Understanding Penal Substitutionary Atonement: Meaning and Significance

Growing up within evangelical Christianity in the 1980s and 1990s, I often heard the phrase: “Jesus died for our sins.”

Though these five words represent the heart of the gospel, there can be subtle ambiguity in them. What, exactly, do we mean when we say, “Jesus died for our sins”?

Don’t get me wrong. It’s not as if I didn’t appreciate these five words. On the contrary, I cherished them—especially after I was genuinely converted at the age of 25.

However, it wasn’t until a few years later, when I began attending seminary, that I fully understood what it meant to say that Jesus died for my sins—and why it is such good news.

It was then that I learned that the English preposition “for” is the standard translation for two Greek prepositions: anti (meaning “instead of”) and hyper (meaning “in place of”). Both prepositions convey the idea of substitution, and both are used in passages describing Christ’s work on the cross, such as Galatians 3:13, which says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for [hyper] us” (i.e., in our place).

Of course, it’s too much to expect these two Greek prepositions to support the entire doctrine of atonement on their own. Even an article like this can only scratch the surface.

However, our understanding is helped by turning to the Old Testament, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, where we learn that sin became a tragic reality for our first parents soon after creation.

Their sin—which we share, both by nature and by actual sin (Rom. 5:12)—ushered in the curse of death as the just punishment of God (Gen. 2:17). Even then, God showed mercy by providing garments of animal skin to “cover” (i.e., “atone for”) their shame (Gen. 3:21).

Under the Old Covenant, forgiveness for sin was graciously provided by the Lord through animal sacrifices. According to Leviticus, the burnt offering, sin offering, and guilt offering all functioned to provide atonement for individual sins (Lev. 1:4; 4:20; 7:7).

But no animal offering could truly accomplish the atonement required by personal sin. “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:3; see also Heb. 10:11).

It would seem, then, that the Old Testament sacrifices had a twofold function.

First, the sacrifices were didactic, teaching through repetition that mankind is sinful, God is holy, and an innocent life must be taken in place of the sinner to bring about atonement and reconciliation with God (see Heb. 10:3). In this regard, the apostle Paul speaks of the law as a “schoolmaster” (Gal. 3:25, KJV).

Second, the sacrifices were preparatory. They prepared the Israelites to recognize and trust in the atoning work of the Messiah (see Isa. 53:4-6 for evidence that later biblical revelation pointed in this direction).

Perhaps the clearest Old Testament picture of substitutionary atonement is found in the rituals of the Day of Atonement, which involved three sacrificial animals.

On this major annual observance for Israel (Lev. 16:29), the priest would kill a sacrificial bull and sprinkle its blood over the mercy seat to make atonement for his own sins and those of his family (Lev. 16:11-14).

The other two animals were goats. One goat was killed, and its blood was sprinkled over the altar to make atonement for the sins of the nation of Israel (Lev. 16:14-19).

The priest would then lay his hands on the other goat and confess the sins of the nation over it, symbolically transferring the guilt. This goat would be sent into the wilderness, figuratively bearing away the guilt of Israel so that it no longer hindered their fellowship with God (Lev. 16:20-22).

With this background in place, we can understand why the truth of penal substitutionary atonement is such good news. There is no longer any need for animal sacrifice. Jesus has come and offered Himself as both Victim and High Priest, ending all sacrifice through His crucifixion and death. As the Son of God, His death has ultimate value, providing a sufficient atonement for all sins—past, present, and future—for those who trust in Him.

It may be helpful to break down each of the three words:

• Christ’s death was penal. That is, His death was the endurance of punishment.

• Christ’s death was substitutionary. It was our punishment He endured as He died, substituting Himself in the place of those for whom He died.

• Christ’s death was an atonement. By bearing our punishment through His substitutionary death, He atoned for our sins, reconciling us to the Father by faith.

Penal substitutionary atonement, then, is similar to the concept of propitiation in that, through offering Himself as a perfect sacrifice in our place, He propitiated God on our behalf, making Him favorable to us once again. This means that in Himself, He absorbed the wrath of God due to human sin. For this reason, the apostle Paul announces the good news: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).

As Leon Morris wrote, “This is distinctive of Christianity. Other religions have their martyrs, but the death of Jesus was not that of a martyr. It was that of a Savior. His death saves people from their sins. Christ took their place and died their death, the culmination of a ministry in which He consistently made Himself one with sinners.”

Therefore, penal substitutionary atonement is what we mean when we say, “Jesus died for our sins.”

And it is good news indeed!