The Sean McDowell Show - Substitutionary Atonement Under Fire: William Lane Craig Refutes a New Theory

Episode Date: November 20, 2025

Do we need to rethink penal substitutionary atonement? According to a new popular book, the answer is a resounding YES. In his book "Lamb of the Free," Dr. Andrew R. Rillera argues against there is no such thing as substitutionary atonement in the Torah and that substitutionary atonement is both misguided and harmful. As far as I am aware, there has not been an in-depth response to this book. Dr. William Lane Craig joins me to set the record straight.    READ: Atonement and the Death of Christ, by W.L. Craig (https://amzn.to/49I93An) *Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf) *USE Discount Code [smdcertdisc] for 25% off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM) *See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK) FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter: https://x.com/Sean_McDowell TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@sean_mcdowell?lang=en Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/ Website: https://seanmcdowell.org Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Want to keep God's word with you wherever you go? The King James Bible Study KJV app by Salem Media makes it easier to read, study, share, and pray daily with a timeless KJV translation. Enjoy features like offline access, audio Bible listening, smart search, and tools to highlight bookmark and take notes, all designed to keep your Bible studies simple and organize. Best of all, it's free to download in the Google Play Store. Grow in your faith every day. Search for King James Bible Study, KJV, and download the app today. He does not believe that Christ's death atoned for our sins. What's your sense of why you think this book has gotten the attention that it's gotten?

It is the most detailed biblical critique of the doctrine that I have yet seen. Rather than allowing Jesus and the New Testament authors to reinterpret Old Testament sacrifices, Riera uses the Old Testament narratives as a sort of propeer. crusty in bed or constraint upon New Testament theology. This is just bad methodology. A recent book challenges the traditional understanding of penal substitutionary atonement. The book is called Lamb of the Free by Professor Andrew Remington Riera. And here to respond is the one and only Dr. William Lang Craig. Thanks for coming back. Oh, it's a pleasure, Sean. Good to be with you. Well, I've gotten a ton of questions about this book. And you and I actually invited Dr. Riera on to have a conversation about

this in person. He declined for reasons I won't go into, but I want people to know that we invited him to have a substantive conversation about this. And in light of the book's importance, you and I felt it was still necessary to do a response nonetheless. So before we get to his book, maybe you could just lay out for us. What is penal substitutionary atonement? Penal substitutionary atonement is the doctrine that Jesus endured the suffering that we deserved as the punishment for our sins, thereby freeing us from our liability to punishment. That's a great simple way to put it. And I do want to say before we jump into more questions, that you actually deal with a lot of the kind of objections that come up in this book, in your book, Atonement and the, death of Christ, I would actually consider it a decisive refutation of his points, even though he

doesn't interact with your text. But we will come to some of those particulars. So you stated what penal substitutionary tommen is. Why is it important to both understand and defend it? The doctrine of the atonement has been aptly compared to a beautiful, multifaceted jewel. and one of the central facets of this jewel will be the doctrine of penal substitution. And therefore, as a important facet of the biblical doctrine of atonement, it's important to understand and defend it. So maybe let's move to the text, Lamb of the Free. And let's talk a little bit about what Andrew Riera argues for. So how is this project similar and different from typical critiques of penal substitution?

attenement, and what's kind of the case that he's trying to make? Most criticisms of penal substitutionary atonement focus on the first aspect, the penal aspect. They want to deny that punitive aspect of the doctrine that Christ was punished for our sins. The argument is usually that an innocent person cannot be punished for the sin of another. But that plays almost no role in Dariara's book. It almost never comes up. Rather, remarkably, his critique is aimed at the second and third element, namely substitution

and atonement of all things. He does not believe that Christ's death atoned for our sins. And he does not believe Christ was a substitute. So the book focuses on those latter two elements. of the theory. Now, what's interesting is the penal component. You've written on this in a couple books. Typically, it's philosophical and legal objections that people raise.

This book is largely exegetical, and that's his expertise. And it kind of stays in his lane, which I appreciate. I'd be curious, what's your sense of why you think this book has gotten the attention that it's gotten? After all, there's regular critiques of penal substitutionary atonement. Well, for one thing, it is the most detailed biblical critique of the doctrine that I have yet seen. And so that would be important. But then also, I have to say that this book is really appealing to those who are attracted to so-called progressive Christianity. Riera's critique of penal substitutionary atonement is part. part and parcel of an effort to deconstruct traditional Christianity and to reconstruct in its place a different version of Christianity that appeals to motifs like social justice, anti-hierarchicalism,

egalitarianism, and so forth. And this agenda appears very clearly in the forward in the forward of book by his doctoral mentor, Douglas Campbell, and then Inrier's own introduction to the book. Let me just read you a couple of sentences from his introduction. He says the title, Lamb of the Free is an intentional, if unclever, pun on the self-conception and identity the United States projects into the world in its national. anthem as the land of the free. My aim is ultimately to showcase the liberating message of the gospel as an act of resistance to other notions of freedom on offer in the world as represented in the U.S. national anthem. So those who are attracted to a progressive version of Christianity

will undoubtedly find this book appealing. Yeah, that also jumped out to me right in the opening introduction. There's a tie to a certain political agenda and a certain view of God that's being dismissed or critiqued about a God of kind of justice as opposed to a God of love, which we hear in progressive circles. This book has also received some endorsements from some people that probably would not be characterized as progressive, which also create a little bit of firestorm and drama. tied to this book as well. Now, before we jump into a critique, I'd love to know, as you read this

and studied this, what positive contributions jump out from it that you think are commendable? I think that it's detailed analysis of biblical texts is very commendable. It is very meticulous in examining the biblical texts. I agree with that. I'm glad you put it out. And I also feel like I said earlier. He really stays within his lane. I try to do that, but he is, he's in biblical studies. He's an exegete, and he really focused on that in the Old Testament and the New Testament, and I think that's his strength. All right. So in critique in this book, which is both scholarly and dense, you're concerned that some people might miss the forest for the trees. So what are some of the broad, pivotal mistakes that you think he makes that affect everything else?

Maybe highlight some of those before we get into some of the details. Good. Let me mention five such pivotal mistakes, Sean. Number one is that one of the major methodological failures of Rueira's treatment of the atoning significance of Jesus' death is that rather than allowing Jesus and the New Testament authors to reinterpret Old Testament sacrifices, Riera uses the Old Testament narratives as a sort of procrusting bed or constraint upon New Testament theology. And since we know that New Testament authors felt free to reshape Old Testament materials, this is just bad methodology.

Second, he mistakenly believes that substantiatedly believes that substitutes, and participation in Christ are incompatible motifs and cannot be combined in an atonement theory. I think that this is the most fundamental and hence most consequential mistake in the book. And he gives no argument for the incompatibility of substitution and participation. We can agree that Jesus is not construed as a substitute in an excrued. exclusionary sense, a sense that excludes us, but without thereby abandoning substitutionary atonement. As I explain in my book, Atonement and the Death of Christ, Christ is our substitutional representative. He is both our substitute and our representative so that Christ

functions as our proxy before God. And that combined. these motifs of substitution and participation. Thirdly, Riera denies that Christ's death was an atoning sacrifice. This is an astonishing claim. He doesn't think that Christ's death did anything to cleanse us of sin or expiate our sins. And what makes us really difficult for him is that the New Testament uses cognates of the Greek word to atone four different times in reference to Christ's death, so that Heera has to reinterpret these verses in such a way that they don't really mean

atonement. So just to give one of the four examples, 1 John 2, 2 says that Jesus is the atonement for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Fourthly, with regard to substitution, which he rejects, he has to interpret the Levitical sacrifices in such a way that the animal's death is not a substitution for the death of the offerer. His claim is that animal sacrifice, has nothing to do with the animal's death. And this is based, I think, on a misunderstanding of ritual. A particular weakness in his case against substitution is that Jesus cites Isaiah 53 about the suffering servant in reference to his own death. The servant of Isaiah 53 clearly suffers a vicarious,

atoning death on behalf of others. And Riera almost completely overlooks Isaiah 53 and its New Testament deployment in his book. Finally, number five, whenever anybody offers a critique of traditional Christian doctrine, we always need to ask ourselves, well, what do you have to offer in its place? What is your view? And here it has to be said that Riera's own, non-atonement theory, if we can call it that, remains underdeveloped and hence seriously deficient. In the conclusion of his book, he summarizes what he takes to be Paul's basic narrative logic of

salvation. And it goes like this. Jesus was truly human in every way. But he remained fully obedient, died and was resurrected. His resurrection means that Jesus has defeated death and broken sins lordship over mortal flesh. Now, this theory raises many unanswered questions. For example, how did Jesus, a mere man on his view, live a sinless life? How does Jesus having direct contact with death make it possible for him to overcome it. How did his resurrection break sin's lordship? How does defeating the ultimate result of sin serve to defeat sin itself? And most importantly, how does being victorious over death enable Jesus to effect our moral purification? This last crucial step remains entirely unexplained.

So his own alternative is not sufficiently developed to be compelling. So you're not convinced by his interpretation, let alone his reinterpretation of what these passages mean on both accounts, you don't think it matches up. Now, I do want to highlight. I think this is maybe the second one, because we're going to walk through some of each of these in a little more detail for people. But I think in the second one, you were making a point. that it's not participation in the death of Christ or substitution,

but when we talk about what Jesus accomplished, there's multiple facets to this, and all of them are important. It's inclusive, not exclusive, and he never justified why it is participation can't also be substitution. Is that a fair point? That's absolutely it. Yes, Sean, that's correct.

Okay, all right. So let's jump into some of these in a little more depth so people track with us. He begins his critique early in the book by claiming that within the Levitical sacrificial system, the animal's death is not a substitution for the death of the offerer. To make his case, in part, he reinterprets the hand-laying ceremony to simply mean, quote, this is my animal. You're not convinced by this. Tell us why.

All right. Well, first of all, he gives three arguments in support of the following thesis. There is no such thing. Looking for a simple way to stay rooted in God's Word every day. The Daily Bible Devotion app by Salem Media gives you morning and evening devotionals designed to encourage, inspire, and keep you connected with scripture. Plus, you'll enjoy daily Bible trivia and humor. A fun way to learn and share a smile while growing in your faith. Get the Daily Bible Devotion app for free on both iOS and Android.

Start and end your day with God's Word. Search for the Daily Bible Devotion app in the App Store or Google Play Store and download it today. As a substitutionary death sacrifice in the Torah, there are no substitutionary death sacrifices. And the three arguments he gives for this, Sean, are all non-sequiters. Now, a non sequitur is an argument which may have a true premise, but the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. And all three of his arguments are non-sequiters. So let me just share them with our listeners. First argument, he says, the premise is there is no sacrifice that can atone for sins of apostasy. Well, that's true. Israelites who committed

sins of apostasy were considered to have broken the covenant, and therefore they were to be expelled from the camp, from the community. But it doesn't follow that sacrifices for sins of other types were not substitutionary sacrifices. Second argument. Premise, it is not as if God desires human blood on the altar, but settles for animal blood instead. Again, that's true, but that does not imply that God does not accept the animal's life in place of what the offerer owed. Third argument, premise, God abhors human sacrifice. Again, that's true, but it doesn't follow from that that the blood of the animal cannot serve as a substitute for that of the offerer. So his three arguments, again, substitutes, again, substitutes,

or all non sequiters. Now, in addition to that, one of the most noteworthy features of these sacrificial offerings is that they were personal offerings in which the individual bringing the sacrifice was an active participant. In particular, the offerer was required to kill the animal himself.

And a telling hand-laying, ceremony or ritual accompanied the slaughter of the animal. The offerer was to lay his hand upon the animal's head before he killed it. And the Hebrew expression here indicates a forceful laying of the hand. One was to press his hand upon the head of the beast to be sacrificed. And Riera's explanation is that this hand-leaning ritual was just meant to indicate ownership of the sacrificial animal. Here's my sacrifice. And I find this interpretation to be implausible

and to trivialize an apparently important part of the ritual. Someone leading an animal by a rope around its neck up before the altar is just as obviously a person bringing his sacrifice as someone who carries in his hand, bird or grain for sacrifice. And if there were any doubt at all, a verbal affirmation would suffice. Here is my sacrifice. Here is my lamb. Rather, the emphatic gesture of pressing one's head, a hand on the animal's head before slitting its throat is plausibly meant to indicate the identification of the offerer with the animal so that the animal's fate,

symbolizes his own. And that's why Leviticus promises, and I quote, it shall be acceptable in your behalf as a treatment for you. Leviticus 1.4. Death is the penalty for sin and the animal dies in place of the worshiper. Now, that's not to say that the animal was punished in the place of the worshiper, but the animal suffered the death that would have been the worshipper's punishment had it been inflicted on him. Your point about the three arguments that he gives against substitution being non-sequiters is really important, I think, for people to see. Because especially on your first point, there's a difference between saying there's a substitution and a sacrifice for every single sin, including apostasy, which is not the claim. versus there is a substitutionary atonement that's accepted for some sins, that's what the claim is.

And I think that clarification you're drawing out is really helpful. Good. All right. So this was one of the most interesting points in the book to me. So I'm really curious your take on this one, Bill, is that he argues that the biological death of the sacrificial animal is not about death, but rather as a. quote, presentation of life. Thus, it's not about substitution. So it's almost like he puts this spin on it. I totally didn't see coming that says, well, biological death is really not even about death at all, reinterprets it. I found that fascinating on one level, bizarre on another, but I'm

really curious your take on that. Yes. In cases of animal sacrifice, the animal's life is given instead of the sinners. And thus the animal's death is of vital importance. And this is confirmed by the centrality of death in other atonement narratives in the Pentateuch, such as Moses offer to die in order to make atonement for the sin of the people. Or Phineas's making atonement for Israel's sin,

by killing the malefactors, or the prescription to make atonement for an unsolved murder by breaking the neck of a heifer in the vicinity of the corpse. In all of these, death is a critical element. Now, Riera asserts, and I quote, whatever is happening for atoning sacrifices, they most definitely cannot be conceptualized as a substitutionary death because the whole reality of the event has been transformed via ritual so that it has nothing to do whatsoever with death. And again, he says, the death of sacrificial animals never holds any ritual or theological significance. Now, these claims are so outrageous, Sean, is to be disingenuous. Yes, the ritual reconceptualizes the animal's death. That's true. The reconceptualization of the

animal's death via ritual makes it a sacrifice. But no less a death. A great analogy for this is in our judicial system, the reconceptualization of a killing by giving an affirmative defense showing that the defendant had justification or excuse for the killing makes the killing a homicide rather than a murder. But it remains a killing nonetheless. So on Riera's view, imagine this, if ancient Israel had practiced bloodletting of animals rather than sacrifice, merely drawing some of their blood and presenting it to God on the altar would have sufficed to atone for Israel's sins. So the fundamental failing, I think, of people who try to minimize the animal's death in the process of atonement is they're trying to divide

up and separate or isolate different phases of the ritual when, in fact, it all coheres together in a unified process. That's really helpful to tie it together. And one thing I wondered, and I wonder if I was missing something, is he's very apt to critique the God who would use penal substitutionary atonement. And so if we can remove the actual death from this, then it seems to minimize it. But then it seems to raise the question, why does the animal need to die at all? What's the point?

And so then on this God, it's like, wait a minute, you're requiring the death of this God. And he has a passage in the Bible in which he says in certain circumstances, killing an animal is akin to murder. And so why would this be necessary at all? It seems to raise the very problem of the character of God that he's trying to escape. I think that's a good point. Okay, so let's keep going here on this one, because we're asking the question about bloodshed even being necessary for atonement in the Old Testament at all. And so if a person cannot afford a lamb, goat, or say a bird, and this is a point that Riera makes, they can offer flour. We see this in Lelviticus 5, 11 through 13.

And we also see forgiveness being offered apart from the sacrificial system seemingly entirely in Psalm 32 and Isaiah 38. So if bloodshed is not necessary, then why do we need a substitute in the first place? I think to hear the verse for a substitutionary death or shedding of blood is Leviticus 1711. it states, and I quote, for the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls. It is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life. So God has given to Israel this sacrificial system of making atonement, cleansing them from impurity and sin. Now, in the case of persons who who are desperately poor and cannot afford an animal sacrifice, they are allowed by God to offer a grain offering instead. This is a gracious condescension of God to them in their need. But the norm that he has set is that it will be by offering a substitutionary death in the place of the sinner that will make atonement.

That's fair. I've also a response, like, what about when Jonah goes and preaches to the Ninevites and they repent without sacrificial system, but their repentance was still accepted through, in part, the sacrificial system that God had set up with the Jewish people. So we can't completely separate those. I think that's an interesting point to bring in as a possibility for this. Yes. Now, the Ninevites weren't Jewish, though, so God can institute whatever system he wants with them. From a New Testament perspective now, speaking theologically, the author of Hebrews says it's impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin. So in a sense, this whole system was just conventional. God had set it up until someday that perfect lamb would come. come, Jesus, Messiah, who would then die decisively for the sins of the world, not only ours, but also for these people whose judgment was forestalled by their offering these animal sacrifices along the way. One of my students offered the interesting analogy that these sacrifices were

sort of like a credit card that people could pay for their sins, but ultimately the bill would come due. And it was Jesus who finally paid that bill decisively and settled our debts. I think you could find scriptural justification for that in Genesis 156, where it says Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness. So whether it's the Ninevites or it's the people of Israel, ultimately the forgiveness comes through what Christ would do given to them through credit and belief expressed in different ways. Good. That's really helpful. Now, one of the other piece of this I thought was also fascinating is that Riera argues that sacrifice is not about suffering.

So here's a quote I pulled from page 25. He says, inflicting suffering on the sacrificial victim is not part of the sacrificial system. Does this potentially undermine the expectation that Jesus would be a suffering servant on our behalf? I don't think so. In the New Testament, Sean, we find Christian authors interpreting Jesus to be the sin-bearing servant of Isaiah 53. For example, 1-Peter Chapter 2, verses 22 to 24, states as follows, Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps. And then he quotes Isaiah 53, verse 9. Quote, he committed no sin, no deceit was found in his mouth, end quote. When he was abused. Want to keep God's word with you wherever you go? The King James Bible Study KJV app by Salem Media makes it easy to read, study, share, and pray daily with a timeless KJV translation.

Enjoy features like offline access, audio Bible listening, smart search, and tools to highlight bookmark and take notes. All designed to keep your Bible studies simple and organized. Best of all, it's free to download in the Google Play Store. every day. Search for King James Bible study KJB and download the app today. Christ he did not return abuse. When he suffered, he did not threaten, but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross so that free from sins we might live for righteousness. By his wounds, you have been healed. So these verses in 1-Peter constitute a brief and explicit meditation upon Isaiah 53 in application to Christ's death.

Now, what does Riera do with this passage? Well, he interprets Peter's phrase, he bore our sins in his body on the tree, to mean simply, and I quote, Jesus endured being treated unjustly and handled it well. Now, come on. You can't take this seriously. He endured being treated unjustly and he handled it well. In Hebrew, to bear sin is an idiom meaning to bear one's punishment. And that's what Peter and Isaiah are talking about.

At the end of the day, Riera confesses, and I quote, it is obvious that Peter views Jesus as the suffering servant par excellence, but what prevents me from categorizing this as a substitution is that he simultaneously says that we are called to share in the same servant lifestyle. Substitution, by definition, precludes any sort of participation, end quote. Well, this is just a conceptual mistake on Riera's part, as we've already mentioned. And I think it's a very point in illustration of how philosophical missteps on the part of biblical theologians can have profound consequences for their exegesis. I think your reference to First Peter is back to the first of five points you made at the beginning,

that the New Testament writers are free to interpret Old Testament passages in a way, of course, because they're inspired and they're authoritative, that you don't have everything laid out in the Old Testament. We shouldn't necessarily expect it to be so. And that brings us to the next question. Again, this was also a fascinating part about his book, which was tied to the way he interprets Passover as a Thanksgiving offer. that has nothing to do with atonement or substitution. So I'm curious your take on his interpretation there and how we should interpret Passover, especially along the lines of John the Baptist saying that Jesus is the Lamb of God in John 1.

The original Passover sacrifice was not an atoning sacrifice. The blood of the lamb was smeared on the doorposts and the lintel of the house. house so that the judgment of God would pass over the Israelites. So this would be what we would call propitiation. It allays God's wrath and the Israelites are spared by the blood of the lamb from divine judgment. But later, the Passover sacrifice does seem to become expiatory in nature to actually be atoning. And you have this in the Gospel of John, where Jesus is presented as the Passover lamb.

And what John the Baptist says of Jesus is, behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Now, how does Riera explain this? What he says is that in that statement, the expressions, Lamb of God and who takes away the sins of the world are entirely independent in their meaning. They have no connection. They are just co-referring singular terms, as if I were to say,

behold, the Lion of Judah, or behold the son of Mary who takes away the sin of the world. There's no connection between the two. But clearly, in being the lamb and taking away the sins of the world, you do have an inextricable connection between the Passover lamb and the sins of the world here. Good connection. That's important to keep those together. I think you're right about that. So you've been doing some work in your philosophical, systematic theology.

and I know not too long from now you've got volumes three and four coming out. We will have you back, if you will, to talk about those, but we will put pause on that for now. One of the things I've heard you talk about is you've done some work on the Lord's Supper. So I want to know how we're supposed to interpret the Lord's Supper, especially because Riera calls it a realization of an existing ritual, which is the Passover. And so since Passover is not related to substitution, In his case, then neither is the Lord's Supper. Right. Riera thinks that vicarious atonement cannot be symbolized in the bread and wine in the last supper,

because neither the Passover sacrifice nor the covenant inaugurating sacrifices in the Old Testament were atoning sacrifices for sin. Now, the claim that the Passover and covenant-inarguerating sacrifices were not seen in Jesus' day as atoning, I think is a moot question. I think there's real grounds to doubt it. But let that point pass. Riera recognizes that the authors of 1 John and Hebrews unequivocally hold that Jesus' death, and I quote here from Riera, accomplishes, all the benefits of the entire Levitical system from both atoning and non-atoning sacrifices, as well as moral purification, end quote. Well, now, why then could Jesus not have similarly conceived of his death as a sacrifice, summing up the entire Levitical system of sacrifices, including sin offerings? If the authors of 1 John and Hebrews, were capable of articulating this theological insight, then why not Jesus himself?

Well, Riera's answer to that question, and this plays a very large role in his rejection of Jesus' substitutionary atonement, is that in the Old Testament, persons were never allowed to eat of sacrifices offered for their own sins. And therefore, the disciples, he says, could not have eaten the last supper. Now, again, this argument depends upon whether or not the so-called peace offerings, which the people ate were atoning sacrifice. Leviticus 1711 suggests that they were. But even if we grant him that they were not, this argument has force only against those for, example, Catholics who think of the Last Supper as itself, a sacrifice, rather than as memorializing a sacrifice, namely Jesus' death on the cross. For those like Protestants who do not regard

the Last Supper as a sacrifice, there's no objection at all to the beneficiaries of Christ's sacrificial death, partaking of the bread and wine that symbolize his death. And if I may say one more thing. In Matthew's account of the Last Supper, Matthew explicitly says that Jesus' blood is, and I quote, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins, end quote. This is decisive proof that the elements of the Last Supper symbolized an atoning sacrifice. So Riera interprets Matthew's language of blood being poured out as just a way of characterizing Jesus' death as a murder. That's all Matthew meant. It was a murder.

But you see, what Matthew says is poured out for the forgiveness of sins. This connection with forgiveness of sins makes his interpretation, I think, much less likely. Matthew's language, rather, reflects the language of Isaiah 53, where the servant pours out his life for the many. And Jesus, I think, plausibly did conceive his life as a substitutionary, atoning sacrifice, as his illusions and quotations of Isaiah 53 suggest. and one of the weakest points or aspects of Riera's book is his failure to address seriously Isaiah 53 and its New Testament deployment. And of course, Matthew uses Isaiah 53 very intentionally. It's not accidental that that language matches up, given how central Isaiah 53 is

to the New Testament understandings of who Jesus was. Good stuff. Now, you might have already answered this, but I'd love to hear from you what New Testament passages, kind of in some ways, taken alone, most clearly teach penal substitutionary atonement. Because Riera says, quote, the idea that Jesus paid my debt to God or the devil lacks any scriptural basis and contradicts Jesus' own teachings on page 205. I think that the New Testament passages that most clearly teach penal substitutionary atonement would be the ones that reflect Isaiah 53, like 1st Peter 2 and Hebrews, which reflects extensively on Isaiah 53 and the atoning death of Christ. We're getting kind of the heart of what the gospel is, which is where some of the disagreement is here. So let me ask you this. It's somewhat a basic question, but it's really important.

Why did Jesus really have to die? And Riera says, just to give a little context for this, he says it was a participatory reality. And the quote that he gives, he says, the logic is not. Jesus died so I don't have to. It is Jesus died so that we, together, can follow in his steps and die with him and like him, the just for the unjust. And then he says in a really interesting quote, Bill, he says, it is solidarity and participation all the way down. Your take. Now, as we've already said, we want to affirm participation in Christ. In Christ, we are buried with him and die with him and

are raised with him. We have forgiveness of sins in Christ. So, participate. is an essential aspect of a full-orbed atonement theory. But it's really disappointing, Sean, how superficial a notion of participation Riera has. It doesn't at all capture adequately the notion of our union with Christ in his death and resurrection? For Riera, participation just means following Jesus' example. as he says, we can follow in his steps and behave as he did. And that's a really superficial understanding of what it means to be in Christ, to participate in Christ.

So we're getting towards the end. Just a handful of questions for you. One of the issues he seems to ask at the beginning and then at the end is he's motivated by at least the introduction some of the political ideas that follow from penal substitutionary tonement, but also in his case, like working with students, he sees this idea as being negative in terms of their discipleship. So he asked this question a few times. It's kind of a rhetorical question within the book. He says, if Jesus is our substitute, why do we need to take up the cross? Why do we need to have fellowship with his sufferings? Why do we need to be co-crucified with Christ?

how would you answer those questions? Well, I find these very odd questions to be posed to a penal substitutionary theorist. We need to be co-crucrucified with Christ in order to participate in the benefits of his atoning death, to be the beneficiaries of his death and taking our punishment upon himself that we deserve so that we can have a divine pardon. And why do we need to take up our cross? Well, it is the natural response of love to his love. For us, the person who loved us so much that he would endure the cross

motivates our own love to follow him and to become his disciples. So it's a natural response of love as well as our moral duty. It sounds like you see some progress. tendencies are to push back against ideas related to the justice of God. It sounds like you're saying it's not justice of God or the love of God. It's actually both. And the gospel needs to keep those in balance. And we can lean too far into the love of God.

We could also lean too far into the justice of the God. And the biblical precedent is to keep both in balance. Would you agree with that? Yes, that's absolutely right. the love and the justice of God kiss at the cross. At the cross, we see the love of God manifest for us as he would become incarnate, take our sins upon him, and suffer and die for our sake. But we see the justice of God in that Jesus bears the punishment or the suffering for sin that you and I deserved. And so it is a beautiful harmonization of the love and justice.

of God. Now, as you suggested, Need a daily spark of hope and direction? Let the Daily Bible app from Salem Media be that spark. This free Android app delivers an uplifting verse each morning, plus reading plans, devotions, and trusted podcasts from leaders like Joyce Meyer and Rick Warren. Prefer to listen instead? The Daily Bible app reads verses, reading plans, and chapters allowed, handy for the headphones moment of your day. Choose from versions like ESV, NIV, KJV, and more, and bookmark favorites to revisit later. Share inspiring messages with loved ones right from the app.

Feel God's presence in every notification. Search for Daily Bible app on Google Play and begin your day with hope, purpose, and peace. I think the problems with the justice of God are a kind of subtext of the book. As I say, it doesn't emerge clearly. He stays in his lane, which is a biblical theologian. And the issues that you're raising now are philosophic.

and theological and he doesn't raise them. But nevertheless, there is that subtext there, I think, that he and progressive Christians feel uncomfortable with the notion of a just and holy God who punishes sin. You're right. He stays in his lane, but these questions are kind of looming in the background and follow necessarily from it for those who are obviously paying close attention to this. Would you say, Bill, just a couple last questions as we wrap up. You go out of your way to talk about how there's kind of multiple ways we can look at the atonement. There's different theories that are valuable and enlighten something about our relationship

with God. But is substitution penal substitutionary atonement? Is it a necessary theory or understanding of the cross we need to cling to to have an accurate understanding of what Jesus has done for us and how we get into relationship with him. It is necessary given our commitment to biblical authority. If we believe that the Bible is inspired of God and therefore profitable for teaching and correction, then I believe we are committed by the biblical text to something like penal substitution, that Christ bore the suffering that we deserved as the punishment for our sins, thereby freeing us of our liability to punishment.

It seems to me that's an essential aspect of the gospel and the doctrine of the atonement. I definitely want to suggest that viewers and readers check out your book. You've written a smaller book with Cambridge, but the more in-depth book came out in 2020. It's called Atonement and the Death of Christ. and it's an exegetical, historical, and philosophical exploration. So you cover all three of those in the text, and usually like with Riera's, which is fine insofar as it goes, people cover one of those. You cover three.

So for people who are like, wait, I want more. I have further questions. Check out your book Atonement and the Death of Christ. And of course, there's more in Riera's book than we had time to get to. Like we said at the beginning, it is a dense, scholarly. work. He clearly did his homework and presents his case. But is there anything else you want to say or we left out or any other points? Because you've taken your time to read this book really carefully and offer response. Anything else I didn't ask you about that you wanted to make sure

you shared on this? No, those were the highlights that I wanted to hit in our interview today. I think that these are the most important points. Those five general pivotal points, as well then as the more specific details that we talked about. Well, I really appreciate your time. I know this took some time to prep and to think through, and you're working on, what volume are you working on right now in your systematic philosophical theology? I am on volume five, the final volume, and I am working on the doctrines, the Lord's Supper, and baptism.

So I believe three comes out this fall and then four in the spring. Is that right? Volume 3 and then four coming out soon? What will come out, hopefully before the end of the year, will be Volume 2A. Got it. Or B. Two is divided into A and B. And then volume three should come out in the spring of next year.

All right, folks. If you don't know what we're talking about, we've had Dr. Craig on twice to talk about volume 1, volume 2A. this is the most careful, systematic, philosophical theology that I'm aware of. And we got three more volumes coming out or four more, I guess, depending on how you count them. But we'll have you on to discuss all of those if you're willing to do so. Thanks for your work on this. Always appreciate you coming back.

Folks, before you click away, one cool announcement I've been talking about is we just finished our certificate program. It was 20 years old, and we got entirely new lectures from some of the top scholars in the world. So if you're not ready for a master's degree in philosophy or apologetics, and of course, we hope you are. Start with a certificate program. There's a significant discount below and it's self-paced. Or if you thought about studying apologetics, we have a distance program now. And I've told you this bill, doing the MA field program was transformative for my faith. We want as many people to sign up and study apologetics and philosophy with us

as possible. And make sure you hit subscribe. Quite a few of you watch videos. Thank you. Thank you, but aren't subscribed, let alone hitting your notifications. So make sure you hit them there because we have some other interviews coming up. You won't want to miss. Dr. Craig, always enjoy it. Thanks for your time and for your thoughts. Oh, it's a pleasure, Sean. And thank you for allowing me to address these very important questions today.

This is crucial and I appreciate it. Hey, friends, if you enjoyed this show, please hit that follow button on your podcast app. Most of you tuning in haven't done this yet. And it makes a huge difference in helping us reach and equip more people and build community. And please consider leaving a podcast review. Every review helps. Thanks for listening to the Sean McDowell Show, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, where we have on campus and online programs in apologetic, spiritual information, marriage and family,

Bible, and so much more. We would love to train you to more effectively live, teach, and defend the Christian faith today. And we will see you when the next episode drops. Finding uplifting news in today's headlines is often like searching for a needle in a haystack. At the Story Behind podcast, we believe in the power of finding heartwarming tales and are happy to share empowering stories with you every week. Hear about how Steve Harvey surprised a dying man on family feud with $25,000. Get inspired by the note a waitress received from a patron dining alone. And even hear about how one VIP passenger made a hardworking,

pilot get emotional before his flight. To start listening to the Story Behind podcast, visit lifeadio.com or search Story Behind on your favorite podcast platform.