In writing and teaching I have passionately critiqued the idea that to be able to forgive us, God had to punish Jesus in order to assuage his wrath and satisfy justice. Therefore, you might imagine that I refrain from singing many songs and hymns based on that logic. There are lines I do not sing—like “the wrath of God was satisfied” in the song, “In Christ Alone”—but often I can reframe the words and sing even if the songwriter likely had penal satisfaction in mind.
One Sunday last spring I saw these words on the screen, “the sin of man and wrath of God has been on Jesus laid.” No way to nuance that into acceptability. I stopped singing. I glanced down at the credits. The song was written in 2012 (“Man of Sorrows”). This is not an old song. These lines were written years after my books, and others, on the atonement came out. The books have not prompted as much change as I hoped. Seeing the people around me absorbing what the line portrays about God flooded me with sadness and frustration.
Then, a couple songs later, I saw this line: “He lived and died to buy my pardon.” Again, no way to nuance that—I couldn’t think that Jesus bought our pardon from the Devil or death. I sadly marveled. How does one can square the notion of God demanding payment for pardon with the biblical statement, and examples, that God is merciful and pardons beyond human comprehension (Is 55:7&8)? How does one square it even with common everyday understanding--forgiveness and pardon are given not bought. Again, imagining the image of God this pardon-buying concept plants in people’s minds, I left church with the conviction that I must do more to promote change. Too many people, including these song writers, accept as a given that the cross was about appeasement of God.
At the micro level I took the step of talking to the pastor and worship leader. The conversations went well. But, what about myriads of churches around the globe? I decided I would ask for your help via this blog and I have increased my prayers for change.
A Brief Excursus for Some Readers
If you have not read or heard my thoughts on the cross you may be wondering: “Doesn’t he think salvation comes through the cross? Does he reject substitutionary atonement?” I could just state, “I affirm substitutionary atonement; I critique one form of it—penal substitution atonement (PSA).” But since PSA is defined in different ways, here is a brief overview of what I affirm and critique.
I affirm that the substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross provides salvation. I affirm that God worked through Jesus’ life, death and resurrection to reconcile the world to Himself, forgiving, freeing from guilt, liberating from shame, empowering with the Holy Spirit, triumphing over death and the powers of evil.
I affirm that God’s work through the cross is richer and deeper than any of our explanations of it. Therefore, I advocate following the New Testament in using a diversity of images and metaphors to proclaim the saving significance of the cross and resurrection.
I critique presenting any theory or image as the one explanation of atonement—as most proponents of penal substitution theory do.
Appeasement: I do not believe that the Bible teaches that God needed to be appeased in order to forgive, nor that God had to punish Jesus in our place in order to be able to forgive and be in relationship with us. I critique presentations of the atonement that communicate this (and this is what I mean by penal substitution [PSA]).
Recompense/Payback: I affirm that God is angered by sin and injustice and that God judges, but I understand God’s justice as fundamentally working to restore and rectify. I critique explanations of the cross that portray God being obligated to punish as payback or recompense.
More Cross: Not Just Avoiding Toxicity
The logic that justice demanded that God punish Jesus in order to forgive has contributed to many people imaging God as an angry, accusing, and wrathful figure. That motivated me to critique penal substitution theory of atonement and promote alternatives. Yet these alternative images and explanations do so much more than just avoid toxic theology. They open the way to experience more of the depth and riches of the cross and resurrection. (To taste some of this richness I invite you to read this short article that gives five real-life examples of people experiencing other facets of the saving power of the cross and resurrection.)
What to do?
Please join me in working for a shift away from PSA as the dominant understanding of the cross and a shift toward using multiple images. Here are some ideas on how to do so:
Initiate Conversation
In your small group or with friends ask, “what do you think about the cross, what does it tell us about God, about Jesus?” Pray for openings to talk about the cross (and for awareness to see the openings).
Share New Stories and Images
As attention turns to Jesus’ death and resurrection in this season of Lent and Easter, let us tell richer and more compelling stories than the PSA story.
- Who is someone who might benefit from you sharing with them an alternative cross story? You could tell them one or share with them a story/chapter from Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross or from those at the bottom of my website’s “Atonement Resources” page.
- Who is a pastor, youth pastor, small group leader, etc. who you could encourage to use non-PSA images and give/loan a copy of Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross?
- Who is a worship leader you could encourage to avoid explicitly PSA lyrics when choosing songs?
Dislodging the Penal Substitution Story
Using alternative images and narratives of how the cross and resurrection provide salvation is of utmost importance. We must also dislodge the PSA logic and images that are in place. Not only because their toxicity will remain if we do not, but because people will often pull alternative images into the already-in-place PSA foundational narrative. Many people do the opposite of what I do when they sing songs about the cross. They see all lyrics through the lens of PSA and tend to interpret them as describing PSA even if they are not.
I have found two things especially helpful in enabling people to let go of the assumption that PSA is clearly in the Bible and is the foundational explanation of the cross.
PSA is Relatively New—Knowing that can open space to evaluate it and consider other options. For over 1,000 years the church proclaimed the gospel without portraying the cross as God punishing Jesus in our place to satisfy justice. Most commonly the cross and resurrection were proclaimed as a victory over death, sin, or the devil. Then Anselm introduced the concept of the cross as satisfaction in 1098. Later, during the Reformation, some stripped Anselm’s atonement theory of its medieval garb and dressed it in clothes borrowed from a modern Western courtroom. That gave birth to the penal substitution theory of atonement.
Pull Atonement Out of a Western Courtroom and Put it Back in a Hebraic Setting – The logic of modern Western law shapes PSA. It leads people to read Romans 3:25 as stating that because God is just God had to punish Jesus. But Paul had a different concept of justice—one born from his immersion in Old Testament scriptures. From a Hebraic perspective, God is seen as just by keeping covenant commitments to save and making things right. For more on these contrasting concepts of justice and how they shape one’s thinking about the cross see this article or this video.
Pray
Finally, please join me in praying for a sea change of atonement thinking. May PSA become a minority position—its reign of 500 years is enough.
As you share alternative proclamation of how Jesus’ life, death and resurrection provide holistic salvation, may you experience new facets of the gospel in ways you and your community are deeply nourished by.
Additional Resources
I wrote a blog six years ago describing what I mentioned in the previous sentence through re-reading two chapters in Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross. : “The Cross: Atonement Analysis is One Thing. What does it Mean for Me?”
The Atonement Resources page on my website has links for various articles, books, and videos
The first chapter of Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross provides a short overview of the benefit of using multiple images of atonement and a critique of PSA, including one example of seeing that a Bible text does not actually affirm PSA (Rom 6:23).
For an in-depth biblical and historical exploration of PSA and alternatives see the second edition of the book I co-authored with Joel Green: Recovering the Scandal of the Cross
Redemption - many people think of redemption as a payment made to satisfy God. In a series of podcasts, The Bible Project explores in depth how the word is used in various Bible texts and displays that the above understanding is not the biblical meaning of redemption and the cross. Go to the home page of the podcasts, and scroll down to June, July, and August , 2025. The last one in the series gives a summary and responds to listeners questions. It includes clear statements on why redemption does not mean God is demanding a payment.
Joel Green recently did a four-part Substack series on Penal Substitution. Go to his index look for “Death of Jesus” and then posts 8-11. Here is the first one.