At the Duke Socratic Club‘s Two Views dialogue on the atonement entitled “How Does Jesus Save Us?” (Feb. 26, 2008) the question was asked of the proponent of penal substitution where the life of Jesus fit in on his view, for it seemed that in this view all that mattered was the death of Jesus, not his life nor his resurrection. I can’t remember exactly the response given, but I remember being slightly dissatisfied with it. I can easily see how someone would (mis)understand penal substitution to be concerned only with the death of Jesus because it is true that this view does place a great amount of stress on the death of Jesus. “Jesus died for our sins.” “Jesus died for you.” “He took your place.” These are the slogans I’m sure all are familiar with. But, as needs pointed out, there is certainly more to penal substitution than just the death of Jesus.

Jesus’ life and resurrection are very much integral to this view of the atonement though often omitted or misunderstood to be unimportant. It will be recalled that it is because Jesus lived a sinless life that he could take our place on the cross. He was the perfect sacrifice as demonstrated by his sinless life. Christ is our passover says Paul to the Corinthians. It was then in his resurrection that he was declared to be the Son of God. This is his vindication. He said he would die and be raised again. The Spirit’s raising him backed up his claims to deity and Messiah. He was therein proved to be what he said he was. Not only this, but his resurrection is a foreshadow of the Christian’s path: suffering, death, but then resurrection. He is the firstborn from the dead. What then happens in the Christian’s union to Christ by faith is an exchange. We get his righteousness, his completely righteous keeping of the law and he gets our sins. He becomes sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God. Now, this might seem like it is going beyond penal substitution, but it is inherent or presupposed in it. Jesus’ life qualifies the kind of substitute he would be for us, and that we are justified by God because of him and for his sake says something of his being before, during and after his crucifixion not just during the crucifixion.

This is one thing you have to appreciate about the oft-Protestant-forgotten holidays that take place leading up to Easter (Ash Wednesday, Lent, Holy Wednesday, Maundy Thursday): they don’t (or shouldn’t) allow Easter to sneak up on you, but little by little the mind is pointed towards Christ’s life leading up to his death and ultimately his resurrection.

In conclusion, if proponents of penal substitution seemingly deemphasize Jesus’ life, it should not be seen as an inherent weakness in the view, but an inherent weakness in not being able to say everything at the same time. Penal substitution relies on the active obedience of Christ, his life; yay, it presupposes his life and is realized and expanded in his resurrection.

(The Socratic Club’s recording of the dialogue is available through their website, but annoyingly inaudible and low quality. I attempted to touch it up and make it listen-to-able. Download the 20mb touch-up. *Link fixed.)