The Origins of Penal Substitution

(And what about Isaiah 53?)

To begin, it's worth noting that the concept of 'penal substitution' (also known as 'vicarious') as an atonement theory emerged a mere 500 years ago. Its advocates did not derive it from the Scriptures or the teachings of the church before the 15th or 16th century. Instead, they applied their theory to the text and used it as a framework for interpreting and translating the Scriptures.

Before delving into the contentious matter of the Penal Substitution theory and its utilization of Isaiah chapter 53 to bolster its claims, I'd like to urge the reader to consider the possibility that Isaiah may not be referring to a forthcoming Messiah, a common interpretation often associated with Christ. For now, the discussion that follows will highlight how the various atonement theories developed over time raise more questions than they provide answers. They often go against many passages in Scripture and common sense. I'll conclude by presenting an article that emphasizes the importance of thoroughly examining Isaiah 53 which is used to bolster Christ into the passages.

Back to our topic of the Atonement Theory, there have been many developed throughout the centuries concerning the death of Christ; however, in the 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury introduced a theory of atonement known as the Satisfaction Theory. According to this theory, the death of Jesus Christ is seen as a means to satisfy the justice of God ‘Satisfaction', in this sense, means restitution, the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm focuses on God's fairness and argues that sin is like an injustice that needs to be made right. In his satisfaction theory, it essentially means that Jesus Christ died to fix the wrong caused by human sin and to make things right with God's fairness.

This theory was created as a response to the old idea that God paid off the devil with Christ's death, known as the 'Ransom theory' which Anselm found illogical. Instead, Anselm argued that it's humans who owe God a debt, not God owing anything to the devil. In this view, our debt is about wrongdoing, as our actions have taken away from God's fairness. The satisfaction theory suggests that Jesus Christ repays this debt to God by dying on the cross. This theory introduces the idea that God is affected by the Atonement, meaning that Jesus satisfies God.

Then came the Penal Substitutionary Atonement which developed during the Reformation, specifically by Calvin and Luther who built upon Anselm's Satisfaction theory and made a slight change. They added a legal aspect to the idea of Christ's sacrifice, viewing it as a way to satisfy God's wrath for human sin. In this theory, Jesus takes the punishment in place of sinners. He becomes our substitute, meeting God's demand for justice. This legal balancing of the scales is at the core of the theory, asserting that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. Unfortunately, it includes the false teaching of imputed righteousness.

So in this Atonement theory, God isn't looking for Jesus to settle a debt, but rather, God is content with Jesus taking the punishment on our behalf; the idea that the cross affects how God forgives. This theory is widely accepted today, especially among Reformed and evangelical Christians. Also note that Substitution Theory is candidly labeled as a "theory," and is treated as an established doctrine. No one is saved by theories.

Salvation used to be a continuous, life-changing or transformational experience for people throughout history, but has evolved into a one-time, transactional event between Jesus and his Father. As stated by some, if this theory holds true, only the final three days or even just three hours of Jesus' life are crucial and of our only concern. All sin is forgiven - past, present, and future. The wrath of God is satisfied! FALSE!
 
We must carefully think, if Jesus had to SETTLE the debt for sin, then true forgiveness did not occur. It is very inaccurate to say that Jesus covered our sins with payment. If a debt was settled, it was not forgiven, as the Bible suggests. Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that Jesus "Paid or was Punished" for our sins. The Bible often conveys the opposite idea. In Matthew chapter 18 we see where a debt was cancelled without anyone having to make payment or be punished. If someone has to pay for sin, then sin is not freely forgiven. All this teaching about Jesus paying for our sins or that He was our substitute is nothing more than Post-Reformation theology and not true Biblical teaching. It is called the “Penal Substitution” theory as stated above.

Some individuals claim that the Penal Substitution theory includes forgiveness because God can absolve sins by punishing Jesus. To better understand this concept, let's use the analogy of a traffic ticket. Imagine receiving a notice from the traffic department stating, "Your speeding ticket does not need to be paid and is forgiven, as long as your friend pays the fine on your behalf." In this scenario, it's evident that the fine isn't truly forgiven but shifted to another person. Obviously, the traffic department has not cancelled the debt at all! The traffic department is allowing someone else to pay it. Likewise, penal substitution suggests that God will ‘forgive’ so long as there is punishment in full. This is not true forgiveness. All that has happened is that punishment was transferred to an innocent person. This is not a picture of a loving God graciously forgiving repentant sinners. All through the Bible God freely forgives all those who sincerely repent of their sins. The Penal Substitution says that forgiveness is not free and is impossible and that God must punish sin.

If Jesus had to pay for all sin, then salvation cannot be of grace. The cause of salvation is by the merit of payment. If Jesus paid for all sins, then logic dictates that there must be universal salvation and that we must teach Unconditional Eternal Security. And if Jesus had to pay for all sin, there is no such thing as pardon or forgiveness!

Such words as propitiation, reconciliation, justification, redemption, being brought near, putting away sin, suffering, dying for sin, ransom, and offering oneself up, is not payment.

What happened on the cross is that Jesus SUFFERED; He was not making a payment or being punished. (Mark 8:31; Luke 22:15; 24:46; 17:25; Acts 3:18; 26:23; Heb. 13:12; 1 Peter 1:11; 2:21; 2:23; 3:18; 4:1; 5:1; 2 Cor. 1:5)

Question:  If there is no penal substitution, what about Isaiah 53?  

The first part of Isaiah 53 makes it difficult to support the penal substitution. It says in verses 3-4:
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Surely he took up our pain ​
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God, ​
stricken by him, and afflicted.

Isaiah stated that the pain, suffering, affliction, and rejection he endured were caused by whom? By people. Isaiah said We were responsible for that. We caused his suffering.

Now notice, Isaiah immediately says YET… WE thought God was punishing him. WE thought God was striking him. The YET indicates that WE were wrong. God didn’t cause this.     

The idea of substitution suggests that all my sins, past, present, and future, were placed on Jesus and forgiven when He was on the cross. He took the punishment for our sins, and all our guilt was transferred to Him during that time. Jesus paid all our debts to God on the cross, so we are no longer held accountable for our sins, owe nothing to God, and won't face punishment because He took our place almost two thousand years ago.

The word of God teaches, however, that we are still accountable for our actions. “He will repay each one according to his works” (Romans 2:6). “For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God…. So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Romans 14:10,12). The word of God says nothing about Christ acting as our substitute or taking our place. Nor did Jesus remove the wrath of God against sin. God’s wrath is still in place against all sinners (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9). If the death of Jesus on the cross appeased and took away the wrath of God against sin, we would expect that God would no longer have any such wrath and would render no punishment for sins on anyone.

God's wrath satisfied? I think not. God is angry with the wicked everyday (Ps. 7:11), that those who are not in Christ abide under His wrath (John 3:36), that sin leads to God’s wrath (Eph. 5:5-6), that sinners are storing up wrath in their unrepentance (Rom. 2:5), that Jesus will return in flaming fire to take vengeance on the evil and disobedient (1 Thess. 1:9).

aArticle Concerning Isaiah 53 by Bart Erhman

I wonder if you could talk about Isaiah 53 which I think is also a later insert by the scribes trying to justify what they had done to Jesus.

RESPONSE:

Ah, now *this* is a passage that students bring up every time I teach a class on the New Testament. Hundreds of years before Jesus, the prophet Isaiah predicted in detail his crucifixion for the sins of the world, to be followed by his resurrection. It’s right there in black and white, in Isaiah 53.  Why don’t Jews SEE that? It’s in their own Bible Are they blind? Can’t they READ????

As it turns out, my students as a rule don’t understand the issues with Isaiah 53; that’s not particularly strange – most people don’t! The problem is not that the passage was a later insertion into the text of Isaiah; it instead involves what Isaiah was talking about.

Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is a passage that has long been cited by Christian interpreters as a virtually infallible prophecy of the death and resurrection of the messiah – i.e., Jesus. But that is almost certainly a misreading of the passage, at least as the author of Isaiah originally intended it. The passage deals with the “suffering servant” of the LORD. But in its original context the servant does not appear to be the future messiah.

Of course Jesus is not named in the passage.  But even more surprising to many Christian readers who learn this for the first time, the word “messiah” never occurs in it either. There is a good reason for the surprise: it is hard indeed for Christians to read the chapter and not think that it is speaking specifically about Jesus.

He was despised and rejected by others;
A man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity…
He was despised, and we held him of no account
Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our diseases…
He was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities.
Upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
and by his bruises we are healed. (Isaiah 53:3-5)

Not only did this unnamed servant of the LORD suffer because of others, he also is vindicated by God.  Doesn’t this refer to the resurrection of Jesus?

Out of his anguish he shall see light;
He shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.
The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong
because he poured out himself to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
Yet he bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:11-12)

The main reason it is so difficult for Christian readers to see these words and not think “Jesus” is because for many centuries theologians have indeed argued that the passage is a messianic prophecy looking forward to the Christian savior. Anyone who is first shown this passage and told it is about Jesus will naturally always read it that way. Of course it’s about Jesus! Who else could it be about? This is surely a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection made centuries before the fact.

Still, it is important to note that the passage never uses the term “messiah” or explicitly indicates it is talking about a messiah, but also that we have no evidence that any Jew prior to Christianity ever thought it was about the messiah.  There is a good reason for that: before the birth of Christianity, no one thought the messiah would be someone who would die and be raised from the dead.

That may seem both weird and counterfactual to many Christian readers today. But historically it is almost certainly the case: the idea of a suffering messiah is not found in any Jewish texts prior to Christianity. The idea that the messiah had to suffer and die for others was first espoused by Christians on the basis of two facts that they “knew” about Jesus: he was the messiah and he had been crucified. Their conclusion: the messiah had to suffer and die.

But not in traditional Judaism. Instead, Jews consistently believed the messiah would be the great and powerful ruler who delivered Israel from its oppressors. He would be a mighty general, or a powerful cosmic judge come from heaven. Different Jews had different views of who or what the messiah might be, but all these views had one thing in common: they all thought of the messiah as a future figure of grandeur and might who would rule the nation with justice and power.

And who was Jesus? An itinerant preacher who got on the wrong side of the law and was arrested by the enemies of Israel, tried, and publicly tortured to death by crucifixion. This was just the opposite of what the messiah would be.

Christians nonetheless came to believe he was the messiah, and, naturally, started looking for proofs from the Bible that could support the idea — passages that, contrary to what everyone had previously thought, might indicate that the messiah was to suffer and be raised from the dead.  Isaiah 53 was a natural choice Christian thinkers picked up the passage, promoted it as a messianic text, and that has influenced its interpretation ever since.

 
But there are solid reasons for thinking the passage is about something else. To begin with, it is important to stress the historical context within which the passage was written. This part of Isaiah was produced after the Babylonian armies had destroyed Jerusalem and taken large numbers of the Jewish people into captivity in Babylon. These exiles were suffering, and the prophet was writing in order to give them hope. Those in captivity were suffering for the sins of the people, which had led to God’s punishment of the nation; but they would be returned to their land and good things would come. These suffering ones are talked about as God’s “servant”: they are serving God’s purposes.

Some readers think the servant has to be a single person since, after all, he is described as an individual, God’s servant. But it is important to realize that throughout the Hebrew Bible, groups of people could be, and often are, described as individuals. Nations are named after people. Thus the Southern nation after the civil war dividing Israel is named “Judah” – after one of the sons of Jacob; it is obviously a group but it is named after a person. So too with “Gog and Magog” in Ezekiel 38-39 and the fierce “beasts” that Daniel sees as ruling the earth in Daniel 7. Each is described as an individual animal, but it represents an entire national group.

Another reason for thinking Isaiah 53 does not refer to just one person, the future messiah who would die for sins, is that the passage describes the suffering of the servant as a past event, not future (he was despised and rejected; he has borne our infirmities; he was wounded for our transgressions). On the other hand – this is a key point – his vindication is described as a future event (He shall see light; he shall find satisfaction; he shall divide the spoil). The author thus is referring to someone (as a metaphor for a group of people) who has already suffered but will eventually be vindicated.

And who is that someone, that “servant of the LORD”? The historical context of the author’s writing is obviously an important factor in deciding, but there is a clincher to the argument.  The author of Isaiah explicitly tells us who the servant is. Most readers don’t notice this because they do not read the passage in its literary context. But as biblical scholars have long known, there are four distinct passages in Isaiah that talk about this servant. And they tell us who he is. This is most clear in Isaiah 49:3, where God directly addresses the servant: “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’” The suffering servant is Israel.

In short, Isaiah 53 is not originally about a future messiah. It is about the nation of Israel taken into captivity. Some of the people were suffering horribly because of the sins of others.  But God would restore them, raise them from the dead as it were, bringing them back to the land and allowing them to live again after their national destruction.

________________________________________________

The Book of Isaiah consistently identifies the Servant as Israel:
Isaiah 41:8-10, Isaiah 44:1-9, 21, Isaiah 45:4, Isaiah 48:20, Isaiah 49:3