When we examine the doctrine of the atonement, we seek to understand what exactly Christ does for us. The ultimate question the discussion hopes to answer is: “How does God maintain his justice while forgiving sinners?” While almost every theory of atonement is grounded in some biblical aspect of Christ’s incarnational work, only one answers the aforementioned question. That theory is Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA).

What is Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the doctrine that Christ, in his death on the cross, bore the full legal penalty that God’s justice required for human sin. The word “penal” refers to the punishment of sin, “substitutionary” refers to Christ’s taking man’s place, and “atonement” refers to the restoration of man’s covenantal fellowship with God. The book of Isaiah reveals this understanding clearly, stating, “he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5, ESV). Together, the doctrine encapsulates Scripture’s portrayal of the total work of Christ on humanity’s behalf — Christ’s substituting man with himself by taking on the full penalty due to sinners for the purpose of restoring our fellowship with God.

If sin must be punished, does God really forgive it?

Some have argued that the Bible’s presentation of God’s forgiveness runs contrary to the doctrine of Penal Substitution, stating that if sin has to be paid for, it cannot be forgiveness. Those who argue this will claim that God putting the legal debt on the shoulders of another simply transfers the payment, rather than actually forgiving the sin. While there is a certain logic that flows through this line of thought, it seems to extend from a faulty definition of forgiveness, followed by the neglect of several key passages.

What is Forgiveness of Sin?

Throughout the totality of Scripture, its consistent witness is clear. Forgiveness of sin is the removal of one’s covenantal obligation to pay the legal penalty required of sin by a transfer of debt. Paul gives a clear and well-known understanding of sin’s debt, stating, “For the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23). Thus, sinners are charged with paying the penalty of death. These were the terms given to Adam at the beginning. As our representative head, the same penalty is extended to all of mankind.

The phrase “forgiveness of sins” is translated from the Greek word ἄφεσις (afesis). The word occurs 17 times in the New Testament and “indicates the state of having a particular obligation removed…in a given relationship.”1 The rightful understanding of this word does not overlook the covenantal obligation due to one who has sinned. The penalty for sin is not a legal metaphor; it is a divine decree. Sin is a transgression of God’s relationship with mankind. Therefore, the just penalty for man’s sin against the one who gave him life is inevitably death.

This covenantal understanding of forgiveness is not unique to the New Testament. In Exodus 34:6–7, God reveals himself to Moses as “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love (Hebrew: chesed).” Simultaneously, he declares himself to be one who “will by no means clear the guilty.” This passage fully displays God's abundant covenant faithfulness, yet also insists that the guilty cannot simply go unpunished. These two realities are not in conflict; they are held together by the same covenantal logic. God's covenantal faithfulness does not suspend his justice. Rather, it drives him to satisfy it on behalf of those he loves.

So, to forgive sin is not to overlook its penalty, but to remove it from the one who rightly bears it. If man were to pay the debt that he owes for sin, he would be left dead. Instead, by God’s forgiveness, he is freed from his obligation to pay his just penalty and is instead granted life.

The Penalty Must Still be Met

So then, if this covenental obligation does not terminate on the one to whom it is due, what happens to the penalty? In a discourse on Christ as the mediator of a new covenant, the Hebrew writer addresses with clarity the need for a penal substitutionary atonement. Here, the contextual logic is covenantal and legal, and the writer gives a straightforward answer to the question, stating,

“Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:22, ESV).

The writer does not ascribe a mere exemplary nature to Christ’s death. Rather, he provides a covenantal declaration that sin carries the penalty of death, and that penalty must be absorbed before forgiveness is possible. Christ, as both the high priest and the offering, fulfills what every Old Testament sacrifice pointed toward — the once-for-all payment of man’s sinful debt. Without Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement, there is no forgiveness of sins.

A Perfectly Just God

Now, before running wild with this conclusion, a final question must be asked: Why must sin’s penalty be suffered to enact God’s forgiveness? The answer can only be discerned by a proper understanding of God’s justice. Divine justice is not an optional role for God to take on, but rather, an essential aspect of his nature. Romans 3 reveals this and exactly how it is that his justice is upheld in the forgiveness of humanity.

“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:23-26).

In this passage, many aspects of the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement are affirmed. First, Christ’s own blood is shown to be a propitiation (atoning sacrifice, cover). Additionally, the reason Christ was given is given in the statement, “This was to show God’s righteousness…” (vs. 25-26). The word “righteousness” is translated from the Greek word, δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē), and refers to the act of doing what is in agreement with God’s standards by fair and equitable dealing. The principle is not that Christ was given merely as an example of God’s love to mankind, but that his penal substitution was the necessary act to preserve God’s justice while securing forgiveness for humanity. This is affirmed by the conclusion of this pericope, which states, “so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (vs. 26).

Without the preservation of God’s justice by his rightful punishment of sin, there is no hope that the believer can be found as just. If God’s wrath toward sin has not been satisfied through Christ’s death, then no human has the right to stand before a just God.

Conclusion

So the method goes like this: Humans have broken the covenantal relationship with the almighty that they were made for by their sin. It is man’s own sin that has caused this, and he alone bears the responsibility for its due penalty. Thus, there stands an immutable debt that must be resolved to be reconciled to God. Until that debt is paid, a just God cannot maintain communion with man. So, in perfect obedience, Jesus suffers the legal punishment of death due to man for his sin. God then forgives the sinner, pardoning his iniquity by placing the debt of sin on the shoulders of Christ. By his death, the due penalty is met, and Christ enables man’s atonement to God.

In summary, Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not negate God’s forgiveness. Rather, it is the method by which a perfectly just God forgives the one who is deserving of death. Without Christ’s penal substitution, there is no hope for mankind before a perfect God.

This article is Part 3 of a series based on my Durrington Award-winning essay — Human Happiness and the Glory of God: Does the Pursuit of Man’s Highest Good Fulfill His Chief End?

Over the last two parts of this series, we've built the foundation: The highest good is the final resting place of desire — the one object that, when attained, leaves nothing left to long for. Scripture reveals that object to be God himself: the source of all flourishing, the fullness of joy, the only unwavering delight. Now comes the central claim: pursuing the highest good doesn't compete with glorifying God. It is glorifying God.

Man’s Chief End is Fulfilled in His Highest Good

The argument that proceeds from this point attempts to resolve the question, “Does the pursuit of man’s highest good oppose or fulfill his chief end?” This argument holds that man cannot accomplish his chief end without attaining his highest good. If man exists to bring glory to God, he also exists to enjoy him, since glorifying God necessitates a rightful delight in his value. This position is supported by the preceding arguments; God is man’s highest good, the source of man’s fullest happiness, and therefore, warrants a total and complete submission to the pursuit of God. Interestingly, the previously mentioned Westminster Shorter Catechism does not exclude enjoyment from man’s chief end. Instead, it affirms that man does not fulfill his chief end in the absence of the enjoyment of God. This understanding holds for these reasons: 1) the pursuit of the highest good glorifies its object, and 2) since glorifying God is to recognize his worth, God is not glorified where he is not enjoyed as the highest good.

First, the pursuit of the highest good will inevitably glorify its subject. This pursuit is rightly performed in light of its value, namely that it, and only it, provides ultimate satisfaction. To glorify, as previously defined, is to acknowledge something’s excellence. Thus, the pursuit of the highest good glorifies its subject as it is pursued for its recognized value. Since it is the case that God is man’s highest good, any proper pursuit of him will be based on an appropriate understanding of his value, surrendering all else for his sake. The clearest example of this truth in scripture is found in Psalm 73, where David states, “Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever” (Psalm 73:25-26). Here, God is pursued as the portion to be desired above all else. In this pursuit, he is glorified by the delight that David has and seeks to have in him. If God were not most enjoyable in himself, he would not be shown as so great (glorified) that his people would forsake some higher pleasure for the sake of him, a lesser one. Rather, God, being man’s highest good, will inevitably be glorified when he is pursued as man’s fullest happiness.

Secondly, God is not glorified where he is not enjoyed as most pleasurable. It cannot be said that something is man’s highest good if it does not provide the fullest possible human flourishing. Therefore, to say that the Christian life involves the surrendering of one’s own happiness for the sake of God is to say that God is not most pleasing. This directly contradicts scripture’s plea for the Christian’s life. In the book of Matthew, Jesus states, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37). Following Christ means more than sacrificing pleasures; it means pursuing the greatest pleasure: God. This is also implied in 1 John, which states, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). Assuming obedience is directed at glorifying God, this verse reveals that the one who loves God does not find God’s commands “burdensome.” Rather, he takes delight in them, like the Psalmist who said, “Oh how I love your law” (Psalm 119:97). If God is to be glorified by one’s service, his servant will not live piously by a neglect of his pleasure, but instead, in pursuit of the fullest pleasure: God. God is then not glorified by mere obedience, but more fully, man’s affectionate delight in him.

From these two arguments, it is clear that the pursuit of man’s chief end is not accomplished without the pursuit of his highest good. Rather than being two separate pursuits, they are mutually dependent. When man finds his satisfaction in God, he will do everything in his power to pursue it, since God is the fullest pleasure he can find. When God is recognized for his value and, in turn, pursued in such a way as to be esteemed greater than any other pleasure, it brings great glory to him because he is acknowledged and shown to be most glorious. Therefore, the pursuit of man’s highest good–rightly defined as delight in God himself–does not oppose the pursuit of his chief end, but rather, fulfills it.

Answering an Objection

An objection may be presented that assumes the pursuit of the highest good to be a self-centered one, as it operates in search of one’s own pleasure. By this, the objection would also assume this pursuit to be a self-glorifying one rather than a God-glorifying one. The fault in this objection is that it neglects man’s delight in God as an end in itself. This follows the understanding that God is not a means to another good, but rather, he is the highest good himself. It should be noted that affections (such as happiness, delight, satisfaction, etc.) do not come about without a cause. They are movements of the will which follow the perceiving of some good and its value. John Piper affirms this by saying, “It is not man-centered because the emotions of our worship are centered on God. We look away from ourselves to Him, and only then do the manifold emotions of our heart erupt in worship. Nor is it idolatrous to say our affections in worship are ends in themselves, because our affections for God glorify God, not us” (Piper 95).1 Given this, the pursuit of man’s highest good is not a self-centered one, as the delight had in God is only accessible by the heart’s glad reaction to God himself.

Conclusion

This essay argues that the common suspicion pitting man’s happiness against God’s glory rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of both. God is not the obstacle to maximum human happiness, but rather, the source. From this, the perceived conflict dissolves entirely. Scripture reveals him to be, by every qualification, man’s highest good, and therefore, worthy to be pursued above every other pleasure. Indeed, God is not glorified by cold, joyless obedience; he is glorified when he is treasured above all else. Thus, to glorify God and to enjoy true happiness are not competing obligations. They are, rightly understood, the same act. It is true then that, in the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever.” All in all, the pursuit of man’s highest good truly fulfills his chief end.

The suspicion this essay recognized initially — that human happiness and God’s glory pull in opposite directions — turns out to rest on a misunderstanding of both. God is not the obstacle to your deepest happiness. He is its source, its fullness, and its only stable ground. To treasure him above all else is not to sacrifice your joy; it is to find it. Thus, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it, “man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever” — and rightly understood, those were never two different goals at all.

This article is Part 2 of a series based on my Durrington Award-winning essay — Human Happiness and the Glory of God: Does the Pursuit of Man’s Highest Good Fulfill His Chief End?

In Part 1, I established the terms at the center of this question. The "highest good" is the final object toward which all desires are rightly ordered. Man's "chief end" is his ultimate purpose, which the Westminster Assembly identifies as “to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” The apparent conflict between these two ideas is what this series is working to resolve. In this section of the essay, I seek to determine what man's highest good actually is, and what the rightful pursuit of it looks like in action.

Subscribe now

What is Man’s Highest Good?

To argue that the pursuit of man’s chief end and the pursuit of man’s highest good are mutually dependent requires determining what man’s highest good really is. This essay claims that God is man’s highest good and, for this reason, most valuable in himself, not as a means to achieve some greater object of value. For this claim to be true, an examination of scripture must reveal that 1) God is the source of all human flourishing and therefore is the resting place of desire, 2) God is most pleasing in himself, and in turn no greater happiness can be found beyond him, and 3) the happiness found in God is unwavering and self-sustaining.

First, scripture reveals God to be the source of all human flourishing. In the book of Jeremiah, God states, “For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water” (Jer. 2:13, ESV). In calling himself the “fountain” of “living waters” (i.e., satisfaction and flourishing), God denounces the idea that he is merely a stream of pleasure, but rather is the source of it himself. Accordingly, if God truly is the source of human flourishing, he must be the good at which all desires are rightly ordered. David states, “For with you is the fountain of life; in your light do we see light” (Psalm 36:9). As the fountain, God reveals himself to be the source by which all is properly perceived. As Cicero taught, the existence of a highest good requires that every human desire, when it is aimed at something less, will remain unsatisfied. Thus, any pursuit that follows one’s perception of something to be the highest good when it is in fact not is ultimately meaningless. In sum, scripture reveals that God is the author of human happiness and, as author, the final good by which all desires may be properly ordered and understood.

Secondly, God must be the object of the greatest potential human pleasure, and not merely a means to some greater pleasure. Based on Aristotle’s principles, the value of a good is determined by the level of satisfaction to be experienced in the attainment of its pleasure (i.e., how much happiness it provides). Accordingly, scripture must show that God himself provides more happiness than any other good. David writes describing God in Psalm 16:11, “in your presence there is fullness of joy…” The most important feature of this verse, as it pertains to the argument at hand, is the word “fullness,” which reveals the amount of joy to be experienced in the presence of God. Simply put, “there is nothing fuller than full.” According to scripture, if the fullness of human happiness is to be experienced, then it will only happen in the presence of God. There is therefore no greater joy to be experienced than the one derived from God himself.

Lastly, if God is to be man’s highest good, then scripture will reveal the delight found in him to be unwavering. Accordingly, Habakkuk reveals God as the only source of stable, unwavering happiness, saying,

“Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls — yet I will rejoice in the Lord; I will take joy in the God of my salvation” (Habakkuk 3:17-18).

Two implications can be drawn from this text about the nature of goods and God as man’s highest good. First, every pleasure derived from a good that is not the highest good will inevitably leave the subject unsatisfied, as every other good is subordinate to the highest. Second, the happiness that is found in God does not waver with temporal circumstances but remains when every other pleasure falls short. Thus, scripture reveals a God who provides unwavering, unshakeable, stable delight, revealing God to be man’s highest good.

The Pursuit of the Highest Good

Before making the case that man’s highest good fulfills his chief end, it is appropriate to determine how man should pursue his highest good. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle gives his expectation for how one should do this:

“Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what is right? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine what it is...for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should learn them…it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from…so that this end must be the good for man” (Aristotle, Book 1.2).1

Aristotle notes that when this highest good is discovered, it should become the foremost effort of society to pursue it, since it will enable mankind to flourish most completely. Thus, a pursuit of the highest good will involve intentionally ordering everything in one’s life toward that object on the basis that it will provide the most happiness. Additionally, it will involve abstaining from anything that hinders or distracts from the pursuit of the highest good.

It follows then that, if God is man’s highest good, scripture will call for that same action to be taken in pursuit of him. The New Testament necessitates this kind of action from believers in passages such as Matthew 6:33, which commands the ordering of all life toward God’s kingdom first; Colossians 3:1–2, which demands the intellectual reorientation of the mind toward heavenly things; and Hebrews 12:1–2, which calls for actively stripping away whatever hinders that pursuit. In each case, the Bible commands what Aristotle portrays as the rational response to discovering the highest good. Therefore, the Bible clearly demands that believers align with what is expected from one in pursuit of man’s highest good.

Scripture has made the case: God is not merely one pleasure among many — he is the source, the fullest expression, and the only unwavering ground of human happiness. But knowing what the highest good is and knowing how it connects to man’s deepest purpose are two different things. That’s where Part 3 concludes the series, and where the apparent conflict between happiness and glory finally dissolves as both find their fulfillment within one another.

This article is Part 1 of a series based on my Durrington Award-winning essay — Human Happiness and the Glory of God: Does the Pursuit of Man’s Highest Good Fulfill His Chief End?

The essay begins with a notion that quietly shapes a lot of Christian thinking: the idea that to truly glorify God, you must set aside your own happiness. It assumes that, in fulfilling one’s purpose, happiness is, at best, unrelated, and at worst, in competition. This series will challenge that assumption from the ground up. But before the argument can be made, the terms have to be understood. What is meant by “highest good”? What is man’s “chief end”? And what does it actually mean to glorify God? Part 1 of this series lays that foundation.

Subscribe now

Introduction

There is a suspicion in modern-day Christian living that the pursuit of one’s own happiness is opposed to the pursuit of God’s glory. This assumes that, in aiming to show God as glorious, one must neglect his own pleasure. Under this view, a very devout man may surrender nothing short of all he has for the sake of accomplishing his pursuit to glorify God through obedience. As he does this, he will not find himself seeking what will make him happy, but rather, what the Creator demands. This understanding does not claim that happiness is a sinful or worthless experience. Rather, happiness would instead be regarded as nonessential and therefore not an aim in man’s purpose. In holding to this perception, one interprets the pursuit of happiness to be a self-centered pursuit, and the pursuit of glorifying God to be a God-centered one.

This paper argues that this understanding is mistaken because it 1) does not properly interpret man’s highest good and, by this, 2) wrongly separates the pursuit of man’s highest good from the pursuit of achieving his chief end. On the contrary, this essay claims that the pursuit of man’s highest good–rightly defined as delight in God himself–does not oppose the pursuit of his chief end, but rather, fulfills it.

The essay includes four major areas to establish its thesis. First, it defines key terms, connects them to their historical origins, and relays their theological purpose. Second, it reveals man’s highest good as God himself. Third, it showcases how one pursues his highest good. And lastly, this essay displays that a delight in God logically results in his glorification, and therefore fulfills man’s chief end. This progression should ultimately conclude that man’s highest good and the fulfillment of his chief end do not run in opposite directions, but instead, are mutually dependent.

Defining the Terms and Their History

The phrase “highest good” is the English translation of the Latin phrase “summum bonum.” The highest good is a philosophical concept that describes the proper object toward which all desires and their resulting actions should be ordered. Historically, the concept was conceived by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. In 350 B.C.E., he composed his primary work, Nicomachean Ethics, in which he examined virtue ethics and sought to discover the “eudaimonia” (the highest human good). In his opening statements, he claims,

“every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim…But where such arts fall under a single capacity…the ends of the master arts are to be preferred to all the subordinate ends; for it is for the sake of the former that the latter are pursued…If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good” (Aristotle, Book 1.1).1

In essence, Aristotle notes that every pursuit, by desire or by action, aims at meeting some good in its completion. He determined that there must be some final good for which every other good is pursued. Additionally, that which is the highest good is the object which is in itself most valuable, and, therefore, is not instrumentally valuable as a means to pursue some other end. Later, this concept was popularized by Roman orator and philosopher, Marcus Tullius Cicero, who wrote a book titled De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum (On the Ends of Good and Evil). Daniel Dal Monte, Ph.D., observes Cicero’s understanding of the highest good, stating,

“It is not as though we move from good to good, with no higher unity connecting our various experiences…Underlying all these activities is an aspiration towards a state of complete flourishing and beatitude, i.e. happiness” (Dal Monte).2

Dal Monte affirms Cicero’s argument that for any of our pursuits toward happiness to have actual meaning, they are contingent on the existence of a singular highest good, an end in which all desires properly ordered will rest as satisfied. Therefore, the highest good is the resting place of desire because it supplies the best possible state of being for man, and the pursuit of it is equal to the pursuit of true and final happiness.

The phrase “chief end” describes man’s ultimate purpose. To name something “man’s chief end” is to name that thing the very ground for which he exists. Thus, man is living out his purpose when he ultimately pursues what he was created to accomplish. Although the roots of its concepts tie back to Aristotle’s writings in Nicomachean Ethics, this exact phrase was conceived by the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “a summary of Christian doctrine…written by the Westminster Assembly in London over 350 years ago” (Beveridge, Banner of Truth).3 The first placement of the Catechism states, “What is the chief end of man?… Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever” (Westminster Assembly).4 The Catechism suggests then that man exists for a purpose: glorifying God and enjoying him. Later, Jonathan Edwards, an American Puritan preacher and one of the leading figures of the First Great Awakening, explored and developed the catechism in more detail. In his dissertation titled, The End for Which God Created the World, Edwards argues that God’s purpose for creating the world rests in the pursuit of his own glory. From this, Edwards concludes that, if God’s aim in creating the world was to bring about his glory, man’s chief end is to glorify God. In other words, the world and everything in it exists for the purpose of glorifying God. In conclusion, man’s chief end is rightly understood as man’s ultimate and final purpose for existence.

Glory, as it pertains to God, describes his majesty, dignity, and honor. In this sense, God’s glory is not something that is given, but rather is possessed and preserved only by God’s own merit. Separate from this, when the scriptures speak of man giving glory to God or glorifying him, the words typically refer to the recognition of God’s glory. According to Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, “God is glorified, when such his excellency, above all things, is with due admiration acknowledged.” Consequently, God is worthy to be glorified because of his glory. Thus, if it is to be said that man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, then his ultimate aim, rightly ordered, should be to acknowledge God as he is, and therefore glorify him accordingly.

So, we now have the vocabulary: the highest good, the chief end, and what it means to glorify. But vocabulary alone doesn’t resolve the tension. The real question remains — What exactly is man’s highest good? In Part 2, I attempt to answer this question, as it changes everything about how we understand true happiness.