The Biblical Basis for Penal Substitution

[JonC]

Jesus = our Guarantor, our Security that there will be no annulment of the Better covenant. (A description occurring only here).

Has become (ginomai) is in the perfect tense which speaks of the permanence of His guarantee! Our Lord Jesus does more than mediate the New Covenant. He also guarantees it. He has become surety for it. All of God’s promises in the New Covenant are guaranteed to us by Jesus Himself. He guarantees to pay all the debts that our sins have incurred, or ever will incur, against us. Hallelujah. Amen.

Spurgeon on guarantee - We are absolutely certain that the covenant of grace will stand because the Redeemer has come into the world and has died for us. The gift of Christ is a pledge that the covenant, of which He is the substance, cannot be dissolved. Christ has been born into the world, God Himself has become incarnate. That is done and can never be undone; how can the Lord draw back after going so far? More, Christ has died: He bears in His flesh today the scars of His crucifixion. That also is done, and can never be undone. The priests of the house of Aaron were poor sureties of the former covenant, for they could not keep it themselves. But Christ has kept the covenant of grace; He has fulfilled all that was conditional in it, and carried out all that was demanded on man’s part. It was conditional that Christ should present a perfect righteousness and a perfect atonement; He has effected this to the full, and now there is no “if” in it. The covenant now reads as a legacy, or a will—the will of God, the New Testament of the Most High. Christ has made it so, and the very fact that there is such a person as Jesus Christ the Son of Man living, bleeding, dying, risen, reigning, is the proof that this covenant stands secure.

Guarantee (1450) (egguos from eggúe = pledge, bail, security) describes one who gives security, who guarantees the reality of something. It was used of one who guarantees someone else's overdraft at a bank, thus becoming surety that the money will be paid. Someone who goes bail for a prisoner; he guarantees the prisoner will appear at trial. It also refers to a bond, bail, collateral or some kind of guarantee that a promise will be fulfilled. In Greek secular writings egguos referred to in legal and promissory documents as "a guarantor" or "one who stands security." The idea of surety of one person for another was not new. Judah promised surety for Benjamin (Ge 43:9, 44:33); Paul promised to be surety for Onesimus (Philemon 1:18,19)


from AW PINK

There are 2 things I like about the Spurgeon quote.

First, it’s Spurgeon. Second, in the quote Spurgeon does not reduce the Atonement down to the death of Christ as a payment due to God. He highlights the obedience of Jesus in coming into the world to the Cross. I hold a position that is neither covenant theology nor dispensationalist (I think both highlight elements of how God has dealt/deals with men, but neither are necessarily sufficient in encapsulating the work each intends to embody). But Spurgeon aptly states the guarantee that God’s covenant will faithfully come to pass is on display in the work of Jesus Christ. He has effected that reconciliation for which all creation groans.

Regarding Pink, he takes his own definition to a logical conclusion but not necessarily the only or best logical conclusion. We both, I believe, reject commentators as a source for authority and I understand you to be offering Pink as an explanation of your position. To highlight more of the way I am trying to view the atonement (trying to separate what I’ve assumed through tradition and what is actually present in Scripture), here’s a quote that pretty much reflects what I am considering:

“We were enemies of God by means of Sin;and God ordained that the sinner should die. Of two things, then, one must needs have happened; either that God should adhere to His word, and destroy all men, or that by giving scope to His benignity He should annul His sentence. But see the wisdom of God. He secured, at once, reality for His sentence, and active operation for His benignity. Christ “took on Himself our sins in His body, on the Tree, that we, being dead to sins” through His death, “should live unto righteousness.” He that died for our sakes was not of small account. He was not a literal sheep, He was not a mere man, He was not simply an Angel, but He was God Incarnate.The iniquity of the sinners was not so great as was the righteousness of Him that died for them. Our sins did not equal the amount of His righteousness, who laid down His life for us, who laid it down when He pleased, and when He pleased resumed it.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Lecture xiii)

This is very similar to Pink’s view, and aspects of PST are present even here (this is from the early 4th century) but they are shared aspects. The only thing really missing is the only thing that would make it penal substitution. Cyril taught that Jesus died as guilt offering for us and that this was a “payment” to God that averted the punishment that awaited us. But his view is actually Ransom theory and he has humanity and human sin in view. He also sticks fairly closely to the OT sacrificial system.

 

[agedman]

I recognize that the Savior suffered. That is a given.

What I find remarkable is a certain weakness of expressions found that regard in some manner the suffering of Christ was forensically different and as such in some manner a payment.

I recognize that others suffered, and although the crucifixion was incomparably painful, there were others that did, were, and would suffer in exactly the same manner under Roman rule. There was not "special" to performing a crucifixion for one criminal was no better than any other to the Roman soldier.

Therefore, what is the single element associated with the forensic work of the cross that makes it remarkable?

The answer must contain that it was done to God, the Creator, the Sustainer who allowed the humankind to so badly treat Him. It shows authority over every thought, emotion, and sensory input and output such as humankind cannot control.

His thoughts had to allow humankind to strike and abuse Him, were before He would move pass without even their knowledge as if He had disappeared to reappear latter. That God would suspend such thoughts of revenge and wrath was done with meaning and purpose. He was meanly man handled in ways never before allowed and learning.

His emotions had to be placed in full check were, before, none had been allowed to successfully launch an emotional barrage of hate against him. When humankind attempted to stone Him, such were stopped, immediately. When some would seize Him, they fell back at his word. When they would display scorn and ridicule, He would pronounce woe. However, at the immediate hours leading up to the cross, He must experience and endure the emotional attacks, in just the same manner as the physical attacks, by allowing such to occur, and learning.

His sensory input and output must also need to be opened and able to be violated. It was not mere words from those that attacked, for He had heard such before, but the tone of the voice, the facial sneer of the mock, the body language of those who would contend that they were doing God approved work (smitten of God and afflicted). Such is beyond the physical, and impacts the very chemical makeup of the human.

He endured such suffering, but that suffering was not payment owed.

1) It was experiential that God would know every aspect of humankind as a humankind even suffering.
2) It was specific for specific areas - wounded, bruised, chastised... for specific areas in which believers find need.
​

(imo) Christ did not forensically suffer for payment, rather suffered for learning and example. That the believer may also know that the suffering they experience is a mark of identification and a fellowship with the Savior the world does not comprehend.

Such suffering will bring understanding, stability, wisdom, and purging of this world and worldly. This is (imo) the thinking that Paul expressed also by stating:

But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained. (Philippians 3)​

 

[JonC]

I recognize that the Savior suffered. That is a given.

What I find remarkable is a certain weakness of expressions found that regard in some manner the suffering of Christ was forensically different and as such in some manner a payment.

I recognize that others suffered, and although the crucifixion was incomparably painful, there were .....

He endured such suffering, but that suffering was not payment owed.

1) It was experiential that God would know every aspect of humankind as a humankind even suffering.
2) It was specific for specific areas - wounded, bruised, chastised... for specific areas in which believers find need.​

​

Here, brother, I think that you identified a very important difference between most (if not all) theories and PST. When we examine the teachings of people like Origen, Martyr, Augustine, Anselm and even Eusebius what comes through is the sense of redemption from the Incarnation through the Cross. Even the idea of God offering a “payment” was not in the forensic sense of a business transaction but in the sense of redeeming mankind as, as Eusebius states, “the whole humanity was absorbed by the Divinity.” A "payment" was made in that sense (and we were "purchased"), but this was not a "payment owed." It was an atonement, a guilt offering, and IMHO should be understood within that context.

BTW, I don’t begrudge anyone for holding onto Penal Substitution. But I do think the need for such a simplistic and narrow explanation ignores so much of God’s work of redemption and actually causes more disharmony in Scripture than its benefit warrants.

 

[JonC]

Do we have to consider this, when speaking of penal substitution?

But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. Matt 20:22,23

And there are many verses speaking of us still having to suffer with him.

Is that the same? I'm asking without having my mind made up.

I think that we should consider that when speaking of penal substitution. That is a point in one of the questions agedman asked, that no one could answer. PST presents the cup as the cup of God’s wrath, and it is even narrowed to mean our punishment for our sins that Jesus experienced in our stead. If that is true, then we cannot share in that cup, or be baptized with the baptism that he is baptized with. Personally, I think that Jesus may have been indicating the persecution that awaited those disciples. But even then detracts rather than supports penal substitution theory. It places that wrath in terms of suffering on human terms. This reflects what the early church taught. Yes, the atonement is substitution. And yes, the atonement appeases God's wrath, turns away our punishment (it is, after all, an atonement). But no, the cup was not the punishment for our sins that Jesus drank on the cross. It is the Incarnation, God becoming man, and reconciling humanity with himself.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My apologies for not commenting in context of the OP. My questions remain.

This is an excellent example, IMHO, of atonement. God's wrath on those residing in Egypt is passed over by the blood of a lamb. It points to the Atonement and emphasizes what Peter called the "precious blood of Christ." Christ was sacrificed for us, and those of us "in Christ" do not need to fear the Judgment.

I find this sort of post so very frustrating. There is no attempt to interact at all with the O.P., merely to stonewall. That there is atonement in the Passover is a given. But that is not all there is.
Perhaps I may remind you of part of the O.P.

In the first nine plagues, disaster falls only upon the Egyptians, but in the tenth, it will fall also upon the Israelites unless they take certain precautions. A lamb must be slaughtered, and its blood applied to the door frame of every house. The clear implication is that unless this is done, the first-born child will die in every house that is not covered by the blood. V.13. 'When I see the blood, I will pass over you.' Implication: "If I don't see the blood, I won't pass over you." Thus the lamb becomes a substitute for the firstborn son, dying in his place.
This applied to every single house of the Israelites. If one house neglected to perform the rite, the fact that the neighbours had done it wouldn't help. A particular lamb died for a particular child.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is a bit of problem with what came AFTER the lamb slaying.

1) It was not a part of the live lamb but after the death. It is a picture of (the roasting of the lamb) the decent into hades and paradise the Lord took after death.​

I do not believe that Jesus descended into hell after His death upon the cross (Luke 23:43). The cross was His hell.

2) The eating was done by the living priests - not the whole nations, but exclusive. It is a picture of the "this is my body..." in which the believe priests are to partake, not just in the ordinances, but the "abiding in Him" and "He abiding in us" type statements.

You are quite mistaken. The Passover lamb was eaten by every person of every family (Exodus 12:8 etc.). Christ died in the place of each one of us, taking our sin upon Himself.

3) The bitter herbs signify the bitterness of the the walk of the believer in which is NOT part of the lamb but taken with the lamb. As one experiences the ingestion of the lamb it was not without bitterness. Just as even today, one does not experience the in working of Christ without some measure of bitterness.

I disagree, although it is not hugely important. It is the word of God that simultaneously causes sweetness in the mouth and bitterness to the stomach of the believer (Ezek. 3:1-3; Rev. 10:9-10).

​

The suffering Savior is not to be compared to the shedding of His blood as some measure of forgiveness or payment of transgressions or sin. Rather, as an example of the suffering that every believer will endure and even may desire, as Paul said to partake of in fellowship and follow-ship.

The other problem with the "curse" thinking being aligned with suffering is just what is the curse?
Was not the curse of Eden's tree, death?

There is certainly a fellowship in Christ's sufferings, but that is for believers and has nothing to do with our salvation. God set Christ forth as a propitiation, 'to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus' (Rom. 3:26). God's justice and righteousness does not allow the guilt to go free- '....By no means clearing the guilty' (Exod. 34:7). Divine justice must be satisfied before there can be forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9:22b). Therefore, unless Christ has made propitiation for my sins, I am still in them. This is of absolutely vital importance.

With regard to the 'tree,' it is surely significant that Peter has Christ bearing our sins upon a tree (1 Peter 2:24). The tree was indeed the start of the curse in Eden, which is perhaps why someone who hung upon a tree was considered cursed by God (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Christ became a curse for us, that the curse might be taken away (Rev. 22:3). The curse of Eden's tree was indeed death. Hebrews 9:27-8 expresses Penal Substitution very well.

Physical suffering is certainly the result of not only sin, but the curse God gave to the things of this earth, but God did not (except in child birth) state any measure of a curse upon the physical other than what the rebuke of sin would by its nature bring.

Read Gen. 5:29 and, especially, Rom. 8:18-23. The curse affected every aspect of life on earth.

If one is to take the Cross at face value, redemption is through and by the blood. Suffering is the example to be lived by the believer.

Forensic suffering of Christ gained nothing of redemption for the believer, it was not part of the OT sacrifice picture, and not part of the plan of redemption.

I can't believe how you would write stuff like this. "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" (Luke 24:25-26). Check out Isaiah 53 and then tell me that Christ's suffering has nothing to do with our redemption. Not just His death, but His whole life was an act of propitiation. He was 'A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.' 'He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.' Moreover He has lived the life that we cannot live- the life of perfect obedience to God's commands, as well as dying the death we deserve to die (Isaiah 53:6, 9b).

If it were, then humankind suffering could on some level or measure be a condition of salvation, and not the rebuke that comes by the nature of sin, and that believers would then NOT suffer in this present world, for all suffering would be satisfied upon the Cross just as the blood was satisfactory.

This is all part of the 'already but not yet' of our salvation. We are already 'seated in the heavenly places' (Eph. 2:6), and yet 'We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us' 2 Cor. 4:7. Read on to v.15). This takes us on to eschatology which is another subject altogether.

My eyes are playing me up again already and I want to give the next piece of Biblical evidence for Penal Substitution, so I shall stop here for a while.

 

[JonC]

I find this sort of post so very frustrating. There is no attempt to interact at all with the O.P., merely to stonewall. That there is atonement in the Passover is a given. But that is not all there is.

Perhaps I may remind you of part of the O.P.

I feel your pain, brother. I've asked a couple of questions to help clarify objections to Penal Substitution Atonement and there has been not even one attempt to biblically address the issues. It can be frustrating.

For my part, I didn't see much interaction needed with the OP. I was merely confirming (and supporting) your assessment of the passage. Not really sure what you mean by "stonewall," but I doubt that spoke to the OP anyway.

But to atone for my error:

Exodus 12 speaks of the Passover. The last plague that God is going to send is the death of the first-born child. To be delivered, the Israelites place blood over their door. The lamb becomes a substitute for the first born, with the lamb dying in their place (this is actually reading into the text. The sacrifice of the lamb may substitute for the first-born as a whole, if the blood is applied. The sacrifice itself didn’t cause death to pass over, so it is not entirely correct to simply view it as a substitute. But the sacrifice provided the way, and when the blood was applied death passed over). But yes, this imagery is important to understanding the atonement.

I hope that this helps.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

(I appreciate that you have addressed the text of the O.P. Thank you.

Exodus 12 speaks of the Passover. The last plague that God is going to send is the death of the first-born child. To be delivered, the Israelites place blood over their door. The lamb becomes a substitute for the first born, with the lamb dying in their place

So far, so good. But would it have been acceptable for an Israelite to cut his finger and smear the blood on the door-post? No! 'The wages of sin is death' and the lamb paid the wages of sin for that family as a foreshadowing of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Penal substitution.

(this is actually reading into the text. The sacrifice of the lamb may substitute for the first-born as a whole

What do you mean by 'as a whole'?

if the blood is applied. The sacrifice itself didn’t cause death to pass over, so it is not entirely correct to simply view it as a substitute. But the sacrifice provided the way, and when the blood was applied death passed over). But yes, this imagery is important to understanding the atonement.

This is to miss the point spectacularly. The blood was the evidence that the Passover lamb had died. "Pick out and take lambs for yourselves according to your families and kill the Passover lamb. And you shall take a bunch of hyssop......etc.' (Exod. 12:21f). The lamb died in place of the eldest child, and the blood on the lintel was the evidence that the Passover was being observed (v.22). 'For [blood] is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life' (Lev. 17:14). When an animal dies that would otherwise have lived, and a person lives who would otherwise have died, substitution must necessarily have taken place.

A little later, God tells the Israelites that every firstborn male among them must be redeemed (13:13b). Just as He redeemed the firstborn males at Passover with a lamb, so all future Israelites must redeem their firstborn sons with a lamb looking forward to the day when Jesus Christ would provide the one perfect acceptable sacrifice for sin. Just as the Passover lamb died in the place of the first-born, so Christ died in the place of sinners- 'The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.' Penal substitution!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

“We were enemies of God by means of Sin;and God ordained that the sinner should die. Of two things, then, one must needs have happened; either that God should adhere to His word, and destroy all men, or that by giving scope to His benignity He should annul His sentence. But see the wisdom of God. He secured, at once, reality for His sentence, and active operation for His benignity. Christ “took on Himself our sins in His body, on the Tree, that we, being dead to sins” through His death, “should live unto righteousness.” He that died for our sakes was not of small account. He was not a literal sheep, He was not a mere man, He was not simply an Angel, but He was God Incarnate.The iniquity of the sinners was not so great as was the righteousness of Him that died for them. Our sins did not equal the amount of His righteousness, who laid down His life for us, who laid it down when He pleased, and when He pleased resumed it.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Lecture xiii)

Whilst I agree that this falls short of a full acknowledgement of Penal Substitution, there is nothing here that denies it, and it actually comes quite close as you say. If one came to this quote having read the much clearer affirmations of P.S. in Justin Martyr, Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius quoted on the other thread, one would not doubt that Cyril too believed in the doctrine.

 

[agedman]

agedman said: ↑
Here is a bit of problem with what came AFTER the lamb slaying.
1) It was not a part of the live lamb but after the death. It is a picture of (the roasting of the lamb) the decent into hades and paradise the Lord took after death. [\quote]
To which you said:

I do not believe that Jesus descended into hell after His death upon the cross (Luke 23:43). The cross was His hell.​

​

According to Paul, He descended. The ancients considered that the keeping place was divided into two separate compartments (this was expressed by the Lord, too) One was Hades or Paradise, the other Sheol or Hell.

I would state that the Lord descended into Hades (Paradise) taking the thief with Him.

You are quite mistaken. The Passover lamb was eaten by every person of every family (Exodus 12:8 etc.). Christ died in the place of each one of us, taking our sin upon Himself.​

​

You are correct. I had my Scripture opened to a wrong passage.

There is certainly a fellowship in Christ's sufferings, but that is for believers and has nothing to do with our salvation. God set Christ forth as a propitiation, 'to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus' (Rom. 3:26). God's justice and righteousness does not allow the guilt to go free- '....By no means clearing the guilty' (Exod. 34:7). Divine justice must be satisfied before there can be forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9:22b). Therefore, unless Christ has made propitiation for my sins, I am still in them. This is of absolutely vital importance.

I would not disagree with anything stated.

What my contention is that there are some that blend the suffering to the point of making such suffering as important as the blood atonement. However, that is not the picture presented in either the Exodus, nor any other sacrifice in the OT tabernacle. No "living" animal was tortured to death.

Propitiation was by the blood. The blood is the primary and "absolutely vital importance" of the Cross.

In this I consider that we agree.

With regard to the 'tree,' it is surely significant that Peter has Christ bearing our sins upon a tree (1 Peter 2:24). The tree was indeed the start of the curse in Eden, which is perhaps why someone who hung upon a tree was considered cursed by God (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Christ became a curse for us, that the curse might be taken away (Rev. 22:3). The curse of Eden's tree was indeed death. Hebrews 9:27-8 expresses Penal Substitution very well.

I think that I disagree in labeling (especially Hebrews 9:27-28) an expression of penal substitution, but of the singular one time sacrifice that fulfilled the requirement of the Law. Christ made no "payment" to God or the devil, fulfilled the Law God established.

Christ "fulfilled the righteous requirement of the law" (Romans 8).

Forensic (I like that term better than Penal) has the thinking that the actual pulling of the hair, the whip lashes, the mashing of the crown of thorns, the nails driven through the hands, and other such things done brought some "substitution" for the believer. That there was some payment that had to be made in a physical suffering manner to fulfill or pay the demand of God or the devil.

As I stated, the crucifixion was in itself not uncommon in the Roman world of justice. The whipping, and the mockery were also not uncommon. What WAS uncommon was to whom it was done.

That it was done to Christ is a picture of what the believer may also endure. There is no experience of the believer that Christ does not have intimate understanding.

According to this next statement by you, you would disagree.

I can't believe how you would write stuff like this. "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" (Luke 24:25-26). Check out Isaiah 53 and then tell me that Christ's suffering has nothing to do with our redemption. Not just His death, but His whole life was an act of propitiation. He was 'A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.' 'He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.' Moreover He has lived the life that we cannot live- the life of perfect obedience to God's commands, as well as dying the death we deserve to die (Isaiah 53:6, 9b).

Let's look at a single passage for example of what I mean.

Using Issiah 53 one sees a timeline approach to the life on this earth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.​

3 He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.​

Those verses I take as pre-cross. I realize that some blend the suffering spoken as of the cross, but there is seemingly a progression from birth that takes place in which the whole ministry of Christ is displayed as unattractive, sorrow filled, a man despised, and not esteemed.

Isaiah continues:

But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities; (
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.​

Do not take the "crush" as something greatly physical, but that of oppression, as one who is "crushed" by evil. There is no account that the Lord was "crushed" as is commonly defined when one is slain by the weight of an external object. The "crushing" was the weight of evil, that which (imo) rent His heart in two, causing the blood to fill the thoracic cavity

More to the point:
The piercing, crushing, chastening, scourging, were all blood letting in effect.

As the God/man the blood that was shed is what fulfilled the Law. Not the pain, not the sorrow, not the events, and all that is certainly part of the events, rather it is specifically the responsibility of the blood.

In no way do my statements diminish the sorrow the Christ endured and the pain and the events picture that which believers may also endure.

But the suffering ALONE is not redemption nor is it other than the process in which redemption came to pass. It is the mode of blood letting that was the suffering that is the propitiation.

Again, I refer back to the sacrificial system of the OT. At no place was there inhuman treatment given to a sacrifice prior to its appointed death.

I consider the passages such as the Luke mentioned, a manner of statement that the cross was necessary for the transition back or entry back into glory. It is not a statement of "physical/forensic" suffering, but as one might say, "It pleased God that I suffered death to find myself in heaven." Suffer in this case is experiential, to be acted upon, to be affected - usually in a bad way by but in this case for the good.

Christ had to experience the cross in order to again enter heaven.

Ok, we are in agreement, and, in some areas, disagreement.

I look at the blood as a fulfillment requirement of the law, that there was no "payment due" as part of that law. The law demanded judgment. That demand was met.

Under "penal substitution" there is also the benefactor limit often suggested by some in the Reformed camp.

Not to stretch the topic too far away from the OP, but I don't see the fulfillment of the Law's judgment as conditionally limited. When Christ's blood was spilled, it was placed on the door posts and lintel of the whole world (so to speak). Not just upon those of a specific grouping.

 

[agedman]

One point I neglected that relates to the OP.

John states that the sacrifice by God was "His only begotten Son." His first born.

God did not "substitute" but fulfilled the requirement. All the OT did was substitute while looking forward to a more perfect sacrifice.

In a way, then, the OT offered "forensic (penal) substitution" while the NT offers perfect redemption.

 

[JonC]

Whilst I agree that this falls short of a full acknowledgement of Penal Substitution, there is nothing here that denies it, and it actually comes quite close as you say. If one came to this quote having read the much clearer affirmations of P.S. in Justin Martyr, Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius quoted on the other thread, one would not doubt that Cyril too believed in the doctrine.

Eusebius is probably the clearest, IMHO, but reading Martyr his

Whilst I agree that this falls short of a full acknowledgement of Penal Substitution, there is nothing here that denies it, and it actually comes quite close as you say. If one came to this quote having read the much clearer affirmations of P.S. in Justin Martyr, Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius quoted on the other thread, one would not doubt that Cyril too believed in the doctrine.

Yes, you are right that their theology as expressed on those quotes seem to come close to penal substitution theory, but at the same time they all fall short. The reason is that the theory was developed and then reformed by Calvin. You show clearly a substitutionary aspect of the atonement, and you are right that it is there.

One would not have to read anything to determine Cyril held to penal substitution. We assume such based on our own presuppositions (your remark concerning Eusebius and Martyr are good examples of this). If you read Eusebius and Martyr (more than just a quote) then it is fairly easy to see that they are not dealing with penal substitutionary atonement but instead hold a very different worldview. Cyril held to ransom theory with Jesus redeeming mankind by offering himself as the perfect Lamb to God in order to ransom mankind from the bondage of sin and death. If he believed that Jesus bought us from God by suffering our punishment then he (along with Martyr and Eusebius) remained silent about that belief. Their view is absent what would make it penal substation.

But I am confident that you are right in that many holding PST would read the early fathers as if they held the same view. And in so doing they would take quotes and chapters out of context of the whole. It is a sad state of literacy we live in.

 

[JonC]

(I appreciate that you have addressed the text of the O.P. Thank you.

So far, so good. But would it have been acceptable for an Israelite to cut his finger and smear the blood on the door-post? No! 'The wages of sin is death' and the lamb paid the wages of sin for that family as a foreshadowing of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Penal substitution.

What do you mean by 'as a whole'?

This is to miss the point spectacularly. The blood was the evidence that the Passover lamb had died. "Pick out and take lambs for yourselves according to your families and kill the Passover lamb. And you shall take a bunch of hyssop......etc.' (Exod. 12:21f). The lamb died in place of the eldest child, and the blood on the lintel was the evidence that the Passover was being observed (v.22). 'For [blood] is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life' (Lev. 17:14). When an animal dies that would otherwise have lived, and a person lives who would otherwise have died, substitution must necessarily have taken place.

A little later, God tells the Israelites that every firstborn male among them must be redeemed (13:13b). Just as He redeemed the firstborn males at Passover with a lamb, so all future Israelites must redeem their firstborn sons with a lamb looking forward to the day when Jesus Christ would provide the one perfect acceptable sacrifice for sin. Just as the Passover lamb died in the place of the first-born, so Christ died in the place of sinners- 'The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.' Penal substitution!

No, it had to be the blood of the lamb. It also wouldn’t have been acceptable for an Israelite to sacrifice the lamb but not apply the blood. And no, this is not penal substitution in any sense. You’ve jumped to a conclusion not carried through by the text. Perhaps substitution, but only in that it satisfied the requirement set forward for death to pass over. You need to show that the sacrificed lamb was actually punished with the consequences of Israel’s sin for it to be penal (not physical death as those Israelites actually died a physical death).

You are talking substitution. You are talking of death passing over, wrath avoided, propitiation, Jesus baring our sins, etc., and I agree with you. But none of this proves that on the cross Jesus was punished in our place by receiving our punishment due to us as individuals for our sin. None of this denies penal substitution (although there are many passage that deny the fruits of that theory), but none of these passages affirm the theory either.

 

[percho]

agedman said: ↑
Here is a bit of problem with what came AFTER the lamb slaying.
1) It was not a part of the live lamb but after the death. It is a picture of (the roasting of the lamb) the decent into hades and paradise the Lord took after death. [\quote]
To which you said:

​

According to Paul, He descended. The ancients considered that the keeping place was divided into two separate compartments (this was expressed by the Lord, too) One was Hades or Paradise, the other Sheol or Hell.

I would state that the Lord descended into Hades (Paradise) taking the thief with Him.

Is what, "the ancients considered," found anywhere in the word of God? Where does the word of God speak of Sheol and or Hades being divided into compartments?

I believe Jesus died and his soul was in Hades, Greek for Sheol I assume being Peter said David was not speaking of himself but of the fruit of his loins, Christ, when he said my soul shall not be left in Sheol in Psalms 16:10.

Nothing to my knowledge in the word of God implies Paradise is or was remotely close to Sheol and or Hades. I do believe, the lowest parts of the earth and the heart of the earth, equate to Sheol and or Hades, which equate to the death.

Before the death and resurrection of Jesus born to the virgin Mary those who had died of whom God had called were, when dead said to have died in faith. Today when one who has been called dies, he is dead in Christ.

Lazarus in Luke 16 is I believe, Eliezer the servant of Abraham, whom Abraham wanted to make his heir for he had no children. Jesus is telling those he was speaking with, Eliezer / Lazarus died, in the bosom of the Abraham. That his relationship to the God was the same as Abraham's at death. He also died in the faith that Abraham had died in. The coming of the seed (singular) of Abraham in whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed.


The rest of that post I agree with. Also Christ is the door and it was his blood put on the door that will allow the world to go through. Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are talking substitution. You are talking of death passing over, wrath avoided, propitiation, Jesus baring our sins, etc., and I agree with you. But none of this proves that on the cross Jesus was punished in our place by receiving our punishment due to us as individuals for our sin.

When we look at the O.T., we are inevitably talking in types and figures. But a lamb died so that a sinner might live; that is Penal Substitution. The lamb paid the penalty that was due to the first-born son. Let me remind you of what I said before.

When an animal dies that would otherwise have lived, and a person lives who would otherwise have died, substitution must necessarily have taken place.

Q.E.D.

 

[JonC]

When we look at the O.T., we are inevitably talking in types and figures. But a lamb died so that a sinner might live; that is Penal Substitution. The lamb paid the penalty that was due to the first-born son. Let me remind you of what I said before.
Q.E.D.

I'm sorry, brother, but saying that "a lamb died so that a sinner might live" is not penal substitution. You are stretching the meaning to be that the lamb was actually punished with the punishment due the first-born male animal and man living in Egypt. Even as a type or figure there are issues when we try to make this passage prove penal substitution.

Likewise, on the cross we can accurately say that Jesus, as the Lamb, was offered a guilt sacrifice for us. He was slain for us. He bore our sins. He is the propitiation for our sins. By his death our sins are forgiven. By his death our punishment is averted. But when we get to the point where we are saying this is penal substitution then we have to say that God punished Jesus with our punishment. And thus far, this is what you've failed to prove via Scripture. You make sense and I understand your logic, but there are many theories that are logical and make sense. I hope you see the difference I'm pointing out.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I want now to move on to my second proof of Penal Substitution: the Scapegoat.

Lev. 16:20-22. 'And when [Aaron] has made an end to atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring the live goat.
Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the live goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. The goat will bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat into the wilderness.'
Aaron, as the representative of all Israel, identifies with the goat and symbolically transfers the people's sins to it. The goat is sent away to 'an uninhabited land;' literally (according to one commentary), 'a place of cutting off,' that is a place outside the camp where the creature was expected to die. All through Leviticus, being 'cut of from his people' signifies being given over to death. eg. Lev. 3:20. "I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from his people, because he has given some of his descendants to Molech, to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy name.' (cf. also vs. 5-6).

The goat is sent away, bearing on itself all the sins of the Israelites. 'Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.' the goat perishes carrying the sins of the people of God so that they should not suffer the penalty for sin. The Lord Jesus Christ died and carried our sins down into the tomb so that His people should not suffer the penalty for sin. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.'

I'm aware of the arguments over the exact meaning of the Hebrew word rendered 'scapegoat.' These are covered by Gordon Wenham, Leviticus, and by Garry Williams in The Cross and the Punishment for sin if anyone wants to check it out.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Likewise, on the cross we can accurately say that Jesus, as the Lamb, was offered a guilt sacrifice for us. He was slain for us. He bore our sins. He is the propitiation for our sins. By his death our sins are forgiven. By his death our punishment is averted. But when we get to the point where we are saying this is penal substitution then we have to say that God punished Jesus with our punishment.

I repeat the definition that I gave before: 'God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the wrath, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin.' I believe I have done that, although there is more to be discussed.

 

[JonC]

I want now to move on to my second proof of Penal Substitution: the Scapegoat.

Lev. 16:20-22. 'And when [Aaron] has made an end to atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring the live goat.
Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the live goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. The goat will bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat into the wilderness.'
Aaron, as the representative of all Israel, identifies with the goat and symbolically transfers the people's sins to it. The goat is sent away to 'an uninhabited land;' literally (according to one commentary), 'a place of cutting off,' that is a place outside the camp where the creature was expected to die. All through Leviticus, being 'cut of from his people' signifies being given over to death. eg. Lev. 3:20. "I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from his people, because he has given some of his descendants to Molech, to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy name.' (cf. also vs. 5-6).

The goat is sent away, bearing on itself all the sins of the Israelites. 'Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.' the goat perishes carrying the sins of the people of God so that they should not suffer the penalty for sin. The Lord Jesus Christ died and carried our sins down into the tomb so that His people should not suffer the penalty for sin. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.'

I'm aware of the arguments over the exact meaning of the Hebrew word rendered 'scapegoat.' These are covered by Gordon Wenham, Leviticus, and by Garry Williams in The Cross and the Punishment for sin if anyone wants to check it out.

Yes, there are various meanings suggested for “Azazel” and we don’t need to go through them now. The most offered definition is that it was a technical term describing a “complete removal” of communal guilt. This interpretation agrees with the Septuagint (‘the one to be dismissed’) as well as the Mishnah. I do think that the scapegoat alludes to our sins being carried away as Jesus bore our sins.

But “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate” deals not with the scapegoat but with the sin offering of the goat and the bull. It is a reference to Leviticus 16:27, not verse 22.

Leviticus 16:27 "But the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn their hides, their flesh, and their refuse in the fire.

Hebrews 13:10-14 We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate” deals not with the scapegoat but with the sin offering of the goat and the bull. It is a reference to Leviticus 16:27, not verse 22.

Quite; but it does not affect the central point of my post.

the goat perishes carrying the sins of the people of God so that they should not suffer the penalty for sin. The Lord Jesus Christ died and carried our sins down into the tomb so that His people should not suffer the penalty for sin.