Drew Whitton's critique of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) raises a number of historical and exegetical claims that, in my view, do not withstand careful scrutiny. I am particularly surprised that Chris White appears persuaded by aspects of Whitton's presentation, given White's usual emphasis on biblical exegesis and theological precision.
In 2025, I undertook an extended study of PSA with the intention of critically examining my own assumptions against the biblical evidence. Rather than weakening my confidence in the doctrine, the study strengthened my conviction that penal substitution reflects a significant and indispensable aspect of the New Testament's understanding of Christ's saving work.
This article is not intended as a comprehensive defense of PSA. Rather, it addresses several specific claims advanced by Whitton concerning the nature of atonement, Old Testament sacrifice, and the relationship between the cross and Christ's heavenly ministry.
Was Penal Substitution Invented During the Reformation?
Whitton argues that PSA is a Reformation doctrine.
The claim requires qualification. The fully developed theological formulation associated with Penal Substitution emerged during the Protestant Reformation. However, the underlying concepts of substitution, sin-bearing, sacrificial death, and Christ dying on behalf of sinners are present throughout the New Testament and appear in various forms within earlier Christian theology.
Historic Christian reflection on the atonement has produced a number of theological models and emphases, including:
These are not always mutually exclusive categories. Indeed, many theologians have incorporated elements from several of these themes simultaneously.
The more important question is therefore not whether PSA received systematic development during the Reformation. Most theological doctrines undergo historical development. The central issue is whether PSA faithfully reflects the teaching of Scripture.
Whitton frequently argues that the gospel is "far more than PSA". In one sense, this is uncontroversial. Historic evangelical theology has never reduced Christ's saving work to a single moment or doctrine. Christ's incarnation, obedience, death, resurrection, ascension, exaltation, and intercession all form part of the unified work of redemption.
Nevertheless, the New Testament repeatedly presents Christ's sacrificial death as the central saving event toward which His earthly ministry moved.
Jesus came not merely to teach, heal, or provide an example, but to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), to suffer and die (Luke 24:46), and to accomplish the work given to Him by the Father (John 12:27).
The resurrection, ascension, and intercession of Christ are indispensable realities. Yet the New Testament consistently portrays them as flowing from and bearing witness to the saving accomplishment of the cross.
The issue, then, is not whether Christ's work includes more than PSA. It plainly does. The issue is whether PSA provides a legitimate explanation of how Christ's death saves. I believe the biblical evidence supports that conclusion.
Grain Offerings and the Necessity of Blood
Whitton argues that since the Old Testament included grain offerings, blood sacrifice cannot be central to biblical atonement.
This argument overlooks important distinctions within Israel's sacrificial system.
The ordinary grain offering described in Leviticus 2 functioned as an offering of worship, devotion, gratitude, and covenant fellowship. It was not generally presented as a sin offering in the same sense as the sacrificial offerings involving blood.
Scripture repeatedly associates atonement and forgiveness with blood sacrifice.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls (Leviticus 17:11).
Likewise:
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
While Leviticus provides exceptional accommodations for those unable to afford animal sacrifices (Leviticus 5:11-13), these provisions do not overturn the broader pattern established throughout the sacrificial system. Blood occupies a unique role in relation to atonement and forgiveness.
The grain offering complemented the sacrificial system; it did not eliminate the theological significance of sacrificial blood.
Blood, Purification, and Sin
Whitton further argues that blood was used to purify objects such as altars, ritual furnishings, and sanctuaries, and therefore should not be viewed primarily in relation to sin.
This conclusion does not follow.
The Old Testament presents both purification and forgiveness as consequences of sacrificial atonement. These themes are not competing categories. They arise from the same underlying reality: sin produces guilt, uncleanness, and separation from God.
The author of Hebrews explicitly connects purification and forgiveness:
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22).
The cleansing of ritual objects therefore does not diminish the connection between blood and sin. Rather, it illustrates the pervasive effects of sin's defilement within a fallen creation.
Hebrews presents Christ's sacrifice as the fulfillment of this entire sacrificial framework. Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary not with the blood of animals but with His own blood, securing eternal redemption for His people (Hebrews 9:12).
Were Sacrificial Animals Connected to Judgment?
Whitton argues that sacrificial animals were not being punished and did not experience divine wrath.
It is certainly true that animal sacrifices possess limitations. Animals are not moral agents and therefore cannot literally bear guilt in the same manner as human beings.
Nevertheless, the sacrificial system consistently associates death with sin and guilt.
The worshiper's guilt is symbolically transferred to the sacrificial victim, and the animal dies in connection with the sinner's need for atonement. The death of the victim communicates a fundamental biblical principle: sin results in death.
Scripture repeatedly affirms this relationship:
The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).
The animal sacrifices functioned as types and shadows that pointed beyond themselves to Christ. They did not provide final atonement in themselves but anticipated the coming of the true and perfect sacrifice.
Thus, while caution should be exercised before reading every later theological category directly back into Leviticus, the sacrificial system undeniably establishes a connection between sin, judgment, substitution, and death.
Was Christ's Atonement Incomplete Until the Ascension?
One of Whitton's more controversial claims is that Christ's atoning work was not completed at Calvary and only became complete through His ascension into heaven.
The New Testament evidence points in a different direction.
Historic Protestant theology has generally maintained that Christ accomplished atonement through His sacrificial death, while His resurrection, ascension, and heavenly priesthood testify to and apply the benefits of that completed work.
Several passages support this understanding:
It is finished (John 19:30).
We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Hebrews 10:10).
Having made peace through the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:20).
Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes that Christ's sacrifice occurred once for all and secured eternal redemption.
Christ's continuing ministry in heaven is not a continuation of sacrifice but the ongoing priestly application and representation of a completed sacrifice.
This distinction is vital.
Is Christ's sacrifice ongoing? No. Hebrews consistently presents it as completed.
Is Christ's priestly ministry ongoing? Yes. Christ continually intercedes for His people before the Father.
The ascension therefore should be understood as the exaltation and heavenly presentation of a completed atonement rather than the event that finally completed an unfinished one.
Is Christ's Intercession Part of Atonement?
Much of this discussion ultimately depends upon how the term atonement is defined.
Some theologians employ the term broadly enough to include Christ's heavenly ministry. Others distinguish between the accomplishment of redemption and its ongoing application.
I adopt the latter distinction.
In my view, the New Testament consistently presents Christ's sacrifice as the basis of redemption and His intercession as the ongoing ministry through which the benefits of that redemption are applied.
At the same time, the New Testament attributes numerous effects to Christ's blood and sacrificial death:
Conclusion
The central issue is not whether Christ presently intercedes for His people. Historic Christianity has consistently affirmed that He does. The question is whether Scripture presents Christ's atoning sacrifice as incomplete until His ascension.
In my judgment, the weight of the New Testament evidence points in the opposite direction. Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes the finality, sufficiency, and once-for-all character of Christ's sacrifice, while presenting His heavenly ministry as the ongoing application and representation of that completed work.
For that reason, I find Whitton's interpretation difficult to reconcile with the broader witness of Scripture. While Christ's resurrection, ascension, reign, and intercession are indispensable aspects of His redemptive work, the New Testament consistently directs attention to the cross as the decisive saving event through which redemption was secured, reconciliation accomplished, and peace established between God and His people.
Scripture consistently portrays penal substitution as lying at the heart of the gospel, depicting Christ as bearing the punishment and judgment due to sinners, including God's righteous wrath against sin.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-6)
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53: 10)
..Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:24-26).
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— (Galatians 3:13).
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Whitton argues that PSA is a Reformation doctrine.
The claim requires qualification. The fully developed theological formulation associated with Penal Substitution emerged during the Protestant Reformation. However, the underlying concepts of substitution, sin-bearing, sacrificial death, and Christ dying on behalf of sinners are present throughout the New Testament and appear in various forms within earlier Christian theology.
Historic Christian reflection on the atonement has produced a number of theological models and emphases, including:
- Penal Substitution
- Christus Victor
- Satisfaction Theory
- Moral Influence approaches
The more important question is therefore not whether PSA received systematic development during the Reformation. Most theological doctrines undergo historical development. The central issue is whether PSA faithfully reflects the teaching of Scripture.
Whitton frequently argues that the gospel is "far more than PSA". In one sense, this is uncontroversial. Historic evangelical theology has never reduced Christ's saving work to a single moment or doctrine. Christ's incarnation, obedience, death, resurrection, ascension, exaltation, and intercession all form part of the unified work of redemption.
Nevertheless, the New Testament repeatedly presents Christ's sacrificial death as the central saving event toward which His earthly ministry moved.
Jesus came not merely to teach, heal, or provide an example, but to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), to suffer and die (Luke 24:46), and to accomplish the work given to Him by the Father (John 12:27).
The resurrection, ascension, and intercession of Christ are indispensable realities. Yet the New Testament consistently portrays them as flowing from and bearing witness to the saving accomplishment of the cross.
The issue, then, is not whether Christ's work includes more than PSA. It plainly does. The issue is whether PSA provides a legitimate explanation of how Christ's death saves. I believe the biblical evidence supports that conclusion.
Grain Offerings and the Necessity of Blood
Whitton argues that since the Old Testament included grain offerings, blood sacrifice cannot be central to biblical atonement.
This argument overlooks important distinctions within Israel's sacrificial system.
The ordinary grain offering described in Leviticus 2 functioned as an offering of worship, devotion, gratitude, and covenant fellowship. It was not generally presented as a sin offering in the same sense as the sacrificial offerings involving blood.
Scripture repeatedly associates atonement and forgiveness with blood sacrifice.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls (Leviticus 17:11).
Likewise:
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
While Leviticus provides exceptional accommodations for those unable to afford animal sacrifices (Leviticus 5:11-13), these provisions do not overturn the broader pattern established throughout the sacrificial system. Blood occupies a unique role in relation to atonement and forgiveness.
The grain offering complemented the sacrificial system; it did not eliminate the theological significance of sacrificial blood.
Blood, Purification, and Sin
Whitton further argues that blood was used to purify objects such as altars, ritual furnishings, and sanctuaries, and therefore should not be viewed primarily in relation to sin.
This conclusion does not follow.
The Old Testament presents both purification and forgiveness as consequences of sacrificial atonement. These themes are not competing categories. They arise from the same underlying reality: sin produces guilt, uncleanness, and separation from God.
The author of Hebrews explicitly connects purification and forgiveness:
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22).
The cleansing of ritual objects therefore does not diminish the connection between blood and sin. Rather, it illustrates the pervasive effects of sin's defilement within a fallen creation.
Hebrews presents Christ's sacrifice as the fulfillment of this entire sacrificial framework. Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary not with the blood of animals but with His own blood, securing eternal redemption for His people (Hebrews 9:12).
Were Sacrificial Animals Connected to Judgment?
Whitton argues that sacrificial animals were not being punished and did not experience divine wrath.
It is certainly true that animal sacrifices possess limitations. Animals are not moral agents and therefore cannot literally bear guilt in the same manner as human beings.
Nevertheless, the sacrificial system consistently associates death with sin and guilt.
The worshiper's guilt is symbolically transferred to the sacrificial victim, and the animal dies in connection with the sinner's need for atonement. The death of the victim communicates a fundamental biblical principle: sin results in death.
Scripture repeatedly affirms this relationship:
The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).
The animal sacrifices functioned as types and shadows that pointed beyond themselves to Christ. They did not provide final atonement in themselves but anticipated the coming of the true and perfect sacrifice.
Thus, while caution should be exercised before reading every later theological category directly back into Leviticus, the sacrificial system undeniably establishes a connection between sin, judgment, substitution, and death.
Was Christ's Atonement Incomplete Until the Ascension?
One of Whitton's more controversial claims is that Christ's atoning work was not completed at Calvary and only became complete through His ascension into heaven.
The New Testament evidence points in a different direction.
Historic Protestant theology has generally maintained that Christ accomplished atonement through His sacrificial death, while His resurrection, ascension, and heavenly priesthood testify to and apply the benefits of that completed work.
Several passages support this understanding:
It is finished (John 19:30).
We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Hebrews 10:10).
Having made peace through the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:20).
Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes that Christ's sacrifice occurred once for all and secured eternal redemption.
Christ's continuing ministry in heaven is not a continuation of sacrifice but the ongoing priestly application and representation of a completed sacrifice.
This distinction is vital.
Is Christ's sacrifice ongoing? No. Hebrews consistently presents it as completed.
Is Christ's priestly ministry ongoing? Yes. Christ continually intercedes for His people before the Father.
The ascension therefore should be understood as the exaltation and heavenly presentation of a completed atonement rather than the event that finally completed an unfinished one.
Is Christ's Intercession Part of Atonement?
Much of this discussion ultimately depends upon how the term atonement is defined.
Some theologians employ the term broadly enough to include Christ's heavenly ministry. Others distinguish between the accomplishment of redemption and its ongoing application.
I adopt the latter distinction.
In my view, the New Testament consistently presents Christ's sacrifice as the basis of redemption and His intercession as the ongoing ministry through which the benefits of that redemption are applied.
At the same time, the New Testament attributes numerous effects to Christ's blood and sacrificial death:
Cleansing from sin (1 John 1:7; Hebrews 9:14)
Forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28; Ephesians 1:7)
Justification (Romans 5:9)
Redemption (Ephesians 1:7)
Reconciliation (Colossians 1:20-22)
Peace with God (Colossians 1:20)
Establishment of the new covenant (Luke 22:20)
Access to God's presence (Hebrews 10:19-22)
Victory over the accuser (Revelation 12:11)
No single biblical image exhausts the significance of Christ's death. Nevertheless, these various themes are repeatedly grounded in the sacrificial work accomplished at the cross.
Forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28; Ephesians 1:7)
Justification (Romans 5:9)
Redemption (Ephesians 1:7)
Reconciliation (Colossians 1:20-22)
Peace with God (Colossians 1:20)
Establishment of the new covenant (Luke 22:20)
Access to God's presence (Hebrews 10:19-22)
Victory over the accuser (Revelation 12:11)
No single biblical image exhausts the significance of Christ's death. Nevertheless, these various themes are repeatedly grounded in the sacrificial work accomplished at the cross.
Conclusion
The central issue is not whether Christ presently intercedes for His people. Historic Christianity has consistently affirmed that He does. The question is whether Scripture presents Christ's atoning sacrifice as incomplete until His ascension.
In my judgment, the weight of the New Testament evidence points in the opposite direction. Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes the finality, sufficiency, and once-for-all character of Christ's sacrifice, while presenting His heavenly ministry as the ongoing application and representation of that completed work.
For that reason, I find Whitton's interpretation difficult to reconcile with the broader witness of Scripture. While Christ's resurrection, ascension, reign, and intercession are indispensable aspects of His redemptive work, the New Testament consistently directs attention to the cross as the decisive saving event through which redemption was secured, reconciliation accomplished, and peace established between God and His people.
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-6)
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53: 10)
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— (Galatians 3:13).
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21).
No comments:
Post a Comment