The question has been asked – why make such a big deal of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)? Surely there are other aspects of Jesus work on the cross that are worthy of the same passion that the proponents of PSA seem to express?
I think this is a good question which could equally be made about great swathes of doctrine which isn’t regularly taught or emphasized. The appeal I guess is to the systematic exegesis of the whole cannon. Specifically regarding PSA, I think the questioner would have to concede that PSA is the aspect of the gospel currently under debate/attack and it is not, therefore, surprising that passionate people want to defend it. Paul certainly saw PSA as central to the Gospel making the link between the flawed sacrifices under the old covenant and Jesus perfect, once for all sacrifice, which supersedes them and renders further need for sacrifice ridiculous.
Hebrews 10 is a pretty compelling argument for PSA and a focused description of the gospel in v18. If Paul is happy to make much of this link I suggest we’re on safe ground doing the same. To take it further you would have to ask of the passage (Hebrews 10) to whom were the sacrifices made under the old covenant? The link Paul makes is so strong it would be difficult to answer that they were made to God, and then suggest that Jesus sacrifice wasn’t. Finally if the only reason to recoil from PSA is that “it seems like cosmic child abuse” then are we going to analyze all of scripture against this benchmark? We’re going to have to dispense with much of the OT narrative which seems incredibly harsh in the light of this statement.
UZZAH got a raw deal.
THE PHILISTINES were terribly misunderstood.
GOLIATH wasn’t an evil giant, he was a vertically challenged envoy of a different faith.
We’re in big trouble unless we realize that sin is (and I’m choosing my words carefully) bloody serious.
Andy, you seem to be assuming that Paul wrote Hebrews. Most modern scholars, including evangelicals, don’t think he did. “Paul certainly saw…” cannot be accurate when referring to something in Hebrews.
Hebrews 10 does not imply PSA. Why not? Because there was nothing penal about animal sacrifices. No one has ever taught that animals were punished for human sin. And if sacrifices were made to God, and by analogy so was Jesus’ sacrifice, then who sacrificed Jesus? God the Father could hardly make a sacrifice to himself. The usual evangelical teaching, supported in verses 10 and 12, is that Jesus was both the priest and the sacrifice, that he offered himself, although not of course in a way which implies suicide – not that God the Father sacrificed Jesus, as suggested in some crude presentations of PSA. Yes, because the sacrifice died, there is no need for we for whom it was offered to die, but there is no suggestion that the sacrifice is punished. So, here we have substitution, but not penal substitution. Rather, this is a different one of Adrian’s biblical pictures of the cross, not the law court which is where PSA comes in, but the temple.
The reason to be cautious about PSA is not primarily that it seems unjust and immoral, although I do see that in some presentations, but because it is only one of a number of biblical pictures of the atonement, and one which is not given a central place in any biblical presentation.
Good post Andy, though I’d say Paul didn’t write Hebrews (mostly cos we get justification by faith in the language of ‘made perfect’ rather than using righteousness/justifcation language). PSA is all over Hebrews. And you’re right, with very careful words – sin is bloody serious. Only just discovered your blog – lots of good stuff! Adrian Warnock tells me you’re down in the South West – we’re moving down that way next month.
I’ll concede my school-boy error. I know Paul didn’t write Hebrews. Silly mistake. Thanks for the encouragement Dave.
[...] 1 and 2 Corinthians, Atonement, Colossians, Romans UPDATE – Andrew Cottingham has posted on how critical this all is to [...]