished bride. 

Second, Rillera argues that “Jesus’s death is not an act of substitution.” The audience is not supposed to look at Jesus’ sufferings and death and think: “Phew! Jesus did all of that instead of me!” Rather, they are “to look upon Jesus, the author and perfector of faithfulness” and thereby pattern their lives after the crucifixion. Again, we find a beautiful Both-And reduced to a false Either-Or. That’s the beauty of PSA. It doesn’t rule out, but radiates other aspects of Christ’s atonement so we can appreciate them in a fuller light. Herman Bavinck said, “The work of Christ is so multifaceted that it cannot be captured in a single word nor summarized in a single formula.” “Multifaceted” is exactly the right word for the Cross. It conjures an image of a diamond with multiple facets. 

Peter says that “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21) and then rejoices that Jesus “himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.” Jesus dying “instead of us” adds meaning to him dying “ahead of us.” There is no Either-Or here. Jesus taking our pain sheds light on how we can follow His example in a way that doesn’t reduce love to a fuzzy sentimentalism. Likewise, the idea that Jesus triumphed over Satan’s powers on the Cross—the Christus Victor view—is certainly taught in Scripture. Yet that victory rests on us being “in him” as Jesus forgave our law-breaking, cancelled our legal debt, and nailed it to the Cross (Colossians 2:11-15). 

Jewelers have a term for the flat top of a precious stone that serves as a window into all lower facets of the diamond so they sparkle more radiantly. They call it “the Table.” PSA is the Table of Atonement. It is precisely because Jesus died instead of us that His death ahead of us and His death against the forces of darkness shine in their true biblical radiance. 

A third objection is that PSA makes God out to be some unhinged abuser. The Father vents rage onto his own Son, so he can mellow out and love us as children rather than loathe us as criminals. While unfortunately pushed in some pulpits, thankfully, that’s not what PSA means. The Father was not brimming with hatred for us until Good Friday, but because He so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son. Moreover, the atonement is an act of God, that is, the entire Triune God—Father, Son, and Spirit—acting in perfect unison, never Father against Son. 

Certainly, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ was about more than Penal Substitutionary Atonement. But it certainly was not about less.