Tutor: Aitee Koh

Course: 202 (DL) S2 2019

Student #: 1000875

Date: 27, October 2019

Laidlaw College
Te Wananga Amorangi
Grading Table
Course: 202.715 Theology: Christ and Revelation
Assignment: Research Essay
Word count: 3500 Extension to 23 Oct, submitted 27 Oct 2019, 4 days late

The grading criteria are shown in the table below, together with expected grade outcomes for the quality of responses:
Criteria – D + – C + – B + – A +

Writing Inadequate Answers the Mostly well Well written

grasp of material question but is written but
not well written uneven in quality Engaging
and lacks and focus Commented [AK1]: B-
coherence
Focused
Creative Very little Mostly a few Creative and Creative
Integration original content sources cobbled integrated in
or structure together part, but not Own voice
consistent coming through
throughout Commented [AK2]: B-
Good integration
and unity to
essay
Theological None or very Some Good essay, but Theological
Method and little real theological inconsistent in insights
Critical theological insights but terms of method
Interaction insight mostly reporting and insight. Reflective and
what others think thoughtful
Uneven level of
critical analysis Good grasp of Commented [AK3]: B-
theological
method

Critical
interaction with
the material
Structure and Inadequate Adequate Good English Good English
Presentation, grasp of English, English but hard and referencing
Use of sloppy to understand, or on the whole. Good use of
Resources referencing, lack frequent lapses Some lapses. referencing and Commented [AK4]: B- : Your text is 3606
of bibliography of grammar or bibliography words, but text plus footnotes measures 5250
incomplete
referencing words. Therefore your footnotes at 46% of the
text has drastically exceeded Laidlaw’s rule of no
more than 25%
Hi David, While you have mounted a fairly good defense of the statement “Penal Substitutipn is the only
truly biblical atonement theory and incorporates all the others”, at level 7, you have not adequately and
fairly critiqued this claim by looking at criticisms levied against it. Neither have you discussed the strengths
of other non-violent, non-retributive, non-PSA atonement theories such as those discussed in

Gerald Collins, 2009, (our course textbook)

Weaver, J. Denny. The Nonviolent Atonement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

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

An important concept in Chris Marshall’s work is that both the OT and NT majors on restorative justice in line
with God’s love, rather than the retributive/punitive justice invoked in PSA. Restorative justice argues that
God’s holiness and love move in parallel, and also does not involve in a split in the Trinity implicit in PSA.

On balance, it’s still a competent effort, graded “B-“ (65%) but reduce 10% to “C” (59%) due to 4-day lateness
as per Laidlaw’s rule for Written Assignments.

Letter Grade
C
A+ 90-100
A 85-89.99
A- 80-84.99
B+ 75-79.99
B 70-74.99
B- 65-69.99
C+ 60-64.99
C 55-59.99
C- 50-54.99
D 40-49.99
F Below 40

“Penal Substitution is the only truly biblical atonement theory and incorporates all the others.”

Introduction
The gist of the above quote is correct, though I think the phrase “only truly biblical” is unhelpfully provocative, in that
it might imply that other atonement theories are unbiblical and false, which is not the case. Scripture in fact uses a great
variety of metaphors to give a rich understanding about what God accomplished at the cross, which is why we should
not dogmatically claim one atonement emphasis to the exclusion of other views.1 However, if asked to explain “Christ Commented [AK5]: Having read through your
essay, it’s a pity you did not discuss the
strengths/weaknesses of other non-PSA theories,
1
Paul Gardner notes “Christ’s sacrificial death... fulfilled all the various sacrifices, including sacrifices of atonement, and focused only on justifying PSA.
those with a representative connotation, and those that were more evidently vicarious and substitutionary. The
forgiveness of sins was understood... Paul (the apostle) could hardly think of the atonement without also thinking in
died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3)2, I would assert penal substitution as the most
comprehensive biblical understanding of Christ’s death and resurrection, the foundational structure on which the other
tiers theories of the atonement stand.

To begin with, what do we understand PSA to mean? In his book Salvation by Grace, Colin Dye writes “God acted self-
consistently by focusing the fullness of his just wrath on the substitute whom he graciously provided (himself in the
person of his very own Son) and by pouring the fullness of his merciful love onto us – undeserving sinners.”3
Within this definition, central themes emerge, which Millard Erickson identifies as propitiation (“focusing the fullness
of his (God’s) just wrath”)4; substitution (“on the substitute whom he (God) graciously provided”); sacrifice (“(God)
himself in the person of his very own Son”); reconciliation (“pouring the fullness of his (God’s) merciful love onto us
– undeserving sinners”).5 From Genesis through to Revelation, these themes sweep through the entire biblical narrative.
Below, we will examine 2 significant passages, one from each testament, where we see these themes in play.

Setting the stage for the atonement

In the week when God creates the heavens and the earth, there is no sin, death or dysfunction in the universe but even
here, in the beginning, there are clues pointing to penal substitution. Intriguingly, in the first verse of Scripture, the
plural word for God (Elohim) is followed by the singular verb ‘created’, which is a subtle indicative of the Trinity.6 This
is important because as Leon Morris points out, the New Testament and especially “First Peter brings out the concern
of all Three Persons of the Trinity with the atonement.”7 Commented [AK6]: I’d agree. Indeed
In the next few verses, something akin to God's work in salvation takes place. A primordial chaotic state is described, immediately after the Fall, Gen 3:15 already hints
at a future Saviour who would crush the serpent’s
there is an appalling void, an emptiness perhaps akin to a black hole. But the Spirit of God hovers expectantly over silent
head.
oblivion. God’s word “Let there be light” resounds and somehow, in the interaction between divine word and divine
spirit, light is born ex nihilo and is commended by God (“God saw that the light was good” Gen. 1:4).8

Similarly, prior to salvation, sinners are devoid of life and light, like spiritual black holes we are in moral chaos, objects
of God’s wrath, who need to propitiate God. But God graciously offers his word (an extension of himself) like a sacrifice Commented [AK7]: At this point, the need to
for our mute darkness. The word-anticipating Spirit reveals him to lifeless hearts, and completes ‘his workmanship, “propitiate” God is assumed rather than argued
for. There is scholarly dispute about the
translation. Some commentators argue the
correct word is “expiation” involving the removal
terms of a transfer of lordships and deliverance from the “present evil age” (Gal 1:4).” Paul Gardner, 1 Corinthians, of sins (see later comments on this), rather than
ECNT (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2018), 654. “propitiation” to placate God’s wrath.
2
Unless otherwise stated all scripture quotes are from the ESV (English Standard Version) translation.
3
Colin Dye, Salvation by Grace (London: Dovewell Publications, 2012), 37.
4
Propitiation is a word not often heard in the vernacular, it basically means ‘to appease, to placate’. Calvin explains,
“that nothing might stand in the way of his love toward us, God appointed Christ as a means of reconciling us to
himself. The word ‘appeasing’ is very important. For, in some ineffable way, God loved us and yet was angry toward
us at the same time, until he became reconciled to us in Christ.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion.
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 2. 17. 2.
5
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology 2nd Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 833.
6
Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Georgia: Creation Ministries International, 2015), 87.
7
Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (Devon: Paternoster Press, 1965), 396.
8
The link between the act of creation and penal substitution, is pursued at several points in the New Testament.
Abraham Kuyper writes “When John is describing the Savior, he first tells us that Christ is “the eternal word, by
whom all things are made, and who is the life of men.” … Paul also testifies that “all things were created by Christ
and consist by Him;” Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism: Six Lectures Delivered at Princeton University Under
Auspices of the L.P. Stone Foundation in 1898 (Grand Rapids, Associated Publishers & Authors, 1963), 72.
created in Christ Jesus’ (Eph. 2:10), new creatures awakened to the One we were dead to, reconciled to our Creator, by
his merciful love. Moreover, the word provided for us, is that word that was in the beginning, who was light then and is
also now the light of the world, who shone never brighter than when held aloft upon a cross.9
While this analogy may be tenuous, there are still shades of atonement themes in the opening lines of Scripture, which
are progressively developed ‘til the full brilliance of God’s atoning work, is revealed in the cross.

Passover preliminaries
In Exodus 12, we have an account of a pivotal moment in the biblical narrative and in Jewish history – the Passover.
Before examining the Passover, we note that the offering of an animal sacrifice to God on behalf of oneself, has many
precursors in human history. Returning to Genesis we see the first sketch of this substitutionary idea. God had given
Adam and Eve free rein to enjoy the abundance of the garden, with one proviso regarding a tree bearing the knowledge
of good and evil: to disobediently eat its fruit was to incur God’s wrath, to suffer the penalty of death.10 They disobeyed
God and had to be expelled from Eden, but before they left “God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and
clothed them” (Gen. 3:21). Though they themselves did not die straight away,11 God took some animals, butchered and
skinned them, and then wrapped the disobedient ones in the skins. The shock of seeing their Creator slaughter fellow
creatures was tattooed in their psyche; and the result of his wrath was draped about their shoulders so that to see
themselves was to see the skin of the substitute, whose innocence now covered their shame.
It seems reasonable to assume then, that Adam and Eve’s children had been instructed, or at least had an awareness of,
the fact that another’s blood had be shed, in place of their own, in order to cover their sin before God.12 But Cain saw
no need to offer blood on his own behalf, preferring to offer some of the results of ‘the sweat of his face’ (Gen. 3:19).
When God received the blood sacrifice offered by Abel, but rejected Cain’s sacrifice of the crops he had cultivated,
Cain refused to heed God’s plea for him to repent and overcome sin; instead, out of jealousy he murdered his brother
(Gen. 4:1-8).13
The next time we encounter animals being sacrificed, it is when Noah and his family alight from the ark. “Noah built
an altar to the Lord... and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord

9
Bishop Lightfoot in his posthumously published commentary on John’s gospel writes, “Just as the original
dispensation was effected (Gen. 1:2) by the creative activity of the spirit of God, so in this new dispensation, effected
by the Lord’s death, they are recreated and reborn.” R.H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary, (London,
Oxford University Press, 1960), 320.
10
“In Gen. 2:17 death is established as the penalty for sin. Gen. 4:10-14 presupposes not only capital punishment for
murder, but also that Cain’s brothers knew of this penalty and were aware of their right to impose it. However, for
some reason not fully spelled out, God spared Cain.” Gordon Clark, The Atonement, (Jefferson, Trinity Foundation,
1987), 58.
11
After being expelled from Eden, Adam fathered Seth when he was 130 years old and went on to live another 800
years (Gen. 5:4).
12
“The importance of sacrifices is seen early in Genesis. After Adam and Eve sinned, God clothed them in garments
of skin taken from slain animals and probably instructed them about the need for sacrifice (Gen. 3:21).”
Herbert Wolf, An Introduction to the Old Testament Pentateuch, (Chicago, Moody Press, 1991), 37.
13
God‘s response is one of wrath and grace. Grace in that he spares Cain’s life and even seals him with a protective
mark. Wrath in that now he is cut off not only from God but from family, and the prowess he took such pride in – his
ability to till the soil - is frustrated, “it (the ground) shall no longer yield to you its strength” (Gen. 4:12). Abel on the
other hand is righteous in God’s sight (Heb. 11:4, 12:24) and even his blood is “heard” by God (Gen. 4:10).
said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man” (Gen. 8:20-21).14 Clearly, post-Eden but pre-
Abraham and the Mosaic prescription of laws and sacrifices, people had grasped that some intrinsic malfunction was
preventing peace with God, and therefore to be accepted by God required blood; they intuited something of the substance
of Hebrews 9:22 “almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness
of sins.” Commented [AK8]: The above discussion
about blood sacrifice is totally spot-on. Based on
progressive revelation of Scripture which requires
us to view the OT through the lens of the NT
through Christ, Heb 8 and 10 interpret these
Passover – an example of penal substitution in the Old Testament sacrifices as pointing to, and fulfilled in, Jesus, the
ultimate, final, one-time sacrifice which obviates
In Exodus 11 and 12, we have the account of the 10th plague (the death of the firstborn) that broke the back of Egyptian any further repeats.
oppression and brought about Israel’s liberation, the night that precipitated their exodus from Egypt. But intriguingly,
So we still need to discuss why Jesus had to die to
before the plague hits, God instigates a ceremony that along with circumcision and the Sabbath Day, defines the identity reconcile us to God, and assess the merits and
of the Jewish nation – the Passover. It is difficult to overstate the significance of the Seder (the meal that marks the first otherwise, of different atonement theories.
day of Passover festival).15 It signifies the birth of the Jewish nation, with God commanding that the Passover month
become the first month of the Jewish calendar (Exo. 12:2). It was a major step in the fulfilment of the Abrahamic promise
(Gen. 12:1-3), because although God had certainly made Abraham “a great nation”, the tribes were not dwelling in the Commented [AK9]: This is the view of
land God had shown him, nor was their relationship with God such that His blessing came freely to them and through proponents of PSA. But critics of PSA can agree
with all that is said about the OT material
them to “all the families of the earth”. The Passover matters to Christians, because Christ and the apostles clearly discussed here, but point to other non-violent,
interpreted the cross and resurrection, as the Messianic completion of all that the Seder symbolised. And penal non-PSA interpretations. Some key objections to
PSA:
substitution is at its heart.16
The 10th plague was unique among the plagues, in that while the other nine wreaked havoc amongst Egyptians but a. For one, it seems that God hates violence,
represented no threat to the Israelites, this one would strike all firstborn in the land (both Egyptian and Hebrew) which was why He destroyed the world and saved
only Noah and family (Gen 6:11-12). Why would
indiscriminately unless they were under the blood of the Passover lamb smeared on the lintel and doorposts of the He then choose a violent atonement method to
Hebrew dwellings. The sacrifice of the Passover lamb was the all-important condition for the Israelite firstborn not to be done to an innocent, even if willing Son, in
order to placate His wrath?
be struck down along with his Egyptian counterpart; the lamb in other words, was the substitute that died instead of him.
This life for a life principle, is reiterated in the next chapter when God claims all the firstborn among subsequent b. I Jn 4:8 says God is love, and consistent with
generations of Israelites, as his own, saying “Whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of this, He sent Christ to die for our sins, while we
were still sinners (Rom 5:8, 10). Not while we
man and of beast, is mine” (Exo. 13:1). These first born are to be redeemed (bought back from God) by a substitute were still sinners, God was angry with us, wanted
sacrifice, otherwise their own lives are forfeit (Exo. 13:1-16).17 retribution before forgiving us.

c. The crux of PSA involves a split in the character

The substitution we see here is clearly penal in nature; all the plagues were punishment upon Egypt for their refusal to of the Trinity: a holy apparently wrathful Father
whose wrath needed to be appeased, propitiated,
acknowledge the true, living God (“Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I
and a loving/merciful Son willing to be that penal
do not know the LORD” Exo. 5:2) and their persistent idolatry (“I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both substitute. And where does the Holy Spirit sit on
the “holiness…….mercy” spectrum?

14
”While Noah stands out in contrast to those surrounding him, he was guilty of the sin of drunkenness (Gen. 9:21), Some other non-violent atonement theories
which is condemned elsewhere in Scripture (Hab. 2:15; Eph. 5:18). Even after the flood has destroyed the wicked of interpret Jesus’ death as “expiation” of sins (not
the earth, God still characterises ”every inclination of [man’s] heart [as being] evil from childhood” (Gen. 8:21).” propitiation). See “The Sacrifice that expiates sin”
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology 2nd Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 639. in the course textbook by Gerald Collins, 2009,
15
”Passover is the jewel of Jewish festivals. It is the oldest festival and the first national commemoration.” W.A. pp. 303-306, who is a strong critic of PSA. They do
Peterson, A Christian View of the Passover, (New South Wales, Dubbo Printing Works, 1975) 5. not involve a split in the Trinity, but rather a
16
Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions, Rediscovering the Glory of Penal united divine will. “God was in Christ reconciling
Substitution (Nottingham: Inter-varsity Press, 2007), 35. the world to himself” (2 Cor 5:19)
17
Ibid., 37.
man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD” Exo. 12:12). Why are the
Hebrews warned that they too are fit to be punished, if they do not apply the lamb’s blood (“when I see the blood, I will
pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you” Exo. 12:13)? God is showing them that he knows them to
be as culpable as the Egyptians, that in fact they are not righteous but have been participating in the idolatrous practices
of their neighbours.18 As Joshua said, “Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and
serve the LORD” Josh. 24:14. Ezekiel confirms this charge, “Do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt; I am the
LORD your God. But they rebelled against me... nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt” Ezek. 20:7,8. Commented [AK10]: These episodes about
God punishing Israel was meant to be restorative,
to bring about reconciliation, and motivated by
References to the Passover in the New Testament
divine love, not to placate divine anger. Heb 12:5-
In the New Testament, the apostles draw clear parallels between Christ’s death and the Passover lamb. They infer that 11 describes this as loving, parental discipline.
just as the lamb was a substitute sacrifice "so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them (the firstborn of What do you think?

Israel)” (Heb. 11:28), so “Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7) and because of that “You are not
your own, for you were bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:20).19 In other words, Christ as our Passover lamb is the one
whose broken body and shed blood has effected both our salvation, and sanctification.
Significantly, a portion of each gospel account is devoted to describing the final Passover that Jesus shared with his
disciples (now better known as the Lord’s Supper), both what he did and taught during that meal.20 In an event recorded
four times (in the Synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians), when Jesus took the 2 main elements of the Seder, bread and
wine, and imbued them with radical new covenant meaning pertaining to his own death, he decisively showed himself
to be the fulfilment of Passover. Just as the body and blood of the lamb redeemed the children of Israel from God’s
wrath, so the body and blood of Jesus redeems us, his children, from the punishment our sins deserve.21 Finally, while
John’s gospel does not record the bread-breaking and cup-drinking ceremony, it does meticulously record the piercing
of Jesus’ side, which proved his death, and meant that his legs were not broken (as was commonly done to victims of
crucifixion in order to hasten death). John notes this to be another Passover requirement fulfilled, ”Not one of his bones
will be broken” (Jn. 19:36 quoting Exo. 12:46 and Num. 9:12). John also references, ”They will look on him whom they
have pierced” (Jn. 19:37 quoting Zec. 12:10) as another prophetic fulfilment. Fascinatingly, in this same verse, Zechariah
goes on to say, ”him whom they have pierced... and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn” (Zec. 12:10),
surely recalling the grief-wracked homes that were unshielded by the lamb’s blood, ”Every firstborn in the land of Egypt
shall die... there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there has never been, nor ever will be
again” (Exo. 11:6).22

18
Israel‘s active participation in Egyptian idolatry, is attested to by the golden calf which Aaron fashioned for them,
when they became impatient with Moses’ prolonged absence (Exo. 32:1-10). It is unsurprising that Aaron made a
calf – the Egyptians had long revered the sacred bull Apis, whose center for worship was apparently Memphis,
located just south of Goshen, where the Israelites had first settled during Joseph's tenure as governor. Another
popular Egyptian goddess was Hathor, often represented as a cow. Thomas Nelson Publishers, NKJV The
Chronological Study Bible, (Nashville, Thomas Nelson Inc., 2008), 106.
19
“This is not to read into Paul any “theory of the atonement,“ for the transparently clear reference to sacrifice
(θυω) is complemented by the language of redemption (αγοραζω) in 1 Cor. 6:20, and covenant promise (διαθηκη),
identification (καταγγελλετε) and the shedding of Christ’s blood (’αιματι) in 1 Cor. 11:25-26.” Anthony Thiselton, First
Epistle to the Corinthians NIGTC (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2000), 405.
20
Matthew 26:20-30; Mark 14:17-26; Luke 22:14-38; John 13 – 17.
21
Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions, Rediscovering the Glory of Penal
Substitution (Nottingham: Inter-varsity Press, 2007), 39.
22
”(This) is the grief that a parent feels at the loss of a first-born and an only child. The bitterness of this agony in any
parent is a most vivid image of sorrow, but to a Jew, with his passion for posterity, and his impression of disgrace
"a ransom for many” an example of penal substitution in the New Testament
Turning to the New Testament, we find many indicators of penal substitution. All 4 gospels record enough of the
teaching of Jesus to show that it was his express purpose to give “the ransom price of his life as a substitutionary payment
in the place of others”.23 Mark and Matthew recall him saying “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and
to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45; Matt 20:28). There are not a few reasons for seeing this verse as a
key reference to PSA.24

Significance of ransom
First, there is the word ransom (λυτρον) which in the Old Testament ”always means a payment which releases a person
from an obligation which otherwise he/she was bound to fulfil.”25 For example, Moses directs that if an ox has a history
of attacking people, yet the owner fails to appropriately restrain the animal with the result that someone else is fatally
gored, then the owner's life is forfeit; UNLESS the community leaders and victim‘s kin are prepared to impose a ransom
(in Hebrew, literally ’atonement price‘) for the owner to pay, in lieu of the death penalty. Here, the connection between
ransom and propitiation is evident; by a ransom, the guilty appeases (or propitiates) the offended. That Jesus' death was Commented [AK11]: As mentioned earlier, so
the ransom paid to the Law-giver for us, the lawbreakers, is the gist of apostolic teaching on the atonement, as the it’s the Father’s wrath that needs appeasing with
a ransom. But it still does not solve the problems
following verses show:
critics of PSA have raised.
“He whom God raised up did not see corruption. Let it known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man
forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is justified from everything for which you
could not be justified by the law of Moses“26 (Act. 13:38-39);
”For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a
ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time”27 (1 Tim. 2:5);

and curse connected with childlessness, this illustration was one of the most significant that could be used.” Thomas
Moore, Zechariah (London, Banner of Truth, 1961 (originally published 1856)) 201.
23
Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions, Rediscovering the Glory of Penal
Substitution (Nottingham: Inter-varsity Press, 2007), 67.
24
Indeed, not only this verse but the passage where it is found, is a significant statement on the atonement. Tom
Wright writes ”Mark 10:35-45 contains within itself more or less the whole of the New Testament’s complex but
coherent vision of how Jesus’ death, completing his vocation as Israel’s Messiah, overthrew the dark powers that
had enslaved the world by coming to take the place of sinners.” Tom Wright, The Day the Revolution Began (London,
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2016), 222.
25
William Barclay, New Testament Words (London, SCM Press Ltd, 1973), 190.
See Exodus 21:28-32 for the first use of ’ransom‘ in the Bible.
26
The ESV translates δικαιωθηναι as ’freed’ but footnotes that the Greek term is literally ’justified,‘ which I have
opted to use here. Admittedly these 2 verses in Acts do not explicitly use words like ransom and propitiate. But they
are very close to what is expressed in Rom. 3:20-24, as the following shows: ”For by works of the law no human
being will be justified... since through the law comes knowledge of sin... righteousness of God through faith in Jesus
Christ... For all have sinned... and are justified by his grace as a gift.“ The Romans passage concludes in verse 25, that
'righteousness of God‘ (or we could say ‘forgiveness of sins‘) came about ”through the redemption (ransom) that is
in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood.”
27
In this verse Jesus is designated as the mediator (μεσιτησ). The word carries 2 meanings: first, there is the idea of
an arbiter or umpire, someone who stands between 2 parties that are estranged and works with them to forge an
alliance and bring all enmity to an end. Second, there is the sense of guarantor or sponsor, a trustworthy one whose
worth is good for both creditor and borrower, who undertakes to answer for the debt, should the borrower default.
How wonderful that Jesus by his righteous life has paid our debt; and by his death has reconciled us to God.
”you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver and
gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” (1 Pet. 1:18);
”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.” (1
Jn. 4:10).

Significance of the cup

A second reason why Mark 10:45 is likely connected to PSA, is in its immediate context. Jesus’ statement was
precipitated by strife that had arisen among the disciples when James and John, egged on by their mother, had asked for
privileged positions at Jesus’ side in glory. Jesus responds with a question, “You do not know what you are asking. Are
you able to drink the cup that I drink?” (Mk. 10:38). Undoubtedly, Jesus has in mind the looming trial of suffering,
crucifixion and burial, which is why he refers to ‘the cup’ in the garden of Gethsemane, “He fell on the ground and
prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for
you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will...” (Mk. 14:36). Yet this is a metaphor packed with meaning in the
Old Testament, variously called ‘cup of the LORD,’ ‘cup filled with the wine of my wrath,’ ‘cup from the LORD’s right
hand’.28 Although the cup image is also used in conjunction with the favour of the Lord (‘cup of salvation,’ ‘cup of
consolation,’ ‘cup overflows (with abundance)’); the image most associated with his judgment upon the wicked - ‘the
cup of his wrath,’ features about a dozen times across the Psalms and Prophetic writings and is reemphasised about 4
times in the judgment to end all judgments, in Revelation. This is the fearful cup Jesus had in mind when he responded
to the Zebedee brothers. But why should he, the righteous, drink from this bitter cup? Jesus made it clear when he said
he came, “to give his life a ransom for many,” that is, to drink the cup of destruction that we were meant to drink.

Significance of ‘delivered over’ (paradidomi)

A third reason is again found in the surrounding context. Just before James and John make their request, Jesus predicts
his suffering, death and resurrection for the third time.29 Our interest is particularly in the phrase ’delivered over’
(παραδιδwμι) a verb sometimes translated ‘handed over,‘ ‘betrayed,‘ ‘offered up‘. Mark uses the term to describe the
imprisonment of John the Baptist (Mk. 1:14), the betrayal of Judas Iscariot (Mk. 14:10-11), persecutions in store for the
disciples (Mk. 13:9-12) and Jesus' prosecution before Pilate (Mk. 15:1, 10). But when Mark writes “and deliver him
over to the Gentiles“ (literally ’to the nations’), an extra layer of meaning is uncovered. Several times in the Old
Testament, God's judgment upon Israel is announced as a ’handing over to the nations.’30 One such example is Psalm Commented [AK12]: But as suggested earlier,
the “handing over” to enemy nations was meant
106:40-41: ”Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people, and he abhorred his heritage; he gave them into to be restorative. Which is why God allowed an
the hand of the nations, so that those who hated them ruled over them.” Therefore, the inference is that to be ’delivered unrepentant Israel to be sent into Babylonian
exile. But upon repentance, Judah returned to
over to the nations,' is to come under the wrath of God. And we may we ask with Jeffery, Ovey and Sach, ”Why should
the land, rebuilt the temple, etc. So the idea of
punishment for persistent non-repentance is not
completely absent, but we really need to look
deeper to see the motivation of God’s love, not
28
”(Jesus) also has a cup to drink, an allusion to the (Messianic) vocation, which comes into sharp focus in the later so much to placate His anger.
scene in the Garden of Gethsemane (14:36); he must drain to the dregs the ”cup of the wrath of God” so that his
people won’t have to drink it.” Tom Wright, The Day the Revolution Began (London, Society for Promoting Christian Indeed the course writer, Gerald Collins (2009, p.
Knowledge, 2016), 221. 216 to top of 217), a critic of PSA argues that the
29
”See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, Parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32) reveals
and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, a merciful father, rather than an angry one.
and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.” Mark 10:33-34
30
Such scriptures include Leviticus 26:32-33, Deuteronomy 32:30, Judges 2:14, 2 Kings 17:20, Ezra 9:7, Nehemiah What do you think?
9:27, Isaiah 53:12 (LXX), Ezekiel 11:9, 31:11.
Jesus be handed over? Mark 10:45 provides the answer. He came ’to give his life as a ransom for many,’ to be handed
over to God’s wrath in their place.”31

Conclusion
In concluding this paper, it is worthwhile to note that the other theories make valid and valuable contributions to our
understanding of the atonement, but by focusing on penal substitution as the central subject, the other themes are seen
in proper perspective. There is the classic model often called Christus Victor (following the influential book by Gustaf
Aulen (1879-1978)), which holds that “through the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ, God defeated the
devil,”32 in a manner something like Aslan defeating the White Witch and freeing Narnia from her grip, by offering
himself, an innocent sacrifice in place of the traitor, Edmund.33 Then there is the objective or satisfaction model of
atonement often associated with Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), which is built on the idea that God has been
dishonoured by our sin and Jesus by his death, restored that honour. French theologian Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
developed the subjective or moralistic paradigm, the idea that God‘s primary concern was to win a fearful, sin-hardened
world through the greatest demonstration of love we have ever seen - namely the cross of Christ. This view was modified
by Socinus (1539-1604), who argued that beyond being an overwhelming display of God‘s love, the atonement is the
moral exemplar par excellence of self-sacrificing devotion, inspiring us to emulate him. Recently, Tom Wright's
covenantal understanding of the atonement sees the victory of Christ over evil sin-enslaving powers, by exhausting the
self-inflicted consequences of sin in himself34, then rising as our living temple or covenantal meeting place where God
”calls and equips you to bear and reflect his image.”35 No doubt there are other atonement theories and variations on
these, but the key ones mentioned above are some of those more well-known and carefully defended.

As mentioned at the beginning, Scripture offers a wonderful variety of metaphors that enrich our understanding of the
atonement mystery; therefore, there is much to commend and glean from each of the atonement models. Christ is indeed
the victorious warrior that defeated Satan; the defender of God’s honour; the divine lover who woos and wins his bride;
the template of devotion to God; and our living temple and covenant maker. Yet I assert that it is penal substitution that
provides the biblical backbone for all these, it is the idea of a substitute sacrifice to appease divine wrath, that is literally
at the centre, and bookends, Scripture. In the book of Revelation, when all creation is gathered in worship, we find the
lion of the tribe of Judah as the object of their adoration. But in what form do we find him? Not as lion, but as John
writes “I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain” (Rev. 5:6).
And what song does creation sing for him? “A new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and
nation” (Rev. 5:9).

31
Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions, Rediscovering the Glory of Penal
Substitution (Nottingham: Inter-varsity Press, 2007), 67.
32
Gregory A. Boyd ’Christus Victor View‘ in The Nature of the Atonement (Illnois, InterVarsity Press, 2006), 24.
33
Aslan is explaining to the Pevensie girls how it is that he lives again: ”There is a magic deeper still which she (the
Witch) did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further
back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read... that when a willing victim who
had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start
working backwards.” C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (London, HarperCollins, 1950), 176.
34
Tom Wright, The Day the Revolution Began (London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2016), 339.
35
Ibid., 416.
Why then would the mighty, risen Christ, have something about him that eternally declares ‘once was slain’? Death is
the result of divine wrath against sin, about which Adam was warned, and which has afflicted Adam’s race ever since
he disobeyed. But at Calvary, God surrendered himself to the grip of His great wrath toward us; then by the power of
his spirit, secured us in the grip of his yet greater grace toward us. If Adam and Eve wore and saw the skin of the
substitute, and were stung both with regret and gratitude; how much better it shall be to see and be enveloped by, the
living ‘skin’ of him who died and rose for us. His appearance ever reminds us of God’s wrath averted, and therefore, of
God’s love outpoured.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Bibliography
English Standard Version (ESV), Illinois, Crossway, 2001.

The Chronological Study Bible (NKJV), Nashville, Thomas Nelson Inc., 2008.

Barclay, William. New Testament Words. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1964.

Beilby, James and Eddy, Paul. The Nature of the Atonement. Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Clark, Gordon. The Atonement. Jefferson: The Trinity Foundation, 1987.

Dye, Colin. Salvation by Grace. London: Dovewell Publications, 2012.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology, Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.

Evers, Stan. Christ in Exodus. London: Grace Publications, 2010.

Gardner, Paul. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018.

Jeffery, Ovey and Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal

Substitution Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2007.

Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism (L.P. Stone Lectures, 1898). Grand Rapids, Associated Publishers

& Authors, 1963.

Lewis, C.S. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. London: HarperCollins, 1950.

Lightfoot, R.H. St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary. London: Oxford University Press, 1960.

Marshall, I.H. Aspects of the Atonement. Milton Keynes: Authentic Media, 2007.

Moore, Thomas. Zechariah. London: Banner of Truth, 1961.

Morris, Leon. The Cross in the New Testament. Devon: Paternoster Press, 1965.

Peterson, W.A. A Christian View of the Passover. New South Wales: Dubbo Printing Works, 1975.

Sarfati, Jonathan. The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical & Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-

11. Georgia: Creation Ministries International, 2015.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Wolf, Herbert. An Introduction to the Old Testament Pentateuch. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Wright, Tom. The Day the Revolution Began. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2016.