Kerygma and Catechesis: Rethinking Salvation: Penal Substitution Debate

Art in the Christian Tradition: Vanderbilt Be Thou My Vision . Moyers, Mike

In 2013 there was a frenzy of controversy after the Presbyterian Church Hymn Committee (PCUSA) rejected the hymn “In Christ Alone”. Several blogs and Christian websites claimed that it was a “liberal” theological view that contributed to the hymn's rejection. One in particular by author Timothy George also argued that “liberalism” was the motivation behind the rejection of the hymn, he wrote the following...

""Recently, the wrath of God became a point of controversy in the decision of the Presbyterian Committee on Congregational Song to exclude from its new hymnal the much-loved song “In Christ Alone” by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend. The Committee wanted to include this song because it is being sung in many churches, Presbyterian and otherwise, but they could not abide this line from the third stanza: “Till on that cross as Jesus died/the wrath of God was satisfied.” For this they wanted to substitute: “…as Jesus died/the love of God was magnified.” The authors of the hymn insisted on the original wording, and the Committee voted nine to six that “In Christ Alone” would not be among the eight hundred or so items in their new hymnal."

"There is no surprise in this news. Although not all PCUSA churches are theologically liberal, the denomination by and large is. Liberalism and wrath go together like oil and water; they don’t mix. And historically speaking, one of them eventually has to go…""

(No Squishy Love; Timothy George).

Now, I use this quote in particular because it illustrates how easy it is to get it so wrong by even the most respected scholars. Consider this; what if it is really the Presbyterian church that has the most faithful interpretation of scripture, the traditionally longest held belief in the church, and significant exegetical evidence on its side. The cross was not the satisfaction of God's wrath, but the prime demonstration of God's love.

First, lets be clear that this is not an issue about the wrath of God in general, as there are plenty of scripture about God being angry at injustices in the world. The PC(USA) committee did not reject the hymn because they didn't believe God gets angry. Yet, Timothy George can't resist going this route in his article, but that is essentially a straw-person argument. The issue rather is rejecting the idea that God was angry at Jesus and/or humanity and took out our punishment on him in the crucifixion (the view known as penal substitution). This is the idea rejected by the committee (see note at the end of this article).

Second, let us consider the topic from Jesus' own point of view. Before the crucifixion, the Gospels record a very long explanation from Jesus own words and he repeatedly sites the love of God as the reason that he goes to the cross (see John 10:14-18 and John 15:13-14), it is always out of love and it was always voluntary. Jesus willingly lays down his life to show God's self-giving love to humanity. The same idea is reflected in Pauline theology in the book of Philippians where Jesus empties himself like a servant. All of Jesus' actions reflect God's actions, and are always done out of love.

Other passages like Hebrews 9:14-15 and 1 John 2:2 where the word 'hilasmos' is used often translated 'atoning sacrifice' are understood in the light of ancient sacrifices, but not to an angry God. In ancient times sacrifices were considered to be good and honorable offerings to God, in which the sacrificial meal was sometimes shared by priests or an entire village in thanksgiving and fellowship. Animals were never tortured, and Hebrew law demanded a quick death with little suffering involved. There was no blood soaked torture where every lash Jesus, or a sacrificial lamb received were paying for sins. The idea of 'sacrifice' was always a parable and a picture of the God-human relationship. A picture of the cost involved for God to reconcile humanity. A picture of salvation, victory, and the new possibility of being united with God, others and our world in thanksgiving and fellowship. This act of love cost Jesus his life. In that sense it was a sacrifice but not to appease an angry God.

Third, while there are different theories of the atonement, and there will always be an aspect of mystery surrounding the cross, the earliest interpretations never saw Jesus as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of an angry God. From the earliest commentators, Jesus was understood to have given himself up as a sacrifice in our place (indeed the word substitution can even be an appropriate word in the correct sense) in order to rise victorious over sin and death. In the resurrection (key to understanding this view) Jesus unites humanity with God, making salvation possible, and conquers death. It was not a punishment meant to satisfy a legal or penal requirement of God. The idea of penal substitution cannot be found in the first one thousand years of Christian teaching (see link below).

See 14 objections to Penal Substitution

For example, St. Athanasius summarizes the traditional view well in this quote, "Thus taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This he did for sheer love for us..."(On the Incarnation). John Calvin wrote, "The situation would surely have been hopeless had the very majesty of God not descended to us, since it was not in our powers to ascend to him. Hence, it was necessary for the Son of God to become for us, "Immanuel, that is, God with us", and in such a way that his divinity and our human nature might by mutual connection grow together." (Book II Chapt XII, 1.)

Often overlooked is the fact that John Calvin had much more to say about Union with Christ (some scholars argue that Union with Christ is at the very center of Calvin's theology) than with God's wrath at Jesus on the cross, although this view (penal substitution) is associated with his writings.

Fourth, and last, the view of penal substitution calls into question the very need for the resurrection of Jesus. If God simply needed a sacrifice and Jesus indeed provided that, appeasing God's anger, once humanity's sins are punished there is really no need for a resurrection. Sinners proceed to heaven directly. In the probelmatic Protestant theology Jesus is punished and the problem is that of guilt, in the more traditional Orthodox/Catholic theology, the problem is life and our alienation from God. Instead of imaging a court room where an angry God declares you 'not guilty' because Jesus was executed on behalf of the world, imagine a hospital, where a sick patient is in need of a cure. We are raised to life because of Jesus' resurrection and defeat of death.

While the wrathful-god is more popular with American Evangelicals, and in some Reformed circles, it has been rejected by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox branches of Christianity because it was a deviation from the traditional view which argues for the atonement as an act of self-sacrificial love instead of the pacification of a wrathful God. The choice therefore is between either 1) an angry God being appeased as the pagan, pre-christian view based on divine revenge, retribution, and a penal legal exchange where we are counted “just” only because God's wrath has been poured on Christ or 2) the view where God is a God of love, grace and mercy and launched a divine “rescue” of humanity in a mission of love and joins with us in our earthly journey.

What a difference one phrase can make, it should have be written, "the love of God was magnified." It is a good tune, and the change in lyrics would have made it good theology as well.

Notes: I noticed in Timothy George's article that the author never bothered to state the actual view of the committee, had he done so, he would have read that the committee did not reject the reality of God's wrath, but did not see the cross as an expression of it. Read more here: PC(USA) hymn response

See graph below: The graph below illustrates visually the differences between what can be labeled the "Evangelical/Reformed" view and the historically Orthodox and Catholic view. However, it is my opinion that the Orthodox/Catholic view (on the right) is the best understanding of the atonement in relation to God and humanity and should be therefore be adopted by the Reformed and all Christians as well. There is also evidence in reformed writings that acknowledges the reality of love and union with Christ as cited above.