A Response to The Gift of Redemption – Part Three

First Roadblock, Continued

Troyer argues that Christ did not appease the wrath of God by experiencing it in our place. He says, “The concept of wrath upon the Son is utterly foreign to the Scriptures.” But his view disagrees with those very Scriptures, as a quick overview will show.

We need first to realize that we are by nature sinners who deserve God’s wrath. Ephesians 2 says we are “by nature children of wrath.” Meaning, we are born at war with God and, if left to our natural course, will incur the wrath of God. How are we delivered from God’s wrath? Romans 5 says, “We shall be saved from wrath through Christ.” How can we, who have earned God’s wrath because of our sin, be saved from that wrath through Christ? Because Christ has taken God’s wrath for us. He has substituted Himself for us and taken our sins. “(He) gave himself for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). As we see a few verses earlier in Galatians, this curse is upon all those who do not “continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” And no human (other than Christ) has kept God’s law. We are cursed—under divine wrath—because we are all lawbreakers by nature. This curse is lifted through Christ, who took our curse. “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21).

We see how this comes together in Colossians 2:14: “God has made you alive together with Christ, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” Notice the following things in these verses.

1. God has forgiven our trespasses, having removed the consequences of our sins against Him.
2. He did this by wiping out “the handwriting of requirements that was against us.” This refers to specific, recorded allegations against us because of our sins committed in disobedience to the law of God.
3. He “has taken it out of the way.” This handwriting with written allegations has been removed from our account.
4. “Having nailed it to the cross.” How are these allegations removed? By the death of Christ. Christ by His death has removed the consequences of our sins. He, on the cross, dealt with our sin problem. On the cross, He satisfied the requirements of the law which we had broken.

This lays an essential groundwork for our understanding of the atonement. First, we see that our sins have specific consequences. This text points to a specific judgment corresponding to specific sins (a handwriting of requirements that was against us). That judgment will either be experienced by us eternally in hell or by Christ on the cross. Second, we see that Christ on the cross dealt with these consequences. For the forgiven sinner, his sins are atoned for by Christ on the cross. Without Christ’s substitutionary atoning work, our sins cannot be forgiven.

The same truths are seen in Romans 3:25. “God set forth [Christ Jesus] as a propitiation by His blood…to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.” This is speaking of Christ’s death on the cross (His blood), and it describes it as a propitiation. A propitiation is a sacrifice offered to put away sin or atone for sin. To whom was this propitiation offered? To God the Father, as seen in the surrounding emphasis (in v. 25 and in the entirety of Romans 1-3) on the righteousness of God.

How is this righteousness defined in these verses? Well, it has something to do with God’s perfect standard, a standard which moves God to righteously judge sin. The sins of Old Testament saints are not ignored (which would compromise God’s righteousness) but rather passed over. This implies that God delayed justice for certain sins committed before Christ. Why? Because He knew that Christ would come to satisfy justice. God passed over the sins of Old Testament saints, delaying judgment because He knew Christ would atone for their sins instead. Christ’s redeeming work on the cross, whereby He satisfied the justice of God, is defined over against God’s former passing over of sins, implying that those sins have now been satisfactorily judged in Christ. His righteousness includes His requirement that all sins receive a just judgment. Christ died on the cross to meet the requirements of God’s righteousness so that God’s righteous character could be maintained but sinners could be forgiven.

Paul says in verse 26 that God did this so “He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” God maintains His justice while justifying those who come to faith, and He does this by laying our judgment on Christ. Our sin is the reason Christ died, and Christ died to save us from our sin. “He was delivered up because of our offenses” (Rom. 4:25).

Troyer also believes that “substitutionary atonement does not come from the teachings of Jesus in the gospels.” However, this unhelpfully pits the gospels against the rest of the New Testament. It also misses some important material in the gospels that suggest PSA. In Matthew 26:28, while instituting communion, Jesus said, “This is my blood…which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” How we understand Jesus’ words here depends on how we understand the word “remission”. The Greek root is aphesis, which, according to Thayer’s Lexicon means a release or a letting go. Notice that it is the sins which are released. This is the forgiveness of sins, sins no longer held to someone’s account. This may not be definitive for PSA, but it is at least consistent with PSA as understood from the rest of the New Testament. At minimum, this means that Jesus understood that His atonement would allow for sins to be forgiven. Sin is the problem which the cross solves.

In John 10, Jesus says twice that He gives his life “for the sheep”, once in verse 11 and again in verse 15. This is properly understood as a reference to the atonement, and shows us that Jesus understood His atonement to be substitutionary. “For” (hyper) means in behalf of or for the sake of. Jesus knew that His death on the cross was done in the place of His sheep (a reference to believers). He gave His life to save ours.

From these two passages, with words from Jesus’ mouth, we see that (1) Jesus knew His death on the cross was necessary for sins to be forgiven, and (2) that He knew His death would be substitutionary. This is penal (sins atoned), substitutionary (in the place of) atonement. These passages taken alone make a weak foundation for our understanding of the atonement, but taken alongside the rest of the scriptural witness, they testify to the consistency between Jesus’ words and the apostolic witness.

Other testimony from the gospels supports this view. In Matthew 1:21, Jesus is declared to be the one who will “save His people from their sins.” John the Baptist declares that Jesus is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). John 3 also underscores the state of anyone who does not believe in Christ: “The wrath of God abides on him.” This dovetails with the verse referenced earlier from Romans 5, that we are “saved from wrath through Christ.” We are under wrath outside of Christ, and we can be saved from wrath through Christ. How is this possible? Only if God’s just judgment is satisfied some other way. Christ is the one who absorbs that judgment so we can be saved.

We can also learn from the narrative of the crucifixion. While Jesus was on the cross, darkness was “all over the land” for three hours. At the end of these three hours, Jesus said, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” The connection between the Father’s judgment on the Son and the physical darkness seem inescapable. John records that, at the end of these three hours, Jesus said, “It is finished!” (John 19:30). These events strongly suggest that Jesus was indeed enduring the wrath of God while on the cross, at the end of which, having purchased redemption for sinners by satisfying the wrath of God, He declared that His redemptive work was complete. Having atoned for sin, He freely gave up His spirit. Again, these events aren’t definitive, but they are most agreeable with a penal, substitutionary understanding of the atonement.

Though the author of this booklet says that substitutionary atonement is not in the gospels and that the concept of the wrath of God against the Son is foreign to the Scriptures, we’ve seen otherwise from this quick survey of Scripture. At the very least, PSA is an acceptable interpretation of Scripture, not heresy as he suggests. In my opinion, it is not just an acceptable interpretation but is the one that is most faithful to Scripture.

More Thoughts on the First Roadblock

Part of the weakness of Troyer’s argument stems from a reductionistic view of PSA. Troyer seems to assume that PSA adherents reject the biblical notions of Christ’s sacrifice, of His shedding of His blood, of His remission of sins, or even of His defeat of sin, Satan, and death. He thinks that PSA is consumed with the notion that Jesus paid the penalty for sin. So he says, “If Jesus is made guilty of our sins, then salvation is not through the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross.” It’s difficult to know what his point is here, since salvation through the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross is precisely what PSA holds. But Troyer says that if Jesus is guilty on the cross, then His shed blood means nothing. But the Bible teaches that Christ’s shed blood is essential to His justice-satisfying, wrath-averting work. There is no real juxtaposition between Jesus’ taking our guilt and His giving His blood on the cross.

There are not two concepts here, only one. It’s not as if Jesus needs to atone for our guilt in one action and then in a separate action shed His blood on the cross as a sacrifice. His blood shed as a sacrifice is essential to His atonement wherein he bears our guilt. From the very beginning God made it clear that death is a consequence of sin. Adam’s sin against God brought death on the whole human race. So Christ cannot undo the curse of the garden without giving His life. That doesn’t mean that His physical death is the sum total of His atoning work, but it does mean that it was essential for Him not only to bear the spiritual death of the wrath of the Father but also to experience the physical death which is a consequence of sin.

PSA embraces much more than the sin-propitiating aspect of the atonement. Troyer seems to think that PSA is only concerned with the forgiveness of sin. He misses the fact that justice satisfaction is only one part of Christ’s work. It is an essential part, but it is not the whole. He seems to think that PSA only deals with the guilt problem, that PSA only provides for a total reset. He says, “If indeed sin is flogged out of a man via Jesus, what then is that man’s status? How is he anything better than an empty slate—or a house swept and garnished?” That is to say, he thinks PSA only provides for the removal of sins. Yet no Bible-minded PSA advocate would claim that Christ’s propitiation on the cross is the sum total of the gospel. To the main point, just as our sin is imputed to Christ, His righteousness is imputed to us.

Beyond this, those who take the Bible seriously regarding the atonement also take the Bible seriously regarding all the other aspects of Christ’s work. He not only defeated sin in His death, He brought new power in His resurrection, so we who are declared righteous by our identification with Christ in His death are also empowered to live righteously by our identification with Christ in His resurrection. “Just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4).

So again, some of the author’s disagreements with penal substitutionary atonement are built on misrepresentations or misunderstandings of the view. His concerns fail to stick because they don’t correspond to the view that PSA adherents believe.