Penal Substitution - Did Jesus Experience Our Punishment?

[agedman]

Ok, I feel like I am answering twice. I don't know why I went to the other thread on penal substitution, but I did, and I move the last post's response to here. The question being addressed is the picture of the OT blood sacrifice in which what became of the lamb when the blood was drained and sprinkled upon the mercy seat.

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.
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.
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.​

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?

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.

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. 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.

 

[Iconoclast]

I look forward, as always, to your insight Icon. My posts throughout this thread have actually been more thinking out loud than declaring or defending one doctrine. And I often, as you have probably noticed from the past, argue against a position to flesh out a better understanding (for me).

I think I understand exactly what you're trying to do so I'm just throwing some ideas out there that might be helpful I wasn't looking necessarily to make any kind of Correction necessarily but just know trying to understand what you're thinking through
I can't always follow it but I'm just trying to contribute to what you're trying to put out there

I should be on a keyboard in about an hour or so

 

[JonC]

I think I understand exactly what you're trying to do so I'm just throwing some ideas out there that might be helpful I wasn't looking necessarily to make any kind of Correction necessarily but just know trying to understand what you're thinking through
I can't always follow it but I'm just trying to contribute to what you're trying to put out there

I should be on a keyboard in about an hour or so

I can't always follow it either...Frown

And, Icon, I know that we don't agree on everything. For one, our view of covenants are not the same. But I do want you to know that I appreciate your insight. You, along with several others, have helped me work through things over the past decade.

Oh...another thought that goes along with this is that we focus so much on Christ's death in atonement, I wonder how much we focus on the Incarnation as a whole (perhaps "it is finished" also has as much if not more to do with reconciliation than a payment rendered). Just a thought. Something in agedman's comments made me think in those terms. That and I've been reading a bit more of Demonstratio Evangelica. I am growing to appreciate the focus Eusebius has on Christ's work as a whole in the work of redemption.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

On the Biblical Evidence for Penal Substitution thread, we had another reference to Thomas Aquinas and the Church Fathers. I am not impressed with such things. If I believed everything they wrote, I would be a Roman Catholic. I would far rather see something from the Reformers and Puritans.

There is a strain of teaching among the more foolish of the Fathers, which began with Origen, that Christ on the cross was paying a ransom to Satan. Outside of this, there is a very clear thread of teaching which certainly supports Penal Substitution. I have cited the Letter to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Ambrose of Milan, Eusebius and Aquinas. Here's some more:

1. Gregory of Nazianzus. 'As for my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse; and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ is also called disobedient on my account.'

Gregory's argument is that believers are united to Christ, the 'Head of the whole body,' and that our sin is transferred to Him- 'He makes my disobedience His own.' This is the reason, says Gregory, that Christ 'was called a curse.....and sin.' He took 'the sin of the world' upon Himself and suffered the curse of God 'for my sake.' He was not Himself a sinner, and was not cursed for His own sin, but for 'the sin of the world.' Thus Gregory believed in Penal Substitution.

2. Gelasius of Cyzicus (fl. 475 AD). After a period of three years and at the beginning of the fourth, He thus draws nesr to His bodily suffering, which He willingly undergoes on our behalf. Foe the punishment of the cross was due to us; but if we had all been crucified, we would have had no power to deliver ourselves from death, 'for death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin' (Rom. 5:14). There were many holy men, many prophets, many righteous men, but not one of them had the power to ransom himself from the authority of death; but He, the saviour of all, cameand received the punishments which were due to us in His sinless flesh, which was of us, in place of us, and on our behalf.'

A little later he states, 'This is the apostolic and approved faith, which, transmitted from the beginning from the Lord Himself through the apostles from one generation to another, the church sets on high and has held fast even until now, and will do for ever.'

Gelasius (whom I never heard of in my life before) believed in Penal Substitution and believed it to be the doctrine of Christ and the apostles.

3. Thomas Aquinas. I have given this before, but will do so again with an explanation and a further quotation. 'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father to treat Christ in whom He inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, 'He did not spare even His own Son.' But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he himself might suffer, God gave him One who would satisfy for him. Paul stresses this, saying, He has delivered Him up for us all, and God has established him [Christ] as a propitiation by His blood through faith.'

'Aquinas argues that God shows both His severity towards sin and His goodness to His people by paying Himself a debt we could not pay. This debt was the punishment due to us for our sin against Him, and He paid it by giving His Son 'as a propitiation.' The insistence that God in his justice must and will punish sin, and that Christ's death is a 'satisfaction' on our behalf, recurs throughout questions 48-50 of the Summa Theologiae (Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach). Here's some more:

'By sin man contracts a two-fold obligation. First he is bound in slavery to sin inasmuch as 'everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin, and by whatever a man is overcome, of this also he is the slave.' Because then, the devil had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was delivered into the bondage of the devil. Secondly, by sin man was held to the debt of punishment according to divine justice.......
As therefore Christ's passion provided adequate and more than adequate satisfaction for man's debt and sin, His passion was, as it were, the price of punishment by which we were freed from both obligations. Satisfaction offered for oneself or for another resembles the price whereby one ransoms himself from sin and punishment.....Now Christ offered satisfaction.....by giving the greatest of all things, namely Himself, for us. For that reason, the passion of Christ is said to be our ransom.'

T.A does not say that a ransom was paid to the devil. God must punish sin to maintain 'divine justice,' but Christ suffered in our place and freed us from this debt. Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

On the Biblical Evidence for Penal Substitution thread, we had another reference to Thomas Aquinas and the Church Fathers. I am not impressed with such things. If I believed everything they wrote, I would be a Roman Catholic. I would far rather see something from the Reformers and Puritans ..... [snipped for conciseness]...
T.A does not say that a ransom was paid to the devil. God must punish sin to maintain 'divine justice,' but Christ suffered in our place and freed us from this debt. Penal Substitution.

Brother, there are some issues with your comments here and I just want to address in an overview fashion instead as you are right that this is on another thread.

When the Early Church Fathers spoke of a "ransom sacrifice" or even a "ransom paid," this did not automatically mean a ransom paid to Satan. In its basic form, it is a ransom payment in terms of being an exchange for us (with the Early Church Fathers, an exchange specifically to purchase us from the bondage of sin). Origen taught it was paid to the Devil. Some taught it was paid to "death." Cyril thought it was paid to God. Others, however, left it as a purchase without an object receiving payment. You are making the mistake of taking the views of these people and analyzing them within a Reformed context (as you indicate, you are a child of the reformation with a an inclination to accept the explanations of Reformers and Puritans). This does not work when looking into the views of people outside your theological framework. You end up, as you have, placing their words in your own context.
I also reject Aquinas' position. If you will recall, it was Anselm who objected to the view a ransom had been paid to the devil (although this is not "ransom theory," it is A "ransom theory"). Aquinas worked off of Anselm's satisfaction theory and refined it by essentially replacing "honor" with "merit." He developed some theories and added some doctrines that Calvin maintained when he ultimately reformed Aquinas' theory.

But just to be clear. You are saying that God must, because of divine justice, demand and receive payment in full before he is able to forgive sin. Forgiveness with retribution is unjust. And we are to forgive as we have been forgiven. Do you realize that nowhere in scripture is this stated. Like most of your assertions on this thread, you are leaning on explanation and not scripture.

Just to be clear from the other thread. You are saying that on the cross Jesus took our punishment. He died the "second death," was "separated from God," was "spiritually dead," on our behalf. The Father viewed his Son as evil (for he has too pure eyes to look on evil) and punished him. Jesus experienced our punishment - the second death, i.e., an eternal state of torment as death and Hades is cast into Hell at the final judgment.

Just to be clear. You are saying that it would be unjust for God to punish the righteous (after all Scripture calls this an "abomination to God") so God imputed our sin on Jesus so that he could punish him in our stead.

And just to be clear, you sincerely see no reliance on your own (or Reformed/Puritan) reasoning and explanation, but you think that the Bible actually says these things. You don't see any problems with your position insofar as it denies other passages (i.e., the divinity of Christ, the immutability of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.).

And just to be clear, you expect me to believe that when questioned you go to Scripture rather than commentary?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I wrote:

There is a strain of teaching among the more foolish of the Fathers, which began with Origen, that Christ on the cross was paying a ransom to Satan.

I did not say that all Church Fathers belonged to that strain. You have actually agreed with me, so I don't know what the rest of your history lesson is for. The Church Fathers are certainly not my Special Subject, but maybe I know just a little more than you think.

But just to be clear. You are saying that God must, because of divine justice, demand and receive payment in full before he is able to forgive sin. Forgiveness with retribution is unjust. And we are to forgive as we have been forgiven. Do you realize that nowhere in scripture is this stated. Like most of your assertions on this thread, you are leaning on explanation and not scripture.

Exod. 23:7. 'For I will not justify the wicked.'
Exod. 34:7. .'....By no means clearing the guilty.'
Prov. 17:15. 'He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just; both of them are an abomination to the LORD.
Nahum 1:3. 'The LORD.....will not at all acquit the wicked.'
These are just a few that come to mind. I'm sure I could find a few more if you want them.

Just to be clear from the other thread. You are saying that on the cross Jesus took our punishment. He died the "second death," was "separated from God," was "spiritually dead," on our behalf. The Father viewed his Son as evil (for he has too pure eyes to look on evil) and punished him. Jesus experienced our punishment - the second death, i.e., an eternal state of torment as death and Hades is cast into Hell at the final judgment.

I have told you twice that God does not view Christ, the sinless One, as evil.
Just read what I wrote again, please.

And just to be clear, you expect me to believe that when questioned you go to Scripture rather than commentary?

You are free to believe whatever you like. I certainly didn't go to Scripture to get those quotes from the Church Fathers.

 

[JonC]

I did not say that all Church Fathers belonged to that strain. You have actually agreed with me, so I don't know what the rest of your history lesson is for. The Church Fathers are certainly not my Special Subject, but maybe I know just a little more than you think.

I do agree with you that not all church fathers who held to ransom theology believed that this was a ransom paid to Satan, if that is what you are speaking of. I disagree with you that this theory (or at least the movement from a moral influence aspect to a focus on Christ as a ransom sacrifice) originated with Origen. Many of these aspects coexisted as each spoke truth of the atonement, but emphasized different aspects. You have to remember, Cyril and Clement also held to ransom theory, but they did not believe that this was ransom paid to Satan. The difference that is important here is not where they differed, but that none of them held the view that on the cross God punished Jesus with the “second death.” Anyway, my “history lesson” was just to correct your idea of why exactly I had used Aquinas as an example.

Exod. 23:7. 'For I will not justify the wicked.'
Exod. 34:7. .'....By no means clearing the guilty.'
Prov. 17:15. 'He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just; both of them are an abomination to the LORD.
Nahum 1:3. 'The LORD.....will not at all acquit the wicked.'
These are just a few that come to mind. I'm sure I could find a few more if you want them.

Yes, hence the atonement and not penal substitution. You do realize that your view is placing Divine Justice as the overriding attribute and principle of God’s work, don’t you? Yet you still violate that justice by insisting that God punished Jesus unjustly, or that God punished Jesus only after making him “guilty” by imputing our sin onto him (PST), or that God punished the Righteous for the wicked. This is all an abomination. So how does the bible actually remedy the situation? It doesn’t, that’s a false situation to begin with because the Father offered the Son as a guilt offering, not a substitute to receive our punishment.

Your statement that Jesus died spiritually, experienced the second death and was separated from God testifies to the fact that you have to (at least for logic’s sake) believe that at the very least God considered Jesus to be evil (he treated him as if he had sinned). This, brother, is heresy purified by reasoning, not Scripture.

I have told you twice that God does not view Christ, the sinless One, as evil.
Just read what I wrote again, please.

You are free to believe whatever you like. I certainly didn't go to Scripture to get those quotes from the Church Fathers.

You just told me one who condemns the just is an abomination to God. The second death is the final judgment for the condemned, not the righteous. And you have told me that the Father punished the Son with our punishment which is the second death. Are you saying, then, that the Father punished the Just (and is therefore guilty)…or are you saying that the Father acted justly (and Jesus was therefore wicked)? The solution, my friend, is not found in penal substitution. God is both Just and the Justifier not because he created a situation where he could punish the righteous for sins uncommitted, but because of the self-sacrificial love through which He bore our sins and redeemed us - because that price was not experiencing our punishment and the second death but it was the precious blood of Jesus Christ - the blood of God. You don't need more than that, brother. You don't have to add more to that text to reason it out.

Now , I know that many deny that Jesus experienced death for us as God. This seems a difficult (I really don't know why) topic, and many Reformed theologians deny this is possible because God can't die. (to be fair, this was determined long before the reformation, but it is an important part of reformed theology). The immutability of God that prevents him from actually being angry (as Calvin explains, God's "anger" is merely how we understand because God does not actually get angry....that would be us controlling God) also prevents him from suffering and dying. The Atonement was a payment, a business transaction, pure and simple. I don't know if you accept all of that cognitively, but your theology of the Cross does.

Bottom line is that you can’t have it both ways, brother. At least penal substitution theory is clear about imputed sin (I have to give them that), but you are not. You can’t say, BTW, that God punished sin because that makes absolutely no sense. Sins are manifestations of our sinfulness (which I believe Christ bore in the flesh in order to reconcile man to himself). But to say, for illustration, that God punished that time I lied by condemning Jesus to Hell (the second death) is jumping through metaphysical hoops to hold on to a theory that is contrary not only to the historical view, not only to the contemporary majority view (depending, of course, on who you’d consider “Christian”), but it is contrary to Scripture.

Instead of crossing two threads, why not just continue this on your thread?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

.
Your statement that Jesus died spiritually, experienced the second death and was separated from God testifies to the fact that you have to (at least for logic’s sake) believe that at the very least God considered Jesus to be evil (he treated him as if he had sinned).

PM coming your way.

 

[JonC]

Martin has brought it to my attention that I've falsely accused him of believing that God looked upon Jesus as sin/evil. The issue is that I attributed to him as holding the doctrine of imputed sin, that the Father imputed our sin on Jesus (and his righteousness on us) and considered Jesus to be sin for us. Martin is right, and I do sincerely apologize. This was not an intentional mistake.

I am trying to work through this issue for my benefit, exploring your comments, and refining my own. During this time I assumed that Martin held to penal substitution theory (specifically Reformed penal substitution theory) as a whole. I do not like it when people make assumptions regarding my beliefs, and I understand his issue with the assumptions that I have made. Sometimes we make connections that are not always there. Anyway, I am sorry, Martin, for the error on my part.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin has brought it to my attention that I've falsely accused him of believing that God looked upon Jesus as sin/evil. The issue is that I attributed to him as holding the doctrine of imputed sin, that the Father imputed our sin on Jesus (and his righteousness on us) and considered Jesus to be sin for us. Martin is right, and I do sincerely apologize. This was not an intentional mistake.

I am trying to work through this issue for my benefit, exploring your comments, and refining my own. During this time I assumed that Martin held to penal substitution theory (specifically Reformed penal substitution theory) as a whole. I do not like it when people make assumptions regarding my beliefs, and I understand his issue with the assumptions that I have made. Sometimes we make connections that are not always there. Anyway, I am sorry, Martin, for the error on my part.

You have now made another false allegation against me and I'd like you to stop it, please.
I do hold absolutely to the Reformed Penal Substitution Theory. I have explained it to you several times.
It is clear that you do not understand what that is so will you please go away and study it before making any further faux pas?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Although I want to leave the discussion for a while, I feel that I must make a clear statement in response to the false allegations that have been made about my views.

1. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Beloved Son of the Father in whom He is well pleased. That was the case in eternity (John 17:24) and at His baptism (Matt. 3:17). It is the case now in heaven (Phil. 2:9) and it never ceased to be the case, even when He was hanging on the cross as Sin-bearer. To suggest otherwise seems to me to be the most terrible blasphemy.

2. I understand the doctrine of Penal Substitution to be the doctrine of the Reformers, Puritans and Particular Baptists, and I hold to it absolutely. I have never read of any Reformed writer suggesting that P.S. means that the Father viewed the Son as evil.

I have given one extended quotation, from A.W. Pink, on this subject on another thread, but here is a second one:

'In the Gospels what happened between twelve o'clock and three o'clock is a blank. All we know is that during these three hours of intense darkness Jesus suffered indescribable agonies. He was being "made sin" for us (2 Cor. 5:21), "a curse" (Gal. 3:13). He was being "wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities." Jehovah was laying on Him "the iniquity of us all," etc. (Isa 53).
To be sure, this happened throughout the period of His humiliation, from conception to death and burial, but especially in Gethsemane, Gabbatha and Golgotha.
The question has been asked, "But how could God forsake God?" The answer must be that God the Father deserted His Son's human nature, and even this in a limited, though very real and agonizing, sense. The meaning cannot be that there was ever a time when God the Father stopped loving His Son. Nor can it mean that the Son ever rejected the Father. Far from it. He kept on calling Him "My God, My God"............His soul reaches out for the One whom He calls, "My God," but His God does not answer Him........
Reflect again on all the abuse and all the suffering Jesus had already endured this very night. Is it any wonder that He now cries out, "My God, My God why has thou forsaken Me?" His God and Father would not have abandoned Him to His tormentors if it had not been necessary. But it was necessary, in order that He might fully undergo the punishment due to His people's sins.
William Hendriksen, Mark (N.T.C. Series)

Now JonC,
Disagree with me all you want. Call me ignorant or a fool if it makes you happy; but do not make false allegations against me, please.

 

[JonC]

You have now made another false allegation against me and I'd like you to stop it, please.
I do hold absolutely to the Reformed Penal Substitution Theory. I have explained it to you several times.
It is clear that you do not understand what that is so will you please go away and study it before making any further faux pas?

Brother, I do not know why you believe my intent so evil. I am starting to suspect this a defense, but will afford you the benefit of the doubt.

To be clear - the reason for the accusation against me is that Martin believes I have somehow denied that he holds to the Reformed Penal Substitution Theory because of my comments earlier (my apology).

I apologized for assuming that Martin believed that the Father imputed our sin on Jesus and viewed the Son as guilty (as sin) and then punished Jesus in our stead. I commented that believe this scheme is present in Reformed Penal Substitution Theory. Now Martin has brought it to my attention that he feels slighted as I have implied he does not hold to Penal Substitution Theory when indeed it is a theory he holds dear and essential.

What Martin, and maybe others, may need to understand is that these theories carry with them a spectrum of belief. Origen, Justin Martyr, Cyril, and Augustine shared a theory to a great extent, but none of them believed exactly the same. We should not get caught up in claiming a name for our individual theories - they may be less descriptive than we think.

I do sincerely apologize if Martin felt slighted by my words. I did not mean anything negative by them at all. I do not doubt that Martin holds to a penal substitution view, I don't even doubt he is of Reformed persuasion (Reformed meaning of the Reformation, remember PST was John Wesley's staunch position as well).

To avoid a future misunderstanding - I do not know, when I speak of Reformed, that Martin is "Calvinistic." I did not mean "reformed" in that way.

But no, Martin, I do not question that you hold to Penal Substitution theory and I apologize if you understood my comments to indicate otherwise.

 

[JonC]

Now JonC,
Disagree with me all you want. Call me ignorant or a fool if it makes you happy; but do not make false allegations against me, please.

I do disagree with you, and hopefully when you return you will be willing to engage via Scripture those texts.
I would not call you a fool. Insofar as ignorance, I suppose we are all ignorant to some things and in certain areas. I am ignorant as to how you would defend your view via scripture, for example. But that's why we engage in these dialogues.

And again, I apologize if you feel I made a false allegation. I admit I did when I assumed you held to imputed sin, but I am not certain that I spoke falsely regarding that doctrine being a part of PST (although I grant there are variants of views). Still, I apologize if that has offended you.

I am, brother, retired military. Sometimes I do not realize the emotional inferences some can take from this type of dialogue. For the future, it may help to know that I typically try to deal just with doctrines and scripture on these types of issues. I do not mean anything to be directed at another person personally, unless it's specifically indicated, as I don't even know you. I do not mean any of our conversations to be outside the scope of Christian brotherly love.