What is Substitutionary Atonement?
Atonement means “reparation for a wrong or injury.” (Oxford). “Substitutionary” refers to the idea that someone took our place in this reparation and accomplished it for us.
Theologically speaking, Substitutionary Atonement (sometimes referred to as Penal Substitution) is a theory of how Jesus Christ’s atonement on the cross for us was accomplished by him taking our place and being punished for our sins.
There are other facets to the diamond of atonement theology but Substitutionary Atonement (from now on “SA”) is of such importance and so deeply Biblical that all “other benefits or results of the atonement find their anchor in this truth.” (Thomas Schreiner)
SA has come under much fire in recent years for being too violent of an idea. Some have even called it “cosmic child abuse.” In this blog post we will look at SA from perspectives of the Bible, Church History, the Chronicles of Narnia and the Trinity.
 |
| Raising of the Cross by Rembrandt. The artist paints himself in the scene as one who is helping crucify Jesus. Jesus will pay his sin debt on the cross. |
In the Bible
“But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Isaiah 53:5-6
“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…” 1 Peter 3:18
Throughout the Old and New Testament SA is clearly and repeatedly taught. In addition to many specific verses or passages there is also a uniting theme within Scripture of this teaching (See these Scripture references as an example: Gen 3:20, Ex 12, Isaiah 53, Rom 3:23-26. 2 Cor 5:21, Gal 3:13, Heb 9:26, 1 Pet 2:24).
In Church History
Many have taught that the teaching of SA is foreign to the early church; however, upon further observation there is ample evidence to support the teaching of SA throughout church history.
It is true that Anslem (Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109) taught the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement which was very influential on later Reformers who taught Penal Substitution. Looking further back, however, reveals that the idea of substitution at the cross was hardly new to him.
Gavin Ortlund argues that Irenaeus (130-202 AD) also taught elements of substitution (along with recapitulation) as well as Athanasius (c. 296/298 – 373 AD). We can also see that Augustine and others taught substitution.
“But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which needs be paid; For, as I said before, all men were due to die… that... He (Jesus) might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering his own temple (body) to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression.”
(Athanasius, quoted in Ortlund, Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals p. 167)
C.S. Lewis and Narnia
When the Christ-figure, Aslan, dies by the hand of the White Witch in C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia many claim that this was no substitution but rather a kind of payment to the Witch (who represents Satan). But let’s look closer at Lewis’ story:
“You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to kill… Unless I have blood, as the Law says, all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.” (The White Witch from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe).
Gavin Ortlund comments: “From this passage it is clear that the Deep Magic is a good creation of Aslan’s father, the emperor across the sea, i.e. God the Father… While it is certainly true that the witch insists upon sacrifice, her insistence derives its power only from the emperor’s magic (the Law), which is acknowledged by Aslan as well as the witch.”
Aslan’s death is “more fundamentally a satisfaction of the emperor’s Deep Magic.” (Quoted in Ortlund, Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals p. 182, 183)
God was in Christ - the Trinity
Many critics of SA say that it is not fair or loving that God the Father took out His wrath against sin on Jesus the Son. What they miss here is the implications of the Trinity. Jesus was a not some random third party being punished.
Christians believe that there is one God but that he exists in three persons (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit). Each person is equal to the other and together they exist in harmony as the one true God.
So, it was not simply God the Father objectively punishing God the Son - but rather that all three persons of the Trinity decided on this plan of redemption and then executed that plan. Hebrews 9:14 speaks of all three persons of the Trinity working at the cross:
“…how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”
2 Corinthians 5:19 clarifies that God was there at the cross:
“…that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”
“The doctrine of the Trinity means that on the cross, as John Stott puts it, we see the “self-substitution of God.” (Tim Keller, Forgive p. 97)
See also Daniel Hames “3 Reasons I changed My Mind About Penal Substitution”
