'Penal substitution is a relatively new theory'

Objection 3: Penal substitution is a relatively new theory

In their book Pierced for our Transgressions (IVP) Jeffery, Ovey and Sach point out that many people believe that Penal Substitution is a novel doctrine invented around the time of the Reformation. They suggest that this claim is a myth and seek to show that the ideas involved in Penal Substitution have a long and central history in the church. They quote from a number of sources, of which I shall briefly note just a few.

Justin Martyr (c.100-165)

Dialogue with Trypho the Jew is an account of a conversation that took place around 130 A.D.. Trypho acknowledges that the Old Testament teaches that the Messiah must suffer but cannot bring himself to believe that the Christ would be crucified, since the OT law teaches that anyone crucified is under God's curse (Deut. 21:23). Justin explains that the curse which rested on us for our sin was transferred to him:

"If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if he were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?"

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-339)

Eusebius is best known for his historical works, particularly his Ecclesiastical History. In Proof of the Gospel he writes:

"And the Lamb of God . . . was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the curse of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us."

John Chyrsostom (c.350-407)

Chyrsostom was known as an extra-ordinary preacher. Indeed 'Chyrsostom' was a nickname, meaning 'Golden-mouthed'. In a sermon of 2 Cor. 5:21 he illustrates his point with the analogy of a king who takes pity on a miserable, condemned criminal. The king gives his only son to receive the guilt and punishment of the criminal, and to be killed in his place, and then exalts the criminal to a place of glorious dignity. Surely, he argues, that criminal would be overwhelmed with gratitude; he would do anything rather than further outrage the king who had treated him so kindly.

"If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his beloved son, his only begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son (who himself was of no such character), that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation; and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude? This then let us also now consider with ourselves, and groan bitterly provocations we have offered our Benefactor; nor let us therefore presume, because though outraged He bears it with long-suffering; but rather for this very reason be full of remorse."

Chrysostom sees the guilt of sinful people being transferred to the innocent son, who died in our place in order that they might be saved from the punishment they deserved and be crowned with 'glory unspeakable.'

It would be tedious to quote all of those the Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach refer to. I will, however, list some of the names that they draw on for support: Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, Aquinas, Whitefield and Stott.