Good Friday stands as a solemn cornerstone within our Christian calendar, marking the pivotal moment of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and subsequent death at Calvary. Observed amidst Holy Week as an integral part of the Paschal Triduum, this significant day is known by various names such as Holy Friday, Great Friday, or Black Friday, resonating deeply within our Christian communities worldwide.

For us, Good Friday represents more than a historical event; it encapsulates the essence of our faith, symbolizing the profound significance of Jesus Christ’s sacrificial act. This day encapsulates what we deem as the most momentous weekend in history, where the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ heralded a transformative turning point for humanity. As the apostle Paul underscores in Corinthians, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ stand “of first importance,” a fulfillment of divine promises foretold in Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3).

Good Friday serves as a poignant occasion for reflection and reverence, inviting us to contemplate the profound depths of Jesus Christ’s selfless sacrifice on the cross. It is a day to remember the ultimate act of love and redemption, as Jesus willingly endured crucifixion to atone for the sins of humanity (1 John 1:10). Moreover, it sets the stage for the jubilant celebration of Easter, commemorating Jesus Christ’s triumphant resurrection from the dead—a resplendent testament to his victory over sin and death.

As we Christians worldwide observe Good Friday, we not only recall the events of that fateful day but also embrace the profound hope and assurance it symbolizes. It serves as a poignant reminder of the boundless love and grace extended to humanity through Jesus Christ, beckoning us to embrace the transformative power of his resurrection and the promise of eternal life.

“So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.” – Apostle Paul to the Corinthian Church, 1 Corinthians 1:23 (NLT)

I understand that for non-Christians, the death of Jesus may not immediately resonate or make sense, and that’s perfectly acceptable. It’s an aspect of our faith that is deeply rooted in our Christian worldview but may not align with the beliefs of others. However, within the broader narrative of humanity, the death of Jesus holds profound significance. It is intricately woven into the fabric of our human story, addressing the fundamental questions of life, the human condition, and the pursuit of restoration. Regardless of one’s religious affiliation, the themes of sacrifice, redemption, and the hope for renewal resonate universally. Thus, while the significance of Jesus’ death may not be immediately apparent to all, it remains an integral part of the broader conversation about the human experience and the quest for meaning and purpose in our lives.

For this Good Friday, I aim to delve into a theological perspective that sheds light on the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. Reflecting on my past theological studies, I revisit a profound work from 2014, where I summarized “Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution” by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, & Andrew Sach. This seminal text expounds upon the theological understanding of why Jesus died on the cross, particularly through the lens of the penal substitution theory. Rooted in the Reformed tradition, penal substitution posits that Jesus bore the full penalty, enduring the wrath of God the Father for the sins of humanity. Central to this viewpoint is the belief that divine forgiveness necessitates the satisfaction of divine justice—God’s righteousness demands that sin be atoned for. Thus, the concept of penal substitution underscores the profound depth of God’s love and the magnitude of Jesus’ sacrifice as the ultimate expression of redemption and reconciliation.

In presenting the perspective of penal substitution regarding Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, I approach with a sense of humility and openness. While I find value in exploring this theological viewpoint, I do so with a recognition that it may not encapsulate the entirety of what transpired on that momentous day. Uncertainty looms over whether penal substitution offers the definitive or complete understanding of the crucifixion. I acknowledge both its strengths and the valid criticisms it faces. Yet, I am at peace with embracing the mystery inherent in grappling with the profound nature of God’s redemptive act. The complexities of divine love and justice extend beyond the confines of human comprehension. While our understanding may be limited, I believe we can glean insights and truths that resonate deeply with our faith. Therefore, I approach the exploration of penal substitution with a reverence for the divine mystery at its core, understanding that our human perspectives can only grasp a fraction of the profound depths of God’s grace and mercy revealed on that sacred day.

“Grace is free, but is not cheap.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Summary

“Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution” by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, & Andrew Sach.

Forward, Acknowledgements and the Authors

In the forward, John Piper introduces the importance of topic as opposition belittles and denies the precious life-saving truth.  He makes the point that our perspective should be one where we understand that we are people under wrath until we are adopted.  God’s justice requires payment for sin and, in His wisdom, provides a way to satisfy both the justice and the wrath that leads to our salvation.  That is the good news and the importance of penal substitution for us.  To minimize God’s wrath denies His love and may lead us to take justice into our own hands.

Part One: Making the Case

In part one, the authors make the case for penal substitution.  They demonstrate that it is biblically sound, theologically sound, practical, and historical.

Introduction

The authors start by defining penal substitution as, “God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer, instead of us, the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.”[1]  They see this doctrine as a beautiful example of sacrificial love and fear that dissenting voices will rob Jesus Christ of His due glory.

There has been a growth of people questioning the doctrine of penal substitution starting with the liberal theology in the mid-nineteenth century.  Many of those theologians saw it as a primitive teaching and found it distasteful.  In the mid-twentieth century, the works of C. H. Dodd took this position and his view influenced the translations of the New English Bible and the Revised Standard Version.  Since then, a number of scholars have followed suit.[i]  In particular, Chalke and Mann described penal substitution as ‘cosmic child abuse,’ which has provoked a stir.

Proponents have not been silent; they have been building a case and defending penal substitution.  However, the books are either highly academic or are written at a popular level and the authors felt the need for a detailed defense of penal substitution somewhere between the two.

Searching the Scriptures: the Biblical Foundations of Penal Substitution

In this chapter, the authors demonstrate that the doctrine of penal substitution is clearly taught in scripture and that it is not an inference or obscure.  For example, in the Old Testament, the Passover Lamb is a penal substitution for the Israelites.  In the New Testament, Jesus is clearly connected with the Passover sacrifice as having fulfilled the role of the Passover Lamb as a sacrifice on our behalf. 

The Hebrew word for atonement has various subtle meanings.  The Hebrew word, kipper, can mean to forgive, to cleanse, to ransom, or to avert wrath.  However, normally, it is translated as the propitiation of God’s wrath, especially in Leviticus.

In the Psalms and prophets, we see support for the doctrine of penal substitution.  The passages that seem to speak negatively of the sacrificial system are really talking about abuses of the sacrificial system committed by Israel.  In Isaiah 53, the servant, clearly, suffers for others and the others benefit from it.  Like the Passover Lamb, the servant in Isaiah 53 is without blemish, sinless and righteous. 

In the New Testament, the doctrine of penal substation is clear in Mark, John, Romans, Galatians, and 1 Peter.  In summary, there is a united undeniable message of penal substitution across the Old and New Testament.

Assembling the Pieces: the Theological Framework for Penal Substitution

The authors point out that we do not need to understand theology exhaustively in order to be able to understand something about penal substitution.  However, they argue penal substitution is foundational in Christian theology.   Starting with the doctrine of creation, we see the doctrine of penal substitution fits in with Christian theology as God created, man fell, and God restores (recreates).  As part of the fall, we find ourselves in the impossible situation that we cannot save ourselves as sin leads to physical and spiritual death.  God’s justice and honesty requires He punish sin.  In addition, God’s punishment of sin is a means of Him upholding His goodness.[2]

God has to find a way to restore His creation while upholding His goodness by punishing sin.  Penal substitution upholds His goodness and justice.  It preserves our understanding as a perfect being, His justice, and His truthfulness.  As sinners, we have sinned and need reconciliation that we cannot do for ourselves.  As a gift, God provides away for reconciliation through the substitution of His son.

“Penal substitution emerges as a central aspect of God’s redeeming work in Christ, integrating fully with God’s justice and truthfulness, and safeguarding mercy, holiness and love.  In so doing, it establishes that justice has a fundamental basis within the character of God.”[3]

Exploring the Implications: the Pastoral Importance of Penal Substitution

It is important to not only understand penal substitution, we must strive to put this knowledge into action.  The doctrine of penal substitution reminds us of a number of truths, such as encouraging us by giving us assurance of God’s love.  He loved us enough to provide a means of reconciliation.  His love is so great that, while we could not save ourselves, He provided His Son to die in our place. 

We, also, have confidence in God’s truthfulness.  We know that when He makes a promise, He fulfills it.  It is important for us to know that He does not lie; it is foundational for trust.  He is sure to fulfill His promise to punish sin.  However, He is also sure to fulfill His promise to make a way for us to be reconciled as well.  

God is passionate about justice and, as Christians, we should be passionate about justice.  Penal substitution reminds us that God’s justice will not wait forever.

God’s punishment for sin reminds us how seriously God takes sin.  It, vividly, underscores the seriousness of sin.  Only an unjust judge would not punish sin.   However, God so loved us that He provided a substitution for us.  Knowledge of God’s loving provision and justice can comfort us and encourage us.

Surveying the Heritage: the Historical Pedigree of Penal Substitution

Of course, the most important evidence for the doctrine of penal substitution is the biblical support.  However, the historical tradition is also important because it serves to silence the critics that claim penal substitution is a novel doctrine invented around the time of the reformation.  In addition, tradition may give us more confidence that we have interpreted the Bible correctly if we find the doctrine throughout Church history.[ii]

As you can see from the endnote list, the doctrine of penal substitution has enjoyed a long history within the church.  You may also note that some of the names are some of the mainstream theologians.  This should dispel the myth that the doctrine was a later novel development born out of the reformation.  The authors are cautious to note that the pedigree is not support for the doctrine.  We should hold the doctrine of penal substitution because it is supported biblically. 

Part Two: Answering the Critics

In part two, the authors answer the objections and criticisms raised by others against penal substitution.

Introduction to the Debate

The authors lament that it seems as if Christian scholars are talking past each other rather than engaging in productive dialogue on this issue.  As such, they tend to respond to the criticism levied against the doctrine of penal substitution.  Their approach is to demonstrate the objection does not undermined the doctrine or that, in some cases, it is a misunderstanding of the doctrine.

They point out that the controversy exists and, as such, needs to be addressed, especially since criticisms of the doctrine are becoming more widespread and influential.  The hope is to create dialogue and address the criticisms and give undecided people the opportunity to see both sides.  

Penal Substitution and the Bible

There are five criticisms against the biblical support of the doctrine of penal substitution.  The first objection is that penal substitution is not the only model of atonement and that we should not overemphasize penal substitution.  The objection is that we cannot know all the possible and meaningful aspects of atonement.  In response, the doctrine of penal substitution does not claim to be the only aspect of atonement.  There are other aspects of atonement and, even if we cannot know them exhaustively, it does not mean that we cannot understand that penal substitution is part of atonement.

The second objection is that penal substitution is a peripheral idea and should not be more important than other perspectives on atonement.  In response, it is understood that all doctrines are not equal but that some are more central than others, especially doctrines that are closely linked to other doctrines.  If penal substitution is important and central in the doctrine of atonement, it does not mean other perspectives are not true or are insignificant.

The third objection is that penal substitution downplays or diminishes other aspects of Jesus’ life and His resurrection.  Some even think that the resurrection is incompatible with penal substitution.  Others find it difficult to reconcile it with other aspects of Jesus’ life.  In response, these objections are based on misunderstanding of penal substitution.  Christ’s life on Earth is part of the atonement plan. His sinless life integrates with the doctrine of penal substitution.  As for the Resurrection, clearly penal substitution is part of atonement that makes way for the new creation and Jesus’ victory over death.

The fourth objection is that penal substitution is not taught in scripture.  They claim the language of wrath is not related to God’s anger at sin and that the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is not depicting atoning substitution.  In response, you can carefully exegete the passages in question for yourself and come to your own conclusion.  The authors note that alternative explanations offered by critics, such as the idea Jesus absorbed sins, finds no support whatsoever in the Bible.

The fifth objection is that penal substitution does not rise to the level of essential enough to divide the body (church) over.  The authors are sympathetic to the objection because division is always painful and dishonoring to God.  However, they affirm the Bible does teach that certain issues do require division, especially this issue because it is related to the gospel which is the central message of Christianity.  

Another claim by critics is that the doctrine of penal substitution portrays God as unjust and is disastrous for pastoral reasons as it has been used to justify violence against women.  The authors take the criticisms seriously and will address them in later chapters. 

Penal Substitution and Culture

In this chapter, the authors handle objections related to cultural influences on doctrine.  In the first objection, critics claim that various cultural norms are being imposed upon the Bible to come up with a distorted view of atonement.  This, then, leads to unbiblical doctrines.  As evidence, some of the critics cite various points in Church History where pagan concepts were imposed on Biblical teachings.  In response, the authors have maintained that the validity of the doctrine rests solely on the bible and not traditions.

The second culturally based objection is that the doctrine of penal substitution is unable to address our needs.  Critics argue penal substitution is incoherent in some cultural contexts.  The authors argue that just because a concept does not translate well between cultures does not mean that it is completely unintelligible nor does it give us a license to change biblical teaching.

The third culturally based objection argues that the biblical concepts are not properly understood by our culture.  The authors respond that just because the language does not have a one-to-one correspondence for words and concepts in our culture does not mean we cannot understand those concepts.

Penal Substitution and Violence

Critics object to the doctrine of penal substitution on the grounds of violence.  Again, one of the criticisms cites a cultural imposition on the Bible.  The authors respond that this is theologically and biblically unsound.  The idea of sacrifice is found in the Bible and matches penal substitution and not the pagan counterparts. 

The second objection asserts the doctrine of penal substation amounts to cosmic child abuse.   The idea that God would punish His own Son in such a violent manner is beyond the comprehension of the critics.  The authors suggest this objection is emotionally loaded and that we have to set aside the rhetoric to get to the deeper meaning.  Again, a clear understanding of penal substitution will clarify the issues.  First, it is important to note that Jesus willingly went to the punishment.  It was in accordance with His will.  Second, His loving sacrifice brings glory to Him.  In addition, this was in accordance with God’s foreknowledge.  The Bible is clear, Jesus’ sacrifice was foreknown, planned and under God’s control.

Third, critics complain that the concept of retributive punishment, necessary for penal substitution, is incompatible with the teaching of love and peace.  Critics maintain that God abandoning justice with simple forgiveness without punishment is in line with Jesus’ message of peace and love.  The authors respond that we humans are required to avoid certain actions, such as revenge, because God, alone, has the right for revenge. 

The forth objection is that the violence inherent in penal substitution fails because violence cannot be overcome by violence.  The authors argue this position cannot be squared with an evangelical view of scripture.  Many of the teachings of the Old Testament would be relegated to legend.  In addition, human violence is motivated by selfishness, something God does not suffer from. In fact, God’s actions are out of selflessness.   The authors caution that it is true that violence cannot be overcome by human violence.

Penal Substitution and Justice

The main theme of the following objections in this chapter is that retributive punishment is unbiblical and holding it leads to universalism.

The first objection is that it is unjust to punish an innocent person, even if willing.  Critics argue that the bond between guilt and punishment is indissoluble.   In response, in 1 Peter God is said to judge justly and in the very next verse it says Jesus bore our sins.  Second the authors explain that we cannot forget that we are in union with Christ and that transfer of guilt may not be the best way to describe what is happening. Representation may be a better word to use.  If we deny this, we also deny the imputation of righteousness as well.

The second objection is that atonement is about restoring a relationship, not retribution.  The idea of retribution comes from human legal systems.  The authors point out that retribution is not revenge and that retribution is supported in the Bible.

The third objection is that it cannot be forgiveness if God demands payment and Jesus makes the payment.  In response, it is God Himself in the person of the Son, who pays the price and, therefore, it is forgiveness. 

The fourth objection is that Jesus’ punishment was not equivalent to the debt owed by us.  In response, the sin against an infinitely perfect God requires infinite payment.  Jesus’ blood is of infinite worth and able to sufficiently cover the debt.

The final objection is penal substitution implies universal salvation.  This cannot be true because universal salvation is unbiblical. Further, the authors demonstrate that particular atonement can resolve these issues. [iii] 

Penal Substitution and our Understanding of God

In this chapter, the objections center on the nature of God.  The first objection is that in order for penal substitution to be true, there must be a division between the persons of the Trinity.  At the very least, the Father and the Son are at odds.  In response, it is perfectly biblical for one person of the Trinity to act upon another.  This does not require a division of the trinity.  The Father and the Son are inseparably engaged in the two aspects of the same action.[4]

The second objection is that God cannot be angry and loving at the same time.  In response, the authors affirm God’s love for sinners.  In fact, it is His love that motivated Him to make restoration possible.  However, atonement makes no sense without God being angry at sin.  In addition, we cannot fully comprehend the nature of God including the interaction between anger and Love.  We need to keep in mind His love is not like our love.

The third objection sees God as not being actively wrathful toward sin, rather God allows us to live out the consequences of our sins.  In response, this notion is completely unbiblical.  The Bible clearly teaches that God actively judges sin throughout history.

The fourth objection says penal substitution is unbiblical because it makes God bound to a higher law.  In response, it is true God is not bound by anything, the point is the law is not higher than God; the law and justice is intrinsic to Him.

The fifth objection is penal substitution is impersonal.  In response, atonement does not see sins and sinners as objects to be dealt with, on the contrary, God demonstrates His love throughout the Bible.

Penal Substitution and the Christian life

In this chapter the objections are based upon a negative impact on the Christian life.  The first objection is that penal substitution does not deal with political and social sins or cosmic evil.  In response, first penal substation does address these issues as human sin is the root of political and social sin.  The issue of cosmic evil is addressed after Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice.

The second objection is that penal substitution does not address the Creator-creature relationship.  In response, penal substitution is not the only facet of atonement.

The third objection is penal substation causes people to fear God.  In response, the fear of God is viewed positively in the Bible.

The fourth objection is that penal substitution legitimizes violence and a passive attitude toward unjust suffering.  In response, the Bible clearly teaches that Christians should pursue justice and work to correct injustices.  In addition, this objection is a twisting of the gospel to the point of blasphemy.[5]

A Final Word

In the final chapter, the authors respond to vague and emotional objections.  Some are forms of intellectual intimidation as an appeal to authority.  Others use emotionally loaded terms to convince people. In both cases, tactics are rhetorical tactics and not arguments.

Appendix: A personal note to preachers

In the appendix, the authors offer suggestions on teaching in churches for pastors and teachers.

Endnotes

---

[1] Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books 2007) pg 21

[2] Ibid 125

[3] Ibid 147

[4] Ibid 285

[5] Ibid 323

---

[i] List of dissenting voices: John McLeod Campbell, The nature of the Atonement; Horace Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice, R. C. Moberly, Atonement and Personality; Gustov Aulen, Chritus Victor; C. H. Dodd; Stephan Travis, Christ and the Judgment of God; Eleonore Stump, ‘Atonement According to Aquinas’ essay; Colin Gunton The Actual Atonement; Paul Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation; Vernon White, Atonement and Incarnation; Stephen Sykes, ‘Outline of Theology of Scripture’ and The Story of Atonement; Timothy Gorringe, God’s Just Vengeance; Tom Smail, Once and for All; Joel Green and Mark Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross; J D Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement; Martin Davie; John Carroll, Joel Green, Robert Van Voorst, Joel Marcus and Donald Senior, The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity; Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus; Stuart Murray Williams; Brian McLaren.  

[ii] The authors list the following Christians that support the doctrine of penal substitution along with references to their respective works: Justin Martyr (100-165), Eusebius of Caesarea (273-339), Hilary of Poitiers (300-368), Athanasius (300-373), Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390), Ambrose of Milan (339-397), John Chrysostom (350-407), Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Cyril of Alexandria (375-444), Gelasius of Cyzicus (5th century), Gregory the Great (540-604), Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), John Calvin (1509-64), Francis Turretin (1623-87), John Bunyan (1628-88), John Owen (1616-83), George Whitefield (1714-70), Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-92), D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981), John R. W. Stott (1921), and J. I. Packer (1926).

[iii] The authors give a detailed Calvinistic response to this objection.

Reflection

• How does your understanding of penal substitution shape your perception of God’s justice and love?
• In what ways does contemplating Jesus’ sacrifice on Good Friday deepen your appreciation for the concept of divine mercy?
• Reflecting on the controversies surrounding penal substitution, how do you reconcile differing theological perspectives within your own faith journey?