IS THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST COSMIC CHILD ABUSE?

 “IS THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST COSMIC CHILD ABUSE?”:

A DEFENSE OF PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT

By: Daniel McMillin

ABSTRACT: This paper will offer a defense of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) and address the ethical implications of the incarnation and salvation. In this paper, I will respond to the ethical implications of the atonement by responding to the claim that PSA is cosmic child abuse. I argue that the Father’s sending of the Son to suffer and die on the cross, while it is often viewed as “abuse,” is a caricature of PSA that neglects the nature and necessity of the atonement. I argue that the Son being sent by the Father is the only way to save sinners from the penalty of death because it is God’s way to punish sin and satisfy His wrath. In this paper, I will demonstrate how Christ alone can accomplish atonement for our sins through His death on the cross. I will also respond to the claims that God could have saved us any other way, making the crucifixion unjust and unnecessary, and that the Father taking pleasure in the suffering of His Son is not cruel. PSA should not be rejected but embraced as the biblical and historical position of the Church. My conclusion is that the crucifixion of Christ is, indeed, ethical and essential for our salvation.

DEFINING PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT

A term that is often used to define Christ’s sacrifice is called “penal substitutionary atonement” (PSA).[1] PSA is a soteriological category used to describe one of the various atonement theories that explain why Christ died and what His death means.[2] The doctrine of PSA refers to Jesus taking the place of sinners to suffer the punishment that was intended for them. God’s Son suffered the penalty for our sins by standing in our place to be punished in our stead. His vicarious death satisfies the justice and wrath of God. In sum, the Son of God bore our sins to die for our sins. Indeed, God’s Son died for us and in our stead.

The term “penal” entails the punishment for sin, and appeasement of divine wrath is death. The word “substitutionary” refers to the Son of God taking the place of sinners and dying in their place. Herman Bavinck notes, “The idea of substitution is implied in all expiatory offerings. In the place of the offerer, who is deserving of the wrath of God, it puts something else, something that can placate him.”[3] Similarly, “The notion of substitutionary sacrifice, widely attested in Scripture, means that Christ died in the place of sinners. The perfect obedience God required from his creatures, Jesus fully gave. In bearing the penalty of human sin as our substitute he made full payment to God for all our failures and misdeeds.”[4] God treats the innocent Son as though He were guilty of sin by punishing him for our crimes. God treats sinners who are guilty as if they were innocent by looking at us through Christ. As Treat says, “To say that Christ is our substitute means that he takes our place and that we take his.”[5] 

The word “atonement” refers to the sacrificial death of God’s Son achieves reconciliation with God and purification of sin.[6] In the Bible, atonement is framed in legal terms. In the Old Testament, there were two types of sacrifices for atonement, propitiatory and expiatory sacrifices, which are applied to Christ as the sacrifice for atonement in the New Testament. “Expiation” refers to God’s Son as an offering to God to amend or cleanse humanity’s guilt from sin, whereas “propitiation” alludes to God’s justice and wrath towards sin being satisfied by the Son’s sacrifice. The term “propitiation” entails two major components. First, “God’s justice is satisfied, and His wrath against sin and sinners is removed.” Second, “sin is objectively atoned for and guilt is removed.” Indeed, “where there is sin, there is always guilt—objective guilt before God since sin is a violation of God’s law and subjective guilt in the human heart due to our personal responsibility for our sin.”[7]

A major objection to PSA is that this is a form of cosmic child abuse. For instance, Steve Chalke and Alan Mann raise the objection that “the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse” where God unleashes His wrath and anger upon His Son. This view of atonement, they suggest, portrays “a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed.”[8] In this paper, I will argue that the crucifixion of Christ is essential for atonement.[9] Here, I will clarify the nature and necessity of the atonement before engaging with the objection that the atonement is cosmic child abuse by discussing four major components: incarnation, atonement, substitution, and sacrifice. There are four questions that will be raised: Why did the Son become man? How did sacrifices satisfy God’s justice? Why did the Son die in our place? How did the Son die for our sins?

THE NATURE AND NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT

INCARNATION: WHY DID GOD HAVE TO DIE?

Anselm famously asked, Cur Deus Homo? (“Why did God become man?”). In response, it was necessary, according to His grace. God chose before the foundation of the world to send God the Son to the earth to take on human flesh and become like us to redeem us. If God were compelled to become man, then this action may be done out of reluctance or obligation rather than by grace and mercy. However, the incarnation is an expression of divine freedom where God freely chose to become man according to His grace. God does not become man because He had to by necessity, but He does so by grace. God is not forced to help us, but He is doing us a favor. Indeed, God is not made to do what He does not want to do. “God does nothing by necessity, since he is not compelled or strained in anything.”[10] The reason why Anselm is careful not to use the word “necessary” to describe God’s choices is that “necessity is always either compulsion or restraint.” These two alternatives have negative implications since “whatever is obliged to exist is also prevented from non-existence; and that which is compelled not to exist is prevented from existence. So that whatever exists from necessity cannot avoid existence, and it is impossible for a thing to exist which is under a necessity of nonexistence, and vice versa.” Here, Anselm explains necessary existence. If a thing exists, then it cannot not exist because its nonexistence is impossible. In other words, if a thing necessarily exists, then it cannot help but exist. Anselm concludes, therefore, if the word “necessary” is ever applied to God, it should not be viewed as “coercive” or “prohibitive,” but rather, as “a necessity in everything else, restraining or driving them in a particular way.” Thus, to say it is necessary for God to become man means that it is in alignment with His character. Indeed, His death on the cross was according to the “unchangeableness of his purpose, by which he freely became man for this design.”[11] 

Knowing why God sent the Son to become man enlightens us on why God’s Son died on the cross. In other words, the mission explains the atonement. God’s agency in the divine mission produces the atonement through the sending of the Son to suffer and die to satisfy God’s wrath meant for humanity, that is, those who stand guilty before the Lord. But why is atonement necessary? The reason for the cross was due to our human peril following the fall. The requirement for atonement was due to our sins (Gen. 3). We have fallen from God’s favor and grace. As a result of our disobedience, sin has defiled our character, alienated us from God, and penalized us for our crimes against God. When Adam and Eve transgressed, God exiled them from exodus and introduced death. If we do not recognize the severity and depravity of our sins, then we will never acknowledge our desperate need for atonement.

The book of Romans informs us that no one is exempt from sin “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Sin is viewed as enslavement in Romans 3:9-10 and 6:15-23. According to Paul, sin entered through Adam. “From one man came the judgment, resulting in condemnation” (Rom. 5:16). The imagery of condemnation and judgment envisions a courtroom where all of humanity is rendered the verdict “guilty” as they stand before the judgment seat of God. Paul then describes the consequences of our sins in terms of “death” in Romans 5:12, 15, 17, 21. This is because, as Paul later says in Romans 6:23, “the wages of sin is death.”  From Romans, we see there is a need for retrieving the glory we lost, a need for liberation from death as we await the judgment, and a need to be vindicated as we stand guilty before God. Only atonement can take away our sins.

ATONEMENT: HOW DID SACRIFICES SATISFY GOD’S JUSTICE?

In Leviticus 16, God gives instructions for cleansing and holiness directed to the “anointed and ordained” high priest to prepare for atonement (Lev. 16:2, 32), who alone may enter the most holy place (Lev. 16:3, 17), to make atonement for his sins, the sins of his household, and the sins of the Israelites (Lev. 16:33-34). “He is to wear a holy linen tunic, and linen undergarments are to be on his body. He is to tie a linen sash around him and wrap his head with a linen turban. These are holy garments; he must bathe his body with water before he wears them.” (Lev. 16:4). The high priest is to present and sacrifice a bull to atone for his own sins, as well as his family, before making atonement for the sins of the Israelite nation (Lev. 16:3, 5, 11). He instructed “to take from the Israelite community two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering.” (Lev. 16:5).

The high priest takes two goats and casts lots so the Lord may choose which goat will be sacrificed as “a sin offering” and the other sent “into the wilderness for an uninhabitable place” (Lev. 16:7-10). God then instructs the high priest to make atonement in the most holy place by taking “a firepan full of blazing coals from the altar before the LORD and two handfuls of finely ground fragrant incense, and bring them inside the curtain. He is to put the incense on the fire before the LORD, so that the cloud of incense covers the mercy seat that is over the testimony, or else he will die. He is to take some of the bull’s blood and sprinkle it with his finger against the east side of the mercy seat; then he will sprinkle some of the blood with his finger before the mercy seat seven times. When he slaughters the male goat for the people’s sin offering and brings its blood inside the curtain, he will do the same with its blood as he did with the bull’s blood: He is to sprinkle it against the mercy seat and in front of it.” (Lev. 16:12-15).

The reason for these rituals is so the high priest may “make atonement for the most holy place in this way for all their sins because of the Israelites’ impurities and rebellious acts.” (Lev. 16:16).  This is to be done at “the tent of meeting” because it is “surrounded by their impurities.” In sum, atonement is required because sin resides within the camp. The high priest will then “go out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it. He is to take some of the bull’s blood and some of the goat’s blood and put it on the horns on all sides of the altar. He is to sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse and set it apart from the Israelites’ impurities” (Lev. 16:18-19). Once the high priest has completed his work and made atonement within the most holy place, the tent of meeting, and the altar, Aaron must then “present the live male goat” (Lev. 16:20). Moses informs us of the instructions for properly handling the offering. “Aaron will lay both his hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the Israelites’ iniquities and rebellious acts—all their sins. He is to put them on the goat’s head and send it away into the wilderness by the man appointed for the task. The goat will carry all their iniquities into a desolate land, and the man will release it there.” (Lev. 16:21-22).

After Aaron completed his duties, God then instructed the high priest to cleanse himself before entering the tent of meeting to offer atonement. The high priest was to “take off the linen garments he wore when he entered the most holy place, and leave them there. He will bathe his body with water in a holy place and put on his clothes. Then he must go out and sacrifice his burnt offering and the people’s burnt offering; he will make atonement for himself and for the people. He is to burn the fat of the sin offering on the altar. The man who released the goat for an uninhabitable place is to wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; afterward he may reenter the camp. The bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought into the most holy place to make atonement, must be brought outside the camp and their hide, flesh, and waste burned. The one who burns them is to wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may reenter the camp.” (Lev. 16:23-28).

In remembrance of God’s atonement, there was “a permanent statute” established and an instruction to “practice self-denial” and idle work or sabbath rest on the tenth day of the seventh month for them to visualize God’s saving work (Lev. 16:29, 31). God promises to make “atonement” for them “on this day” so they may be cleansed of their sins before God’s presence (Lev. 16:30). This is the inception of the Hebrew festival “Day of Atonement” known as Yom Kippur. The function of this holiday is not to merely reminisce about the past and remember what God has done, but to actively invite sinners before God by atoning or cleansing them of their sins. This sheds light on how and why God gave instructions on the cleansing process for the high priests; it is to illustrate the holiness of God and allow the people of Israel to see why they need atonement to be clean before God. Craig notes that the sacrifices on Yom Kippur emphasize “the expiatory ritual par excellence,” which acts as the backdrop for Israel’s religious identity and spiritual relationship with God. “An indication of this day’s extraordinary power is the fact that only on Yom Kippur could sins committed with a high hand be sacrificially atoned for.”[12] These sacrifices foreshadow the ultimate application of atonement accomplished through Christ, which we will discuss in the next section.

SACRIFICE: HOW DID THE SON DIE FOR OUR SINS?

The book of Hebrews is saturated in the soteriological language of the Old Testament.[13] As the author begins his epistle, He establishes his claim that Christ is their high priest by working through His absolute divinity.[14] The Son is the greater revealer of God through whom God has “spoken” and revealed Himself as “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of his nature.” He is the “heir of all things” because He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things. Christ reigns as King when “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” following the completion of His atoning work. Hebrews describes this work of atonement when He made “purification for sins” as our great high priest. This work of purification is the responsibility of the high priest, which is now completed by Christ’s cleansing and washing away our sins. The work of Christ accomplishes what was never available under the Levitical priesthood. As Lightfoot notes, “Christ’s death and sacrifice secured what could never be attained through Levitical procedures—a satisfactory and enduring cleansing from sin.”[15]

In Hebrews 2, the author introduces us to the incarnation and relates it to His saving activity. God became man to bring “many sons and daughters to glory” by making “the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10). The incarnation is then described when the Son is said to assume our human nature (“flesh and blood”) and share in our human experiences (“suffered,” “tempted,” and “death”) in Hebrews 2:14-18. He further states that the crucifixion enacts the defeat of sin, Satan, and death. “Through his death he might destroy the one holding the power of death – that is, the devil – and free those who were held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death.” Notice the irony of the cross. The devil’s plan to defeat God was the death of the Son, but it was His death that defeated the devil. Notice how the crucifixion did not annihilate the devil when it says he was destroyed. But, as Hammett and Quarles note, “Christ’s death did not destroy the devil in the sense that it wiped him out of existence. Instead, it stripped him of his authority to keep sinners enslaved.”[16] Also, the death of death was executed at the cross; that is, death was defeated by the death of God’s Son. Sin was conquered by the sinless Son, who was treated as though He had all the sins of the world by being killed on the cross.

The significance of Hebrews 2 is how it connects the necessity of the incarnation with the atonement. The Son was fully human (“had to be like his brothers and sisters in every way”), while maintaining His true divinity, so He may “become a merciful and faithful high priest in matters pertaining to God.” For Christ to be the mediator between God and man, we require the God-man. In other words, the Son acts as a go-between who intercedes for God and man so He may “make atonement for the sins of the people.” Notice, the author applies the term “atonement” to propitiate or expiate sins for humanity, so God’s wrath is satisfied, sin’s debt has been paid, and the sinner’s transgressions are wiped away. Donnie DeBord comments on the necessity of the God-man for atonement by arguing:

Jesus had to be fully human to save us, but he also had to remain fully God for that salvation to work. As human, he could represent us, live the life we should have lived, and die the death we deserved to die. But as God, his lie had infinite value. His sacrifice was perfect enough to satisfy divine justice, powerful enough to conquer death, glorious enough to transform us into his likeness. His humanity makes him accessible to us; his divinity makes him able to save us. His humanity means he understands our struggles; his divinity means he can do something about them. His humanity makes him our brother; his divinity makes him our Lord.[17]

In Hebrews 9:1-10, the author returns to the era of the first covenant and reminds his readers of the elements of the tabernacle and the responsibilities of the high priest. He then applies these Old Testament realities to Christ, who “has appeared” as the true “high priest” that ministers in the “greater and more perfect tabernacle” built by God in heaven (Heb. 9:11). To demonstrate how Christ is a superior high priest, which is the main argument of not only this chapter but the entire letter, the author emphasizes what Christ does as our great high priest as He accomplishes what no other high priest could ever do. “He entered the most holy place once for all time, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow, sprinkling those who are defiled, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works so that we can serve the living God?”(Heb. 9:12-14). While Aaron may have offered animal sacrifices under the Levitical system, the death of these animals could not fully atone for our sins. Instead, all they could do was cleanse us for a moment until the true day of atonement was rendered at Calvary, when Christ’s blood completely washes away every sin of the defiled. Indeed, it continually sanctifies, purifies, and cleanses us.

In Hebrews 9:15-21, the author emphasizes how blood inaugurates a covenant and grants redemption. He then alludes to Leviticus 17:11 when he recounts the statutes of the law when he says, “almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22). The author, therefore, finds it “necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves to be purified with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with hands (only a model of the true one) but into heaven itself, so that he might now appear in the presence of God for us.” (Heb. 9:23-24).

The most significant detail is found in Hebrews 9:25-28. As the great high priest, Christ does not follow the same pattern as the Levitical priesthood since “He did not do this to offer himself many times, as the high priest enters the sanctuary yearly with the blood of another.” If that were the case, “he would have had to suffer many times since the foundation of the world. But now he has appeared one time, at the end of the ages, for the removal of sin by the sacrifice of himself.” In other words, instead of entering the heavenly sanctuary as the high priest multiple times and dying multiple times as a sacrifice for sins, He entered heaven once to die once so He may atone for all sins throughout all time. Indeed, as a common rule, “just as it is appointed for people to die once—and after this, judgment—so also Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” Note how the Son bore the “sins” of all. As Hammett and Quarles wrote, “He bore their sins in the sense that he took the guilt of their sins upon himself and suffered the punishment that their sins deserved.”[18] 

Hebrews 10 looks to the sacrifice of Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament shadows now revealed in Christ.[19] We are informed that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). He then speaks of God’s will being completed through Christ as He “takes away the first to establish the second” testament (Heb. 10:9). Further, it is “by this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time” (Heb. 10:10). Christ’s new covenant renders us holy through the sacrifice of God’s Son. Notice how it is Christ who becomes the sacrifice of offering to satisfy the will of God. Again, it is a “once for all time” sacrifice that requires no other sacrifices or occasions of sacrificing. This is unlike the offerings under the old covenant, where “every priest stands day after day ministering and offering the same sacrifices time after time, which can never take away sins” (Heb. 10:11). Thus, the dilemma of the first covenant was that hundreds of priests would serve God by killing thousands of animals and yet were incapable of atoning for sins. Thus, the need for a great high priest and efficient sacrifice to sanctify everyone forever for all of their sins. That is when Christ is introduced as “this man,” who can completely accomplish full atonement. “After offering one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. He is now waiting until his enemies are made his footstool. For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are sanctified.” (Heb. 10:12-14). Here, the effects of the cross are mentioned to demonstrate how God’s atoning work is completed through “one sacrifice” once He has entered the heavenly sanctuary to sit down at the royal throne, which is something no other high priest has done. Notice how the tabernacle never describes a seat, because there is work to be done in the holy and most holy place. But now that the true high priest has fulfilled His atoning work, He may sit down in the heavenly tabernacle to reign at the right side of God’s throne. [20]

IS PENAL SUBSTITUTIONAL ATONEMENT A FORM OF COSMIC CHILD ABUSE?

A major objection to the atonement is centered on the character of God. Is the crucifixion cosmic child abuse? Is it unjust, unloving, and unethical for God to send His Son to suffer and die? Is the cross avoidable to atone for sin? The objection is raised that the God of PSA performs immoral actions that are incompatible with divine justice.

            There are a number of assumptions that carry along this position, at the core is the definition of justice as restorative. In this way, the purpose of justice is to restore relationships and reform perpetrators of injustice. There is a conflict between retributive and restorative justice where, in this view, God’s pursuit of justice is about restoring relationships and not about seeking satisfaction or exacting retribution. This formulation of justice contributes to some confusion surrounding the violence of the cross and the need for divine satisfaction. The crucifixion appears to be unnecessary violence where God punishes the innocent for the guilty. The bloodiness of the cross seems abhorrent from this perspective. This is especially true among those who argue that the Bible does not view sacrifices as a substitutionary death and the imagery of atonement does not require suffering or death.[21] Certainly, from this view, one can understand why PSA would not only appear unbiblical but also unethical.

It is also claimed that the innocent cannot suffer for the guilty, even if they volunteer. Even if the limited suffering and death of an innocent party were inflicted, surely it could not satisfy the eternal consequences of the penalty. All of this leads to the conclusion that this atonement theory is comparable to a sort of cosmic child abuse. PSA depicts God’s abuse of His Son by killing Him to forgive others. The fact that God is satisfied by the violence of the cross and the suffering of His Son is unimaginable. The God of PSA is understood as an angry, vengeful, and evil deity who enjoys inflicting pain upon His Son by punishing Him for the crimes committed by others. This God can certainly be called wrathful, but He is also unloving, unjust, and immoral.

            In response, there are certain details that are neglected. First, the context of atonement is cast aside when contemplating God’s motives for atonement. As we noted above, the reason for atonement is sin. Man has sinned against God and needs to get rid of them to be reconciled with God and redeemed from their iniquities. The consequence of our sins is death, and someone must pay the penalty for sin. Also, the need for satisfaction is required for God’s justice; otherwise, God is negligent. The wrath of God is upon all those who have transgressed against God, and His wrath must be appeased.

Second, the character of God is not taken into consideration when interpreting God’s motives for atonement. The attribute that is at the center of the atonement is God’s retributive justice.[22] God has to punish sin; otherwise, He is unjust. God is just and has defined what is just. It is not unjust for God to punish the evil and reward the good; to condemn the wicked and protect the innocent. In contrast to restorative justice, retributive justice is fundamentally about punishing the offender for their offense. In this way, God’s justice demands that He punish sinners for their sins. In other words, God gives the guilty what they deserve: wrath. It is unjust for God to leave sins unpunished. God is morally responsible for enforcing justice to produce moral order. God cannot just blink at sin or turn a blind eye. God must do something with sin to be just. To question God, who is the standard of justice and is ontologically just, of breaching the standard of justice is a bit silly. If we assume divine command theory, then if God commanded the death of the wicked for their sins and sent the Son to die in their place, then it is unimaginable to conceive of the point that God has somehow breached His character. One must not forget the wrath of God. Divine wrath is a major factor in God’s deliverance of justice as He punishes the wicked, those who are guilty before God and worthy of punishment. God is wrathful of sin because sin is a capital offense— “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). In order to satisfy the wrath of God, death must be paid for the penalty of sin. Thus, the Son of God died for us to appease God’s wrath and execute divine justice (Rom. 5:6, 8). Atonement is this execution of divine wrath, but it is also an expression of divine love (Rom. 5:8-9). “Rather than presenting a cruel and distorted picture of God,” Letham suggests, “what penal substitution shows us is that God’s love for us is such that he was prepared to pay the ultimate price that love can pay.”[23]As Thomas R. Schreiner comments, “At the cross God’s love is directed to the person of his Son, but his wrath is poured out on his Son insofar as he is bearing the weight of sin.”[24] 

Finally, the nature of the incarnation must be considered. As we saw above, the incarnation and passion of the Son is a volitional, vicarious act of God to satisfy the wrath of God against sinners and to rescue sinners from the wrath of God. In this way, the charge of child abuse commits a categorical error. “According to the doctrine of penal substitution, Jesus willingly went to his death, in the full knowledge of what would be entailed.” This is very different from the violence of child abuse. “Child abuse is carried out against the will of the victim for the sole gratification of the abuser; Jesus willingly went to his death to save his people and glorify his name.”[25] The why of the God-man is not out of divine necessity but according to divine prerogative. That is, God became man to save man. The incarnation is not the product of compulsion but of volition. As Craig suggests, “Christ may be said to have voluntarily taken upon himself the suffering that would have been the punishment for our sins, had it been inflicted on us. He may even be said to have willingly paid the penalty for our sins.”[26] At the heart of the incarnation is the love of God expressed in the sending of the Son to suffer for our guilt, bear our crimes of sin, and die on our behalf. For the love of God to be self-sacrificial, the atonement must be vicarious. PSA is at the core of the gospel because it explains the meaning of the cross by answering the question, “Why did Jesus die?” In response, PSA empowers us to respond, “He died for us.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, David L. The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2019

Averbeck, Richard E. “Sacrifices and Offerings.” Pages 727-732 in Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G.K. Beale, D.A. Carson, Benjamin L. Gladd, and Andrew David Naselli. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, Vol. 2. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.

Beilby, James, and Paul R. Eddy, The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.

Chalke, Steve, and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.

Cockerill, Gareth Lee. “The Present Priesthood of the Son: “…he sat down…” Pages 203-226 in Divine Action in Hebrews and the Ongoing Priesthood of Jesus. Edited by Gareth Lee Cockerill, Craig G. Bartholomew, and Benjamine T. Quinn. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2023.

Craig, William Lane. Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020.

DeBord, Donnie. We Have Seen His Glory: Exploring the Doctrine of Christ’s Incarnation. Flower Mound, TX: Jenkins Institute, 2025.

Demarest, Bruce. The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997.

Guthrie, George H. “Hebrews.” Pages 919-996 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

“Hebrews, Letter to the.” Pages 293-300in Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G.K. Beale, D.A. Carson, Benjamin L. Gladd, and Andrew David Naselli. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1981.

Holmes, Stephen R. “Death in the Afternoon: Hebrews, Sacrifice, and Soteriology.” Pages 229-252in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009.

Jefferey, Steve, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.

Johnson, Dennis E. Perfect Priest for Weary Pilgrims: A Theology of Hebrews, NTT (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024.

Letham, Robert. The Work of Christ (Downers Grove, IVP Academic, 1993.

Lightfoot, Neil R. Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews. Abilene, TX: Bible Guides, 1980.

Marshall, I. Howard. “Soteriology in Hebrews.” Pages 253-280 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009.

David M. Moffitt’s Rethinking the Atonement: New Perspectives on Jesus’s Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2022.

Rillera, Andrew Remingon. Lamb of the Free: Recovering the Varied Sacrificial Understandings of Jesus’s Death. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2024

Thomas R. Schreiner, Hebrews, EBTC. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2020.

“Penal Substitution View” in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Edited by James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.

Stump, Eleonore. Atonement. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018.

Treat, Jeremy. The Atonement: An Introduction. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023.

Yarborough, Robert W. “Atonement.” Pages 388-393 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D.A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy. Downers Grove, IVP Academic, 2000.

 WORKS CITED

[1] The best treatment of penal substitutionary atonement is William Lane Craig’s Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020).

[2] For more on the views of atonement, see James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006).

[3] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Ed. John Bolt. Trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), III:395-396.

[4] Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997), 175.

[5] Jeremy Treat, The Atonement: An Introduction (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 39.

[6] Robert W. Yarborough, “Atonement” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D.A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy (Downers Grove, IVP Academic, 2000), 388-393.

[7] David L. Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2019), 17.

[8] Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 182.

[9] Martin Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1981).

[10] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II: 5.

[11] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II: 18.

[12] Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ, 30.

[13] For more on soteriology in Hebrews, see Stephen R. Holmes, “Death in the Afternoon: Hebrews, Sacrifice, and Soteriology” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009), 229-252; Dennis E. Johnson, Perfect Priest for Weary Pilgrims: A Theology of Hebrews, NTT (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 123-144; I. Howard Marshall, “Soteriology in Hebrews” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009), 253-280; Thomas R. Schreiner, Hebrews, EBTC (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2020), 460-466. For more on the allusions to the Old Testament, see George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Ed. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 919-996; “Hebrews, Letter to the” in Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Ed. G.K. Beale, D.A. Carson, Benjamin L. Gladd, and Andrew David Naselli (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023), 293-300.

[14] See esp. Gareth Lee Cockerill, “The Present Priesthood of the Son: “…he sat down…” in Divine Action in Hebrews and the Ongoing Priesthood of Jesus. Ed. Gareth Lee Cockerill, Craig G. Bartholomew, and Benjamine T. Quinn (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2023), 203-226.

[15] Neil R. Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews (Abilene, TX: Bible Guides, 1980), 56.

[16] John S. Hammett and Charles L. Quarles, The Work of Christ (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 142.

[17] Donnie DeBord, We Have Seen His Glory: Exploring the Doctrine of Christ’s Incarnation (Flower Mound, TX: Jenkins Institute, 2025), 63-64.

[18] Hammett and Quarles, The Works of Christ, 140.

[19] See esp. Richard E. Averbeck, “Sacrifices and Offerings” in Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Ed. G.K. Beale, D.A. Carson, Benjamin L. Gladd, and Andrew David Naselli (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023), 727-732.

[20] These observations above are contrary to David M. Moffitt’s reassessment of the Hebrews’ atonement in Rethinking the Atonement: New Perspectives on Jesus’s Death, Resurrection, and Ascension (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2022), 47-200

[21] Andrew Remingon Rillera, Lamb of the Free: Recovering the Varied Sacrificial Understandings of Jesus’s Death (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2024), 9-26.

[22] Eleonore Stump criticizes advocates of PSA as proponents who want to emphasize divine justice but end up denying it in Atonement (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018), 76-78.

[23] Robert Letham, The Work of Christ (Downers Grove, IVP Academic, 1993), 137.

[24] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Penal Substitution View” in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Ed. James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 95.

[25] Steve Jefferey, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), 230.

[26] Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ, 176.