Forsaking Penal Substitution, Pt. 2: A Biblical Critique

Penal substitution is biblically problematic. In this video, I examine the proof texts frequently used in defense of PSA. This is part two of a three-part series examining why I think penal substitution must be rejected on theological and biblical grounds. Part one examined the theological problems with this theory, and this video builds upon that argument by assessing the scriptural case against PSA. Part three will suggest a few of the ways we might interpret the cross apart from this theory.
Enjoy my work? Buy me a coffee: www.buymeacoff...
Part 1 (a theological critique): • Forsaking Penal Substi...
Part 3 (If not PSA, then what?): • Forsaking Penal Substi...
Here is a link to the orthodox "chair" analogy I mention in the video: • Orthodox view of Salva...
Suggested reading:
Darrin W. Snyder Belousek: "Atonement, Justice, Peace" - amzn.to/32geCBU
Thomas F. Torrance: "The Mediation of Christ" - amzn.to/3tAzDTK
Thomas F. Torrance: "Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ" - amzn.to/3uUFGmB
C. Baxter Kruger: "Jesus and the Undoing of Adam" - amzn.to/3gm9yUG
C. Baxter Kruger: "Across All Worlds" - amzn.to/3e4qOLH
Karl Barth: "Church Dogmatics II/1 & IV/1" - amzn.to/3x20V7G amzn.to/3adjvQy
"The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views" - amzn.to/3wZQxxy
Fleming Rutledge: "The Crucifixion" - amzn.to/3mSWWWz
John McLeod Campbell: "The Nature of the Atonement" - amzn.to/3mPP08m
My books related to this subject:
"T. F. Torrance in Plain English" - amzn.to/2QwrL77
"Karl Barth in Plain English" - amzn.to/3snkG6i
"We Belong: Trinitarian Good News" - amzn.to/3drARvj
**Please note that all Amazon links are associate links, wherein I receive a percentage of your total purchase.

[@10.6.12.]

Invaluable, this is totally in tune with Orthodox Theology.

[@davidnenadov]

An excellent 5 minute introduction!

[@homoousias]

The clarity is much appreciated!

[@StephenDMorrison]

Thanks for watching! Glad to hear it

[@JoshuaCookLibertyIsRising]

I love you referencing Eastern Orthodox theology ☦️

[@GracieDontPlayDat]

Christianity is patchwork, each sect being a little right and also massively wrong the second they add extra man-made requirements to salvation. Jesus said the Pharisees were correct in doctrine but hypocritical in execution.

[@jacksonswain390]

Really enjoyed these videos. I heard a pastor say something recently about how Christ “saves us from God’s Justice,” and was trying for days to articulate why this seemed so off to me. You explained most of the thoughts I had much more thoroughly and succinctly than I did. I had a couple questions: First, have you read Rutledge's work on the Crucifixion? I read it for Lent and really enjoyed it. She takes a very wholistic approach to the atonement and allows various atonement motifs to interact and interpret one another, rather than to exclude or disprove one another, or to be converted into a mechanical "theory." She rejects PSA as such but actually has a lot of fondness for the idea of substitution in general, which you seemed to push against in this video. Secondly, do you think it is inappropriate to look to the story of Jonah to help deconstruct PSA? It might be using the message of Jonah to address something it wasn’t meant to, but it seems to me that if penal substitution hinges on the notion that God is bound to punish sin, Jonah gives PSA some pushback. God blatantly elects not to punish the Ninevites, and Jonah, who is clearly shown as being in the wrong, is furious that God will not enact vengeful, punitive “justice” upon them.

[@StephenDMorrison]

Hi Jackson, thanks for watching and for your comment! I haven't read Rutledge's book fully (I've dipped in and out of it), but I really like her work. I do think there is an aspect of substitution to the atonement but more along the lines of Barth's concept in CD IV/1 of Christ as the "Judge judged in our place." Barth even holds to a kind of satisfaction but it is not wrath but God's love that is satisfied in the atonement. I believe Rutledge considers Barth an influence so it seems like there may be some overlap there. I really like the idea of using Jonah to push back against PSA. I definitely think it would be appropriate. It seems to contradict that narrative quite well and actually serves as a kind of rebuke of those who insist God must punish sin. I hadn't made that connection before so thank you for pointing it out. A study of that text would be insightful in that regard. Thanks again for watching and for your kind words! God bless. Stephen

[@jacksonswain390]

@@StephenDMorrison Rutledge’s book is definitely heavily influenced by Barth. Reading The Crucifixion actually pushed me over the edge to dive more thoroughly into Barth-I’m now finally reading Barth’s Romans commentary as well as Deliverence of the Captives because of how great the Barth stuff was in The Crucifixion. She touches on Barth’s thought on substitution and election, but what really permeates her work is a Barthian insistence on God as the sole actor in the work of salvation. Glad the thoughts on Jonah resonated with you. I was feeling a little nervous to use it against PSA because Jonah is probably myth/parable and not literal, and “atonement” doesn’t seem to be the point of the text, so I hesitated to use it in that way, but it does feel like such a strong case against the idea that God must punish sin. I suppose it doesn’t bar the possibility that God may punish sin, or perhaps does punish sin in certain situations, but it certainly suggests that God is not bound to punish sin at all but is free to extend mercy and forgiveness upon any people at any time.

[@StephenDMorrison]

​@@jacksonswain390 God as the only actor in atonement is important, and I'm glad to hear that's something she stressed via Barth. And I agree with Jonah re: likely myth or saga, and that the idea behind PSA that all sin must be punished according to some need in God is at least challenged there. Best of luck reading Barth! He can be tough but definitely worth it. Deliverance to the Captives remains one of my favorites from him.

[@the3dadvantage]

The type of chastisement that brings peace is spelled out in 2 Pet 2. To be chastised for doing what is right and enduring it without retaliation. Peter interprets that passage for us quoting from Isa 53. Check it out.

[@jezusjestaska9725]

Very thorough, thank you. Important topic

[@DanCottle1]

Thanks for these videos. I found them very clear and interesting. I had not considered your point about God being completely different to the pagan gods who demanded blood sacrifice before. I have a question relating to this and to the passages in Hebrews you mentioned and that are used to defend psa, specifically Heb 9:22 “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness “. In your view, how do you think this relates (if at all) to atonement?

[@StephenDMorrison]

Hi Dan, thanks for watching and for the question. I’d interpret that text more along the lines of healing being a part of forgiveness. Shedding of blood as cleansing of the sinner not only forgives sins but heals the root of sin itself by redeeming us from the old nature. The old man must be put to death for forgiveness to be completely realized. I think of forgiveness as the release from guilt and redemption as the release from the root cause of sin itself, ie, a new creation in Christ. So forgiveness is freedom from the fruit of sin and atonement is freedom from the cause of sin, in that sense, and so without the old man but to death in shedding blood forgiveness alone will leave the work of redemption half complete. Hopefully that makes sense! Thanks again

[@DanCottle1]

@@StephenDMorrison thanks for replying, that is really helpful

[@misterfbl]

@@DanCottle1 It's interesting to consider, even briefly, the occasions in the gospels where Jesus explicitly or implicitly proclaims the forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. The paralysed man on the stretcher (Mark 2); the woman who wept over Christ's feet (Luke 7); the woman caught in adultery (John 8), the penitent thief at the cross (Luke 23). I wonder if when the author of Hebrews says 'there's no forgiveness without the shedding of blood' he is simply reflecting the religious ideas of his time and his people - what the man or woman in the street thought - rather than making a definitive theological statement about what God actually requires in order to forgive. In reflecting on all this stuff (and thanks Stephen for these helpful additions to that pool of knowledge!) it has really helped me to remember that the sacrifices were always for OUR benefit, not God's. He didn't need them, we did.

[@DanCottle1]

@@misterfbl This question of 'does God need a sacrifice in order to be able to forgive sin' is a question I have struggled with . As you indicate I think these scriptures seem to say no - but I have heard many people teach over the years the opposite. I am starting to rethink.

[@misterfbl]

@@DanCottle1 one other that occurred to me is the return of the prodigal son. The Father doesn't need to punish or shed blood to forgive.

[@robarrant3429]

Just glad to know someone else uses NRSV.

[@StephenDMorrison]

It’s my go-to translation!

[@the3dadvantage]

Propitiation is "hilasterion" in Greek. This is the Greek word for the Hebrew "kapporet." Exodus 25:22 tells us what Paul meant. It's the place where God meets with us and explains how to be right with Him. Why does no one understand this? It's neither propitiation, or expiation. It's how to be righteous so we can be reconciled.

[@tomtemple69]

the word "hilasterion" means appeasement of divine wrath

[@tng200]

Please have a listen to the Naked Bible Podcast, episode 76. This is Dr Mike Heiser’s discussion of Leviticus 16 and the Day of Atonement. He spends a deal of time discussion the terms Propitiation and Mercy Seat as part of the ritual. There is a lot he says but he suggests that a better translation of both terms should be “place of purging”. This would not help the proponents of PSA at all as it removes the notion of Christ being punished for our sin.

[@StephenDMorrison]

Thanks for the tip, sounds interesting! I’ve heard good things about that podcast.

[@roquevillafranca4018]

I was trying to explain to a friend why I don’t hold to PSA anymore but he mentioned one more verse and I was wondering if you had a response or clarification to Hebrews 9.22, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”

[@StephenDMorrison]

This verse does not say that shedding blood *causes* the forgiveness of sin, but that there is no forgiveness without it. The context is the Levitical cult and expiation. The sacrifice bears witness to God's act; crucially, it does not act on God. Even in the sacrifices of the temple. God acts to make atonement, and the medium of its accomplishment is the sacrifice. PSA reverses the cause-effect relationship. God is the cause of atonement, not the sacrifice. The sacrifice is the medium or result of the atonement that God alone makes. I hope that makes sense and is helpful!

[@StephenDMorrison]

In other words, the sacrifice is not necessary to appease God's wrath (PSA), but because it bears witness to God's act in making atonement. God is not the object of the atonement but the One who acts.

[@roquevillafranca4018]

@@StephenDMorrison I understand, thank you so much

[@danhankee]

For an excellent refutation of Mr. Morrison's position, considering watching Mike Winger's video series demonstrating the historicity and truth of psa.

[@TrevorDowns007]

For a thorough debunk of Mike's flames series check Idol killers response. This 3 parter shorter and fantastic. But Idol Killer literally walks through Wingers series to debunk it. Blessings.

[@gabrieljones9084]

This is where we derived habeas corpus. Great critique

[@StephenDMorrison]

Thanks for watching, Gabriel!

[@church7180]

Thank you so much for this series on such an important topic. What is a good book on this topic that is not PSA that you could recommend?

[@StephenDMorrison]

Thanks for watching! I highly recommend "Atonement, Justice, and Peace" by Darrin Belousek: amzn.to/3KkpCml. It is a thorough and biblical debunking of the doctrine. You can also check out the further reading section in the description of this video and the pt. 3 video.

[@TheRocksolid373]

Christus Victor, by Aulen

[@Lucasjhatt]

Great video. When you starting the podcast?? ;-)

[@StephenDMorrison]

Hah thanks! I’ve considered one but no plans for the moment

[@brad724p]

Well said; thanks.

[@jansongunn4214]

These were great Stephen!👍

[@StephenDMorrison]

Thanks, Jason!

[@bradbrown2168]

How would you consider Ransom theory in Isaiah 53?

[@bradbrown2168]

Ransom theory was written about from very early Church writers.

[@justindavis2711]

This is brilliant. You have a new subscriber ;)

[@StephenDMorrison]

Thanks, Justin!

[@CookInTech84]

Good!

[@andryranivoarizaka9772]

Thanks for sharing your vision. It is insightful and enriching for theological and biblical reflexion. I'd say there is no problem to translate Romans 3 : 25 with the words "atonement", "propitiation", or "mercy seat". I read all of those terms in light of the beginning (how we read the beginning will determine how we read the rest). In the beginning, man (after being decived by the serpent) believed that God is a menace for his life. Therefore, he hid himself (Genesis 3 : 10) and accused God of being responsible for his woe to come, by saying God is the one who made the women that enticed him to sin (Genesis 3 : 12). All the blame is on God (God is the scapegoat). From that moment on, humanity started to see God as a danger and a menace for life (and the Bible never stop depicting people who keep believing that). Therefore, humans have become enemy of God (Romans 5 : 10) in the sense that they saw in God an enemy. They decived themselves. Jesus came to prove the opposite and his death showed that God never killed him : it was Pilate, Judas, and some of his people that rejected him and put him at the cross to die. As a matter of fact, Jesus became the Propitiation not for God, but for angry humans who thought God was the one that was mad. His death can open the door to reconciliation (he is our Atonement) for humans can now be appeased (propitiated) because they can know that God is not "murderer from the beginning" (John 8 : 44), but he has always been merciful. In that sens, Jesus is the Mercy Seat. It was sin (manifested by that sinners through murder) that killed Jesus and God the Father (not without pain) allowed that to happened to prove sinners and the serpent (Satan) wrong.

[@StephenDMorrison]

Thanks for watching, Andry, and for these thoughts! Sounds like Rene Girard's scapegoat theory. I appreciate your insights. Thanks again!

[@elt-on]

I’m anxious to read Girard. Soon enough. I’m curious whether he performs exegesis, or simply philosophizes anthropologically.

[@andryranivoarizaka9772]

@@elt-on True. Girard is not a exegete. Now, it is also true that biblical texts expose some mental and psychological states (depression, bigotry, etc.). One does not necessarily exclude the other.

[@elt-on]

@@andryranivoarizaka9772 So he develops his theories about a meta narrative of non-violence in a fashion similar to Jung’s archetypes rather than from examining any particular NT passages concerning Yeshua? That’s kind of what I expected, but, admittedly, I’m pretty clueless concerning Girard. (I chose Jung's theory as a potential parallel for Girard thoughtfully. I sense that, for Girard, Yeshua’s death may represent an archetypal answer for the violent tendencies embedded in our collective unconscious.)

[@elt-on]

@@andryranivoarizaka9772 Presently, I'm voraciously devouring "I See Satan fall Like Lightening," and I beg to differ concerning Girard's exegetical prowress. His unpacking of Colossians 2:15 (ch.11) is profound! I'm in love! If you start with Girard's "mimetic desire," but replace his orientation of the atonement around the "single victim mechanism" with an anthropological approach oriented around Denise D. Cummins' "Dominance Theory," you'll have my understanding of the cross exactly!

[@bradbrown2168]

Biblical scholars must do the cultural context besides the grammatical. Word meanings morph in time.

[@bradbrown2168]

HILASTERIAN means mercy seat. We must look to the Levitical sacrifices. Which was about a cleansing, to become clean to be in holy space.

[@josephkuzara2609]

The earliest account of a form of PSA that is refused of God is in exodus 32:30-35 Exodus 32:30-35 30 The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” 31 So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves a god of gold. 32 But now, please forgive their sin-but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.” 33 The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. 34 Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.” 35 And the Lord struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made. So out of ignorance of Gods character along with Their impassible immutablilty towards those Father declared as ligitimate children, in my opinion was the earliest form of PSA that God refused to act upon as God by design will not require a child of wrath to atone children of wrath. To blot moses out of the book of life in the place of others to forgive would portray Them as a passible mutable God toward the righteous and Their promises to secure and preserve His children unto conformity to the image and glory of Messiah Yeshua's humanity. For whom Father gave to the Son to taste death in behalf of for the sake of their sins. Paul the Apostle in Rom 9:3 in thinking of moses in his great love for his people was willing of a similar fate but he knew it was not plausable that even if he requested God as Moses did to sever himself from Yeshua in their place in hopes to save some. It was not going to happen. By design reflecting Gods Character and promises for those He declared legit children ,such conformities do not bring about our redemption nor forgivness. As it will only render one a child of wrath that cannot save, because they cannot obey God nor please God.

[@mikezeke7041]

It’s deceptive to pit PSA against CV…

[@emilesturt3377]

Good food for thought! Thank you muchly! I always think that although He saves us from the enemy, death and ourselves, His reconciliation must also save us from God in the sense that it saves us from hell, and it is God Who "casts us, throws us" into it. Although the torment of hell is largely self generated (so we presume) and we send ourselves there, we cannot dismiss the wrath of God as an active determination of God, a penalty, as well as largely a passive 'consequential' result of transgression. This is how I string it all together in my ed anyway! (and you all might disagree of course! : ) The Orthodox Communions view the uniting of the divine and human natures in the Person of Christ - Who gives Himself as a ransom "to death", to the state of reality in the fallen universe, and Who enters into the place of our shameful condemnation and death (the punishment of exile and the severance of soul from body) and the pleasing, satisfying and worthy Sacrifice and Offering of Himself to Himself - as being the emphasis: the Triune God reordering and recreating of all reality through His fulfilment of all righteousness in the Son, the good news of the whole of His incarnation which restores our union with Him and rescues us from the powers that bind us. We are covered and cleansed and alive in Him and so spared from "the wrath to come" . . . for in mercy He entered 'our place', that we might live, 'in His' Revelation Ransom Redemption Recapitulation Restoration Recreation Resurrection To the mind of the ancient Church, these words sum up the crux of the matter of the cross and the whole of the Incarnation.... But NOT the Son bearing the wrath / anger of the Father. If wrath is kind of akin to mortality and the sentance of death, then yes, He suffered it and was buried... but rose again on the third day after recapitulating and fulfilling all things, and via the Pure Body of His flesh, condemning sin "in the flesh". . . for He is the "sin offering". Whatever "bearing sin", "became sin", "was laid on Him" actually means in actual reality, in God's sight, we must remember that sin is not a thing. It describes thoughts words and deeds of persons. It is a privation of the good... an abstraction. "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"... without the costly giving of a life, there can be no covering of death... "For Love covers a multitude of sins". He is our sacrifice of atonement, the expiratory offering. To the Orthodox, "propitiation", (gk: Hilasterion / Hilasmos / place of reconciliation) for instance, in 1 John 2:2, is often misconstrued in interpretation or emphasis in Protestant circles, as it is easily equated with pagan sacrifice relating to changeable deities who need to be appeased and reconciled (in disposition) to us, as opposed to the God Who was "reconciling the world to Himself" and is already favorably disposed to it: John 3:16. Surely the Cross and Resurrection were "pleasing", and "satisfied" the heart of God: affecting a Cosmic change in ontological reality, as well as the our 'legal' status (metaphors) associated with describing that relational change; but we have to be careful not to miss figurative language / descriptions in Scripture regarding God and sin within the Atonement... for error, heresy and blasphemy shortly follow X

[@stevendubberly8106]

Great research on PST. Now let's move on to the false dogma of the trinity.

[@larrybedouin2921]

I do not make a case for PSA, but I believe that propitiation is a correct interpretation. My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, *we have an advocate with the Father* Jesus Christ the righteous: (He is our intercessior with the Father) And he is the propitiation [mercyseat] for *our sins* and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. {1 John 2:1-2}

[@aservantofJEHOVAH7849]

Exodus Ch.34:6 ASV"And JEHOVAH passed by before him, and proclaimed, JEHOVAH, JEHOVAH, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness and truth, 7keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by NO MEANS CLEAR THE GUILTY , visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.

[@elt-on]

Your problem is that you ain’t usin’ the real Bible, the KJV…nah, I kid! Great video series! Thanks.

[@StephenDMorrison]

Hah! :D Thanks for watching!

[@gerisnoke4374]

Hi Stephen. Another excellent video. Thank you so much. My main reservation in this part is your felt need to explain Paul and Hebrews. Paul, in my understanding, is an exceedingly arrogant SELF-appointed FALSE apostle power hungry con artist who murdered, lied, deceived, blasphemed, hated, and maligned the TRUE apostles and who was ultimately REJECTED by them AND by Jesus/Yahushua himself. Paul's writings are so convoluted and full of heresy and garbage that it is a huge mistake to try and use them to understand the Atonement, or Truth in Scripture in general. Yes, this is another seemingly heretical and unorthodox idea, just like the "Trinity" I mentioned in my comment †o Part 1 of this series, but it is one which deserves due diligence in researching for all truth seekers. If I were to start from scratch trying to put together a "theory" or understanding of Atonement, I would do it WITHOUT any contamination by Paul and his various false doctrines and illogical, murky, inconsistent writings, or writings of his devotees. Now, on to Part 3.

[@StephenDMorrison]

Geri, I am once again glad to hear you enjoyed this video! I again cannot follow you into rejecting Paul, but thanks for watching and commenting!

[@gerisnoke4374]

@@StephenDMorrison I don't ask you to follow. I raise an issue and ask you to be a Berean. That is all. God Bless.

[@the3dadvantage]

The mercy seat isn't just for the day of atonement. It's the place where God meets with people to give them his law. Why do theologians ignore what the text says? Read Lev 16 for heaven's sake.

[@wqwwqwqqpoppopoo]

"By making the father that from which we are saved". What is Jesus saving us from? Who is the righteous Judge? Who prepared the lake of fire? Who casts people into it? Remember that Jesus and The Father are one. God is patient and loving. And it was his will to make a way for our salvation. But he is also a just God who punished evil and unleashed his wrath upon them. "Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell". Jesus saved us from the fathers Righteous wrath. But the father is involved in this plan of redemption.

[@mireliomarzo6468]

God works is shadows and types. So an Eye for an eye , and animal sacrifices all point to the guiltless for the guilty. So Why make this so trivial.

[@felixquintana5784]

I think you're spot on when forsaking PSA but was taken aback when quoting David Bentley Heart as his universalism position negates Christian orthodoxy.

[@LoftOfTheUniverse]

Hart is definitely too wacky to cite

[@nate7827]

I was hoping to get through all of the videos before commenting, but I believe that I have already seen enough to offer a counterview. Nearly all of the arguments presented seem to be grounded in the premise that God's justice is only ever restorative, and never retributive. As I have heard argued by others before, it is put forth that the life and teachings of Christ are the best evidence of this. However, the premise is faulty and flimsy. One would need to ignore a swath of Christ's teachings to adopt this view. It is made quite clear throughout the gospels that while God certainly acts restoratively, he also chooses to withhold His light from some, and will finally punish those who are not His. And we see Jesus as an active agent in punishing the wicked - for instance, at the separation of the sheep and the goats, in the parable of the king's wedding banquet, in the parable of the wheat and the tares, and elsewhere. If the premise is flawed, the conclusion that PSA is not an accurate understanding of the atonement is similarly flawed. Wrongly perceiving Jesus as one who only seeks restorative justice makes him irreconcilable to the God we find elsewhere in Scripture. But seeing that his message is consistent with the God of the rest of Scripture reinforces that He is God, and that God is one.