Was What I Taught In Australia Biblical?

I'm used to people disagreeing with me. That is an inevitable part of being a public speaker. Those of us who speak plainly and boldly about God's grace in contrast to the world of religion find ourselves particularly vulnerable to that. I usually don't respond publicly, but my recent visit to Australia compels me to respond to a stirring that has started there since my departure.

My recent visit to Australia was very well received by the people. I heard not one word of dissension while I was there. However, after my departure, a denominational leader posted an article that has apparently taken some traction. It's called “Was The Cross of Jesus A Form Of Divine Child Abuse?” The implication of the title is that those who don’t hold the penal-substitution view of the atonement would take that position. I can’t speak for others like myself who do not see the atonement as the Father pouring out angry revenge on the son for my sin, but I certainly would never use inflammatory language like “divine child abuse” to characterize those who do hold that viewpoint.

For the sake of readers, let us begin with the meaning of penal-substitution. I’m fine with the definition used by my critic. It is, “The death of Jesus was ‘penal’ because He paid the penalty for sins which the justice of God demanded; it was a ‘substitution’ because He died not for His own sins, but for ours.”

I do believe that Jesus’ death was subsitutionary in that He died in our place. I do not believe it was the case that an angry Father poured out revenge for my sin upon Jesus in my place. Jesus was indeed punished, but it was by sin, not His Father. If the death of the Son was the Father’s punishment for our sin, are we to conclude that the Father’s and Son’s views of sin were different? Is it the case that the Father has a particular kind of “sense of justice” that required Him to release divine anger against somebody for our sin but the Son didn’t have that same kind of angry justice toward our sin, but instead felt compassionate enough toward us to be the One who allowed the Father to get it out of His system by taking it out on the Son instead of us?

No, divine justice does not require payback. To think so is to superimpose our own flawed human sense of justice onto the mind and heart of God. Divine justice is very different. A biblical study of what it means to "bring justice" does not mean to bring retribution at all, but rather to bring healing and reconciliation. Justice means to make things right. All through the prophetic bible passages, justice is associated with caring for others, as something that is not in conflict with mercy, but rather an expression of it. Biblically, justice is God's saving action at work for all that are oppressed:

"Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isaiah 1:17)

"This is what the LORD says: "`Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed" (Jeremiah 21:12)

The way that we "administer justice", the Prophets tell us, is by encouraging and helping the oppressed. In contrast to what we may have been taught, God's justice is not in conflict with his mercy, they are inseparable. True justice can only come though mercy. Did God show justice at the cross? Yes! He showed justice by making it right for us, not by venting anger at His Son. Divine justice is seen by expressing mercy and compassion.

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: `Administer true justice: show mercy and compassion to one another. (Zechariah 7:9)

"Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice".( Isaiah 30:18)

If we want to understand the concept of justice as the writers of the Old Testament did, then we must see it as a "setting things right again". Thus when Christ comes, the way that he brings about justice is through mercy and compassion. Notice how in this next verse Christ does not bring justice with a hammer, but with a tenderness that cares for the broken and the abused.

"I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations… A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory" (Matthew 12:18-21)

The way that God brings about justice and "leads it to victory" is through acts of compassion - sheltering the "smoldering wick", and the "bruised reed". And what does Christ "proclaim to the nations" to bring about this justice?

"He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19)

It is interesting that many believe justice would require that people be put in prison, but Jesus said His mission of justice was to set people free from prison. There is no conflict between God's justice and mercy. Justice is about mercy. Justice comes through mercy and always has. It is a quality born of compassion and the desire to make things right.

So the whole wrongheaded idea that divine justice requires for somebody to be paid back because of our sin originates from a human, fleshly understanding of the word. As just shown in biblical text, God justice is an expression of His love toward us, not a compelling need to make somebody pay for the wrong we’ve done.

The author of the article said that the penal substitution view is what the apostles taught, as well as the Church Fathers, the Reformers and great gospel preachers such as John Wesley, George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon and Billy Graham.” First, to suggest that the apostles taught the penal substitution (PS) view is not correct. One must lay the template of his own preexisting understanding on the words of the Apostles to come to such a conclusion. As to great gospel preachers, we can go back to the early church and read the Cappadocian Fathers, Saint Athanasius and others whose vein of thought fit well with my viewpoint. So don't fall for the suggestion that there's a solid and indisputable bedrock upon which the PS view is built.

Consider, for example, the words of the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, “18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

Where is the evidence there that God the Father was standing outside the cross, punishing His Son, Jesus? No, Paul said He was in Christ while the world was being reconciled to Him. This “word of reconciliation” (message of the finished work of the cross) is the gospel we now proclaim! The Father was in the Son and by the power of the eternal Spirit dealt with our sin! (Hebrews 9:14 says that Jesus through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God.)

The writer of the blog furthermore uses the fact that “many precious hymns which have stood the test of time” validate a penal substitution view. Knowing this pastor’s ministry focus, I feel sure that upon further thought, he wouldn’t argue that the length of a hymn’s popularity validates the veracity of its message. I think that both he and I would agree that many hymns the church has sung for years do stand in great contradiction to the message of grace we both want to see spread. So the fact that there are existing hymns that do reflect his opinion doesn’t really strengthen his position at all.

I would find it amusing if it weren’t so unfair that the writer then cites Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) as one with whom he chooses to connect to the message I teach. Here is a quote from his critique: “Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), who is generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism, and who denied the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, objected to the idea that salvation is deliverance from divine wrath. Those who take a similar hostile view to penal substitution have likewise tended to be those who do not believe in the authority of the Scriptures.”

For the record, I believe the Bible. I suspect my view of the Bible would be as high as that of the one who wrote this article. So the use of Schleiermacher as a guilt-by-association tactic in trying to establish his point is not fair. It borders on insult. It's no more fair than it would be for me to suggest that since Jim Baker was an Assembly of God pastor and this critic is an Assembly of God pastor would imply or suggest anything about the one who wrote the critique. That kind of attempt to link people in guilt is wrong, misleading and counterproductive to respectful dialogue.

For a few paragraphs, the critique then pulls together an eclectic view of the PS view based on the varying views of those with whose writings the author must be somewhat acquainted. Since it is a composite description of various writers views all pulled into one, it is difficult to respond. I find myself agreeing with some of what those he referenced said and disagreeing with others. For instance, I do agree that the PS view is inconsistent with the Bible’s portrayal of a loving God. On the other hand, I would never use the words, “cosmic child abuse” to describe anything God the Father does.

The greatest inherent weakness in the critique comes under the section entitled, “Understanding the Cross From the Backdrop of the Old Testament.” Immediately, this title should raise a red flag in the mind of anybody who is familiar with biblical hermeneutics. For those who don’t know, hermeneutics refers to the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation of the Bible. It’s the agreed upon system of interpreting so that we are intellectually honest in the way we reach conclusions.

One of the most basic foundations of understanding the Bible is what is called, “The Christo-Centric Principle” The underlying premise of this principle is that the lynchpin of understanding Scripture is Jesus. Everything is centered in Christ. Everthing in existance finds its meaning and purpose in Him. So the entire Bible finds its meaning in Jesus Christ. To suggest that we are to understand the work of Christ on the cross by looking at the Old Testament stands in exact contradiction to sound hermeneutics. Conversely, we are to understand the Old Testament through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. To put it in a simple rhyme I learned as a child: “The New is in the Old concealed. The Old is in the New revealed.” In other words, we understand the Old by the New, not the other way around.

Any attempt, therefore, to give meaning to the work of the cross that starts in the Old Testament, apart from Jesus Christ is bound to lead to faulty conclusions. Our starting point in Biblical interpretation is Jesus Christ. He stands above everything else in defining, expressing and revealing the Father’s eternal purposes to us. Hebrews 1:1-2 says, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.” If you want to understand your God and His works, start with Jesus!

If you want to understand your Old Testament, start with Jesus and work backward, not the other way around! The OT writers gave us a glimpse of our Father. Through Jesus we may gaze into His face. Start from the right place when you want to understand our Triune God’s eternal purpose for mankind. Start with Him, not Old Testament verses that you mentally isolate from the Son of God.

The critique against my teaching then set forth verse after verse after verse, strung together with no apparent inner correlation other than the common denominator that they all seem to speak of an angry, vindictive God. For sake of illustration, let’s look at what can happen when the approach of Bible discussion takes the form of “seeing who can build up the biggest pile of verses.”

His verse: “Sin must be understood as opposition to God’s will as expressed in His law” (Gen.3:1-6; Rom.4:15; 1 Jn.3:4).

My verse: “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23).

His verse: “…your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear” (Isa.59:2).

My verse: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 8:39-40).

His verse: “Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him” (Num.15:31).

My verse: First, that’s right that person will be completely cut off – BY SIN. Look at the next chapter; Numbers 16:26 Depart now from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing that belongs to them, or you WILL BE SWEPT AWAY IN ALL THEIR SIN (not by God, but by sin!)

His verse: “So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the LORD, because he did not keep the word of the LORD…” (1 Chron.10:13).

My verse: “For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 3:23) What does this have to do with Saul? What killed Saul? Was it God who killed him in angry judgment? NO, it was Saul’s disobedience that led to his death. Just like Adam in the Garden. God didn’t tell Adam, “I’ll kill you for eating from that tree.” He said, “In the day you eat from it, you will surely die.” God warned Adam. God warned Saul. There’s love and grace. But disobedience led to sin and sin brought on the judgment of death. It was SIN NOT GOD who killed Saul. Like Adam, he didn’t do what the Lord told him and reaped the WAGES OF SIN.

His verse: “Upon the wicked He will rain coals; Fire and brimstone and a burning wind shall be the portion of their cup” (Psa.11:6).

My verse: “Though He scoffs at the scoffers, Yet He gives grace to the afflicted” Psalm 34:4. Does God allow the wicked to experience the consequence of their sins? Of course!! He wants to bring them to brokenness. It never benefits to do wrong. Living in rebellion against God always brings its own judgment and misery but our loving God desires to lift up any who will turn from their wickedness to Him.

His verse: “For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; It is fully mixed, and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drain and drink down” (Psa.75:8).

My verse: Ah, yes, as my critic points out so well, “Notice in the last two references that the wrath of God is referred to as His “cup”. This is important because Jesus spoke of His death as drinking the cup that the Father had given Him (Matt.20:22-23; Lk.22:42).

Look at my choice – Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” As my critic pointed out, there’s a correlation between the old covenant cup and the cup of the new covenant. What is that NT cup? It is the cup of His blood that reminds us that the bitter cup of the old covenant has now been replaced with the better cup of the new covenant. The wages of sin have been replaced with the gift of life! The wrath of God’s cup in the Old Testament was His “tough love” which allowed rebellious humanity to experience it’s bitter dregs so that when Jesus came they would see “the more excellent way” in Christ. They could forever throw away the old cup and drink living water from the new cup forever!

His verse: Punishment of sin vindicates the righteousness of God. God by no means clears the guilty (Ex.34:7):

My verse: Punishment of WHAT? SIN! NOT punishment of God. How does sin’s punishment vindicate God’s righteousness? Easy! It shows that we would be wise to choose Life – His Life and not the death that SIN brings. “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live (Duet 30:19). I’m not even going to respond to the quote, “God by no means clears the guilty.” Is my critic really going to stand on that point in light of the rest of the Bible? This point means he will not clear then while they stand in their guilt. When they see their forgiveness and acceptance, they will rush from guilt to grace!

His verse: Righteous are You, O LORD, and upright are Your judgments” (Psa.119:137).
My verse: Righteous are You, O LORD, and upright are Your judgments” (Psa.119:137). Of course He is upright and judges with the bias of a very prejudiced Father ☺

His verse: For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You. The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity” (Psa.5:4-5).

My verse: God so love THE WORLD that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeith in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16) God loves every person. He hates when people do iniquity/sin for the reason that He loves people and hates to see them hurt themselves. If Psalm 5:5 suggests that God hates all workers of iniquity, what about believers who sometimes do those works? Does He hate them too at that time? Of course not. This verse is one that clearly shows how the OT verses must be seen through the light of the New Covenant texts and not pitted in opposition to each other.

His verse: “God is jealous, and the LORD avenges; the LORD avenges and is furious. The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserves wrath for His enemies” (Nah.1:2).

My verse: Did he even look at verse 3? “The Lord is slow to anger and great in power. In whirlwind and storm is His way and clouds are the dust beneath His feat.” Then, going on and describing God’s greatness, he concludes by showing that even divine wrath is an expression of love. “His wrath is poured out like fire and the rocks are broken up by Him. The Lord is good. A stronghold in the day of trouble (judgment) and he knows those who take refuge in Him” (Nah.1:6-7). What is this wrath? Nothing other than an expression of intense, unbearable, love intended to bring the resistant to the end of themselves and their pride so that they will turn to Him.

The writer’s long end of spurious verses concludes with mention of the Old Testament sacrifices and with the idea that blood must be shed so that God is satisfied. Unfortunately, similarities rather than contrasts between these sacrifices and those of Jesus were offered.

The Old Covenant sacrifices were totally insufficient to deal with our sin. If they have been capable, there would have been no need for a new covenant and a perfect sacrifice. I challenge the reader to examine Hebrews 8-11 to see how inferior the whole OT system was to the New Covenant in which we now live.

I am weary in my writing of this whole tit-for-tat, who can build the biggest pile of verses approach. I used it just this one time simply to demonstrate that you can pull verses to illustrate whatever you want to prove. The key is not in what the Bible says, but IN WHAT IT MEANS. Personally, I understand my Bible, my God and myself through the person of Jesus Christ. As stated previously, my hermeneutic is Christo-centric (Christ centered) and thus that starting place is reflected in every conclusion I make about what the Scripture means.

If a person’s underlying starting position is that our God is primarily one who is first and foremost concerned with right and wrong, his path will be a different one. My starting place is that our God is primarily one who is first and foremost concerned about the humanity He created to live in Trinitarian life and love with Him. It’s not about rules, but relationship.

If a person’s concept of God the Father is that His justice demands payback, retribution, Jesus-eye-for-our-eye, His-tooth-for-our-tooth, he will see what happened at the cross in a very different way. I don’t see it as an angry Father watching in contempt as His Son took His anger about my sin, while the Holy Spirit stood idly by. I see it as out Triune God – Father, Son and Spirit coming down here determined to straighten out this mess the first Adam made. They agreed not to stop until the Last Adam finished the job and said so. “It is Finished” was the ending bell that day.

If a person’s concept of God is that wrong happens, somebody has to be paid and He’s not happy until that happens, PLEASE SORT OUT IN YOUR MIND HOW THAT IS NOT A LEGALIST GOD? No! Our God is a God of grace. He has wiped the sin deck clean by His work. The cross wasn’t a penal substitution. It was a precious solution for all humanity. It really IS finished. Now we get to tell people about it and excitedly invite them to simply believe it!

Many of you have heard me say for years, “Don’t take my word for it. Study your Bibles!” In that same vein, I encourage you, “Don’t take somebody else word for it either. Study your Bibles!” The concept of God we have will determine how we read the Bible. May His Spirit guide us all into the knowledge of our Abba so that the Scripture will serve to encourage us and bless us and show us His true nature, which is Love.

(I would be remiss not to mention Brad Jersak and his book, "Stricken by God?" which has had an influence on my thinking. Finally, let me say that the one who wrote the critique I responded to here is no an enemy. He is a kind and loving man who also wants to see the message of grace spread across Australia. In this case, we simply don't see the matter of Penal Substitution the same. Obviously, we both think it's an important topic. Despite his criticism of my teaching, I believe he respects me and I certainly respect him.)