Forsaking Penal Substitution, Pt. 1: A Theological Critique

Penal substitution is theologically problematic. In this video, I criticize the theory and its claims about God. This is part one of a three-part series examining why I think penal substitution must be rejected on theological and biblical grounds. Part two will examine the scriptural basis for this, while part one establishes the theological framework for that critique. Part three will suggest a few of the ways we might interpret the cross apart from this theory.

Suggested reading:

My books related to this subject:

**Please note that all Amazon links are associate links, wherein I receive a percentage of your total purchase.

[Thebibleguy]

As a Catholic, I have always felt this way. Understanding the cross in light of love, as opposed to wrath, is far more glorious.

[jaredvizzi]

Thanks so much for this! This is coming at a great time for me. I grew up in a fundamentalist church and Bible college and I’m doing a lot of deconstruction right now. Thankfully my faith in Christ is actually stronger than ever right now even though I have many questions of how to properly understand the faith. I think it was St. Augustine who talked about “faith seeking understanding”. That is how I feel right now.

[garywildebrendan]

Blessings to you, Stephen. As you surely know, you have entered the "theological atmosphere" of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Welcome!

[fashionguru]

I can’t tell you how life changing this video is for me. I was raised in a church that somehow managed to teach me tons of reformed theology, but as an adult I can see it never actually introduced me to the person of Jesus. I remember as a young teen feeling terrified of God’s “goodness” because I now realize I only knew to view atonement through the lense of penal substitution. I remember saying to my pastor “How can I trust in God’s goodness when his justice compelled him to treat his own son in such a horrific way?” Because of the doctrine of penal substitution, I have struggled my whole life to believe in God’s restorative love, because it seemed like what his ultimately cares the most about was this transactional “eye for an eye”. I really can’t thank you enough for breaking this doctrine down, and helping me consider that there is another way to hold onto the importance of Christ’s death on the cross, without having to hold on to the violence of the penal substitution doctrine.

[emanuelkournianos]

When people get sick in the hospital they wonder if God has forsaken them!

When Jesus was on the cross he cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me!"

Jesus is quoting and taking us to Psalm 22, and when we read the entire Psalm we learn that God has not forsaken Jesus. God is with Jesus and God is not pouring out his wrath on God - that is - Jesus who is truly God and truly man in one person.

Jesus is being murdered by sinful creatures and Jesus is going through this death to identify with us but he will raise from the dead and is this way conquer death, sin, and the devil.
Hebrews 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8

Jesus Christ is VICTORIOUS by raising from the dead but he had to lovingly sacrifice to die first.

Jesus who is truly man and truly God without separation, division, mixture, or confusion cannot suffer wrath and damnation from God.
Malachi 3:6 1 John 4:8

There is only one God and Jesus is one person of the Holy Trinity!

Penal substitution atonement is pure Nestorian heresy and never taught in the Bible or until the eleventh century.

In summary, PSA believes God poured out his wrath on God to please God who is one.

Thinking Atheists have a hey day with PSA heresy and it keeps them from being Christians.

The Orthodox Church has the correct Biblical doctrine of the atonement.
Christ is risen!
Truly he has risen!

"Christus Victor" which has been taught since the Apostles and the Bible.

[dgbx]

Thank you for this. To realize that this doctrine is in fact ONLY theory is so incredibly freeing for me. I grew up with this horrible mindset as if it was the only biblical interpretation around. It is really toxic. Thanks for helping people get out from under this ugly world view.

[isaiahcruz]

This is good stuff, Stephen! I am also in the process of deconstructing a lot of my previous theories of atonement, especially penal substitution, as I finish my second and last year of seminary. It was not until my last semester at seminary that I got a chance to read some of your faves (Moltmann, Barth, Cone, Schleiermacher), and they have all forced me to rethink things I took for granted when it came to theological anthropology and the atonement. You have also been of tremendous help in processing these things! God's peace be with you, brother! :)

[yllowbird]

Very good though I would say you still hold to a Christus victor type of theory. But it sounds sort of like recapitulation as well.

There are four types of atonements:

1. Ransom to Deity
2. Ransom to Devil
3. Ransom to Death
4. Ransom doesn't mean payment but actually Rescue.

There are many atonement theories/models some these are:

Satisfaction theory- a ransom to Deity theory. It teaches that we have infinitely offended God's honor and Jesus is the only sacrifice that can satisfy the payment of that Honor. (The early church shows ideas of these theories like punishment and payment of a debt but nothing less than satisfying God's infinite offended honor is satisfaction theory.)

Penal Substitutionary Atonement- a ransom to Deity theory. It is a modified version of the satisfaction theory which is still evolving. It teaches that the Father pours out his Wrath on the Son for our sin. It teaches that Jesus took our penalty for sin. It teaches that Jesus became a literal sin on the cross. (The early church fathers use ideas of penal substitutionary atonement such as punishment or payment of debt just like the satisfaction theory. But again ideas are not the theory itself. This theory has a robust defense which they pull from scripture. It requires massive amounts of study to convince someone otherwise. But anything less than the Father pouring out wrath on his Son is not penal substitutionary atonement.)

Moral influence theory- a ransom to anyone but the Devil theory. It teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ were to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection. This theory is often combined with other theories. (The early church does express ideas of the moral influence theory but that's not all it expresses. Therefore the theory is not complete in of itself explaining scripture or the early church.)

Ransom theory- a ransom to the Deity, Devil or Death theory. It teaches that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip. In some views paid to God the Father, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of inherited sin. Other views even include the ransom being paid to death.
(The early church did show some ideas for this theory. This theory is one of the oldest theories of Christianity. In the Bible, we are told Jesus is a ransom but not to whom. Anything less then Bible saying that the Ransom was paid to the devil is not this theory.)

Christus Victor theory/restored icon model- a ransom doesn't mean payment but rescue theory. It is a modified understanding of the ransom theory, it teaches that Christ's death defeated the power of the evil, which had held humankind in their power which are sin, death, and the devil. The Christus Victor Theory teaches that the idea of ransom should not be the same as Satisfaction or Penal substitutionary atonement view it which is a legal transaction by the payment of penalty to satisfy the demands of Gods justice but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity in which is rooted in the incarnation and Jesus entering human misery and wickedness and redeemed it. (This early church shows some ideas for this theory. People do question some of the early church's use of punishment and debt. This theory is one of the oldest theories of Christianity.)

The Governmental Theory- a ransom to Deity theory. It teaches God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually, God does not exact strict justice. This [governmental atonement] view teaches that Christ by His death actually paid the penalty for no man's sin. And What His death did was to demonstrate what their sins deserved at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of the universe, and permits God justly to forgive men.
(The early church may seem to teach ideas of this theory. However as for the theory itself I do not see it in the early church after examining the ideas which are in the early church.)

Recapitulation theory-a ransom doesn't mean payment but rescue theory. It teaches that the atonement of Christ reverses the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. They teach that Christ’s life recapitulated all the stages of human life and in doing so reversed the course of disobedience initiated by Adam. (The first person to teach this theory was Irenaeus after him this theory is basically lost even though some of the ideas are seen in the early church later on.)

[lowkeytheology]

Your channel is extremely underrated. Thanks for the great content

[reverendronsrevelationroom]

Thank you for this video and your work.
I'm an adult convert that largely came in through trying to read the Bible for myself without presupposition, as much as is possible. One of the greatest things that struck in reading the Bible was the revelation of the Kingdom in it's inversion of what I expected, especially concerning love and justice.
PSA causes serious barriers of seeing the expression of love that the Crucifixion reveals, and a lot of theological problems will follow from that.

[kylablakeelliott]

Thank you for taking the time to make this series it’s been very insightful!

[slay]

Wow this is good! Very helpful! Appreciated. Love how this is grounded in Christ, restoration & his character rather than a retributive, transaction. Excellent.

[nicholasstephens]

Might be one of the best treatments against penal substitution I’ve seen.

[jamesmccluskey]

Really good!! I was PSA believer for years but in last 6 months have learned the error of PSA. Your video is best I’ve seen thus far explaining the error. Thank you!

[ritamalik]

Absolutely the best video that I have heard on this subject! God bless you!

[bogger]

This was a very good presentation. The best criterion of this is that it this presentation naturally leads to praise and worship of Jesus and the God he reveals! Great job brother!

[elchinito]

This is great. Fortunately, I was not raised in a fundamentalist setting. PSA is not only incoherent but morally wicked.

[benc]

Thoughtful analysis thanks. PSA is surely the most pernicious of the false doctrines, together with eternal torment.

[rickharrell]

This series is a wonderful explanation for the Love of God. I found you looking for an explanation of an alternative to PSA. Your work that is well referenced brings liberation to many. Liberation is the Love of God. Amen,

[joels]

The problem with the criticism of the PSA is that when we sin it is against God. In Eden the lamb was slain to cover the sins of Adam and Eve. The lamb slain by God was also used to make clothes for Adam and Eve, covering their nakedness, and their shame. Christ said that HE laid down his own life willingly and had the power to take it up again. God is one being. The father and the son are not separate in substance and the judge who condemned our sin loved us so much that he bore the just condemnation.