Just how did His suffering and death enable us to get to heaven? Was it by taking our punishment so we don't have to undergo that 'requisite' punishment (aka Penal Substitution)? Or, was it a sacrifice that was significant enough to pay the debt we owed (or, to put it another way, enough to pay our way out of slavery into freedom, aka redemption)?
Isaiah 53 seems to imply God punished the suffering servant (fulfilled in Jesus). But the observers in the scene "esteemed him smitten of God...", which can be taken as it only seemed to be the case, in their own perception. The text says he suffered and died, but does not attribute that as direct punishment from God. To be sure, his suffering/death was the will of God, in the permissive sense, but it was not punishment meted out by God, per se. Jesus' suffering/death was, first and foremost, the slaughtering of the sacrificial Lamb of God. In the OC, the unblemished lamb was sacrificed, was the sacrificial offering of something of value to God for the sins of the offerer. That lamb was not PUNISHED in place of the offerer. It was, to repeat, the offering of something of value to God for the sins of the offerer. It was a sin offering, as Jesus is described to be (but not sin itself). Only something of value could be acceptable for sacrifice. Note, that when a guy offered to David to give him a lamb to sacrifice, David responded "No, I will not offer to God a sacrifice that cost me nothing." Now, Jesus is the Lamb of God, the very Divine Being Himself, who is of INFINITE value and He offered Himself as the infinitely valuable, perfect Lamb of God, so he could pay the debt for our sins ("redeem" us) to avoid our damnation. Jesus' sacrifice was not punishment, strictly speaking, it was a sin offering. Another Lamb prefigurement is the Passover Lamb. That lamb was sacrificed by killing it, and that lamb did not affect it's sacrifical purpose by God punishing it. Now, Jesus is the fulfillment/perfection of that lamb, He was sacrificed by killing Him, and He did not affect His sacrifical purpose by God punishing Him. Instead, He offered Himself up to be the sacrificial victim, His death to be the infinite payment to redeem us from Sin. Consequently, the doctrine of Penal Substitution is false.
Another consideration: In order to save us, Jesus didn't NECESSARILY have to be tortured and killed. He could have saved us merely by becoming human. Really, He didn't even HAVE to do that. He could have done it some other way, He's God. But I think it was fitting, it was the best way, for Him to save us through His living as a man and suffering and dying. So, with that in mind, Penal Substitution is false from the outset because it PRESUMES God HAD to take out His wrath on, and punish, someone in order to save mankind. But that's not the case. Consequently, the doctrine of Penal Substitution is false.
Another consideration is the logical conundrum of the idea of the divine Father punishing the divine Son: Jesus is a person of the one divine Godhead. Each divine person in that Godhead is co-equal, co-eternal God. They are distinct persons but not separate. So, it is a metaphysical impossibility for the Father to lay His wrath on the Son, because they are both the one being. While it is true that with humans a father can mete out wrath on his son, that's because they are separate beings. God is one being, even if in three persons, so He cannot lay wrath on His Son. Consequently, the doctrine of Penal Substitution is false.
Another consideration: Jesus' free will. Jesus freely chose to suffer and die for us. If the idea of Penal Substitution were true, if Jesus HAD to be punished through torture and killing, He would have had no free will in being that Substitute. Consequently, the doctrine of Penal Substitution is false.
Another consideration: To say that Jesus HAD to suffer and die in our place implies that the consequence of our sinful nature is that we are personally due to be punished (suffering and death) in order to be reconciled to Him. But that's not true. The 'punishment' of Adam's Sin and our personal sins (really, the consequence of them) is that we are doomed to be forever separated from God. So, that being the case, if Jesus were to take our punishment in our place, He would have had to be separated from God forever. But, you can see that that is metaphysically impossible. Consequently, the doctrine of Penal Substitution is false.
Another consideration: Historicity. The idea of Penal Substitution is found nowhere in the body of Christian doctrine until the 16th century when it was proposed by some 'Protesting' Christians. It is not part of the original Gospel preached by the Apostles (as demonstrated by it's lack of existence for fifteen centuries). Saint Paul said "6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal 1). Penal Substitution is "another gospel", since it was not part of the Apostolic teaching. Consequently, the doctrine of Penal Substitution is false. It is a new and novel idea, amounting to a doctrine of man, and Jesus had a low opinion of that, saying "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matt15:9). (The origin of Penal Substitution is just as fallacious as Muhammad's revelations and Joseph Smith's as well. They are all late-comers with their new and novel ideas.) Penal Substitution is demonstrably a doctrine invented by men. Consequently, the doctrine of Penal Substitution is false.
