A review of NT Wrights position on Penal Substitution

Highlights in italics and/or bold print are my emphasis; use of bracketed wording are mine - jds

Penal Substitutionary Atonement
in the Theology of N.T. Wright
Trevin K. Wax

Introduction
N.T. Wright holds the distinction of being one of the few theologians of our day
who regularly contradicts and opposes the liberal wing of the academy while
simultaneously alienating and perplexing many conservatives within the Reformed
tradition. Liberal scholars scoff at his insistence upon Jesus’ literal and physical
resurrection; conservative scholars decry his apparent denial of the doctrine of penal
substitutionary atonement. It is the latter subject that I will deal with in this paper. Few
theological questions make Wright more “suspect” in Reformed circles than the one
regarding the atonement. Here I will seek to lay out evidence for Wright’s view of the
atonement, in hopes that this paper will shed light on the current debates.

An Overview of Wright’s Historical Theology
N.T. Wright’s view of the atonement is consistently called into question by
Reformed pastors and scholars. Because Wright emphasizes the victory of Christ over
the powers of sin and death, many readers assume this leaves little to no room for a
personal understanding of Christ’s dying in the sinner’s place.1 Before we can
accurately understand Wright’s views on the atonement, however, we must provide a
brief overview of his work as an historian.

Wright’s Theological Pilgrimage
During the 1970’s, Wright’s theology put him squarely in the conservative
Reformed camp. One of his earliest works was assisting the compilation of the complete
works of John Frith, the early English Reformer. Even today, Wright admires men like
J.I. Packer, John Stott, and Michael Green.
Wright’s theological views underwent substantial change in the mid‐1980’s as
he wrote the Tyndale New Testament commentary for Colossians and Philemon.

He claims to have been a “dualist” before this time, one who saw the Gospel as belonging
to one sphere and the rest of life belonging to another. Therefore, politics and the world
of creation were left untouched by the Gospel, which was primarily about individual
salvation to a heavenly afterlife. [Barth came to point in time , early on, when dualism was rejected, also.]

From this point on, however, as Wright began to study
the cosmic implications of the Gospel and articulate his own version of the rising “new
perspective” on Paul, he moved away from his Calvinistic roots and launched into
historical study of the Gospels.

Footnote # 1 [compare] Pastor Rick Klueg, from his sermon about the New Perspective on Paul. http://www.northvillebaptist.org/discernment/npp.htm)


Wright’s Appeal to Scripture
Ironically, though Wright is labeled by many as being outside the Reformation
tradition, Wright himself considers himself more Reformed, due to his insistence upon
the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. “I believe that Scripture must be the judge of
all our traditions, no matter how venerable,” he stated in a 2004 interview. Wright
admires the work of Calvin and Luther, but when he believes their theology to be
deficient in light of Scriptural teaching, he does not hesitate to say so.
Wright also claims to be part of the stream of historic Reformation theology.
He says that he does not deny what the Reformers sought to affirm, only to “ground in
more fully biblical thinking the great underlying truths of the faith. Regarding
substitutionary atonement, Wright offers this plea:

2 N.T. Wright, “My Pilgrimage in Theology” Themelios, January 1993, 18.2, 35.
3 Ibid, 35.
4 N.T. Wright, http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wrightsaid_March2004.htm
5 N.T. Wright, http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wrightsaid_January2004.htm

“I am often puzzled and distressed when people question whether I really believe in
the substitutionary meaning of Jesus’ death. I would simply say: read my published sermons;
read chapter 12 of Jesus and the Victory of God; ask yourself, not whether I go through the hoops of all the words that your tradition has told you we should say, but whether I represent fairl y what scripture, and Jesus himself, said about the meaning of his death. That is my only aim.”


Whether or not Wright is correct in his claim to be part of the historic
Reformation heritage falls outside the confines of the current essay. Instead, we turn our
focus to Wright’s view of the atonement with the following questions in mind:

1. Does Wright affirm that Christ died as an innocent sacrifice in the place of
the guilty?
2. Does Wright affirm the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death (i.e. that He
died in the place of sinners)?
3. Does Wright affirm that on the cross, Jesus took the wrath of God upon
Himself, as a propitiation for human sin?

I will not seek to compare Wright’s terminology to the standard Reformed
expressions of this theology. Instead, I will lay out the evidence that shows whether or not Wright affirms these biblical concepts.

N.T. Wright’s View of the Atonement
As we seek to answer the specific questions listed above, we must first look at the
way in which Wright grounds his understanding of the atonement in its first‐century historical
context. Only then can we truly understand whether or not Wright affirms Jesus as the innocent
One, sacrificed in the place of the guilty as a substitute. After we address these issues, we will
be able to turn to the question of whether or not Wright affirms the penal understanding of
substitution, that on the cross Jesus bore God’s wrath towards sin.
6 Ibid.

The Atonement Grounded in History
Central to N.T. Wright’s theology is the importance of historical research.
Wright rejects the Enlightenment’s legacy that leaves us with a Christianity filled with
moral platitudes and no historical referent. For Wright, the historian’s task is vital to a
true understanding of Christianity. The Bible did not fall out of heaven, but was written
within a historical context.

Knowing that context is crucial to correctly interpreting
Scripture. Therefore, in wrestling with Wright’s theology of the atonement, we cannot
simply gloss over the historical issues and jump straight to theology. History and
theology are intertwined in Wright’s thought, so much so that to separate one from the
other ultimately distorts his view.

It is easy to lean to one side or the other when wrestling with history and
theology. What do we automatically think of when asked the question, “Why did Jesus
die?” If our first answer is “because He upset the religious authorities” or “He was a
threat to Rome,” we are leaning towards historical answers. If our first answer
resembles “He died to pay for our sins,” or “so that He could defeat the powers of evil,”
we are giving theological answers. Wright believes that we should not separate these
two sides. Both aspects are essential, and therefore in our study of Jesus, we should seek
to marry the historical and theological dimensions of His life, not separate them.7 If we
take out the history of Jesus’ death, we are left with a nonhistorical, abstract transaction
between God and humans. [This , in Barth, would be considered a dialect circumstance, with its remedy in some aspect of the Christiological] If we neglect the theology of Jesus’ death, we are left with a
martyr whose life and death bear no real significance for us today. We must seek to
hold history and theology together.
7 N.T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press,
1999), 83.


N.T. Wright complains that some evangelical presentations of the gospel uproot
the message of Jesus from its historical context and transform it into simply an
individual’s spiritual experience with God.

“So many popular presentations are far too abstract. They take the whole event out of its
context in history, in the story of God and his people, and imagine it simply as a nonhistorical
transaction between God and Jesus into which we can somehow be slotted. But the New
Testament always insists on seeing the cross as what it was – a horrible and bitter event within
history; and it insists that we understand its significance within, not outside, that context.”


The wedding of historical research and theological reflection has broadened
Wright’s view of the gospel to include, not only individual salvation in the afterlife, but
the present implications that the announcement of Jesus’ lordship have in our world.

He claims the Scripture teaches both the personal nature of salvation and the cosmic implications of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

An example of this comes from Wright’s study of the Gospel of Mark. Wright
sees three dimensions of the Gospel story in Mark’s account.

"The largest circle is the political story, replete with characters who are scheming to get rid of Jesus because His message is dangerous and counter‐cultural. The second circle is the theological story, that Jesus is dying as the ransom for many and His death represents God’s victory over sin and death. The third circle is the personal implications of the theological story. We are invited to see ourselves as the sinners for whom Christ died.

Wright believes that in studying Scripture, we must start with the historical and theological dimensions, before moving to the personal implications. Otherwise, we “screen out the real theology and politics.”

This is, according to Wright, the way the early church would have read the
Gospels. Wright insists that most first‐century Jews were not so concerned about their
8 N.T. Wright, The Crown and the Fire: Meditations on the Cross and the Life of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1992), 122, emphasis added.
9 N.T. Wright, Gower Street Interview, part 7. http://gowerstreet.blogspot.com/2005/01/interview-with-nt-wrightpart-
7-of-6.html

security in the afterlife, but were much more focused on God’s purposes for Israel and
the world. Wright affirms that first‐century Jews did indeed look to find personal
salvation, but that their hope “fell within the larger picture of God’s future for the
whole nation.” Wright believes we should not impose our Western individualistic
mindset on the biblical texts, but let them speak for themselves in their historical
context.

This leads Wright to reject what he believes are wrong ways of speaking about
the atonement. It is here that Wright upsets many Reformed readers because it appears
he is attacking substitutionary atonement. He rejects the Anselmic view of the
atonement that makes God out to be a “mediaeval prince who had been publicly
shamed.” He believes that Anselm’s view of satisfaction imposes a foreign paradigm
upon the biblical narratives. Likewise, he rejects the reduction of penal substitution to
God demanding someone suffer “and not caring much who it is.” Wright encourages
readers to broaden their view of the atonement to include other themes and not to
emphasize solely penal substitution. In typical Wright fashion, he illustrates this with a
musical reference:

“Substitutionary atonement is a vital element in the gospel. Miss it
out, and the music of the gospel is no longer what it should be. But if you only play
that note you are in danger of setting up a different harmony altogether.”

Instead of penal substitution, Wright believes that the center of the atonement
lies in the Christus Victor theme that explains the cross as the moment of “decisive victory over the ‘principalities and powers’.”
He believes we should give priority (though a priority “among equals”) to this understanding of the atonement, while

10 N.T. Wright, “In Grateful Dialogue,” Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright’s
Jesus and the Victory of God, edited by Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1999), 257.
11 N.T. Wright, http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wrightsaid_November2004.htm
12 N.T. Wright, http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wrightsaid_October2005.htm

ensuring we do not lose the many other expressions of the atonement, which one
would assume would include penal substitution.
Just as he will not separate history and theology, neither will he separate the
different themes of the atonement, such as Christus Victor and penal substitution. He
insists we see these together. So, what does it look like when Wright’s theological
reflection ultimately rises from his historical research?
Perhaps the best understanding of Wright’s view of the atonement is found in
his contribution to the New Dictionary of Theology. History and theology come together
at the cross. After several pages of historical research regarding Jesus’ life and ministry,
Wright states:

“[Jesus] would carry out Israel’s task: and, having pronounced Israel’s impending
judgment in the form of the wrath of Rome which would turn out to be the wrath of God, he
would go ahead of her and take that judgment on himself, drinking the cup of God’s wrath so
that his people might not drink it. In his crucifixion, therefore, Jesus identified fully (if
paradoxically) with the aspirations of his people, dying as ‘the king of the Jews’, the
representative of the people of God, accomplishing for Israel (and hence the world) what
neither the world nor Israel could accomplish for themselves.”

Again placing Jesus’ death in historical context and the overarching biblical
narrative, Wright adds: “As the story of the exodus is the story of how God redeemed
Israel, so the story of the cross is the story of how God redeemed the world through
Israel in person, in Jesus, the Messiah.”

Jesus the Innocent One
Now that we have seen a brief overview of how Wright welds together
historical and theological understandings of the atonement, we can begin to
13 N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), 47.
14 N.T. Wright, New Dictionary of Theology edited by David F. Wright, Sinclair B. Ferguson, J.I. Packer (Downers
Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1988), 348-351.
15 Ibid.

systematically lay out the different pieces that make up the doctrine of penal
substitution. We first turn to the notion of Christ the righteous One, dying in the
sinner’s place.

Wright frames the discussion of Christ’s righteousness differently than
standard Reformed theologians. He does not speak of Christ’s righteousness as “moral perfection.” Instead, he believes that historically, it makes more sense to see Christ’s perfection in terms of faithfulness to His messianic vocation.

This does not exclude moral perfection, however, as we will soon see.
Wright denies the traditional Reformed terminology of “imputation of Christ’s
righteousness.” He does not deny the concept of imputation, however, as is evident in
the way he translates the New Testament epistles. He translates pistis Christou not as
“faith in Christ,” but as a subjective genitive, “the faithfulness of Christ.” Here, Wright
avoids the language of imputation while maintaining its content. Jesus is faithful to the
covenant in place of Israel, who was unfaithful. It is through Jesus’ faithfulness
(obedience) that the sin (disobedience) of Adam is undone.

Furthermore, Wright speaks of Jesus’ holiness as a robe which clothes the
believer. Again, he makes this affirmation within historical context, but the theological
truth is there just the same:

“Jesus, the innocent one, the one person who has done nothing wrong, the one innocent
of the crimes of which Israel as a whole was guilty, has become identified with rebel Israel who
represents God’s whole rebel world; with us who are rebels, unclean, unfaithful, unloving,
unholy – so that he may take that sin as it were into himself and deal with it, and give us
instead his holiness as a robe, his purity as a gift and a power.” 17

Though Wright would disagree with the traditional Reformed categories of
imputation and Luther’s “Great Exchange,” he affirms the concept again when he
writes: “[Jesus]… takes human uncleanness, so that other humans can take his
wholeness. He absorbs our impurity in himself so that it becomes lost without trace,
16 N.T. Wright, Paul: Fresh Perspectives (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 47.
17 N.T. Wright, The Crown and the Spirit, 21.

and his own purity flows into us instead.”18 Wright clearly affirms that Jesus is the
innocent One, whose faithfulness substitutes for the unfaithfulness of sinful humanity.

Jesus the Substitute
We look now to the question regarding the substitutionary nature of the
atonement. Because Wright emphasizes the Christus Victor theme, many have come to
believe that there is no room left for the teaching of substitution. This is simply not the
case. Wright’s work is full of references to Jesus’ dying in the sinner’s stead. In his
pastoral commentary on Matthew, Wright encourages us to see ourselves in Barabbas’
place.

“Barabbas represents all of us. When Jesus dies, the brigand goes free, the sinners
go free, we all go free.”19 He also affirms that Jesus’ death is substitutionary even for the
disciples.20 Jesus dies, so His people will not. “His death is counted by God in place of
theirs.”21

Elsewhere, Wright affirms (within the first‐century historical context) Jesus’
substitutionary atonement. Jesus is Israel’s representative, which means that “what is
true of Him is true of them.” By summing up His people in Himself, Jesus “passes
through the judgment of death” and into new life.22
Wright also affirms the sacrificial nature of Christ’s death.

“[Hebrews] offers us, above all, Jesus the final sacrifice; the one who has done for us what we could not do for ourselves, who has lived our life and died our death, and now ever lives to make
intercession for us.”23

Wright’s pastoral commentary on Hebrews backs up what Wright
affirms elsewhere, that Jesus’ death is the “sin‐offering” required by God.24
18 Ibid, 20.
19 N.T. Wright, Matthew for Everyone Part Two (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 178.
20 Ibid, 61.
21 N.T. Wright, Small Faith, Great God (Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications, 1978), 48.
22 N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1994), 47-48.
23 N.T. Wright, Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994), 10.
24 N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 225.

The reason Wright’s views on substitutionary atonement are called into question
stem from his constant grounding of this doctrine in historical events. Wright does not
express a view of substitutionary atonement that sounds like a nonhistorical transaction
between the individual and God. For Wright, the doctrine of the atonement involves the
very events that transpired to put Jesus on the cross. Furthermore, if one does not
understand Jesus as the climax and fulfillment of Old Testament history and prophecy,
one has not correctly understood the atonement. The judgment that Jesus pronounces
upon Israel is precisely the judgment that He Himself will endure at the cross. Wright
elaborates:

“Now the judgment that had hung over Israel and Jerusalem, the judgment Jesus had
spoken of so often, was to be meted out; and Jesus would deliver his people by taking its force
upon himself. His own death would enable his people to escape.”25

“In the strange justice of God, which overrules the unjust “justice” of Rome and every
human system, God’s mercy reaches out where human mercy could not, not only sharing, but
in this case substituting for, the sinner’s fate.”26

Does Wright affirm the substitutionary nature of the atonement? The answer
to our second question is yes.

The Cup of God’s Wrath
We now turn to our final question, this regarding the penal nature of the
substitutionary atonement. Was God’s wrath poured out on Jesus on the cross? Though
this may be a controversial understanding of the atonement in some liberal circles,
Wright defends it staunchly as historically and theologically true.
When speaking of “the wrath of God” on Jesus at the cross, Wright turns to the
Gethsemane narrative, and specifically Jesus’ use of the “cup” terminology from the
Old Testament. Since, in the prophetic writings, the “cup” refers to God’s wrath, Wright
believes it is historically sound to affirm that Jesus was referring to God’s wrath when
25 N.T. Wright, Luke for Everyone (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 262.

He willingly faced the cross, in order to drink of the cup.27 Nowhere does Wright
articulate the idea of the “cup” more powerfully than in his Matthew commentary:

“The Old Testament prophets speak darkly about the ‘cup of YHWH’s wrath.’ These
passages talk of what happens when the one God, grieving over the awful wickedness of the
world, steps in at last to give the violent and bloodthirsty, the arrogant and oppressors, the
reward for their ways and deeds. It’s as though God’s holy anger against such people is turned
into wine: dark, sour wine which will make them drunk and helpless. They will be forced to
“drink the cup,” to drain to the dregs the wrath of the God who loves and vindicates the weak
and helpless. The shock of this passage… is that Jesus speaks of drinking this cup himself.”28

Notice how Wright maintains the “cup of wrath” in historical context. This is the
way he avoids the picture of God as a tyrant taking out His vengeance on His Son for
others’ mistakes. Wright sees the wrath of God in historical events. “Jesus takes the
wrath of Rome (which is…the historical embodiment of the wrath of God) upon himself…”29
In fact, God has set Jesus forth as a hilasterion (propitiation).30
It is because Jesus took upon Himself the wrath of God in order to shield His
people that He uttered His cry of God‐forsakenness on the cross. In that moment in
which Jesus was most fully embodying God’s love, He found Himself cut off and
separated from that love.31 Furthermore, Jesus’ taking upon Himself the wrath of God
against sin (through the Roman crucifixion) frees us from sin and guilt.
“Jesus, the innocent one, was drawing on to himself the holy wrath of God against
human sin in general, so that human sinners like you and me can find, as we look at the cross,
that the load of sin and guilt we have been carrying is taken away from us. Jesus takes it on
himself, and somehow absorbs it, so that when we look back there is nothing there. Our sins
have been dealt with, and we need never carry their burden again.”32
26 Ibid, 280, emphasis added.
27 N.T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus, 87.
28 N.T. Wright, Matthew for Everyone, 60-61.
29 N.T. Wright, “Jesus, Israel, and the Cross” SBL 1985 Seminar Papers edited by K.H. Richards (Chico: Scholars
Press, 1985), 75-95.
30 N.T. Wright, Paul, 120, emphasis added.
31 N.T. Wright, The Crown and the Fire, 44.
32 Ibid, 48-49.

Again and again, Wright affirms the penal substitutionary view of the
atonement. Theologians may quibble with him for not putting this at the center of his
atonement theology; others may chide him for not speaking of it more often. But no one
who has read Wright fairly can charge him of denying this doctrine. I close this section
with a paragraph from one of Wright’s early works, which he has since affirmed in
other ways in later writings:

“On the cross Jesus took on himself that separation from God which all other men know.
He did not deserve it; he had done nothing to warrant being cut off from God; but as he
identified himself totally with sinful humanity, the punishment which that sinful humanity
deserved was laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders… That is why he shrank, in
Gethsemane, from drinking the ‘cup’ offered to him. He knew it to be the cup of God’s wrath.
On the cross, Jesus drank that cup to the dregs, so that his sinful people might not drink it. He
drank it to the dregs. He finished it, finished the bitter cup both physically and spiritually…
Here is the bill, and on it the word ‘finished’ – ‘paid in full.’ The debt is paid. The punishment
has been taken. Salvation is accomplished.”33

Conclusion
One can clearly see an affirmation of the penal substitutionary atonement
throughout the theology of N.T. Wright. Though Wright does not affirm this doctrine
within the standard Reformed categories, the concept of Jesus the Righteous One dying
in the place of the sinner and thus taking upon Himself the wrath of God is clearly
espoused. Even though some of us may disagree with Wright’s “fresh” perspective on
Paul or his view of Jesus’ messianic consciousness, this does not mean we should not
affirm Wright where he should be affirmed. Personally, since I began writing this essay,
I have a deeper appreciation for the penal substitutionary view of the atonement
because of the way Wright espouses it within the historical events of the first century.
33 Wright, Small Faith, Great God, 49-50.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Newman, Carey C. (editor). Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of
N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1999.
Richards, K.H. (editor). SBL 1985 Seminar Papers. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985.
Wright, David F., Sinclair B. Ferguson & J.I. Packer (editors). New Dictionary of Theology.
Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1988.
Wright, N.T. Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1994.
__________. Luke for Everyone. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
__________. Matthew for Everyone Part Two. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2004.
__________. Paul: Fresh Perspectives. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
__________. Small Faith, Great God. Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications, 1978.
__________. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Downers Grove:
Intervarsity Press, 1999.
__________. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
__________. The Crown and the Fire: Meditations on the Cross and the Life of the Spirit
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992.
__________. What Saint Paul Really Said. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997.
15
Articles & Websites
Klueg, Rick. Sermon on The New Perspective
http://www.northville‐baptist.org/discernment/npp.htm
Wright, N.T. “Gower Street Interview, part 7”
http://gowerstreet.blogspot.com/2005/01/interview‐with‐nt‐wright‐part‐7‐of‐6.html
Wright, N.T. “My Pilgrim in Theology” Themelios, January 1993, 18.2.
__________. Wrightsaid Answers – January 2004
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wrightsaid_January2004.htm
__________. Wrightsaid Answers – March 2004
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wrightsaid_March2004.htm
__________. Wrightsaid Answers – November 2004
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wrightsaid_November2004.htm
__________. Wrightsaid Answers – October 2005
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wrightsaid_October2005.htm