Episode 100: Year B – 29th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode, we focus on several details found in all three readings for this upcoming 29th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. All the details converge together on a single apologetical theme: the nature of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.
Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In this episode, we’re going to focus on several details found in all three readings for this upcoming 29th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. All the details converge together on a single apologetical theme: the nature of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.
Let’s start with the first reading, taken from Isaiah 53:10-11. The prophet says,
The LORD was pleased
to crush him in infirmity.
If he gives his life as an offering for sin,
he shall see his descendants in a long life,
and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.
Because of his affliction
he shall see the light in fullness
of days;
through his suffering, my servant shall justify many,
and their guilt he shall bear.
Christians see in this passage a prophecy of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. For some, however, they view it through a certain lens that leads them to conclude that Jesus was punished by the Father in our place, thereby setting us free from the punishment owed to us as a human race. This view is common among Protestants of the Reformed tradition and is called “penal substitutionary atonement.”
There are a couple of details in our first reading that some see as supporting this view of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. The first is the phrase, “The Lord was pleased to crush him in infirmity.” The other is the statement the suffering servant would “bear the guilt” of the many that he justifies through is suffering. If the Father is viewed as the active agent in inflicting suffering on Jesus, so it’s sometimes argued, and it states that Jesus “bears the guilt” of those he sets free, then the Father is “punishing” Jesus in our stead.
Does this text support penal substitutionary atonement? I don’t think so. Take the first detail, for example. That Isaiah speaks of God crushing the suffering servant in infirmity doesn’t necessarily mean the Father is the active agent of inflicting such suffering.
On the level of prophecy, this would refer to the Romans crucifying Jesus. To read this text through the lens of penal substitutionary atonement we’d have to say the Father is actively/positively causing, rather than permitting, the Romans to kill Jesus. But that can’t be, since that would entail God the Father directly causing the Roman soldiers to kill an innocent human being without any divine approval, which is sinful.
Now, this assumes that God can’t cause humans to sin, an assumption that some Christians might challenge. For a defense of this belief, check out my article at catholic.com “God Does Not Cause Us to Sin.” There, I argue that it’s metaphysically impossible for God to actively cause us to sin. And if that’s the case, then we can’t read this text as evidence for God actively causing the Romans to kill Jesus.
The question now becomes, “Well, what do we make of this statement from Isaiah about God crushing his servant?”
The attribution of direct causality to God can be explained by the common practice of ancient authors ascribing every effect to the direct causality of God because they believed everything falls under God’s providence. For example, the Bible speaks of God “hardening Pharaoh’s heart.” We know God didn’t directly cause this effect, since that would entail God causing Pharaoh to sin. Rather, God permits Pharaoh to remain in his sin and that in turn leads to the hardening of his heart. Since this permission was part and parcel of the divine plan, the ancient author ascribes the effect directly to God without specifying the metaphysical distinction between God’s positively causing an effect and permitting it.
Similarly, Isaiah can speak of God positively “crushing” the suffering servant because the suffering that would be inflicted on Jesus is willed to be permitted from all eternity, and thereby is part and parcel of the divine plan.
Concerning the Lord being “pleased” with such suffering, this doesn’t necessarily mean that God takes delight in the suffering as an end. Rather, it simply means, again, that the permitted suffering of Jesus is part of the divine plan of redemption. In that sense it’s pleasing to God because the permitted suffering manifests his divine goodness, particularly his divine goodness considered as mercy insofar as he orders the permitted evil to the redemption of the human race and our individual salvation.
Okay, what about the other detail at the end of the reading, where it speaks of the suffering servant, Jesus, bearing the guilt of the many whom he justifies through his suffering? Doesn’t this prove Jesus was punished in our stead? No, it doesn’t!
First, we know Jesus could not have literally bore the guilt of sinners in the sense of being a sinner, since the author of Hebrews, in Hebrews 4:15, which is part of the second reading for this upcoming Sunday Mass, teaches us that Jesus is without sin. He writes, “For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning.”
Moreover, Jesus could not have literally bore the guilt of sinners in the sense of being punished for sinners, for that would entail Jesus having to undergo the full punishment for sin, which is not only death but damnation. But surely, Jesus can’t be subject to or experience damnation on our behalf.
If that were so, then Jesus’ human will would be opposed to the Divine Will, for the essence of damnation is for the will of the damned to be definitively opposed to the divine will. But Jesus’ human will can’t be opposed to the divine will, since Hebrews 4:15 tells us Jesus was without sin. Therefore, Jesus can’t bear our guilt in the sense of being subject to or experiencing damnation on our behalf. And if that’s the case, then Jesus could not have literally bore our guilt as sinners.
Jesus also can’t literally bear our guilt in the sense of being punished with death in our stead. That would make the Father the active agent in the bestowal of punishment, which in turn means the Father would be actively punishing an innocent human being. But to inflict suffering upon an innocent human being “as punishment” is unjust, which is contrary to the Father’s goodness. Therefore, the death that Jesus endures cannot be a penal effect that the Father actively bestows, which is just another way of saying that Jesus’ atoning sacrifice is not penal substitution.
So, if the language of the bearing of our guilt doesn’t mean penal substitution, then what does it mean? It’s a poetic way of describing Jesus’ atoning sacrifice as vicarious atonement, which involves substitution but just not penal.
Consider that the human race had a debt of punishment, both death (temporary punishment) and damnation (eternal punishment). And the Scriptures clearly speak of Jesus’ death as paying off that debt in our stead—the debt of eternal punishment for the human race taken care of immediately, and the debt of death promised to be taken care of at the end of time. The Gospel reading for this upcoming Sunday Mass, taken from Mark 10:35-45, says as much. Jesus says in verse 45, “For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
But Jesus’ paying off our debt through his death doesn’t necessarily mean Jesus’ death is an effect of the Father actively punishing him. Death has the character of punishment for us. Jesus’ death, on the other hand, is a voluntary act of sacrificial love that he orders/directs to remitting our debt. He wills his death specifically to be the cause of freeing us from our debt, rather than something else (like a single drop of blood, or the simple willing of God). There is nothing in this logic that demands Jesus’ death to be penal in nature.
On this view, however, Jesus does substitute for us in a sense—he substitutes his death for our death as the means of remitting our debt of punishment. But that substitutionary death doesn’t have to be the enduring of punishment any more than a wealthy friend who substitutes his money for mine to pay off my financial penalties to creditors would be a bearing of punishment. He simply would be directing the use of his money, out of love, to remit my debt on my behalf. On the other hand, if I were to use my money to pay off such financial penalties, then it would take on a penal character.
Similarly, Jesus, out of love, wills his death to be the means by which he remits our debt of punishment. Again, no penal character is necessary on this view. The penal character only would be present if we undergo the death for the remission of the debt, which we do when we die the death of nature on account of original sin.
Conclusion
So, in the end, we can conclude that Isaiah’s prophecy in this first reading for this upcoming 29th Sunday of Ordinary Time does NOT provide biblical justification for the penal substitutionary theory of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.
Well, my friends, that brings us to the end of this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming 29th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B.
As always, thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, and Tim Staples’ 1-on-1 with Tim, all of which can be found at catholic.com.
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed 29th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. Until next time, God Bless!