Recently, I shared an NT Wright video in a post, and as I ponder the things he says, a couple of things really resonate with me this morning as I write this. First, God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus (Romans 8:1-3), and that was substitutionary and penal. What a beautiful truth. I have made it very clear in my teachings that I reject the substitutional view that states that God poured out his wrath or anger on Jesus when he died on the cross, and NT Wright makes it very clear of his rejection of that view as well.

Where I have not done a good job in teaching or communicating, and I will definitely make the correction, is the penal aspect of the cross. I absolutely believe that Jesus’s death serves as payment for our sins. Jesus clearly teaches that he would give himself as a ransom, and Paul tells us that we are bought with a price.

We also read that Christ was made to be a curse for us. I have addressed this in my teachings as well, but maybe not with the clarity that I should have. It’s easy to overcompensate when you are adamantly opposed to a particular view. I think in some ways I have done that in my rejection of the penal view that states that God condemned Jesus in his wrath.

I can’t begin to tell you how much that view is repulsive to me, because it goes contrary to everything I see in the scriptures. Because of my disdain of the view of an angry God at the cross, I have refrained from referring to the death of Christ as a substitute. Instead, I have renewed my mind to speak of it as a sacrifice and an offering. Which is by far the scriptural description.

I will continue to emphasize Jesus’s death as a sacrifice and an offering.  However, I will do a better job of communicating the substitutional aspect of his sacrifice. I recently read something from Andrew Murray that really helped me, and when I couple it with NT Wright’s description of representative substitution, it really gives me a framework to communicate the penal aspect of the cross that I see in scripture. Words mean something, and for me, the word substitution has for a very long time been somewhat of a degrading description of the sacrifice of our Lord, and that is why I rejected it.

The reason I found it degrading is that in some places the substitutional aspect of the cross has reduced Jesus to a mere replacement. This is specifically why I refrained from the language of substitution and would say Jesus died on my behalf rather than in my place. Jesus is not my equal and neither am I his. I could never give to God what he gave to God for me – a sinless, unselfish, perfect life.

Andrew Murray points out, as my substitution, he did what I could not do. And that is the same truth that NT Wright is communicating. Substitution with this in mind is a good description. However, Jesus was not a substitute like a pinch hitter in baseball or a substitute teacher filling in while the teacher is out for the day. Jesus wasn’t role playing sinner on my behalf, or taking the anger that God had for me so that I could go free. Jesus was the perfect, beautiful lamb of glory and he died for me.

Jesus laid down his life, and that was something that Father called him to do because the Father, in his love, wanted to save me from my sins. Jesus obeyed the will of the Father and gave himself for me and for you, and Jesus’s sacrifice (his substitution) was the outward expression of the love that God has in his heart for you and for me. In Jesus, the love of God took our place and died so that were could live – that is substitution and that is penal!

We could never do what Jesus did. We could never give the Father such perfect obedience, and such unselfish surrender as to lay down our lives for others who were guilty while we were innocent, but this is what Jesus did, and that is penal, and that is substitutionary in a holy and glorious way. Jesus’s death for us was the outworking of divine love, mercy, and grace. 

There is more I would like to say, but I have a work day ahead and I hope to share the other truth that has resonated in my heart later, which I mentioned at the beginning, but I wanted to share my thoughts here regarding substitution and would like to develop this more in future posts.