Chapter 33

Theological and Moral Objections to Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Few doctrines in the history of the church have attracted as much moral outrage as penal substitutionary atonement. Critics say it is unjust. They say it tears apart the Trinity. They say it turns God into a monster who glorifies violence. Some even call it "cosmic child abuse." These are serious charges, and anyone who cares about the cross of Christ should take them seriously. I certainly do.

But here is what I have found after years of careful study: nearly every one of these objections attacks a distorted version of the doctrine rather than the real thing. The critics are often right to reject what they are rejecting. What they are rejecting, however, is not what the best defenders of penal substitution actually teach. When the doctrine is understood properly—within a Trinitarian framework of divine love, grounded in the voluntary self-giving of the Son, and rooted in the deep biblical themes of representation and union with Christ—the objections lose most of their force.

That does not mean the objections are worthless. Far from it. They have done the church a great service by exposing careless and even harmful ways that penal substitution has sometimes been presented. Some popular versions of the doctrine really do sound like an angry Father taking out His rage on an innocent Son. Some really do seem to glorify suffering in ways that can hurt vulnerable people. We should be grateful for critics who point out these problems—even as we insist that the solution is not to abandon the doctrine but to state it more carefully.

In this chapter, we will walk through the six most common theological and moral objections to penal substitutionary atonement. For each one, I will present the objection as fairly and strongly as I can. Then I will explain why, in the end, the objection does not succeed against a properly formulated version of the doctrine. Along the way, we will engage with some of the most important critics—Steve Chalke, Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Parker, J. Denny Weaver, William Hess, and others—as well as the strongest defenders of penal substitution, including John Stott, William Lane Craig, Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach.

My thesis is simple: the major theological and moral objections to penal substitutionary atonement—that it is unjust, that it divides the Trinity, that it glorifies violence, that it makes forgiveness impossible, that it sounds "pagan," and that it is morally primitive—arise from misunderstandings or caricatures of the doctrine. When penal substitution is stated correctly within a Trinitarian framework, every one of these objections can be answered.

Before we begin, a word about how this chapter relates to the rest of the book. In Chapter 32, we examined the major exegetical objections to penal substitution—arguments that claim the biblical text itself does not support the doctrine. Here in Chapter 33, we turn to theological and moral objections—arguments that claim the doctrine, even if it could be found in Scripture, is theologically incoherent or morally repugnant. In Chapter 34, we will look at the specifically Eastern Orthodox critique of Western atonement theology, and in Chapter 35, we will engage with contemporary objections from feminist, liberationist, and nonviolent perspectives. The philosophical dimensions of several objections discussed here—especially the justice objection and the forgiveness objection—receive extended treatment in Chapters 25, 26, and 27. I will cross-reference those chapters where appropriate, summarizing the key arguments here without reproducing them in full.

One more preliminary observation. It is striking how many of these objections ultimately boil down to the same core problem: a failure to take the doctrine of the Trinity seriously enough when thinking about the cross. When the Trinity is sidelined—when the cross is imagined as a transaction between two separate parties rather than the self-giving of the Triune God—nearly all the moral and theological problems that critics identify come rushing in. But when the Trinity is placed at the center, those problems dissolve. This pattern will emerge again and again as we work through the objections below.

Objection 1: Penal Substitution Is Unjust—It Punishes the Innocent for the Crimes of the Guilty

This is probably the oldest and most persistent objection to penal substitution. It goes back at least to the sixteenth-century theologian Faustus Socinus, whose followers (the Socinians) argued that it is fundamentally unjust to punish one person for the sins of another.¹ The argument is straightforward: justice means giving people what they deserve. Guilty people deserve punishment. Innocent people do not. So when we say that God punished the innocent Jesus in place of guilty sinners, we are saying that God committed a profound injustice. And a God who commits injustice is no God at all.

The objection has been stated powerfully by many modern critics. Tom Smail, writing in the collection Atonement Today, put it this way: by what right or justice can punishment be imposed on anybody except the person who committed the offense? Even if an innocent party were willing to bear the punishment, it would be an unjust judge who permitted—let alone arranged—such a transfer.² Stuart Murray Williams stated the matter even more bluntly: punishing an innocent man—even a willing victim—is fundamentally unjust.³ Colin Greene asked: is it not the case that sins are so identified with those who commit them that they simply cannot be transferred from one person to another?⁴

Now I want to be honest: at first glance, this objection has real force. We know from our own experience that punishing the wrong person is a terrible thing. If a judge in a human courtroom sentenced an innocent bystander to prison in place of the actual criminal, we would rightly be outraged. So how can we say that God did something like this at the cross and call it just?

The answer, I believe, requires us to understand three crucial things that the objection overlooks. Each of these points transforms the picture entirely.

First: Christ Is Not an Innocent Third Party—He Is God Himself

The objection imagines a scenario where God looks around, finds some unrelated innocent person, and punishes that person for crimes he did not commit. If that were what happened at the cross, the objection would be devastating. But that is not what happened. Not even close.

The person who bore the penalty of human sin is not a random bystander. He is God the Son—the second Person of the Trinity—who is one in being with the Father. When John Stott wrote about this in his landmark book The Cross of Christ, he insisted that we must get this point exactly right. The substitute is not "the man Christ Jesus" viewed as a human being separate from God. Any version of the atonement that starts there "lays itself open to gravely distorted understandings of the atonement."⁵ In those distorted versions, either Christ is pictured as intervening to pacify an angry God, or God is pictured punishing the innocent Jesus in place of guilty sinners. Both versions drive a wedge between the Father and the Son. Both denigrate the Father. And both miss the heart of the matter entirely.

Stott's great insight—and I think it is one of the most important theological insights of the twentieth century—is that the cross is God's self-substitution. The God who requires that sin be dealt with is the very same God who bears the cost of dealing with it. The judge takes the penalty upon Himself. As Stott put it, God chose to inflict the punishment not on someone else, but to assume it Himself.⁶ This changes everything. The moral problem with punishing the innocent only arises when we imagine God punishing someone else. When God takes the penalty upon Himself—in the person of His Son—the situation is radically different.

Second: Christ Goes Willingly

The objection pictures the cross as something imposed on an unwilling victim. But the New Testament makes it absolutely clear that Jesus went to the cross voluntarily. He said so Himself: "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again" (John 10:18, ESV). When Peter tried to stop Jesus from going to Jerusalem to suffer, Jesus rebuked him sharply: "Get behind me, Satan!" (Mark 8:33, ESV). In Gethsemane, Jesus prayed, "Not my will, but yours, be done" (Luke 22:42, ESV)—and then willingly submitted to arrest, trial, and execution.

As Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach point out in their detailed discussion of this objection, the willingness of Christ is a crucial difference between the cross and the kind of injustice the critics have in mind. Child abuse involves inflicting pain on an unwilling victim. The cross involves the willing, knowing, purposeful self-offering of the Son of God.⁷ That does not mean Christ's willingness alone resolves the justice question—Smail was right that willingness by itself is not enough to make the punishment of the innocent just.⁸ But it is an essential part of the picture that must not be ignored.

Third: Union with Christ and Representation Provide the Ground for the Transfer

This is the most important piece of the puzzle, and I discuss it at much greater length in Chapter 27 and Chapter 28. Here I will summarize the key theological argument.

The objection assumes that Jesus and sinners are completely separate, unrelated persons—that there is no real connection between them. If that were true, the transfer of guilt and punishment from sinners to Christ would indeed be arbitrary and unjust. But the New Testament teaches something very different. Believers are united to Christ by faith and by the Holy Spirit. We are "in Christ" and He is "in us." This is not just a metaphor. It is a real spiritual reality that the apostle Paul returns to again and again (Romans 6:3–11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 1:3–14; Colossians 3:3).

Because of this union, Christ is not an unrelated third party who takes our punishment. He is our representative—our federal head—who stands in a real, covenantal, Spirit-created relationship with us. Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach explain that the doctrine of penal substitution does not propose a transfer of guilt between unrelated persons. It says that guilt is imputed—that is, reckoned or credited—to Christ from those who are united to Him.⁹ The apostle Paul captures the whole exchange in a single verse: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21, ESV).

Think of it this way. In a human court, we rightly object when a judge punishes someone who has no connection to the crime. But what if the judge himself, out of love for the convicted criminal, steps down from the bench, takes the criminal's place, and serves the sentence? And what if this judge is so deeply connected to the criminal that the two are, in a mysterious but real sense, one? That is closer to what the Bible describes at the cross.

Martin Luther used the beautiful analogy of marriage to explain this. When two people marry, their debts and their assets become shared. If one partner is a debtor, the other willingly takes on that debt through the union of marriage. Christ, in His love, entered into a kind of covenantal marriage with His people—knowing full well that this union would bring our debt upon Himself. He did not share our debt reluctantly. He took it on willingly, out of love, as part of the cost of this union. It is not a perfect analogy, of course—Christ does not merely share our debt, He pays it for us—but it captures something essential about the relational ground on which the transfer of guilt rests.⁴⁰

It is also worth noting, as Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach remind us, that the Bible contains numerous examples of corporate moral responsibility that challenge the individualistic assumptions behind this objection. The most obvious example is the solidarity of all humanity with Adam. Paul draws a direct comparison in Romans 5:12–21 between our union with Adam (through which guilt and death spread to all people) and our union with Christ (through which righteousness and life are offered to all who believe). If we accept the first—that Adam's sin had consequences for the entire human race—then we should not find it strange that Christ's righteousness can have consequences for those united to Him. The two cases are structurally parallel. Paul says so explicitly.

William Lane Craig makes a related philosophical argument in his discussion of the coherence of penal substitution. Craig shows that the critics' objection often relies on what the legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart called a "definitional stop"—defining "punishment" in such a narrow way that substitutionary punishment is ruled out by definition, not by genuine moral reasoning. Craig argues that if we set aside these artificial definitional restrictions, the moral objection loses its teeth.¹⁰ The deep question is not whether substitutionary punishment is conceptually possible—history shows that it is—but whether it is morally justified. And the answer depends entirely on the nature of the relationship between the substitute and those he represents. In the case of Christ and believers, that relationship—union by faith, covenant, and the Holy Spirit—provides more than enough ground to make the substitution just. (For the full philosophical treatment of this question, see Chapter 27.)

Peter himself saw no contradiction between divine justice and penal substitution. In his first letter, he affirms that God "judges justly" (1 Peter 2:23, ESV) and then in the very next verse declares that Christ "bore our sins in his body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24, ESV). Paul says that God put forward Christ as a propitiation precisely as a demonstration of God's justice—not a violation of it (Romans 3:25–26). The biblical writers did not see penal substitution as unjust. They saw it as the ultimate display of justice and mercy meeting together.¹¹

There is one more thing worth noting. If we reject the idea that our guilt can be imputed to Christ, we actually create a bigger justice problem, not a smaller one. As Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach observe, if Christ bore no one's guilt, then the very fact that He died is an appalling injustice—because the Bible teaches that death is the penalty for sin, and Christ had no sin of His own deserving death. God, who is sovereign over all events including the death of Christ, would then be responsible for an inexplicable injustice.¹² Furthermore, if our guilt was not imputed to Christ, then it remains on us—and God would either have to condemn all humanity or overlook sin, both of which contradict clear biblical teaching. The doctrine of imputation is not the problem. It is the solution.

Objection 2: Penal Substitution Divides the Trinity—It Pits an Angry Father against a Loving Son

This objection strikes at the theological heart of the matter. It says that penal substitution creates an irreconcilable conflict within the Godhead. On this view, the Father is the angry one who demands punishment, while the Son is the loving one who absorbs it. The Father is the enemy; the Son is the friend. The Father is wrathful; the Son is merciful. This splits the Trinity right down the middle—and any doctrine that does that, critics say, is fatally flawed.

I want to say clearly: I agree that any version of penal substitution that pits the Father against the Son must be rejected. If that is what the doctrine teaches, then it is not just bad theology—it is heresy. It violates the most basic principle of Trinitarian theology: that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, always acting in perfect unity and love. The early church councils—Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon—established this principle at the highest level of Christian orthodoxy. Any atonement theology that contradicts it must go.

But here is the crucial point: a properly stated version of penal substitution does not divide the Trinity. Not at all. In fact, when you understand what the best defenders of the doctrine actually teach, the cross emerges as the most profound display of Trinitarian unity in all of Scripture.

I treat this topic at great length in Chapter 20, so here I will summarize the main argument. The key insight, once again, comes from Stott's concept of divine self-substitution. At the cross, it is not the Father punishing the Son against His will. It is the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—acting together in unified love to bear the consequences of human sin. The Father sends the Son in love (John 3:16). The Son goes willingly in love (Galatians 2:20). The Spirit empowers the offering (Hebrews 9:14). All three Persons are active. All three are giving. All three are loving. There is no division.¹³

Stott put it this way: the concept of substitution may be found in many religions and even in some secular contexts, but the Christian doctrine of substitution is unique because it is always God's own self-substitution. God does not punish someone else. He bears the punishment Himself. The cross was not a transaction between an angry deity and a helpless victim. It was the self-giving of the one God—Father, Son, and Spirit—to deal with sin at His own expense.¹⁴

David Allen makes a similar point. He stresses that the atonement is a Trinitarian act in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cooperate fully. The Father initiates out of love. The Son obeys out of love. The Spirit enables out of love. There is no conflict, no opposition, no splitting of the divine will.¹⁵

Now, it is true that some popular presentations of penal substitution have been careless on this point. Some hymns, sermons, and illustrations really do make it sound as though the Father is the angry one and the Son is the victim. Stott himself acknowledged that "crude interpretations of the cross still emerge in some of our evangelical illustrations," such as when we describe Christ as coming to rescue us from the judgment of God, or when we portray Him as a whipping boy punished instead of the real culprit.¹⁶ These are genuine problems, and the critics are right to point them out.

But the existence of bad versions of a doctrine does not invalidate the doctrine itself. The fact that some people have explained penal substitution badly does not mean penal substitution is bad. It means we need to explain it better. And the way to explain it better is to ground it firmly in the doctrine of the Trinity. When we do that, the objection evaporates. The cross is not the Father versus the Son. It is the Triune God acting in undivided love to save the world.

William Hess, in his book Crushing the Great Serpent, raises a related concern when he argues that God's wrath does not need to be "satiated" for the atonement to take place. He asks: if human beings can forgive one another without requiring retribution, why can God not do the same?¹⁷ This is a fair question, and it deserves a thoughtful answer. I will address it directly when we come to Objection 5 (the "appeasement" objection) and Objection 6 (the retributive justice objection). For now, the important point is that even Hess's objection, at bottom, is really about a caricature of penal substitution—one in which the Father is pictured as an angry deity who cannot forgive until someone pays. That is not what Stott, Craig, Allen, or any careful defender of the doctrine is saying. What they are saying is that God's holy love—not His anger—is the driving force behind the cross, and that the cross satisfies the just requirements of God's own moral nature, not the demands of an uncontrolled temper.

Fr. Joshua Schooping, an Eastern Orthodox priest who defends penal substitution from within the Orthodox tradition, makes a powerful contribution on this very point. In his book An Existential Soteriology, Schooping shows that the concept of God's wrath directed at sin—and borne by Christ on behalf of sinners—is not a Western invention but is deeply embedded in the Church Fathers, Orthodox hymnography, and the canonical tradition of the East. Crucially, for Schooping, this wrath is always understood within a framework of divine love. The Fathers did not see wrath and love as opposites. They saw wrath as the just response of a loving God to everything that destroys His beloved creatures. The cross, for Schooping, is where that wrath is borne by God Himself—not because the Father is angry at the Son, but because the Triune God voluntarily absorbs the consequences of human sin in order to heal and save humanity.⁴¹ This is fully consistent with the Trinitarian unity that the objection claims penal substitution violates. The problem is not with the doctrine itself. The problem is with the caricature.

I should add one more thought here. Some critics seem to assume that if the Father is involved in any way in the suffering of the Son, then the Father must be acting against the Son. But this does not follow at all. A parent who allows a child to undergo a painful surgery is not acting against the child—the parent is acting for the child, enduring grief and anguish precisely because the surgery is necessary for the child's well-being. Of course, the analogy is imperfect—Christ is not a helpless child, and the Father does not merely "allow" the suffering but actively sends the Son in love. But the basic point stands: involvement in another's suffering is not the same thing as hostility toward the one who suffers. The Father's involvement in the cross is the involvement of a loving God who pays the highest possible price to rescue His creatures from destruction. That is not division. That is the deepest unity imaginable.

Objection 3: Penal Substitution Glorifies Violence and Suffering

This objection has been pressed most powerfully by feminist theologians Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker in their book Proverbs of Ashes. Their argument is deeply personal and deeply disturbing. They share stories of women who were told by their pastors that they should endure abuse silently—because Jesus suffered on the cross for us, and we should be willing to suffer too. If God required the suffering of His own innocent Son, the reasoning goes, then suffering must be redemptive, and victims should accept it rather than resist it.¹⁸

I want to say something clearly before I respond to this objection: the stories Brock and Parker tell are heartbreaking. The use of the cross to justify abuse is a wicked distortion of the gospel. Any time a pastor, a spouse, a parent, or anyone else uses the suffering of Christ as a reason why a victim should silently endure violence, they are committing a grave sin against the gospel itself. I take this concern with the utmost seriousness, and every Christian should.

But does penal substitution itself—the actual doctrine, rightly stated—glorify violence and suffering? I do not believe it does. Here is why.

Penal Substitution Does Not Glorify Suffering for Its Own Sake

The doctrine does not say that suffering is good. It says that sin is so serious that dealing with it required the most costly act in the history of the universe. The cross shows us the gravity of evil, not the beauty of pain. As Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach argue in their careful treatment of this objection, penal substitution recognizes the terrible cost of dealing with sin—but it does not celebrate that cost as though suffering were desirable in itself.¹⁹ It is precisely because suffering is evil that Christ's voluntary bearing of it is so remarkable and so loving.

The Cross Is the Defeat of Violence, Not Its Endorsement

When we look at what the cross actually accomplished, we see not the glorification of violence but its overthrow. Paul tells us that at the cross, God "disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them" in Christ (Colossians 2:15, ESV). The cross exposes the powers of evil for what they are. It unmasks the violence of the world—the injustice of corrupt courts, the cruelty of imperial power, the betrayal of a friend, the cowardice of a mob. And it defeats all of it. The resurrection is God's verdict that violence does not have the last word. Death does not win. Love wins.

This is one of the reasons I believe the multi-faceted model of the atonement, with penal substitution at the center and Christus Victor alongside it, is so important. The Christus Victor dimension shows us that the cross is not just about dealing with guilt and penalty (though it is certainly about that). It is also about defeating the cosmic powers that enslave humanity—sin, death, and the devil. The cross is where God wins the decisive battle against evil. And the way He wins is not through superior force but through self-sacrificing love. That is the farthest thing from a glorification of violence. It is the ultimate subversion of it.

As we argued in Chapter 21, the Christus Victor dimension of the atonement—Christ's victory over sin, death, and the powers of evil—is a genuine and important facet of what happened at the cross. Far from endorsing violence, the cross is God's decisive answer to it.

The Abuse of a Doctrine Does Not Invalidate the Doctrine Itself

This is a basic principle of reasoning that applies to virtually any important truth. The fact that someone has misused the cross to justify abuse does not mean the cross itself is abusive. People have used the Bible to justify slavery, genocide, and all manner of evil. That does not make the Bible evil. It makes the misusers evil. The same principle applies here. When pastors tell abuse victims to suffer silently "like Jesus," they are not faithfully applying penal substitution. They are grotesquely distorting it. The correct application of the cross is exactly the opposite: because God identifies with the innocent victim—because the sinless Christ suffered at the hands of unjust power—the cross is actually the most powerful critique of abuse imaginable. God is on the side of the victim, not the abuser.²⁰

Christ's Suffering Is Unique and Unrepeatable

This point is often missed in the debate. Christ's atoning death is a one-time, never-to-be-repeated event (Hebrews 7:27; 9:28; 10:10). It is not a model for human behavior. We are not called to atone for sin—Christ has already done that, once for all. We may be called to follow Christ in sacrificial love and service, and we may face suffering for our faith (1 Peter 2:21). But our suffering is not atoning suffering. It does not bear the penalty for sin. It does not satisfy divine justice. Only Christ's suffering does that. To conflate our suffering with His is a theological error with devastating practical consequences—and it is one that a careful understanding of penal substitution actually helps us avoid.

So my answer to this objection is: take the concern seriously, reject the misuse of the doctrine firmly, but do not abandon the doctrine itself. The cross is not a celebration of violence. It is the place where violence is defeated by self-giving love.

Objection 4: Penal Substitution Makes Forgiveness Impossible

This objection has a long history, going back to the Socinians in the sixteenth century. The argument is elegant in its simplicity. If Jesus paid the penalty for our sin—if the debt has been fully paid—then there is nothing left to forgive. Forgiveness, by definition, means canceling a debt that is owed. But if someone else has already paid the debt, then no cancellation is needed. There is no forgiveness, only payment. So penal substitution, far from enabling God's forgiveness, actually makes it impossible.²¹

I discuss the philosophical dimensions of this objection in detail in Chapter 25. Here, I want to address its theological core.

The objection sounds clever, but it rests on a misunderstanding of what the Bible means by forgiveness and how the cross relates to it. The mistake is treating forgiveness as though it were a simple financial transaction—a ledger with debits and credits that must balance to zero. On this view, either the debt is cancelled (forgiveness) or the debt is paid (satisfaction), but not both. You have to pick one.

But the biblical picture is richer than a simple accounting ledger. In Scripture, forgiveness is not merely a bookkeeping adjustment. It is a relational act—the restoration of a broken relationship between a holy God and sinful human beings. The cross makes this restoration possible because it deals with the real obstacle to forgiveness: the moral seriousness of sin in the presence of a holy God.

Stott addressed this beautifully. He argued that the "problem of forgiveness" is not how to get God to be willing to forgive—God is always willing to forgive—but how God can forgive justly. How can a holy God, whose nature requires that sin be taken seriously, extend mercy to sinners without simply sweeping sin under the carpet? The cross is the answer: God takes sin with full seriousness by bearing its consequences Himself, and in doing so opens the door to genuine forgiveness.²²

Think of it this way. Imagine a judge whose own son has been convicted of a serious crime. The judge upholds the law by passing the just sentence. But then the judge steps down from the bench, takes out his own wallet, and pays the fine himself. Has the judge forgiven his son? In one sense, the penalty has been paid. In another sense, it was the judge's own costly, loving, sacrificial act that made it possible for his son to go free. The forgiveness is real—it cost the judge everything. That is closer to the biblical picture of the cross than a simple commercial transaction.

William Lane Craig makes a similar point in his philosophical analysis. Craig distinguishes between a creditor who forgives a monetary debt (where payment and forgiveness are indeed alternatives) and a judge who satisfies the demands of justice in order to extend pardon. In the latter case, satisfaction and forgiveness are not alternatives—they are complementary. God satisfies the requirements of His own justice so that He can justly forgive.²³ The cross does not make forgiveness unnecessary. It makes forgiveness possible—real, just, costly forgiveness that takes sin seriously and offers mercy freely.

The apostle Paul says that God put Christ forward as a propitiation "to show his righteousness... so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:25–26, ESV). Notice the dual emphasis: God is just (He takes sin seriously) and the justifier (He extends forgiveness to those who trust in Christ). The cross holds both together. It does not eliminate forgiveness. It provides the ground on which forgiveness can stand.

There is something deeply moving about this. Cheap forgiveness—the kind that costs nothing, that simply waves away the offense as though it does not matter—is ultimately unsatisfying. We know this from human experience. When someone wrongs us deeply and then says "just forget about it," we do not feel forgiven. We feel dismissed. Our pain has been trivialized. But when someone acknowledges the full weight of the wrong, takes it seriously, and then bears the cost of extending grace—that is real forgiveness. That is what the cross gives us. God does not pretend sin does not matter. He acknowledges its full horror. He absorbs its full cost. And then He extends free, full, lavish forgiveness to everyone who trusts in Christ. The cross does not make forgiveness impossible. It makes forgiveness real—real in a way that no cheap, costless amnesty could ever be.

Objection 5: Penal Substitution Depicts a God Who Needs to Be Appeased—And That Sounds Pagan

This is one of the most emotionally charged objections, and it comes from multiple directions. The basic argument goes like this: in pagan religions, humans offer sacrifices to angry, unpredictable gods in order to pacify them and earn their favor. Penal substitution sounds suspiciously similar—it says that God's wrath needed to be "satisfied" or "appeased" before He could be gracious. Is this not just baptized paganism? Have we imported a pagan view of sacrifice into the heart of the gospel?

William Hess devotes an entire chapter of Crushing the Great Serpent (Chapter 14, "Pagan Substitutionary Atonement") to exploring parallels between penal substitution and pagan sacrifice. His concern is that if we look at PSA alongside pagan ideas of wrath appeasement, the similarities are troubling.²⁴ C. H. Dodd famously argued that the Greek word hilastērion (ἱλαστήριον) should not be translated "propitiation" because that would imply the placating of an angry God, which, Dodd claimed, is "foreign to biblical usage" even though it accords with pagan usage.²⁵

This objection deserves a careful answer, and I think a careful answer can be given. The response involves three key points.

The Initiative Comes from God, Not from Humans

This is the single most important difference between the biblical doctrine and pagan religion, and it changes everything. In pagan religion, humans try to placate angry, capricious gods. The initiative is entirely human. People scramble to find the right offering, the right ritual, the right words to calm a god's unpredictable temper. In the biblical picture, the situation is completely reversed. God Himself takes the initiative. God Himself provides the sacrifice. God Himself bears the cost.

The texts could not be clearer. Romans 5:8 says, "But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (ESV). The initiative is God's. First John 4:10 says, "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (ESV). Again, the initiative is entirely on God's side. We did not bring an offering to placate an angry deity. God provided the offering out of His own love.

Stott made this point with characteristic clarity. He identified three fundamental features that separate the biblical idea of sacrifice from paganism. First, God's anger is not the volatile, erratic caprice of pagan deities. It is His steady, unrelenting opposition to evil—predictable, righteous, and just. Second, the propitiation is not made by us but by God Himself. Third, the sacrifice God offers is not an animal or an object but Himself—in giving His Son, He was giving Himself.²⁶

The Structural Similarities Mask Fundamental Theological Differences

Hess is right that there are some structural similarities between penal substitution and certain pagan ideas—the concept of a sacrifice that deals with a deity's displeasure, for instance. But Hess himself acknowledges (wisely) that simply identifying similarities between Christianity and paganism does not prove that one is derived from the other. If we applied that logic consistently, we would have to reject Christianity itself, since many aspects of the Christian faith have loose parallels in pagan religions—creation stories, flood narratives, dying-and-rising figures, and so on.²⁷

Hess offers several possible explanations for why such parallels might exist, including shared cultural environments, divine accommodation, and the influence of the "divine council" (spiritual beings behind the gods of the nations who once had access to God's heavenly court). These are all interesting and legitimate suggestions. But they apply equally to all parallels between Christianity and paganism—not just to penal substitution. The existence of structural similarities does not discredit the biblical doctrine any more than the existence of pagan flood stories discredits the biblical flood narrative.

The real question is not whether there are surface-level similarities, but whether the substance of biblical teaching about the cross matches pagan sacrifice. And on every substantive point, as we have seen, the biblical picture is radically different. God's character is different. His motives are different. The identity of the sacrifice is different. The initiative is different. The superficial similarities mask a fundamental and irreconcilable theological gulf.

The "Propitiation vs. Expiation" Debate Confirms the Distinction

As we discussed in detail in Chapter 8, the debate over whether hilastērion means "propitiation" (the turning away of God's wrath) or "expiation" (the cleansing of sin) has been settled in favor of including both dimensions. Leon Morris's devastating response to Dodd showed that the biblical concept includes the satisfaction of God's righteous justice—but this satisfaction is provided by God Himself, not extracted from Him by human effort.²⁸ The biblical doctrine of propitiation is God-initiated, God-provided, and God-directed. To call it "pagan" is to ignore everything that makes it distinctive.

Hess argues in his Chapter 10 that God's wrath does not need "satiation" for the atonement to occur—that demanding a payment for satisfaction is "the exact opposite of freely forgiving."²⁹ I appreciate the force of this concern, and it connects directly to our next objection about retributive justice. But I think Hess sets up a false dilemma. The cross is not God being forced to exact payment before He can bring Himself to forgive. The cross is God freely choosing, out of His own love, to bear the cost of forgiveness Himself. The "payment" language in Scripture is real—but the one who pays is God Himself. This is free grace, not reluctant commerce.

Objection 6: Penal Substitution Is Built on Retributive Justice, and Retributive Justice Is Primitive

The final major theological objection claims that penal substitution presupposes a view of justice that is morally outdated. Retributive justice—the idea that wrongdoing deserves punishment, that there must be a just penalty for sin—is dismissed by some critics as primitive, violent, and sub-Christian. Real justice, they say, is restorative, not retributive. It aims to heal relationships, not to inflict suffering. A God who demands retribution is a God stuck in the moral dark ages.³⁰

Some critics argue that Jesus Himself taught a restorative rather than retributive ethic. He told us to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek, to forgive seventy times seven times. Does penal substitution not contradict this ethic by insisting that God requires punishment before He can forgive? Is God a hypocrite—telling us to forgive freely while refusing to do so Himself?³¹

Hess gives voice to this concern when he argues that if human beings can forgive without requiring retribution—and if this is considered a moral good—then it would be foolish to say that God cannot do what His own creatures can do. After all, Scripture says that God forgives "freely" (Ephesians 4:32; Hebrews 8:12; 1 John 1:9; Jeremiah 31:34).³²

This objection requires a multi-layered response, and I address the philosophical dimensions in depth in Chapter 26. Here I will focus on the theological core of the argument.

Retributive Justice Is Not "Primitive"—It Is a Recognition of Moral Seriousness

The claim that retributive justice is morally outdated does not survive careful examination. Every functioning society recognizes that certain actions deserve consequences—not merely for the purpose of deterrence or rehabilitation, but because justice itself demands that wrongdoing be addressed. When a dictator commits genocide and is never held accountable, we do not say "how enlightened!" We say "how unjust!" Our deep moral intuitions tell us that some things demand a reckoning, and that a world where evil goes unanswered is not a just world but a broken one.

Consider the victims of injustice. When oppressed people cry out for justice, they are not asking for therapy sessions for their oppressors. They are asking for accountability—for a recognition that what was done to them was wrong and that it matters. The cry "How long, O LORD?" that echoes throughout the Psalms (Psalm 13:1; 35:17; 74:10; 89:46) is a cry for retributive justice—for God to act against evil and vindicate those who have been wronged. To dismiss retribution as "primitive" is, in a strange way, to dismiss the cry of the oppressed. It is to tell victims that their desire for accountability is outdated and that they should settle for a world where no one is ever held responsible for what they have done. That is not moral progress. That is moral evasion.

A justice system that never punishes wrongdoing is not truly just. It is merely indifferent—and indifference to evil is not a virtue. As Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach argue, the biblical vision of justice includes retribution as an essential component, not because God is vindictive, but because He takes moral reality seriously. Sin has real consequences. A God who simply pretends it does not—who waves away the damage that sin causes to His creation, to His image-bearers, to the fabric of the moral order—would not be a more loving God. He would be a less serious one.³³

The Analogy between Human Forgiveness and Divine Forgiveness Is Imperfect

When critics ask, "If humans can forgive without punishment, why can't God?"—the question seems compelling. But it contains a subtle confusion. When a human being forgives a wrong done to them, they absorb the cost of that wrong themselves. They choose not to retaliate. They bear the pain. Forgiveness is never "free" in the sense of costless—it always costs the one who forgives something.

Now apply that to God. When God forgives, He also absorbs the cost. The cross is where He does it. The cross is not God being unable to forgive. It is God paying the price of forgiveness—just as every act of genuine human forgiveness has a price. The difference is that God's forgiveness addresses not just a personal offense but the objective moral disorder that sin introduces into His creation. Human forgiveness between individuals operates at one level. Divine forgiveness, which deals with the fundamental moral structure of reality, operates at a deeper level entirely.

Furthermore, God is not merely a private person who has been personally offended. He is the moral governor of the universe. As I discuss in Chapter 26, there is a crucial difference between a private individual choosing to waive a personal slight and a judge deciding not to enforce the law. A judge who simply lets every criminal go free—regardless of what they have done—is not merciful. He is unjust. He is failing in his duty to uphold the moral order. God's justice is not merely personal; it is cosmic. He has a responsibility to the moral order of His creation, and the cross is how He fulfills that responsibility while simultaneously extending mercy to sinners.³⁴

Jesus' Ethic Does Not Contradict God's Justice

What about Jesus' command to love our enemies and forgive without seeking retribution? Does this not undermine retributive justice?

Not at all. Jesus' commands about turning the other cheek and loving enemies are directed at individual human behavior. They tell us how we should treat those who wrong us. But the Bible is equally clear that vengeance belongs to God, not to us: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'" (Romans 12:19, ESV). The command not to take personal revenge does not abolish God's right to exercise justice. It presupposes it. We can afford to forgive precisely because we know that God will set all things right in the end.

As Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach explain: the passages in which Jesus tells his followers to love their enemies deal with our personal interactions, not with the nature of divine justice. They do not suggest that there is no role for retribution in God's governance of the world. On the contrary, the New Testament is full of warnings about the coming judgment (Matthew 25:31–46; Acts 17:31; Romans 2:5–11; 2 Thessalonians 1:6–10; Revelation 20:11–15). God's justice includes a retributive dimension, and the cross is where that justice is satisfied for those who trust in Christ.³⁵

Restorative and Retributive Justice Are Not Opposites

One final point. The critics often present retributive and restorative justice as though we must choose between them. But in the biblical vision, they work together. The cross is both retributive (it deals with the penalty of sin) and restorative (it heals the broken relationship between God and humanity). The multi-faceted atonement model I defend in this book, with penal substitution at the center and other models—Christus Victor, recapitulation, moral influence, reconciliation—arranged around it, holds both dimensions together. As we argued in Chapter 24, these are not competing theories but complementary facets of a single, magnificent reality. The cross is where justice and mercy embrace. It is where retribution and restoration meet. And that is not a contradiction. It is the gospel.

Responding to the Critics: Engaging the Key Voices

Throughout this chapter, we have engaged with specific critics and their arguments. Let me draw together a few final threads by looking at some of the most prominent voices and summarizing where, in my view, they go right and where they go wrong.

Steve Chalke and the "Cosmic Child Abuse" Charge

Steve Chalke and Alan Mann's book The Lost Message of Jesus contains what has become the most famous one-liner in the entire atonement debate: "The cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed."³⁶ As I discussed briefly under Objection 2, this charge resonates with many people because some popular presentations of the atonement really do make it sound abusive. But the charge fundamentally misunderstands the Trinitarian nature of the doctrine.

The label "child abuse" is misleading and, frankly, offensive—even blasphemous, as Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach rightly say—because it distorts the nature of the Father-Son relationship in the atonement in at least two fundamental ways. First, child abuse involves inflicting pain on an unwilling victim; Christ went willingly. Second, child abuse is carried out solely for the gratification of the abuser; Christ's death was for the salvation of the world and the glory of God. Whatever else we may say about the cross, it was not child abuse.³⁷

I should add: the very title "child abuse" trades on an emotional reaction that short-circuits careful thinking. Once the term is introduced into the conversation, it poisons the well. People react viscerally—as they should to real child abuse—and the important theological questions get buried under a wave of emotion. This is why I think the charge, while understandable as a rhetorical move, is ultimately unhelpful. It generates heat without light. The real question is not whether penal substitution sounds bad when described in the worst possible terms. The real question is whether the actual doctrine, stated carefully and Trinitarianly, is true. And I believe it is.

William Hess and the Classical Christus Victor Alternative

Hess's Crushing the Great Serpent is a sustained and thoughtful argument against penal substitution from a Christus Victor perspective. I have engaged with his specific arguments at various points in this chapter (his objections about wrath, appeasement, and pagan parallels) and throughout this book. Here I want to make a broader observation.

Hess raises some genuinely important concerns. He is right that popular presentations of PSA have sometimes depicted God in ways that are more pagan than Christian. He is right that the sacrificial system in the Old Testament is more complex than some PSA advocates have recognized. He is right that Christus Victor captures a genuine and important dimension of the cross. And he is right that the theme of God's wrath in Scripture is more nuanced than simple "anger that needs to be paid off."

Where I believe Hess goes wrong is in treating penal substitution and Christus Victor as mutually exclusive alternatives. As I argue throughout this book—and especially in Chapters 21 and 24—these are not competing theories. They are complementary facets of a multi-dimensional reality. Christ's victory over sin, death, and the powers of evil (Christus Victor) does not exclude His bearing of the penalty for human sin (penal substitution). Both are taught in the New Testament. Both are necessary to capture the full picture of what happened at the cross. The question is not "PSA or Christus Victor?" The question is "How do PSA and Christus Victor—along with other genuine facets of the atonement—fit together?" And the answer I have defended in this book is that penal substitution stands at the center, with the other models arranged around it as complementary dimensions of a single, unified reality.

David Allen makes a helpful observation on this point. He notes that attempts to pit one atonement model against another almost always result in an impoverished understanding of the cross. The New Testament itself uses multiple images, metaphors, and conceptual frameworks to describe what Christ accomplished—sacrificial, legal, military, relational, medical—and no single model can contain them all. Allen argues that penal substitution is the central and most important facet, but that it does not stand alone. It needs the other models to fill out the picture. And the other models need it—because without the penal and substitutionary dimension, the other models lose their moral grounding. Victory without justice is mere power. Healing without atonement leaves the disease of guilt untreated. Only when penal substitution provides the foundation can the other models do their proper work.⁴²

J. Denny Weaver and the Nonviolent Atonement

J. Denny Weaver, in his book The Nonviolent Atonement, argues that penal substitution makes God complicit in violence. A truly nonviolent theology, he says, must reject any model that involves God punishing or requiring the death of His Son.³⁸

I respect Weaver's commitment to nonviolence, and I share his conviction that the gospel is fundamentally a message of peace. But I think his argument proves too much. If the problem with penal substitution is that it involves God willing the death of His Son, then we have a problem that extends far beyond penal substitution. As Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach point out, any view of the atonement that affirms God's sovereignty also implies that God in some sense caused Jesus' suffering and death—because He sent His Son to earth knowing what would happen. Peter said on the day of Pentecost that Jesus was "delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23, ESV). The disciples prayed that Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the others had done "whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place" (Acts 4:28, ESV).³⁹

The New Testament is unambiguous: God planned, foresaw, and was in full control of the death of Christ. Isaiah prophesied that "it was the will of the LORD to crush him" (Isaiah 53:10, ESV). If we reject this because it involves divine "violence," we are not rejecting penal substitution. We are rejecting the clear teaching of Scripture.

Furthermore—and this is crucial—the cross involves voluntary self-sacrifice, not imposed violence. When a firefighter runs into a burning building to save a child and dies in the process, we do not call this "violence." We call it heroism. The category of voluntary, self-giving, life-laying-down love is different from the category of imposed, coercive, destructive violence. The cross belongs to the first category, not the second. Weaver's objection collapses the distinction between the two—and in doing so, loses something essential about the gospel.

Simon Gathercole's work is also relevant here. In Defending Substitution, Gathercole demonstrates that the substitutionary interpretation of Christ's death is not a later theological invention but is embedded in the earliest Christian tradition—specifically, in the pre-Pauline confession of 1 Corinthians 15:3: "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures."⁴⁰ This means that if we reject penal substitution on the grounds that it involves God in the "violence" of the cross, we are not rejecting a medieval accretion or a Reformation innovation. We are rejecting the apostolic interpretation of the cross. We are rejecting the gospel as the earliest Christians understood it. That is a far more radical move than most critics seem to realize.

Henri Blocher has made the observation that objections to PSA consistently hit a version of the doctrine that serious defenders would also reject. The straw man, not the steelman, is the target. When the objection is directed against the actual formulations of Calvin, Owen, Stott, Packer, or Craig, it loses much of its force.⁴³ I. Howard Marshall similarly calls for more nuanced formulations that avoid the caricatures while preserving the genuine penal and substitutionary dimensions that the New Testament teaches.⁴⁴ The path forward is not to abandon penal substitution but to state it with greater care, greater theological depth, and greater sensitivity to the concerns that critics have rightly raised.

Summary and Conclusion

We have covered a lot of ground in this chapter. Let me draw together the main threads.

We examined six major theological and moral objections to penal substitutionary atonement:

Objection 1 (Injustice): The claim that it is unjust to punish the innocent for the guilty. We responded that Christ is not an innocent third party but God Himself bearing the penalty; that Christ goes willingly; and that union with Christ provides the moral and theological ground for the transfer of guilt. The biblical writers saw penal substitution not as a violation of justice but as its supreme expression (Romans 3:25–26; 1 Peter 2:23–24).

Objection 2 (Trinitarian Division): The claim that PSA pits the Father against the Son. We responded that this is a caricature, not the actual doctrine. The cross is the unified act of the Triune God—Father, Son, and Spirit—all acting in love. Stott's concept of divine self-substitution is the key insight that resolves this objection.

Objection 3 (Glorification of Violence): The claim that PSA glorifies suffering. We responded that the doctrine does not celebrate suffering but recognizes its cost; that the cross defeats violence rather than endorsing it; that the abuse of a doctrine does not invalidate it; and that Christ's atoning suffering is unique and unrepeatable.

Objection 4 (Impossibility of Forgiveness): The Socinian claim that if the debt is paid, there is nothing to forgive. We responded that the cross makes forgiveness possible, not unnecessary—God satisfies the demands of His own justice so that He can justly forgive (Romans 3:26).

Objection 5 (Paganism): The claim that PSA sounds like pagan appeasement. We responded that the initiative in the biblical gospel comes entirely from God, not from humans; that the character of God's wrath, the identity of the offerer, and the nature of the offering are radically different from paganism; and that structural similarities do not establish dependence.

Objection 6 (Primitive Retributive Justice): The claim that retributive justice is morally outdated. We responded that retributive justice reflects moral seriousness, not moral primitivism; that divine forgiveness, like human forgiveness, has a cost; and that the biblical vision of justice integrates retributive and restorative dimensions.

In every case, the objection was found to target a caricature or a poorly stated version of the doctrine rather than the real thing. When penal substitution is grounded in the doctrine of the Trinity, in the voluntary self-giving of the Son, in the love of the Father who provides the sacrifice, in the reality of union with Christ, and in the complementary relationship between retributive and restorative justice—when it is stated in the way that Stott, Craig, Allen, Jeffery, Ovey, Sach, and the best defenders have articulated it—the objections, while they raise genuinely important pastoral and theological concerns, do not succeed in overturning the doctrine.

I want to close with a personal word. I have listened carefully to the critics. I take their concerns seriously—especially the concerns about violence, abuse, and the misuse of the cross to harm vulnerable people. These are not trivial issues. They are matters of pastoral urgency. The church has sometimes done real harm by presenting the cross in careless, one-dimensional, or even cruel ways, and we must repent of that.

At the same time, I am convinced that the answer to these problems is not less theology but more—and better—theology. Every one of the objections we have examined in this chapter arises from an inadequate understanding of who God is and what He did at the cross. When the doctrine of the Trinity is allowed to shape our atonement theology, the caricatures fall away and the true beauty of the cross comes into view. The Father is not an angry tyrant. The Son is not a helpless victim. The Spirit is not absent from the scene. All three Persons act together, in unified love, to accomplish the salvation of the world. That is the heart of penal substitution, rightly understood. And it is worthy of our deepest worship.

But the solution to a distorted doctrine is not to abandon it. The solution is to state it rightly. And when penal substitution is stated rightly—when we see the cross as the place where the Triune God, in unified love, bears the cost of dealing with sin so that sinners can be forgiven and the world can be made new—we are looking at the most beautiful, the most just, and the most loving act in the history of the universe. The objections, honestly faced and honestly answered, do not diminish this truth. They help us see it more clearly.

Bibliography

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

Blocher, Henri. "The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ: The Current Theological Situation." European Journal of Theology 8, no. 1 (1999): 23–36.

Brock, Rita Nakashima, and Rebecca Ann Parker. Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us. Boston: Beacon Press, 2001.

Brown, Joanne Carlson, and Rebecca Parker. "For God So Loved the World?" In Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse: A Feminist Critique, edited by Joanne Carlson Brown and Carole R. Bohn, 1–30. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1989.

Carson, D. A. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000.

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

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

Dodd, C. H. The Bible and the Greeks. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935.

Gathercole, Simon. Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

Green, Joel B., and Mark D. Baker. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Hess, William L. Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God Punish Jesus? 2024.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.

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

Marshall, Christopher D. Beyond Retribution: A New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, and Punishment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Marshall, I. Howard. Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity. Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Rutledge, Fleming. The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

Schreiner, Thomas. "Penal Substitution View." In The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, edited by James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, 67–98. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.

Schooping, Fr. Joshua. An Existential Soteriology: Penal Substitutionary Atonement in Light of the Mystical Theology of the Church Fathers. Olyphant, PA: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020.

Smail, Tom. "Can One Man Die for the People?" In Atonement Today, edited by John Goldingay, 73–82. London: SPCK, 1995.

Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Weaver, J. Denny. The Nonviolent Atonement. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

Williams, Garry. "Penal Substitution: A Response to Recent Criticism." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 1 (2007): 71–86.