In a previous post, I began considering how we should understand the death of Jesus, and I argued that the overwhelming testimony of both the Old and New Testament point to a penal substitution view as essential for understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Specifically, I gave a handful of quotations from the various New Testament authors that show that the very first followers of Jesus understood His death in this way. Now, it is only reasonable to suppose that they must have received this understanding from somewhere; they didn’t just come up with it on their own. And it is my thesis that they received this understanding of Jesus’ atonement from Jesus himself.

However, this proposition is not without its critics. One such voice is that which belongs to Brian Zahnd, founder and lead pastor of Word of Life Church in St. Joseph, Missouri and author of a book entitled, Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God: The Scandalous Truth of the Very Good News, where he argues:

“Among the many problems with [a penal substitution] theory of the cross is that it turns God into a petty tyrant and a moral monster. Punishing the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is monstrous logic, atrocious theology, and a gross distortion of the idea of justice. … A theory of the cross that says it was God who desired the torture and murder of Jesus on Good Friday turns the Father of Jesus into a cruel and sadistic monster. It’s salvation by divine sadism.” (101-102)

He has also stated that

“Even if penal substitutionary atonement theory is one of the correct models for interpreting the cross (personally I’m convinced its a pagan idea and an outrageous libel against God) its still not the gospel. The gospel is the story of Jesus – not abstract atonement theories.” (via @BrianZahnd, tweeted 3.20.18, 7:27PM)

And in his blog “How Did Jesus Understand His Death?”, he argues that Jesus understood his death in the vein of the Christus Victor theory of the atonement on the basis of John 12:31-32.

So, in order to understand the meaning of Jesus’ death, we must consider carefully how Jesus understood it and conveyed its significance to His first disciples. It is relatively obvious that Jesus anticipated his death by crucifixion at the hands of the Jewish and Roman authorities. In the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), He predicts his death at least three specific occasions. Those predictions, along with many other allusions, coupled with the obvious animosity between the Jewish religious establishment and Jesus clearly indicate that Jesus was well aware of the fate that awaited Him on that third and final trip to Jerusalem. However, not only did he expect his upcoming execution, he also very clearly saw it as the necessary culmination of His ministry and mission.

In this light then, it is reasonable to expect that He must have reflected on the meaning of His death. And there are three sayings of Jesus that give us some insight into how he understood that meaning. The first saying of Jesus that gives us some insight into how he understood His death is found in Mark 10:45 (also Matthew 20.28), which is known as the ransom saying, because Jesus says, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The second saying of Jesus that shows how he understood his death is found in the words of institution at the Last Supper (Mark 14:22-25, Matt. 26:26-29, Luke 22:14-20). There Jesus reinterprets the elements of the Passover meal in the light of His upcoming death. And the third saying that is also somewhat conceptually related is found in the prayer of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he prayed “Take this cup away from me.” (Mark 14:36. Matt. 26:39,42, Luke 22:42)

These statements indicate that Jesus understood his death as a vicarious substitution for many, and it seems reasonably clear that the theological background of these sayings is to be found in that paradigmatic passage from the Old Testament which describes the vicarious substitution of the “suffering servant”. In Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the prophet vividly predicts the vicarious and expiatory suffering of the servant of the Lord for the many. The linguistic and conceptual parallels between the suffering servant song and these sayings of Jesus are quite telling. For example, the idea of a ransom in Mark 10:45, used as a metaphor, parallels the idea of a guilt offering in Isaiah 53:10, and the idea for many echoes the repetitive many in Isaiah 53:11-12. This indicates that Jesus clearly understood himself to be fulfilling the role of the suffering servant in His death on the cross.

Further, in the garden, when Jesus asks His Father to remove “the cup”, He is likely referring to “the cup of God’s wrath” or “judgment” so often described in the Old Testament prophets. And that is why He is able to say in John 12:31, “Now is the judgment of this world.” So, here again it seems fairly evident that Jesus understood His death as the satisfaction of God’s judgment on sin. In light of all this, it is safe to conclude that Jesus viewed His death as a substitutionary and expiatory act that satisfies the just judgment and due penalty for sin before a Holy God. It would seem, then, that the first followers of Jesus drew their penal substitution view of the atonement directly from the words of Jesus himself.