Against Penal Substitution

When I was reading JI Packer back in 2016 I came across his work on the Penal Substitution theory that arose from the depths of expanding on Anslem, though like many Reformed notions, I believe this was taken to a degree that it was never intended. However, I remember thinking “this makes sense, but why does God have a wrath that needs to be quenched?” an answer that I never received any satisfactory theological answer to.

Rather, when I began understanding the historical view of the cross, the penal theory quickly faded away. I thought it would be prudent to discuss the reasons why this theory falls short and even brushes up against heresy.

---

Orthodox View of the Cross

The Orthodox Church views the cross not as a mere legal transaction, but as the ultimate act of love and victory. Key points include:

1. Victory over Death and Sin: The cross is seen as a triumph over the powers of death, sin, and the devil (referred to as “Christus Victor”).

2. Healing of Humanity: Christ’s death and resurrection restore the broken relationship between God and humanity, focusing on theosis (union with God).

3. Sacrificial Love: Jesus’ death is the ultimate example of sacrificial love, drawing humanity into communion with God.

Penal Substitution Analysis

1. Persistence of Death and Sin’s Effects:

If penal substitution implies that Christ fully extinguished the wrath of God, then why do the effects of sin (death, suffering) remain?

Orthodox theology might argue that Christ defeated death but did not immediately eradicate its effects. Instead, He opened the way for resurrection and eternal life, fully realized in the eschaton (the end times).

2. Logical Coherence of Penal Substitution:

Penal substitution presupposes that God’s justice demands punishment. Yet, if justice is satisfied through Christ, ongoing suffering and death appear inconsistent with “wrath extinguished.”

Orthodox theology challenges this by suggesting that God’s justice is restorative, not retributive. The cross reconciles humanity to God, rather than simply satisfying divine wrath.

3. Christ’s Failure or Penal’s Failure?

If penal substitution is correct, the incomplete eradication of sin’s effects suggests a contradiction. The orthodox perspective sidesteps this by framing salvation as ongoing: Christ accomplished the decisive victory, but its full application unfolds over time.

---

1. Logical Inconsistencies in Penal Substitution

a. Separation of the Trinity

PSA implies that the Father pours out His wrath on the Son, creating a division within the Trinity. Theologically, the Trinity is indivisible. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit act in perfect unity. For the Father to “forsake” the Son contradicts this unity (John 10:30).

Resolution: Orthodox theology views the cross as a unified act of love, not wrath, preserving the Trinity’s indivisibility.

b. Justice Contradicted

PSA claims God’s justice is satisfied by punishing the innocent (Christ). However, punishing an innocent person to exonerate the guilty contradicts true justice. Biblical justice is restorative, not merely retributive (Isaiah 1:17). The Father’s will is not about punishing sin for its own sake but about healing and restoring humanity.

c. Persistence of Sin and Death

If PSA means Christ extinguished the wrath of God, why do sin, death, and suffering persist? This undermines the claim that God’s justice was fully satisfied. Orthodox theology emphasizes that Christ’s death begins the process of salvation (a cosmic victory), not merely a legal transaction that came to a close.

---

Scripture Issues within PSA

Penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) is often supported by verses such as Isaiah 53:5 (“He was crushed for our iniquities”) and 2 Corinthians 5:21 (“He made Him to be sin for us”). However, a closer examination reveals that these passages are frequently misread. Isaiah 53 portrays the Suffering Servant as bearing the consequences of sin, not as the object of divine wrath. Similarly, 2 Corinthians 5:21 emphasizes that Christ takes on sin to transform humanity, rather than being punished for it. Furthermore, Scripture consistently portrays God’s justice as restorative rather than retributive. For example, Ezekiel 18:23 declares, “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? … Rather, that they turn from their ways and live.”

This underscores that God seeks repentance and restoration, not punishment for its own sake. Finally, the cross is presented in Scripture as the ultimate act of love, not wrath. John 3:16 proclaims, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son,” while Romans 5:8 states, “God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” The biblical emphasis is thus on love and self-gift, not divine wrath or punishment.

---

Reformed theology often emphasizes penal substitution, where the Father “pours out His wrath” on the Son as a substitute for sinners. This emphasis leads to potential theological issues, particularly regarding the interaction between the Father and the Son on the cross. One significant problem is the implied separation of the divine Persons. This framework risks a tritheistic tendency or undermines the unity of the Trinity, which Chalcedonian Christology firmly affirms. The Trinity is one in will, action, and essence, so any depiction of the Father acting “against” the Son introduces a division that is incompatible with Trinitarian orthodoxy.

According to Chalcedonian doctrine, the divine nature in Christ cannot be divided from His human nature. On the cross, Christ acts as one unified Person; the Father does not “attack” the Son, as this would imply a fracture in the Godhead itself. While not explicitly Nestorian, the Reformed framework can unintentionally drift toward such tendencies. Nestorianism, which over-emphasizes the distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures, risks downplaying the full participation of Christ’s divine nature in the salvific act. Moreover, the depiction of the Father as wrathful toward the Son risks subordinationism or tritheism, undermining the unity of action and will within the Godhead. These issues highlight the theological challenges inherent in the penal substitution framework when examined through the lens of Chalcedonian orthodoxy.

In Reformed theology, sacraments such as the Eucharist are often regarded as signs that point to divine realities rather than being vehicles of grace in themselves. The physical elements, like bread and wine, are typically viewed as symbolic, with the spiritual grace being received “by faith.” This interpretation leads to a significant theological issue: the separation of the divine reality from the physical means of the sacraments.

The Reformed view risks a Nestorian-like separation between the physical and divine aspects of the sacraments. Just as Nestorianism divided Christ’s human and divine natures into two distinct persons, Reformed theology’s approach to the sacraments creates a dualistic view, separating the material elements of bread, wine, and water from their divine reality. In contrast, the Orthodox view holds that the physical means of the sacraments are not mere symbols but actual vehicles of grace. The divine works through the physical, as affirmed by the Incarnation, where Christ united divinity with humanity in a single person.

This separation of the spiritual and physical in the Reformed understanding creates a division reminiscent of Nestorianism. By failing to recognize the sacramental union, where divine grace is mediated through physical signs, Reformed theology undermines the holistic unity of the sacraments. Just as Nestorianism distorts Christological doctrine by dividing His natures, this view distorts sacramental theology by separating the material and spiritual aspects of sacred rites.

---

Affirm the historical view and save yourself the trouble of creating novel theories of the cross. The early church, which was lead by the Holy Spirit, got it correct and changing it 1500-1800 years later creates issues no one wants on their hands.