WHAT PSA GETS RIGHT

I have mentioned that I am not a fan of the sort of preaching which claims Jesus accomplished our reconciliation with God by suffering God's wrath while on the cross, the punishment which we ourselves deserved. This theory about how the crucifixion worked is called Penal Substitutionary Atonement. And I think it is a distortion of the Good News. 

Nevertheless, the foundation of PSA is solid. Here is what Penal Substitutionary Atonement gets right about the suffering and death of Christ:

1) The concept of Jesus as the "Lamb of God" (John the Baptist's first proclamation about Jesus is recorded in John 1:29 - "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!")

2) Jesus serving as a substitute for us (1 Peter 3:18 - "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.")

3) Jesus bearing our sins on the cross (1 Peter 2:24 - "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.")

But to jump from Jesus bearing our sins as the Lamb in our place to saying He suffered God's wrath is more philosophical than scriptural. I find it interesting that the handful of New Testament texts from which proponents of PSA draw their conclusion that the Father punished the Son on the cross are all from Paul. (And, as far as I can see, not one explicitly and plainly makes the claim of Jesus enduring God's wrath on the cross.)

If PSA is the reality behind the cross, why don't we see it in the Gospels? Why doesn't Jesus let His disciples know that He will be suffering the Father's wrath as He dies? In John's Gospel, we even get glimpses of the opposite: that God takes great pleasure in His Son's sacrifice. For instance, take the words John records from Jesus at the Last Supper describing his impending death: "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him." (13:31) 

THE central text used to bolster Penal Substitutionary Atonement, though, is Isaiah 53. And there are plenty of arguments back and forth about that text. All I know with certainty is that it does not explicitly say that God pours out wrath on Jesus.

And here's something interesting about Isaiah 53: It is the source of "By His wounds we are healed" which Peter cites in the passage above under point #3. But notice that when Peter cites this supposed PSA passage, his point looks more like the "Moral Influence" and "Christus Victor" theories. 

Look at the context of Peter's quotes from Isaiah. He's talking about how slaves should submit to their earthly masters, even if the master is cruel:

19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24 "He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed." 25 For "you were like sheep going astray," but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Peter here affirms some of the good foundations of Penal Substitutionary Atonement - Jesus bearing our sins and suffering in our place - without even a hint of Him being punished under the wrath of God in the process. 

Instead, Peter points to Jesus's death as being what has set believers free to return to the Shepherd (Christus Victor). And the suffering Jesus endured without retaliation serves as an example to us that we should "follow in His steps" (Moral Influence).