Do you believe in penal substitution? // Ask NT Wright Anything

What does it mean to say that ‘Jesus died in our place’ on the cross? Tom Wright responds on how we should and shouldn’t view penal substitution.

***

Ask NT Wright Anything is the regular podcast that connects you to NT (Tom) Wright’s thought and theology by allowing you to ask the questions.

Presented by Justin Brierley. Brought to you in partnership with Premier, SPCK & NTWrightOnline

[TryStone]

Is it just me, or is it hard to understand exactly what N.T. Wright believes. I find myself agreeing with most everything he says, then at the same time wondering if I agree. I guess after hearing him explain himself I'm left feeling more confused than before. Is anyone else experiencing this?

[MacClellandMan]

"He made him who knew no sin (to be) sin on our behalf,
so that we might become the righteousness of God in him." And, "For
the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of
sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the
flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an
offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the
Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but
according to the Spirit.” Because, “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in
that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us… In this is love, not that
we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for
our sins.”

[WilliamFAlmeida]

Thanks for consistently pressing him to answer the question more clearly Justin.

[randyw.]

I don't care what theory in regard to atonement you follow but Jesus entered the true tabernacle in heaven by His blood and purchased us for God by His blood.
The Father would not have asked/desired Jesus to undergo the agony of the cross if it wasn't necessary to fulfill all righteousness.
What is clear =>"It is not for man to choose how to forgive sin"


But he was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
and by his bruises we are healed.

[graemegibson]

9:10 is where you'll find a succinct statement from Wright if that's what you're here for. The rest of the video, however, is not meaningless rambling; he has some work to do before he gets to that ending statement. This mostly involves addressing the misconceptions around penal substitution, as well as defining important terms such as sin. Once he's done that, then he gives a summary statement.

As others have said, Justin does do a good job keeping him on track, as it's an extremely complex subject that opens up many other questions. However, I think there is a ton of good teaching here to chew on, and it's worth watching the whole video to not only understand what Tom is saying, but why he is saying it in this way.

[randyallen]

I was hoping for real clarity here, missed it completely...

[michaelcaza-schonberger]

Romans 5:6-10 and and Isaiah 52:13-53:12 are two of my most favourite passages of Scripture. Isaiah Gospel led this Orthodox Jew to faith, and Rom. 5:6-10 in conjunction with Isaiah 52:13-53:12 reminds me of how much God loves us. Yeshua has to die, this is clear, however He willingly laid His life down for us His sheep. As He states in John 10, “I Am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for His sheep.”

[jsharp]

I have one very important question: May I have one of those fantastic-looking pastries?

[samtroy]

I think that NT Wright is absolutely correct (if there are misunderstandings in the comments, it's predictable - ten minutes is hardly going to give a complete explanation). He starts by saying that the idea that Jesus died to 'use up' the wrath of God can be damaging; it's better to think of the crucified God, dying because of His exceeding love. Then, he says that sin is not so much breaking rules, but 'missing the mark' — a 'hamartia' — and is corruption of the purpose of our humanity. He says that there are evil powers like Satan, into whose grip we slide when we sin. The way that God broke this grip was by bringing the sin of the world onto Jesus, and crucifying sin on the cross.

The basic property of the crucifixion is mystery, and we will never understand it until we are face to face with God. However, NT Wright's explanation goes a decent way: it says that we shouldn't think of Jesus' crucifixion as a result of God's burning wrath, but of His blazing love that has allowed us to be made in His image once again.

[toddhawk]

As the old folks used to say, "He took the long way around the barn."

[callaway]

The problem starts at 0:45 when NT Wright states that his "primary task is to expound what the New Testament says about the meaning of the death of Jesus." No, you have to start with what the OT says about the death of Jesus, then you see the NT doesn't contradict. What do the pictures of the Passover lamb and the Day of Atonement say about substitution and atonement? What does Isaiah 53 say about the death of Jesus, culminating in verse 10 with, "yet it was the will of Yahweh to crush him"?

NT Wright also mentions John 3:16, but we need to continue reading all the way to verse 36, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." Yes, the wrath of God remains on the unsaved. This means that God is wrathful and that the now saved even had God's wrath upon them until they were saved. If we want to cite Paul, we can look at Romans 1:18, 2:1-10, Ephesians 5:6, and so on. These aren't "proof texts" but rather fulsome citations that in context point to wrath being an attribute of God.

I think the position held by NT Wright is a reaction to the "get out of hell free" gospel that says you can be saved from an angry God and then live however you want. I agree with him that that is not the gospel. Salvation is not merely an affirmation of Christ's payment for sin so that I can go do whatever I want. No, in fact continuing in a pattern of sin without a trajectory of sanctification is a sign of being a false convert! This theme abounds in scripture, all the way from Abraham to the sermon on the mount (Matt 7:21-23) to basically the entirety of 1 John. The truly converted will love God, obey Christ, and walk in the Spirit.

Grace and Peace, brothers.

[neilmarcusrichardson]

Every C of E answer has to begin with “There is a sense in which...” ;-)

[sappo]

The more I listen to NT Wright the more confused I become. I've listened (and read) as carefully as I can and it's like being led down into a dark twisting cave of thought, with endless turns and dead ends. I can't say I'm the most intelligent person in any room but I'm not stupid. End of day I just can't follow what he's trying to communicate. I can understand a fair amount of what Jesus Christ had to say though, so I'll stick with that. I just need to work on actually applying it in my life!

[LassePeterson]

I still believe Jesus died for my sins ... 😇

[anolette]

Wright: "Jesus dies as the representative substitute, taking the condemnation on himself."

Everyone in the comments: "So Dangerous."

[jonathanforsythe]

As an American Christian thank you for the light in the muddying western theology.

[howardbabcom]

The Exodus is a vital and profound touchstone. Liberation only comes via the passover, where judgement is only escaped by showing the blood of a slain lamb which has been participated in through a meal - all themes clearly taken up in the atonement.

[josephpugh]

Wright’s answer to this question comes from his intention to read the Bible in the light of 1st century Judaism, the context in which it was written. Those expecting his response to be framed in the same polemical language of the reformers will feel disappointed that Wright’s response doesn’t fit neatly into those categories. I think that’s part of the disconnect here.

[processandbeing]

Man, that was so pleasantly and clearly articulated (as well as one can truly articulate the deep and boundless mysteries of God's being and relationship to himself).

I've never liked the PS theory of atonement because it most frequently pits God against himself, saving us from Him rather than pitting God against the full measure of our bondage to Sin, rescuing us from it's past and future power. The second narrative, which Wright expressed here (much better than my poor summary) is so much more life-giving.

[heckadude]

I don’t know if Tom is sometimes dancing around the question or if he is just taking a long time to set up his answer.