CHAPTER 9

PENAL SUBSTITUTION THEORY

But He was wounded for our transgressions,

He was bruised for our iniquities;

The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,

And by His stripes we are healed.

Book of Isaiah 53:5

It is not easy to say exactly who is responsible for the formulation of the Penal Substitution theory; generally speaking, Martin Luther¹³⁸ is mentioned, with later interpretations by Philip Melanchthon¹³⁹ and John Calvin,¹⁴⁰ although, as we shall see, some hints of this can already be found in an earlier tradition. We can say that Luther, Melanchthon and Calvin were simply following in the footsteps of the existing theories formulated by Anselm of Aosta and Thomas Aquinas, modifying the typically feudal implications of honour and reparation for offence and rejecting the individual meritorious component linked to penitential works.

In order to understand the context in which this theory developed, however, it is necessary to place it in the broader context of the Reformation, which led to the schism of the Church, giving rise to the Protestant movement and the birth of Evangelical Christianity. The central figure to whom the birth of the movement is attributed was Luther with the publication of the famous 95 theses, that gave rise to the Lutheran Reformation. Luther's intention was to put an end to the practice of selling indulgences, the idea of salvation through meritorious works and all the practices of supererogation that had corrupted the Roman Church. He was followed by other leading figures, including John Calvin, who gave birth to a second movement called the Calvinist Reformation. Consequently, the theory of Penal Substitution matured in this revolutionary context triggered by Luther, although it is believed that a real systematic structuring of the theory took place only in the 19^th century by Charles Hodge.¹⁴¹ However, some doctrinal problems required important revisions made only recently by several scholars including Karl Barth.¹⁴²

9.1. Penal Substitution theory

In the theory of Penal Substitution, Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of human sins. This forgiveness is assured to believers because the punishment for sins (penal), instead of falling upon guilty men, fell upon Jesus Christ as vicarious substitute (substitution). In fact, God's justice could not be ignored and transgressions go unpunished, so God, in order to uphold his own justice and at the same time save sinful humanity, executed his judgement on Christ; according to this theory, God reconciled justice and love, law and mercy, in Christ. We read from Luther's words: “A Christian is beloved of God and a sinner. How can these two contradictions be harmonized: I am a sinner and deserve God's wrath and punishment, and yet the Father loves me? Christ alone can harmonize these contradictions.”¹⁴³ Jesus, the sinless man, took upon himself, in place of all men, the punishment that was to befall them, to free them from the curse of the law that condemned them for their transgressions. All this took place in Jesus who, as the Lamb without blemish, took upon himself all sin, becoming sin himself; through this sacrifice God was able to accept sinners justified by Christ, without renouncing his justice. We read from Luther's commentary on the letter to the Galatians:

Being the unspotted Lamb of God, Christ was personally innocent. But because He took the sins of the world His sinlessness was defiled with the sinfulness of the world. Whatever sins I, you, all of us have committed or shall commit, they are Christ's sins as if He had committed them Himself. Our sins have to be Christ's sins or we shall perish forever.¹⁴⁴

Strictly speaking, however, some similar ideas can already be discerned in ancient times, although they were not the predominant theology; in particular a passage by Eusebius of Caesarea¹⁴⁵ in the 3^rd century is noteworthy:

Thus, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf: “Whom, though he knew no sin, God made sin for our sake, giving him as redemption for all, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” […] And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so, He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us.¹⁴⁶

9.2. Main differences between Penal Substitution and Satisfaction theories

It is important to underline the differences between the Penal Substitution and the Satisfaction theory, to understand how they have evolved over the course of history because they are two contiguous theories belonging to the same legal/sacrificial context. In fact, we read in Anselm's Cur Deus Homo: “Therefore the honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow; otherwise, either God will not be just to himself, or he will be weak in respect to both parties; and this it is impious even to think of.”¹⁴⁷ So, quite simply, in the Satisfaction theory Jesus repays God's honour as the representative of men, whereas in the Penal Substitution theory he suffers punishment from God in place of men. Seen from another perspective, in the theory of Satisfaction, Jesus' sacrifice is “self-inflicted” for the atonement of sins and can be counted in the tradition of the Penitents,¹⁴⁸ whereas in the case of Penal Substitution, the punishment is inflicted by God the Father on Jesus. In the first case God's honour is satisfied, in the second case his justice.¹⁴⁹

It was finally at the hands of Calvin that the theory took on the definitive form of Penal Substitution as he elaborated it using purely legal terms borrowed from his studies of law. In fact, we read from his most famous work:

For sinners, till they be delivered from guilt, are always subject to the wrath and malediction of God, who, being a righteous Judge, never suffers his law to be violated with impunity, but stands prepared to avenge it.¹⁵⁰

That by his blood he [Christ] has expiated those crimes which render them [sinners] odious to God; that by this expiation God the Father has been satisfied and duly atoned; that by this intercessor his wrath has been appeased.¹⁵¹

9.3. Criticism of the theory of Penal Substitution

Throughout history, the Penal Substitution theory has been the subject of a barrage of criticism.¹⁵² It is not possible to make an exhaustive list of these censures, so we will limit to the main points, starting with considerations in terms of law, because we know how much God loves justice:¹⁵³

1. In no legal system it is acceptable for an innocent person to be punished instead of a guilty person; where it is possible to transfer the burden of an administrative penalty, in the case of a criminal offence this transfer is inadmissible. For example, I can pay a fine on behalf of a friend, but I cannot take his place if the offence involves imprisonment. This would be unfair both to the victim and to society, where the perpetrator would walk free to continue his crime and an innocent person would be punished instead.¹⁵⁴
2. If there is any form of payment (even if it is made by a third person) one can no longer speak of grace (dispensation of punishment); and if there is no grace, there is no forgiveness either. Forgiveness means precisely refraining from carrying out justice by renouncing one's own right, it does not mean carrying out the judgement on another person. If God wanted to forgive people, why did he not simply do so, without the need to torture his Son to death?¹⁵⁵
3. The same crime cannot be punished twice in any legal system; it would be like saying that after having served twenty years in prison for a crime, I come out of prison, and I am arrested and sentenced for the same crime twenty years earlier. If we believe that the crucifixion of Jesus was the price paid for our sins, then every believer who has suffered an equally painful and shameful crucifixion or death has in fact paid twice for his sins. For example, the thief who repented on the cross paid twice, first in himself and then in Christ. Moreover, the second crucified thief, although not repenting, would still be saved, for having paid for his own sins on the cross.
4. In a modern penal system, punishment should not be aimed at punishing the offender, but rather at redeeming him, i.e., reclaiming him for society; executing the punishment on another person would fail completely in this respect. Fair justice is restorative, aiming at recovery and reconciliation and not retributive, aiming at punishment.¹⁵⁶ God's justice is the redemption of the sinner; anyone with a child deserving punishment knows this. It follows that the theory in question is based on an antiquated penal system, founded on the principle of punishment rather than redemption.

From a theological point of view, the major criticisms of the theory are as follows:

1. In the mainly Calvinist theory of Penal Substitution, a God, offended by our sins and eager for revenge, is portrayed as being appeased through the blood sacrifice of his Son Jesus; this is tragically like the human sacrifices offered to the pagan gods to appease their wrath, sacrifices which were an abomination in the eyes of God.
2. In the theory of Penal Substitution, the sacrifice of Jesus is often put in analogy with the Jewish atoning sacrifice. However, the Jewish sacrifice was not conceived in this sense, it was never intended that the animal was being punished for the sins of the offeror. Moreover, Jesus is described as a “lamb without spot”, whereas in atoning sacrifices goats and bulls were mainly used, in fact he was crucified on Passover and not on the Day of Atonement.¹⁵⁷ We will elaborate on these themes in the second section of the book.
3. The theory of Penal Substitution regards the vicarious death of Jesus as sufficient for the salvation of the believer. However, if this were the case, the life, works, preaching, and resurrection of Christ would be completely irrelevant. Jesus could have been killed in infancy by Herod and not resurrected and still achieved the same result. Moreover, if Jesus' forgiveness of sins were the whole theory of salvation, no change of life would be required of men who can continue to live as the pagans do, with occasional recourse to his blood for the forgiveness of sins.¹⁵⁸
4. If the will of God had been the torture and killing of Jesus for our salvation, we could consider the Pharisees, Romans and Judas as doers of God's will and worthy of all praise for their good service.¹⁵⁹
5. Jesus’ punishment was not proportionate. For if the consequences of sin are eternal death and damnation, Jesus took upon himself only a limited part of the punishment.
6. In the Penal Substitution theory, it is God who needs to be changed, i.e., it is God who needs to be reconciled to man and not vice-versa, and this change is made by Jesus with respect to the Father. One could also say that God needs to be reconciled to himself and this is theologically inconceivable.¹⁶⁰
7. The idea of the Father punishing the Son creates a rift within the Trinity, in which we find an offended and judgmental Father and a Son who cares for mercy and intercedes for people, each with different priorities and intentions. Modern theologians have spent a great deal of time trying to heal this fracture. Karl Barth asserts that God in Jesus has taken our place and with the famous phrase “the judge judged in our place” he tried to reinforce the Trinitarian ideal.¹⁶¹

9.4. Conclusion

Like the Satisfaction theory, the Penal Substitution has the merit of emphasising the seriousness of the human condition and the heavy consequences of sin, following in the footsteps of Augustine and Anselm. However, its juridical/legalistic construction appears rather fragile and with the serious shortcomings that have been highlighted. Some theologians have not hesitated to call it incoherent, primitive, immoral, unnecessary and even harmful. Incoherent, because, in seeking to punish sin through the vicarious execution of Christ, it absolves the sinner's sin. Primitive, since we have seen how it is based on an antiquated penal system of feudal origin, in which the principle of retribution applied. Immoral, because it punishes the innocent to let the guilty go free. Unnecessary, because if God had wanted to forgive men, he could simply have done so, since he does not have to account to anyone and is free to forgive whomever he wishes. Harmful, because it feeds the believers' sense of guilt towards Jesus, for the punishment he had to suffer in their place. Moreover, regardless of what Jesus did, God would be angry at the whole of humanity; this generates unworthiness and fear of retribution.¹⁶²

Nevertheless, I do not consider the Penal Substitution theory to be completely unsound, but rather to have been badly formulated and misunderstood; for let us consider the two cornerstones on which it rests: the “substitution” and the “penal” principles. If we understand substitution in the sense that Jesus, who came in flesh similar to ours, was overwhelmed by our sins and suffered a death like ours, so that we might be saved from eternal death, then I would prefer to speak of “identification” with men rather than substitution; he did not take our place, but he has taken place with us. United together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection.¹⁶³ As for the concept of “penal”, it is surely wrong to speak of punishment by the Father, God wants all men to be saved, not punished; Jesus did not suffer a punishment in our place, that would be absurd, but he suffered violent rejection from evil men. He accepted to suffer this humiliation so that we could return to God and have life; in fact, God wants to “inflict” life on us. He was crushed by men (penal?), he received death so that we might have life (substitution?), can we call this dynamic Penal Substitution? Perhaps, but I would prefer to call it “Vital Identification” as we will better understand in the following sections of the book. Jesus was not punished by God in our place, Jesus allowed himself to be abused and killed by men so that, by identifying and becoming one with us and our suffering, we might pass from death to life.¹⁶⁴ It is something different, God is just and merciful.