Per the question about membership, it probably goes without saying that the most important membership we have is in the body of Christ. While it may be obvious, it is the starting point of any Christian church’s legitimacy and must be mentioned. Our fundamental identity comes from our relationship with God through Christ, not from an organization. By God’s grace in Jesus Christ we are part of the larger, invisible church of God (Eph 4:25, 1 Cor 12) that spans human organizations and carries out his will in the world. The head of that church is Christ himself (Col 1:18, Eph 1:22-23). The benefits of this membership are numerous. The Holy Spirit lives within us, we have been given diverse spiritual gifts to use for God’s glory, we are part of a supportive community, we can grow through being accountable to each other, and we have a context through which we can serve the Lord to bring the gospel to the ends of earth, among many other things. Our responsibility towards each other is to do everything in love (1 Cor 16:14, John 13:34) and to seek peace and reconciliation (Rom 12:18, Mt 5:23-24). Communion is a symbol of our corporate fellowship with Christ, based on his broken body and the shedding of his blood for our sins. As we examine ourselves and repent of sins before taking communion (1 Cor 12:27-33), so we have the responsibility to continually be cleansed of sin in our lives and grow as Christ’s unblemished bride (Ephesians 5:25-27). Any Christian organization or church, including UBF, is subject first and foremost to the expectations of behavior for a member of the Body of Christ.

The church is greatly beloved of Christ and is a glorious manifestation of his love and purpose in the world, but it is not without its issues. Christ knows the good deeds of the church (Rev 2:2-3, 2:9-10, 2:13, 2:19, 3:8, 3:13), but he is also critical of her (Rev 2:4, 2:16, 2:20, 3:1-2, 3;15). He says to one of the churches in Revelation, “Those who I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.” (Rev 3:19) In the same way, while we may love the church we are realistic about it. She should not be an idol. We don’t serve an organization or a church in a vacuum; we serve the Lord himself through the church. We acknowledge that while our Lord is perfect, his church may have blemishes and stains that require cleansing and redemption.

UBF is one small part of the body of Christ. Samuel Lee was not the founder of UBF. He started the organization along with Sarah Barry in 1961. In fact, it is almost impossible to imagine UBF ministry without both Samuel Lee and Sarah Barry. Ultimately it is God who started a ministry through UBF. God has mysteriously chosen to use fragile human beings, who have both good points and sins, in his work.

I knew Samuel Lee for more than two decades and for most of those years I was around him at least 3-4 times per week. God taught me a lot of good things through him. Overall my experiences with him and my observations of him were and still are mostly positive, though not all of it was positive and some of it was odd.

Of the 17 bullet points Joe listed related to Samuel Lee, I personally witnessed or experienced 7 of them at some point in time, though they may not have applied to everyone all of the time as you implied for a few of them. I heard about the other 10 items you mentioned happening to people. I can’t independently verify that those 10 items actually happened, but am reasonably certain that they did happen though they may not have applied to everyone all of the time as you implied for a few of them.

What do you think of getting blasted by a high pressure water hose for punishment, being forced to spend hours crawling on your knees in cold water, carrying heavy loads, and going without sleep and food for extended periods of time all the while someone is yelling at you at the top of his lungs? It sounds pretty abusive if you don’t know the context. But this is exactly what they do in the training for the Special Forces in the Navy (the SEALs), and all of those men voluntarily go through this training in order to prepare to be leaders and prepared for the harshness of real combat. One of the more inspiring videos I have seen is the 2014 Commencement Address at the University of Texas by Admiral William H. McRaven, who headed up the US Special Forces Command at one time. If you haven’t seen the video and have a spare 20 minutes, please check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70.

What do you think of being required to take a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience to the hierarchy in order to serve the Lord Jesus? This also sounds pretty restrictive, legalistic, tough and contradictory to the love and grace of Jesus, but it is exactly what they do in the Jesuit Order of the Catholic Church, from which Pope Francis came. Jesuits are trained rigorously in many ways and can’t even own the shirt on their back, but they voluntarily submit to these to grow in their faith, and to mold their character to be more humble and obedient to the Lord.

For Lee and the people who went through the things you mentioned (and more), they had a similar motivation as those who go through the training in the above examples. I think that Samuel Lee wanted UBF to be something like a Christian Special Forces and a Jesuit-type organization. Since he and Sarah Barry took the Great Commission very seriously, the driving force was their zeal to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth and to make disciples in Christ’s name. Lots of people met Christ through their Bible teaching. Many were moved by the Holy Spirit to voluntarily go through various kinds of trainings at Lee’s direction in order to learn to rely on God, to be strong in harsh circumstances and to overcome in order to be Christ’s witness. It was good training for them, and many vigorously testify to that to this day. Many voluntarily became missionaries. God used them and is still using them to share his word and his love, and to in turn make more disciples of Jesus.

But Lee’s approach was not good for everyone. The Navy SEALs give each person the option of “ringing the bell” to quit at any time. The Jesuits also provide a path out if that is not God’s call in a person’s life. In UBF, Lee and others sometimes did not present a clear way to opt out. It was his way or the proverbial highway to hell sometimes. Some did not voluntarily sign up for “training” or were not ready for it but got that treatment anyway, and this caused unnecessary problems that look like abuse. Lee was given and exerted a great deal of control over the lives of a number of people. His zeal for God, genuine compassion for people, love of the Bible, wit and insight were remarkable. These qualities made him a benevolent dictator for many he was around for the vast majority of the time. But Lee had his shortcomings, as we all do, that had amplified effects because of his position of power. A dose of Confucian cultural norms, a pinch of Korean nationalism and a smidgen of Machiavellian turpitude made Lee’s mostly unchecked power problematic at times.

The strong emphasis on mission in UBF is a wonderful thing, but when misapplied it creates some knotty issues. For example, some people may not have met Christ deeply before earnestly participating in mission work. Thus, it could have come across that a message of salvation by works was being preached rather than salvation by faith in Christ alone, and it could have been inferred that service to the church or people in the church was most imperative. In other cases, mission was put above families, causing hurt, neglect and dysfunction. Only the Lord himself deserves first place in our lives, not an organization. And putting the Lord first is not inconsistent with loving our families and being a responsible person in the world. While our church and the students on the campus are important, our families, jobs, friendships and even our enemies are an integral part of our mission of making disciples of Jesus as well as of our witness for Christ.

The good qualities that Lee possessed and practiced consistently are elements that any ministry would want to maintain. We thank God for those positive legacies in our UBF ministry, and the work of the Holy Spirit through them. However, while it is necessary to have strong leaders, there has been work to remedy and redeem continuing authoritarianism in the ministry and its consequences. Leaders are being referred to more as “Pastor” rather than “Director”. More local chapters have bodies of elders so as to provide more shared leadership, and servant leadership is being emphasized more in staff interactions. There has been a gradual transition from Korean missionary leadership to native leadership. In parallel, I am aware of UBF reaching out to several people and families who have been adversely affected by ministry practices to apologize and promote reconciliation, and I foresee the possibility of this happening on a larger scale. The time frame for all of this is now and on a continuous basis going forward. Any attempt to address everything in one fell swoop at a particular point in time with one action or with one document would be a spurious exercise.

Having said the above, it is clear that any initiative or response in any amount of time is not good enough. A lot of the issues should have been dealt with long ago, or never even should have been allowed to happen in the first place. Many of us just may not fully understand yet about how we negatively impacted some people. We are all on our own spiritual journeys, dealing with our own personal issues, wounds and sins, and are still trying to process what God has been teaching us, but there are opportunities for frank and respectful interaction in many types of forums and contexts going forward. There is room for contrition, listening to narratives that may not be to our liking, and embracing people we misunderstood, disrespected, hurt and damaged in the past. Perhaps through this process God may help us to learn more and bring healing and blessing to those who have left, as well as to those who are in UBF.

As an additional note, there are numerous other ways we may not fully understand what we have done. I know some people who worked very hard to share Bible studies and sacrificed much to help others but are discouraged because they feel that they have little or nothing to show for their efforts. I’ve seen despair over what some consider to be “fruitless” ministry. But oftentimes our work in ministry cannot be accurately measured by numbers of people in a meeting, nor any other conventional metric. Some have come to faith in Christ through Bible study in the ministry and then have gone on to serve the Lord in other ways outside of UBF. Some may not have grown to be disciples in the sense UBF understands it but have been greatly encouraged by the Bible studies and the amazing acts of kindness by our missionaries and shepherds at critical times. The faithful everyday lives of God’s people in the world are a wonderful influence and testimony. God often works in ways we do not expect. I am blown away by the reaction of the “righteous” people in the parable of the sheep and the goats (Mt 25:31-46). They were surprised to hear that they had done anything of note, but the King saw it quite differently (Mt 12:40).

I am thankful for the work of the Holy Spirit through UBF as one small part of the body of Christ and pray that God may have mercy on us to repent where necessary and do what is right in his sight. Evangelism and discipleship is only strengthened, not hurt, when we are honest about our shortcomings in the process of striving to be even more authentic disciples of Jesus Christ.

The darkness of UBF is overwhelming. Secrets hide behind nearly every smiling face that offers you so much as a plate of bulgoki. Growing up, every Sunday I went to CBF at the “center.” Even as I child, I always felt like there was something off about UBF people. I never quite felt like I was at home, or that this was my family.

Upon leaving UBF at age 8 with my family, we went to an unnamed evangelical church in the area. It was there that I entered life and finally learned to be a normal human being. For the first time in my young life, I felt like I could fit in with the other boys, the other children, and I learned about God, who Jesus was, and accepted him into my heart as my Lord and savior.

When I went home and told my Dad about how I had accepted Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, I remember him telling me that they were watering down the truth of God and that what I had experienced and been taught by the nice people at this church wasn’t true. That all I needed to do was believe that Jesus died on the cross of my sins. He told me that I was already more spiritually mature than the other kids at this church because of my time in UBF.

As a little boy, I was crushed, because I felt like I had experienced something good at this new church, and yet my Dad rebuked me for it. Apparently, you can take the shepherd out of UBF, but you can’t take the UBF out of the shepherd.

When I was 12, my Father convinced our family to go back to UBF, because it had “changed.” Looking back now, if what I experience during my teen years was a redeemed version of UBF, I am frightened about what went on before it was reformed. I was prohibited to date, or to even so much as look at a girl. My entire sexual and romantic being was squashed and treated as something to be despised, something evil. Along with this went my self-esteem and sense of self. I am emotionally scarred from this sole experience and to this day am not comfortable with anything relating to romantic relationships or sexuality in general.

We were taught lies. It was demanding of us by our parents and youth leaders that we write and share testimonies every week and there would be guilt and shame delivered unto us if we did not participate. I was made to feel as if the gospel were all about doing random specific things like writing testimonies, studying the bible in a weird specific way, and doing daily bread, etc. When in reality, the gospel is not about what we have to do, but about what Jesus has done for us already on the cross of Calvary

If I had known the history of UBF, that people were subjected to emotionally, physically, and spiritually abusive practices throughout the years, I would have never agreed to go back with my family when I was 12 years old. I was lied to, I was deceived. I was told that things had changed, but the truth is “once a cult, always a cult.” A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.

Until UBF leaders fully renounce and repent of every destructive practice and illegal action that has ever been been committed by UBF members, it was always be a cult, no matter how much things have changed. End of Story.

What I have shared is just the tip of the iceberg as far as things that I have experienced and seen within UBF. I plan on going into more detail in subsequent postings.

Unfortunately I must remain anonymous in order to protect myself, but if you are a second gen who has had a similar traumatic experience, feel free to email me.

Secondgensurvivors @ gmail.com

I am glad we were not required to pray 2 X 2 at every meeting. It is OK a few times.  I appreciate the group prayer.

Would I go again? Definitely.

There were some areas that need improvement. The messengers have to stay away from the old format that is repeated again and again.  We can not have the same sounding messages for decades. We need to abandon the “My wife is so beautiful!” phrase. Let people be themselves and greet the crowd as they would normally greet the crowd.

Several people, from different parts of the world repented of the same things, “an easy going life style.” When I heard the phrase I immediately thought of 1980’s UBF conferences. It is obviously a phrase introduced by the missionaries. I am not so sure that God wants us to live in constant state of mental and physical engagement anyways. In a few instances, those who had 10-20 1:1 Bible studies a week were praised. Teaching the Bible is good, but what about stopping to read a book or simply spending time with people with no agenda? Just being in a constant state of self denial is not the answer. It may be contributing to some peoples’ tunnel vision.

There was a need for more coffee. It was always out. I wish I knew there was a McDonald’s a ½ block away at the beginning of the conference.

The cost is prohibitive to some. A family, with several kids, may pay over $1,500 USD for the weekend. This includes travel expenses also. Not too many people can do this. It can only be done by someone who truly values the conference.

There was obviously a lack of young Americans who are converts to the faith. There were middle aged missionaries and shepherds and second generation children and missionary kids. Some people may say, “Well that is because people are not ‘feeding sheep’” or “That is because America is not sending out missionaries.” But it could be more than that. We need to discover why and respond in the right way.

There were opportunities for people to be short term missionaries. This is great. I wonder why people are not so excited about being short term missionaries in UBF and they are very excited to be short term missionaries in other ministries? Maybe it has to do with what happens when people go the mission field.  Is the work of the Holy Spirit allowed to blossom and flourish when they go? Is there too much focus on supporting another’s agenda?

There seemed to be a growing divide among the Koreans and the Americans. Missionaries need to become like the people in their mission field and not make the “Natives of the land” like them. Missionaries need to let Americans be American. They also need to respect American Christians and live incarnational lives among the Americans.  They need to stop thinking that Americans don’t “feed sheep” or “go out as missionaries.” They need to stop the divide from growing or they will become more irrelevant in the American context.  Maybe the older leaders need to step aside quicker and resist controlling things from the shadows.

There needs to be a decision on what this International conference is for. Is it for the missionaries? Is it for new converts? Is it for the college level shepherds? It seems to be a little something for everyone. That is OK. Should we get more specific on who we are trying to reach?

I was wondering what you guys think about the church. Should loving others be secondary to evangelism? When I was asked about the church ministry I mentioned that loving God and others is the more important issue than how we can increase our numbers in our chapter through evangelism. The director agreed, but then asked, “How can we love others if there are no new people?” There are two issues with this statement/question.

Secondly, he views loving others in the following ways: as something we are already doing since we are disciples/shepherds/bible teachers, or that we don’t need to put our conscious effort into loving others and make it a priority, or that it is secondary to the great commission and the raising of disciples.

These are some thoughts and questions that I have:

Is love, community and fellowship implicitly present in a church so that we just need to focus on how we can share the gospel, convert people, raise disciples and grow in number?

Is the church’s main purpose to raise up disciples, or is it the gathering place of sinners who are saved by grace through faith in Jesus, who come to worship the living God, and love each other?

Doesn’t evangelism come from the love we first received from God, which then overflows into love for others?

If we focus on love and the gospel I believe that the Great Commission will naturally follow from it. But if we put the great commission first and overlook love, or think that love follows the great commission, I think that is incorrect.

What would you do if a director agrees with what you say in theory, but in practice still pushes for the UBF slogan and practice of “raising disciples” as the main goal and priority?

As I looked at the Facebook posts that immediately popped up after the news from various friends, I was shocked at how many contained expressions of glee and celebration that Osama was “burning in hell” right now. This was expressed even by Christians. So I wondered: “What should I be feeling?”

I suppose on the one hand there was a sense of relief that at the very least, Osama Bin Laden would not be able to direct his followers to carry out more attacks against us. But the reality is that his death did nothing to change the hearts of terrorists or the organization of terrorist groups. On the contrary, it probably just motivates them more! So my “relief” was short lived. On the other hand, I suppose there is some feeling of “rightness” about the due recompense that has been meted out to a man who certainly deserved it.

Honestly though, even though Bin Laden had it coming to him, I do not gloat over his demise. I am just a sinner myself who is saved by the Grace of Jesus. And as wicked as that man was, and as terrible as his horrendous deeds were while he was alive, I still feel something like pity for him, because while I am not the Judge, I think that there is a VERY good probability that Bin Laden is in Hell right now and for all eternity. My desire for him for the last 10 years was that he would repent and turn himself in to face the justice of man, but now he is facing the Justice of the Almighty God. How can I take pleasure in the death of a wicked man when God himself does not? The Lord says in Ezekiel 33:11, “Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked…'” Bin Laden was a man who was used by Satan to commit unspeakable acts of violence and hatred in the world, he was very wicked, but the truth is, we are no better than Osama Bin Laden, and we all deserved the same fate that he received were it not for the Grace of Jesus in our lives. I am not saying that we have to shed tears over the news, but I am saying that we should be careful to remember where we were and where we would be had the Lord never saved us.

Another respected leader named John Stott was at the meeting, and after Dr. Lloyd-Jones was finished, Stott approached the lectern and said to the audience, “I believe history is against what Dr. Lloyd-Jones has said… and I also believe that Scripture is against him.” Stott wanted evangelicals to stay within the Church of England to be a transforming influence.

So who, if either, is correct? When is it right to separate and leave a church or a denomination, and when should one stay and be salt and light within the church? Lloyd-Jones also said, “Ecumenical people put fellowship before doctrine. We, as Evangelicals, put doctrine before fellowship.” There is an issue here that arises however: Since no church has absolutely perfect doctrine, where is the doctrinal line drawn before one says, “this far and no further” regarding the teaching of the church?

Also, what if the question is not only one of doctrine but also practice? What if a church teaches essentially correct doctrine but its overall systematic practices go against its teaching? Lloyd-Jones had an issue with the Anglican Church because, while their doctrinal statement was basically solid, according to him, its practices across the board over time were not and so he advocated separation in that case.

What is the threshold for staying or leaving a ministry? Is there a line for the amount of doctrinal aberrance, personal abuse, or theological difference that determines staying or leaving? Or is it subjective, on a case by case basis?

For me and my wife, we decided to leave UBF because too many lines had been crossed for too long, without being able to see any glimmer of change within the ministry. I think we also felt powerless to do anything about it because whenever I broached the subject with my “shepherd,” I was very quickly shut down. Of course, now I do see that there are people who both want the ministry to change, and who have the position to do something about it. Nevertheless, if I had to make the same decision again, I would. I think that it was right for me and my wife to leave and I have never regretted it. We found another church and have been growing.

But what do you think about where the line should be drawn?

When I asked older shepherds this question, I got different answers every time. Of course, I wholeheartedly shouted this prayer slogan every time Pastor Ron asked the congregation to do so. But in the back of my mind, there was a lingering question about what I was actually praying for.

One day, when I was a student at college, I approached a man who had set up a table and handing out tracts. When he gave me one of the tracts, it showed a very detailed graph of the “Church Age” and the “Millennium” and Israel etc. After a short conversation, I told him that my church always prays for America to be a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. It was almost like I had slapped him. He said, “What? That is not a good prayer! Israel is specifically called to be a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation, NOT America!”

In response, I quoted for him 1 Peter 2:9-10: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” Then I said, “Well, who is Peter talking about then?”

The man replied, “Sure, I’ll give it to you, Christians being the redeemed of God are indeed a chosen people, and there is a universal priesthood of the believer now. And in that way, all Christians are a ‘holy nation,’ as it were. But your prayer for America is misplaced. Don’t you know that God has always only saved a remnant? Don’t you know that narrow is the path to life and only a few find it? I think your heart is in the right place but your theology is wrong.”

I was taken aback. I had never thought of it that way before. I guess I had always assumed that every time we said that prayer, we were praying for America as a whole to be saved, or something to that effect. But is that the case? When UBFers pray this, is that what you mean? Are you asking for something that almost certainly won’t ever happen? Does this prayer mean that we want a “majority” of America to be saved or to become missionaries?

While I was talking with the man at my school, he told me that he was a Dispensationalist. At the time, I had absolutely no idea what that meant. I asked a Chucago UBF leader what a Dispensationalist was, and the leader shook his head and said something like, “Oh, Shepherd David, don’t talk to those people!” Of course, this only made me want to find out more about them.

Dispensationalism is a Christian theological system which is too complicated to explain in detail here. Suffice it to say, they believe that the physical nation of Israel, the Jews, still have a very important role in God’s current and future plans, both in terms of salvation history and the end times. To the Dispensationalist, the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — in other words, the people of Israel — are the ones for whom we should be praying to be a Kingdom of Priest and a Holy Nation, because that is what God says they would be for Him if they obeyed him fully and kept his covenant in Exodus 19. In fact. the whole quote from Exodus 19:5-6 says, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you (Israel) will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

Indeed, that is why Paul says in Romans 11:13-15: “I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” Paul goes on to give a most wonderful eschatological (end times) prophesy about Israel finally being saved at some point in the future, thus ultimately fulfilling God’s original intent for his chosen nation, that they would be a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation.

I believe the following question is an important one for UBF: What does it mean for America to be “a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation?” Are you applying the Covenant promises that God made to Israel to America, declaring America to be the new “Chosen Nation”? Is there an eschatological sense behind your application of Exodus 19:6? Is it just a slogan to encourage evangelism? Are you praying that everyone America will become Christian? If so, do you believe that it will actually happen?

If we repeat something every day, I think that it is crucial to know why. If the meaning of a prayer is not clear, then would it not be a good idea to stop repeating it until it is understood?

I do not wish to argue the merits or drawbacks of Dispensationalism. Rather, I am simply asking if you really know what you are praying. Jesus said in Matthew 6:7, “And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.” I am not accusing anyone else of doing this. Speaking for myself, I did pray, “May America be a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation” over and over every day without having a clear idea of what I was actually asking for.

But what about other theories of the atonement? Aren’t they more plausible and less offensive to the dignity of man? Here we review two other theories of the atonement to see if they are better suited to explain what happened on the cross. These two other theories are called the Ransom Theory and the Christus Victor Theory.

Tradition

The first alternative theory of the atonement is called the “Ransom Theory”. This is “the view, developed by (the theologian) Origen, that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to Satan since he held mankind in bondage.”^[12] In other words, God sent Jesus Christ as a ransom to pay to Satan in order that Satan would release human beings from his grasp. The blood of the Lamb of God therefore was the “currency” that was paid out to the devil for us.

At first glance, this might seem somewhat plausible. Jesus did say in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” And in the last days the heavenly host is even going to sing about how Jesus ransomed people, “And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation…” (Rev. 5:9). However, there are a few problems with Origen’s view.

R. C. Sproul explains why this theory in its original phrasing is not widely held today, “If the ransom is paid to Satan, Satan laughs all the way to the bank…But when the Bible speaks of ransom, the ransom is paid not to a criminal but to the One who is owed the price for redemption-the One who is the offended party…it is God the Father. Jesus as the Servant, offers Himself in payment to the Father for us.[13] If we view the Ransom Theory in this light it makes much more sense. While it does not displace the Penal Substitution theory, it may supplement it and even add to its validity because if God is the one who is still the offended party and God is the one to whom the ransom is paid, then Christ as our penal substitute, and Christ as our ransom are two sides to the same gem.

The second theory is called the “Christus Victor” theory of the atonement. This view was made popular in the 20^th century by Gustav Aulen.[14] It states that one of the main reasons Jesus went to the cross is to obtain victory over sin and Satan. There is also scriptural support for this view. In Genesis 3:15, God promises to send the seed of the woman to crush the head of the serpent. And many times, the gospels and new testament letters state that Jesus has victory over the devil as well (See John 16:11; Matthew 4:1-11, 12:29; 1Corinthians 15:54-57).

This theory of the atonement has many merits, and one can see how it is legitimately held, however it does not negate the fact that penal substitution is still a main component of what occurred at Calvary. Even though there are many who would currently like to see the Christus Victor theory displace penal substation, the Bible, tradition and reason do not give grounds for it. In fact, there are many great Christians throughout history that have proudly held the doctrine of Penal Substitution as a precious truth, even though there are people today who would make the claim that this doctrine is a recent development. From as far back as Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), the authors of the book “Pierced For Our Transgressions” cite a plethora of famous Godly theologians who believed in penal substitution. People like Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, John Bunyan, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and many others.[15] So it is not for lack of scripture or lack of history that some deny this crucial doctrine, instead it could stem from the scandalous nature of the cross itself. In the next section we shall see the reason behind the necessity of penal substitution.

Reason

In discovering why penal substitution is needed in the first place, we must delve deeply into both the character of sinful man and the character of the Holy God. Part of the reason why penal substitution is rejected by some people is the offense that it necessarily brings to the pride of man. In other words, penal substitution says that man’s sin is so bad that Jesus Christ had to leave the courts of heaven and come down to earth to bear the punishment that everyone of us deserves from the Holy God. This doctrine crushes the pride of the man who wants to think that he has some meritorious goodness within himself, that his sins are not so bad, and that God is not Holy. Only penal substitution displays how heinous sin really is and also how holy and gracious God really is!

There is therefore a close relationship between the concept of propitiation and penal substitution. Leon Morris says, “The wrath of God is real and…we must reckon with that wrath. Unpalatable though it may be, our sins, my sins, are the object of that wrath. If we are taking our Bible seriously we must realize that every sin is displeasing to God and that unless something is done about the evil we have committed we face ultimately nothing less than the divine anger.”[16]

In this light, we see that Jesus is our substitute who takes the righteous wrath of God on our behalf as our propitiation. This is what God has done about the evil we have committed! Wiersbe continues this thought, “In His holiness, (God) must judge sinners; but in His love, He desires to forgive them. God cannot ignore sin or compromise with it, for that would be contrary to His own nature and Law. How did God solve the problem? The Judge took the place of the criminals and met the just demands of His own holy Law!”^[17] Reasonably, the question begs to be asked, “why does God consider sin to be so bad that He would need to send his Son to die on a cross as a penal substitute?

Jonathan Edwards illustrates four propositions about why sin is so sinful: First, that every sin or crime deserves a punishment in proportion to the heinousness of the sin/crime. Second, A sin/crime is more or less heinous according as we are under greater or less obligation to the contrary. Third, Sin against God, being a violation against infinite obligation, is infinitely heinous. Fourth, Persons who sin against God are infinitely guilty and worthy of infinite punishment.[18]

Perhaps this could be stated in a simpler way with an analogy. A man is sitting around a table with some of his personal acquaintances and one of them says something that offends him, so the man hauls off and slaps his acquaintance. It might be that nothing would happen, the acquaintance simply shrugs it off. The man is so angry when he leaves that he speeds in his car on the way home and when the police pull him over he slaps one of them, now he will definitely go to jail. While he is in jail he keeps thinking about his court date when the judge will see his point and let him go, but when that day comes, the judge sentences him to another year. The man is even more angry than before, so he walks up to the judge and slaps him. The next time he is sentenced, it is for 10 years instead of 1. Finally, after stewing in jail for 10 years, the man thinks that it is the president’s fault that jail sentences are so harsh so he finds the president at a rally and slaps him! If the Secret Service does not kill the man, he will probably spend the better part of his life in prison. The penalty is incrementally greater, and the sin worse for the same act because as Edwards says, “sins committed against anyone must be proportionately heinous to the dignity of the being offended.” God is infinitely worthy of our love, worship, devotion, honor and obedience, and the natural man does the opposite of these things. It is no wonder that he stands infinitely guilty and thus deserves the infinite punishment which is eternal hell. It is here that the doctrine of Penal Substitution becomes all the more glorious in our sight! Jesus took the infinite punishment for our sins that we deserve, and in return, he imputed his righteousness to us!

Christian Experience and Application

Penal substitution has had a great impact in the history of the church. What other doctrine more forcefully proclaims the Love of God for sinners than that He sent his Son Jesus to take the penalty for our sins as our substitute? The evangelical gospel preacher must have this doctrine in his heart and on his tongue every time he preaches the gospel. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones says, “Is there anything greater than this, that God should take your sins and mine and put them on this own Son and punish his own Son, not sparing him anything, causing him to suffer all that, that you and I might be forgiven? Can you tell me any greater exhibition of the love of God than that?”[19] Oh how wonderful is the Love of God! The doctrine of penal substitution should lead all Christians to say with Horatio Spafford, “My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought! My sin, not in part but the whole, Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more, Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!”[20]

[12]Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008. 626.

[13] Sproul, R. C.. Saved from What? . Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. 66-67.

[14] Hebert, Gustaf; A.G., and trans. Aulen. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. New York: Macmillan, 1972.

[15] Jeffery, Steve, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Leicester, England: Crossway Books, 2007.

[16] Morris, Leon. The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984. 176.

[17]Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Comforted. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1996, c1992 (An Old Testament Study), S. Is 53:10

[18] Jonathan Edwards, “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners,” in Sermons of Jonathan Edwards, 2nd ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005)

[19] Lloyd-Jones, Martyn. Great Doctrines of the Bible: God the Father, God the Son; God the Holy Spirit; The Church and the Last Things. Leicester, England: Crossway Books, 2003. 335.

[20] Spafford, Horatio. It Is Well With My Soul. Celebration Hymnal. orchestration ed. Nashville, TN: Word Entertainment Music, 1997.

In contemporary culture, there are so many opposing responses to this question that it is hard for many to get to the heart of the answer. For some, the death of Jesus was a tragedy that should have been avoided. For others, it was the most loving act of self sacrifice in history, and an example that we should follow. There are those who believe that the death of Jesus was a necessary ransom to pay to the devil in order to free mankind from his grasp. Still others believe that, “Calvary may be an episode in God’s government of the world…as the argument goes, God, being holy, deemed it necessary to show to the world His hatred of sin, and so His wrath fell on Christ.”^[2] And yet, there is also a current “reclaiming” by many in the Christian faith of the most wonderful doctrine of the cross, called Penal Substitution.

The great reformer Martin Luther described Penal Substitution like this, “Christ took all our sins upon him and for them died upon the cross. Therefore, it was right for him to be ‘numbered with the transgressors’…Christ bears all the sins of all people in his body. It was not that he himself committed these sins, but he received the sins that we had committed; they were laid on his own body, that he might make satisfaction for them with his own blood.”[3] This is the glorious doctrine of Penal Substitution. As another hymn writer named Isaac Watts once wrote: “Was it for crimes that I have done he groaned up on the tree? Amazing pity, grace unknown and love beyond degree!”[4]

The doctrine of Penal Substitution is at the heart of the Cross itself. Of course, penal substitution is not the only way to look at the death of Christ; in fact the Bible employs many different pictures of what occurred at Calvary. However, the overall picture would not be complete without it. In order to perceive how necessary this doctrine is, one must understand its relevance in scripture, tradition, reason, the Christian experience, and how it is personally applicable to all followers of Christ.

Scripture

There are many biblical passages from both the Old and New Testaments which proclaim the doctrine of Penal Substitution very clearly, even though this doctrine has many detractors. In his book, “Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross” Mark Baker writes, “In the end, a penal satisfaction presentation of the atonement can too easily lead to a situation in which we might conclude that Jesus came to save us from God.”[5] This same book also features an author who is on record as saying that the concept of penal substitution is nothing less than Divine child abuse! This is certainly a straw-man argument against the theory of penal substitutionary atonement for reasons we shall henceforth see.

As early as Exodus chapter 12, we see penal substitution imagery displayed in the Passover, where a lamb was to be slain and its blood smeared on the door posts of the Israelites for their deliverance. About this event, Mark Dever writes, “God does not say that the Israelites were exempt from judgment just because they were Israelites… If they would be saved, it would not be because God’s justice had no claim against them; it would be because when God saw the blood on the doorframes, the blood of the sacrificial substitute, he would in grace pass over that house as he judged”[6] (emphasis mine). It is an interesting correlation that when John the Baptist first saw Jesus in John 1:29 he proclaimed, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!” This is a clear reference to the substitutionary work of Christ which came to fulfillment on the cross when he “…was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people.”[7]

Indeed, throughout the whole Old Testament we see type after type, and shadow after shadow and even prophesy after prophesy about the substitutionary nature of the Messiah of Israel. In Leviticus 16 the “Day of Atonement”, or Yom Kippur is described. This was the day when the sins of Israel were atoned for and in order for that to happen, there had to be a blood sacrifice. Verses 11, 15-16, and 21-22 give the basic summary of what occurred:

“Aaron shall bring the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household…He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bulls blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been…He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites…and put them on the goat’s head…the goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert.”

Here is basic penal substitution illustrated. The bulls and goats had not intrinsic guilt of their own but they were appointed to carry the guilt of the sins of the nation on themselves. In particular, verse 22 explicitly says that the “scape goat” is the one who carries the sins on its own head. In our vernacular the term “scape goat” is usually used to describe a person who is blamed for something that someone else did. In Leviticus 16 the scape goat is “blamed” for the sins of the people and he is released into the wilderness to die as the penalty for those sins vicariously. In the same way Jesus Christ is like our scape-goat, he is legally blamed for our sins, and in return we are pardoned! The Tyndale Bible Dictionary says, “Israel understood that to bear sin meant enduring the consequences, or penalty, for sin (cf. Nm 14:33). The same penal substitution is evident in the working principle of the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice. He is the victim’s substitute to whom is transferred the suffering due the sinner. The penalty having been thus borne vicariously, the suppliant is fully pardoned.”^[8]

In Leviticus 17, God is busy giving his Law to Moses, when a most important statement is made about how He is to be reconciled to man in verse 11, “…the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the alter; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” That word “atonement” is similar to the word “reconciliation.” In fact, the word “atonement” can be divided by its syllables to understand its meaning, “at-one-ment.” In other words, when atonement is made, reconciliation is made. The two become one again. “Objectively and once for all, Christ achieved reconciliation for us through penal substitution. On the cross he took our place, carried our identity as it were, bore the curse due to us.”[9] As Galatians 3:13 explicitly says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” The curse of the Law was laid on Christ who Paul says, became a “curse for us.” The apple of God’s eye became a rotten apple so to speak, so that other rotten apples could be made whole again.

Perhaps the most graphic and prominent portrayal of this concept of Penal Substitution is in Isaiah 53:5-6, “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (emphasis mine). These verses could not be more evident about the fact that the Messiah’s role would be one of bearing the punishment that others deserve!

The Apostle Peter would later write about Jesus Christ that, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.” And also…”For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit…”[10] These verses emphasize “the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death. He “sufferedonce for all concerning sins, the just for the unjust.” Again the note of innocent suffering is sounded: He was righteous and thus suffered not for any misdeeds of His own but as a substitute for those who were unrighteous, who justly deserved punishment for sin.”^[11]

[1] Bliss, Philip. Hallelujah! What a Savior. Celebration Hymnal. orchestration ed. Nashville, TN: Word Entertainment Music, 1997.

[2]Evans, William ; Coder, S. Maxwell: The Great Doctrines of the Bible. Enl. ed. Chicago : Moody Press, 1998, c1974, S. 73

[3] Luther, Martin. Galatians (Crossway Classic Commentaries) (Crossway Classic Commentaries). 1st British ed ed. Leicester, England: Crossway Books, 1998.151.

[4] Watts, Isaac. At The Cross. Celebration Hymnal. orchestration ed. Nashville, TN: Word Entertainment Music, 1997.

[5] Baker, Mark. Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of the Atonement. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006. 22.

[6] Dever, Mark. It Is Well: Expositions on Substitutionary Atonement. Leicester, England: Crossway Books, 2010. 19-20.

[7] Hebrews 9:28

[8]Elwell, Walter A. Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Tyndale Reference Library). Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008. 888.

[9] Packer, J. I.. Concise Theology (sc). Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

[10] 1Peter 2:24, 3:18

[11]Zuck, Roy B. A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1994. 443.