Recently I was part of a conversation that related to an avoidance of the orthodox Christian understanding of God as Trinity, yet maintained an affirmation of penal substitution, an idea that fits within the wider umbrella of substitutionary atonement. I won’t go into lengthy explanations of these things, so feel free to use the link to find out more. At first glance a denial of the Trinity yet maintaining an affirmation of penal substitution would seem understandable for anyone who struggles with trinitarian thinking and belief.

I understand and sympathise with the struggle people have with the Trinity. In the past I’ve tried to find other ways to understand God, but now I can think of no better way to approach the God of scripture. It is most definitely a trippy way of understanding God as it maintains a monotheistic approach while also recognising the 3 distinct Persons of the Godhead. 3 distinct Persons yet of one Essence, Substance, or Nature – each being the full presence of the other, but never losing their distinction. Co-existing, co-eternal, of one being. To adopt the words of Athanasius of Alexandria, we neither confound the Persons, nor divide the Essence.

At the end of the day it’s not possible to fully grasp the Trinity, and any explanation is going to fall short. That’s part of the point. God is beyond our full comprehension and therefore engaging with the Trinity takes a mode of thought other than our usual cognitive intellectual way of thinking that we are so used to in the West. To begin to enter into it we need to engage with art more. For this reason many other explanations about God have surfaced over the years in dispute of the trinitarian understanding of God.

[Before I go further, please note that the point of this post is not an argument for or against the Trinity, so I probably won’t engage in such arguments in the comments.]

It interests me that one can hold to Christ being lesser than the Father, but still hold to substitutionary atonement and more specifically, penal substitution. There are various ‘Christian’ sects that do this. I’m at the point where I’m not sure if the implications of this are fully understood by those who wish to negate trinitarian thought, but hold on to penal substitution.

I should point out that penal substitution is not my main lens for understanding the events of the cross and death of Christ, but because of the Trinity it is not something I feel compelled to deny and I feel no need to dance around scriptures (especially from Paul) where it is present. In my view it is one valid thought among many. I’ve often tried to decide if I believe in this theory of atonement or that theory of atonement. My answer now would be ‘yes’ to most of it. I don’t think the various theories exist in isolation or in competition with one another.

Turning to penal substitution, one of the current big criticisms of it is that it is cruel. The most used case against it (and this will be an oversimplification so as not to turn this post into a short book) is that the idea of the Father willfully sending the Son to the cross because he is angry against sin and needs to shed the blood of someone as a legal punishment to atone for the wrongs committed by humanity (punishment that should be dished out to us instead) is cruel and misrepresents God.  If we deny the trinitarian nature of God and believe the Son to be entirely separate from and subordinate to the Father, then this criticism is correct. Without a belief in the Trinity, penal substitution is abhorrent and is either incorrect or demonstrates a terrible God, because in him would be a Father who tells his innocent Son to go and experience the most horrible of existences to appease his own wrath. Many critics have called it the equivalent of child abuse. Without the Trinity they would be correct. Anyone who denies the Trinity but holds to penal substitution is, probably unwittingly, affirming that horrible image.

With a trinitarian understanding the whole picture is very different. With a trinitarian understanding the Son is the one physically present on the cross (by his own choice) but in him dwells the full presence of God – Father, Son, and Spirit. In a trinitarian understanding of God the full Godhead experiences the cross. That has deep implications well beyond a view of penal substitution. It takes us into the very nature of God as one who does not adopt our normal views of power to save, but saves through entirely giving of himself. It’s some of these other implications that most interest me. But with a trinitarian view, penal substitution is not about a son being smashed by his father so that father can take his anger out on someone other than those who supposedly deserve it because he legally just can’t help himself and has to kill someone for sin. Instead it’s the Father, Son, and Spirit in their entirety, taking our legal place because of the immense love of the Godhead for creation. That is a profoundly different story.

For this reason I believe that if one holds to penal substitution, it can only be accepted by either believing the orthodox view of the Trinity or, dare I say it, being ok with a truly horrible God.