Punishment in the Atonement

[Revmitchell]

Jesus experiencing the consequences of human sin and Jesus experiencing God punishing him with the individual punishments for the sinful acts of others are far from the same idea. I think this evident in the debates that have followed the introduction of the latter position.

Well then you think those things mean something completely different that I do.

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand that you may not have been exposed to arguments other than you own regarding this verse, and the interpretation that it is referring to the failure of men to believe the report (Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?) may truly seem absurd to you. But that says more of you than choose to interpret the verse within the passage itself (e.g., Darrell Bock).

This is precisely what I mean as shallow minded nit picking. Your words above are simply empty and meaningless with regard to what I said or the verse quoted. Isaiah excludes himself in the text you are abusing here but includes himself in the text I was quoting. "Who" has believe "our" report is speaking of two different types of people. "WE" esteemed him is not referring to the first class of disbelievers.

And nobody believes that God is punishing abstract "sin"! That is absurd and that is not the doctrine of penal substitution at least my view. God, Abraham, Levites are INFLICTING the substitutionary object with PAIN due to the sin of the sinner who should be taking that infliction instead of the substitute or do you believe the death by the knife was painless, or the cross was painless???? I am sorry but your views are totally oxymoronic in my estimation as you admit a substitute but deny what the substitute endured "FOR" YOUR sins. So it is not merely for "sin" but for "OUR sins" and not merely an example but a SUBSTITUTE one in our place to face the consequences of our sins. The substitution is complete "sinner with sins" for innocent without sins. Death for life, There is no separation of sinner from their sins and its consequences in this substitutionary equivelent.

 

[JonC]

Well then you think those things mean something completely different that I do.

Yes, I do. This is the primary difference between what some call the "Latin" view (penal substitution as a theory articulated by John Calvin) and all other theories and motifs (Christus Victor, Substitution, Moral, Governmental, ect.). The difference is not penal substitution but the theory that views God as punishing Christ with the individual punishments reserved for the sinful actions of others rather than the consequence of human sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, I do. This is the primary difference between what some call the "Latin" view (penal substitution as a theory articulated by John Calvin) and all other theories and motifs (Christus Victor, Substitution, Moral, Governmental, ect.).

I have no interest in Calvin's theory or Christus Victor theory but in the Biblical teaching.

The difference is not penal substitution

"penal substituion" means a penal consequences for breaking a law that are inflicted upon a substitute instead of the person that earned those conseqences. You seem to want to use the words but empty of their obvious and natural meaning.

but the theory that views God as punishing Christ with the individual punishments reserved for the sinful actions of others rather than the consequence of human sin.

Judgement is not merely about singular "sin" but "sins" plural with just PUNISHMENT that is determined "according to their works." Sin merits an eternal punishment with regard to endurance, but sins plural determine the intensity of that eternal period of punishment or else the words "according to their works" is rendered meaningless, and there should be no judgement at all with regard to "according to" but just cast sinners into gehenna for eternity. Sin merits an eternity of punishment but sins merit intensity of punishment which lasts eternal. Penal substitution satisfies BOTH.

So Christ satisfied both eternity and intensity sufficient for all the unprofitables. Saved persons are called "unprofitable" servants while the sinless human Christ was not "unprofitable" in God's sight but his blood (life) was more precious than gold in God's sight. How many objects worth minus zero can one sinless divine man with infinite value purchase? If everything in a store was marked at "- 0" how much purchasing power would one cent have in that store? Could you ever exceed the purchasing power of one cent in a store where everything in the store was marked "- 0"? How much infliction and pain of an infinite divine humanity is required to satisfy the infliction and pain of "- 0" value of humanity? Therefore, his substitutionary penal sacrifice rendered in a second of time to a sinless infinite being is sufficient for no matter what number of -0 servants you care to count as it is a value of time plus intensity that is being satisfied.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, I do. This is the primary difference between what some call the "Latin" view (penal substitution as a theory articulated by John Calvin) and all other theories and motifs (Christus Victor, Substitution, Moral, Governmental, ect.). The difference is not penal substitution but the theory that views God as punishing Christ with the individual punishments reserved for the sinful actions of others rather than the consequence of human sin.

Uh no, I meant the words quoted

 

[JonC]

Uh no, I meant the words quoted

You mean you don't see the difference between Jesus as the atonement for the sin of mankind and the Father punishing Jesus with the punishment set aside for the actions of others?

 

[Revmitchell]

You mean you don't see the difference between Jesus as the atonement for the sin of mankind and the Father punishing Jesus with the punishment set aside for the actions of others?

Uh no, let's break it down:

1. Was it the consequences of sin
2. actual punishments for the individual sins committed?

These two sentences mean exactly the same thing when we are talking about what it was Jesus took on.

Jesus suffered the consequences (punishment) of sin, Romans 6:23

 

[JonC]

...Your words above are simply empty and meaningless with regard to what I said or the verse quoted. Isaiah excludes himself in the text you are abusing here but includes himself in the text I was quoting. "Who" has believe "our" report is speaking of two different types of people. "WE" ....

I am amazed that we disagree on this passage. I was only mentioning it in passing (I never intended it to be a “sticking point”.

What I am suggesting is the “we” of verse 3 is the same “we” of verse 6. What I stated in post#2 is those who esteemed Jesus as stricken of God did so in error as they view him as afflicted because of his sins when in fact he was being offered as a sacrifice for their sin, bearing their iniquity. You disagreed, and called that view “false”, “grasping at straws”, and “absurd”. I responded in post#12 by offering an explanation by Darrell Bock, that the men believed Jesus smitten by God for his sins, when in fact he was smitten for their redemption.

Since you disagree so strongly, please name the sin that Jesus committed during his earthly ministry and settle the debate. If you can’t name even one sin, then I will continue to believe that verse 4 remains in context with the passage. They viewed Jesus as stricken by God and afflicted BUT he was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our well-being fell upon him and by his scourging we are healed.

God, Abraham, Levites are INFLICTING the substitutionary object with PAIN due to the sin of the sinner who should be taking that infliction instead of the substitute or do you believe the death by the knife was painless, or the cross was painless????.

Have I ever said the cross was painless? That’s one problem we have. You make assumptions that have already been settled. My statement was that God offered Jesus as an atoning sacrifice, it was his will to crush him, that he was sinless but smitten of God for our sins.

But here is the difference (in the bold part of your comment). You are not emphasizing God offering his Son (as fore-typed by Abraham and Isaac), or Jesus laying down his life, or our iniquities being laid upon Christ as the Propitiation for our sins. You emphasize pain as the punishment due the sins of others, inflicted as punishment on Christ as the Atoning Sacrifice. And you pretend that this is what the Levitical priests were doing – punishing animals in their stead. And on another thread you even went so far as to say the fire at the altar symbolized those punished animals being punished in Hell.

Your view is foreign to the ANE definition of atonement, the Hebrew definition of atonement, and the early church definition of atonement. There is no evidence that it was ever articulated, as you hold it, outside of Calvinism. So I ask again, where do you get the idea that the Levitical priest was symbolically punishing the animals for their sins? Where do you get the idea that the Father was punishing the Son with the punishment set aside for the individual actions of other people? Where do you come up with the idea that punishment itself can be applied to the act without being applied to the perpetrator of the crime? How did you arrive at the conclusion that divine justice is focused on offense and punishment rather than God and men (justice means a sin must be punished regardless as to who receives the punishment)?

I have no interest in Calvin's theory

Yet here you are.

I am sorry but your views are totally oxymoronic in my estimation as you admit a substitute but deny what the substitute endured "FOR" YOUR sins.

I believe that Jesus died as an atonement for our sins. I believe that God laid our sins on Jesus as the perfect Lamb, and offered His Son as an atonement for us. Jesus suffered more than we could imagine. I doubt his physical sufferings constituted his greatest pain (no greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friends…yet Jesus was abandoned by his disciples, and he was obediently enduring death on the cross through the power of the Spirit to redeem those who were crucifying him).

You believe that Jesus died to be punished with the punishment our sins deserved. You believe that God placed our sins on Jesus, looked at him as if he were a sinner, and inflicted pain on him as a punishment for those sins.

I know you disagree with my position and see it as oxymoronic. I see yours as unbiblical and unsubstituted. Regardless as to how you got there, it is an altered or reformed RCC doctrine. What I am asking is where you developed the idea that Jesus was being punished with the punishment for our actions.

 

[JonC]

Uh no, let's break it down:

1. Was it the consequences of sin
2. actual punishments for the individual sins committed?

These two sentences mean exactly the same thing when we are talking about what it was Jesus took on.

Jesus suffered the consequences (punishment) of sin, Romans 6:23

The consequences are the same - death. But the statements are not the same at all. The first is accepted historically. The second is Calvinistic (not Reformed because it was not originally common across Reformed faith).

Historically Christ was viewed as bearing our sins and the consequences of that sin - death. But sin was human sin and the Atonement was looked upon as a victory over death and sin as Christ died in our place, as our representative, to free us from the bondage of sin and death. These people looked through the cross and held a resurrection hope. Atonement is penal and substitutionary as the Father offered the Son as atoning sacrifice, was pleased to crush him, and he bore our sins. We still die, but we live now 'in Christ' looking to the time we will be resurrected to life in him. The consequence of sin is death.

Some theologies of Calvinistic trajectory depend on a system where punishment is linked to sinful acts. God's justice demands a penalty, in the form of punishment, be paid for acts of sins. The focus is on punishment and sin, not God and man. So the question (for some) becomes for which sins was Christ punished? If he was not punished for those sins that you committed, then you still owe the debt because every action must be accounted for or God is no longer just. The consequence of sin is death.

 

[Revmitchell]

The consequences are the same - death. But the statements are not the same at all. The first is accepted historically. The second is Calvinistic (not Reformed because it was not originally common across Reformed faith).

Historically Christ was viewed as bearing our sins and the consequences of that sin - death. But sin was human sin and the Atonement was looked upon as a victory over death and sin as Christ died in our place, as our representative, to free us from the bondage of sin and death. These people looked through the cross and held a resurrection hope. Atonement is penal and substitutionary as the Father offered the Son as atoning sacrifice, was pleased to crush him, and he bore our sins. We still die, but we live now 'in Christ' looking to the time we will be resurrected to life in him. The consequence of sin is death.

Some theologies of Calvinistic trajectory depend on a system where punishment is linked to sinful acts. God's justice demands a penalty, in the form of punishment, be paid for acts of sins. The focus is on punishment and sin, not God and man. So the question (for some) becomes for which sins was Christ punished? If he was not punished for those sins that you committed, then you still owe the debt because every action must be accounted for or God is no longer just. The consequence of sin is death.

You are over thinking this.

 

[JonC]

You are over thinking this.

Maybe.

Still, this was at one time a fairly large issue (it still is with some). And for a long time the idea that on the cross God was punishing Jesus with our punishment was undocumented. We can see penal substitution (or at least elements that would form penal substitution) throughout history. But not until fairly recently does the cross become the place where God punishes the Messiah with the punishment due the sins of men.

When you look at beliefs that stem from this divergent, the issue becomes clearer. This establishes an erroneous view of limited atonement (Jesus suffered the punishment for some individual sins, but not others), an erroneous view of the nature of Christ (the Holy Spirit left Jesus on the cross), an erroneous view of God's work of redemption (a disconnect between Father, Son, and Spirit), an erroneous picture of the gospel (so many gospel messages leave out what Paul insists is the most important part - the Resurrection), and a narrow, shallow view of redemption that is foreign to Scripture.

So while I agree the error is, at the start, minor to the point it may exist as a difference without distinction, it is also a splinter that festers into what we have seen here - a focus of the Levitical priest as inflicting pain on the animal being sacrificed symbolizing the pain the Father will inflict on the Son as punishment for the sin the elect have committed against him.

 

[JonC]

Hi JonC, Penal Substitution is simply a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement. As you have discerned, there is no actual support for it in scripture.

Jesus paid the price God required to take away the sin of the world. Anyone God transfers into Christ is washed with His blood, made white as snow, and justified forever.

Jesus, who knew no sin, became the sin offering for all mankind. But only when someone is transferred into Christ is that person's past, present and future sins taken out of the way.

Hey Van,
I haven't replied because I've been thinking about your comment, and thinking is not always my best ability (just ask The_Biblicist).

Here is what I'm considering - limited atonement has existed outside of PST, and PST exists outside of limited atonement. Luther held to Anselm's theory, not PST, but it seems he held to a form of limited atonement. Arminians hold to PST as they are of a trajectory of Calvinism. But they do not hold to limited atonement.

I think that perhaps it is not always the conclusions of a doctrine but the foundations that support that doctrine. One version of penal substitution is PST as articulated on this thread. Limited Atonement or universal salvation is the only option for those who hold this position (that the Atonement means Jesus suffered the punishment set aside for the sinful acts of those who are saved). Either PST (on this ground) is true and only the elect were ever proper candidates for salvation or all men are saved. There are no other options except inconsistent doctrine.

But I believe in limited atonement (that Jesus died on the cross not only to save those who would believe but with them in mind). That said, when he died on the cross he died as a propitiation for the sin of mankind. And all, because of the cross and Christ conquering sin and death, will be resurrected - some to eternal life and others to eternal death.

I think that perhaps the doctrine of the Atonement has been simplified down, by a few, to an exercise in accounting in order to make every part of their doctrine click like clockwork. If you reduce things down to the simplest terms, ignore everything else, then you have a view of salvation that you can write on the back of a napkin. And ultimately this becomes their gospel - they sinned, God's justice means he has to hurt someone because he was wronged, Jesus stepped in and took the beatings for us, and because of this God forgave us.

This corruption of the Atonement is, I suppose, a back door for a corrupt view of limited atonement or universal salvation. Either would work, but nothing else will fit.

 

[JonC]

He was punished for our sins.

I just noticed this comment. I am not sure if it has been addressed (it's too early for me to remember), but no one is denying that the chastisement fell upon Christ for our sins. No one is denying that Jesus suffered the consequence of death for the sins of mankind.

The issue is whether or not he was punished with the punishment reserved for the sins of the elect, effecting salvation for those people. This is the type of PST I am questioning - not that penal substitution is correct (or incorrect) but this view of punishment in the atonement.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

At last I have a little time to respond to your interesting views. I will just take the opportunity to say that Rev. Mitchell is right and you are over-thinking the whole thing. To me, at least, the whole matter is crystal clear, and I don't understand your desperate attempts to deny the obvious. I understand some of the liberal theologians wanting to deny P.T., but I don't number you with them. It's a mystery.

One of the most striking passages of the Atonement in the Old Testament is Isaiah 53. This passage speaks of the “Suffering Servant”, and is often used (appropriately and inappropriately) to illustrate penal substitution.

Let’s look at Isaiah 53 “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. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted.”

One “proof” offered on this forum is easily dismissed. That Jesus was “smitten of God” is not stated in this verse as an absolute truth. In fact, it is not stated at all. What the passage says is that “we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted”. But “we” were wrong. Instead God was offering his son as an atonement for us, that he would bear our iniquities:

You are misreading the verse. 'We' esteemed Him smitten of God etc. and we were right to do so because He was! The Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief. If that is not 'afflicting' and 'smiting,' please tell me what is. Where 'we' were mistaken is recognizing the reason for the affliction. It was not for His own sins but for ours.

“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.

What could be more clear than this? His sufferings were either 'because of' or 'on behalf of' our sins. I know that some (eg. R.N. Whybray) have suggested that if we translate 'because of' it lessens the sense of substitution. But the context does not allow that. 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' It is God Himself who acts to lay the people's sin upon the Servant. 'For the transgressions of my people He was stricken.' In the light of v.6 it doesn't matter whether you translate 'for' as 'because of' or 'on behalf of.' The meaning is absolutely clear when you compare verse with verse.

… By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.”

The strongest point for penal substitution is not the one often offered (“The chastening for our welling-being fell upon Him”). As Arthur Hertzberg pointed out, the historical definition of sin from a Jewish perspective is that “Sin is rebellion against God, but more seriously yet, Judaism considers it the debasement of man’s proper nature. Punishment is therefore not primarily retribution; it is chastisement, as a father chastises his children, to remind them of their proper dignity and character.” The context is the Righteous One and “His people”.

Well I've never heard of Arthur Hertzberg, and on this sampling of his work it won't worry me if I never do again. Ezekiel 18:4. 'The soul who sins shall die.' Romans 6:23. 'The wages of sin is death.' It is those for whom Christ died- those whose sins are taken away on the cross- who are chastised (Hebrews 12:4-11). Have a read of Psalm 37.

Verse 8, “By oppression and judgment He was taken away; and as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?”

Whose translation is this?
NKJV. 'He was taken from prison [or 'confinement'] and from judgement, and who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of my people He was smitten.'

But this verse, as strong of a statement it can be made to make, does not demonstrate Christ being inflicted with the individual punishments of individual sinners on the Cross. Verse 8 is not apart from verse 7. And the “cutting off” in verse 8 does not go beyond the “cutting off” of Lamentations 3:54.

Why do you think that? This is nothing but the most desperate special pleading! Isaiah 53:8 makes it utterly clear that the Servant was 'cut off from the land of the living.' The writer of Lam. 3:54 only considered himself cut off and was obviously mistaken because he lived to write his book.

So the question remains. Where does the idea that Jesus was punished by God with the punishment intended for the sins committed by individual sinners come about? How did chastisement, or even "punishment", become focused on the offense rather than the offender (how did we arrive at a definition of punishment where the act itself could be punished)?[/

From the text! 'And the LORD has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.' Or if you want it from the N.T., 'He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). Christ didn't bear us on the tree; He bore our sins, our iniquity, our 'offenses.' I must confess my self bewildered at your utter determination to avoid the clear meaning of text after text. You're not a stupid man; why are you doing it?

I want to spend just a moment looking at the question of our Lord being forsaken by God upon the cross. On the cross, He quotes Psalm 22:1. 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' If words have any meaning at all, they signify that the Father forsook (deserted, abandoned) the Son upon the cross. The verse continues, 'Why are you so far from helping Me and from the words of My groaning?' I take it that Christ never ceased to be God whilst on the cross, so it must have been as a Man that He felt Himself so utterly deserted. We are told that half way through His ordeal (Mark 15:25, 33) that darkness came over the land. This may account for Psalm 22:2. "O My God, I cry out to you in the day time, but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent.'

Now we all know that God is omni-present, so this does not mean that the Father deserted that particular piece of space. It means that the intimate fellowship that the Father and the Lord Jesus had enjoyed through all eternity (Proverbs 8:22-36; John 17:24 etc.) was, for those few hours, utterly broken. He had no comfort from the Father, no sense of His presence, no angel to strengthen Him. He hung there in the gloom with the Pharisees gloating over Him and no comfort save for His mother looking on impotently in unutterable grief.

A major part of the pains of hell is separation from God. 'He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord.....' (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9). By being deserted by the Father for those hours on the cross, our Lord Jesus paid that part of our sentence as well as the torment of hell.

But after the ninth hour, the darkness lifted and the Father's wrath against the sins of His people was satisfied. It was finished; communion was restored, and the Saviour was able to say, "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.'

 

[HankD]

I just noticed this comment. I am not sure if it has been addressed (it's too early for me to remember), but no one is denying that the chastisement fell upon Christ for our sins. No one is denying that Jesus suffered the consequence of death for the sins of mankind.

The issue is whether or not he was punished with the punishment reserved for the sins of the elect, effecting salvation for those people. This is the type of PST I am questioning - not that penal substitution is correct (or incorrect) but this view of punishment in the atonement.

Hmm, Jon, I don't understand the distinction you are making.

Personally, I believe he suffered for each individual human being whether "elect" or not.

Then some folks come back with - then why aren't all be saved? Why should Christ have suffered for those whom He knew would not come to Him?

Because we are trying to apply human logic and reasoning to our God demonstrated by these questions who simply does not necessarily reason and think in these human ways.

Isaiah 55
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So, I am not sure why He did it this way (if He did indeed) except to answer the unregenerate who say "But Lord you didn't die for me! Only your elect" with the obvious answer: "Yes I did".

Another answer : He does whatever He pleases whether it aligns with our logic and/or we approve His plan(s) or not.

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.


HankD

 

[JonC]

Hmm, Jon, I don't understand the distinction you are making.

Personally, I believe he suffered for each individual human being whether "elect" or not.

Then some folks come back with - then why aren't all be saved? Why should Christ have suffered for those whom He knew would not come to Him?

Because we are trying to apply human logic and reasoning to our God demonstrated by these questions who simply does not necessarily reason and think in these human ways.

Isaiah 55
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So, I am not sure why He did it this way (if He did indeed) except to answer the unregenerate who say "But Lord you didn't die for me! Only your elect" with the obvious answer: "Yes I did".

Another answer : He does whatever He pleases whether it aligns with our logic and/or we approve His plan(s) or not.

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.


HankD

I believe He suffered the consequence of human sin.

 

[HankD]

I believe He suffered the consequence of human sin.

So do I Jon and for my sins in particular.

HankD

 

[JonC]

At last I have a little time to respond to your interesting views. I will just take the opportunity to say that Rev. Mitchell is right and you are over-thinking the whole thing. To me, at least, the whole matter is crystal clear, and I don't understand your desperate attempts to deny the obvious. I understand some of the liberal theologians wanting to deny P.T., but I don't number you with them. It's a mystery.
You are misreading the verse. 'We' esteemed Him smitten of God etc. and we were right to do so because He was! The Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief. If that is not 'afflicting' and 'smiting,' please tell me what is. Where 'we' were mistaken is recognizing the reason for the affliction. It was not for His own sins but for ours.

What could be more clear than this? His sufferings were either 'because of' or 'on behalf of' our sins. I know that some (eg. R.N. Whybray) have suggested that if we translate 'because of' it lessens the sense of substitution. But the context does not allow that. 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' It is God Himself who acts to lay the people's sin upon the Servant. 'For the transgressions of my people He was stricken.' In the light of v.6 it doesn't matter whether you translate 'for' as 'because of' or 'on behalf of.' The meaning is absolutely clear when you compare verse with verse.

Well I've never heard of Arthur Hertzberg, and on this sampling of his work it won't worry me if I never do again. Ezekiel 18:4. 'The soul who sins shall die.' Romans 6:23. 'The wages of sin is death.' It is those for whom Christ died- those whose sins are taken away on the cross- who are chastised (Hebrews 12:4-11). Have a read of Psalm 37.

Whose translation is this?
NKJV. 'He was taken from prison [or 'confinement'] and from judgement, and who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of my people He was smitten.'

Why do you think that? This is nothing but the most desperate special pleading! Isaiah 53:8 makes it utterly clear that the Servant was 'cut off from the land of the living.' The writer of Lam. 3:54 only considered himself cut off and was obviously mistaken because he lived to write his book.

From the text! 'And the LORD has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.' Or if you want it from the N.T., 'He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). Christ didn't bear us on the tree; He bore our sins, our iniquity, our 'offenses.' I must confess my self bewildered at your utter determination to avoid the clear meaning of text after text. You're not a stupid man; why are you doing it?

I want to spend just a moment looking at the question of our Lord being forsaken by God upon the cross. On the cross, He quotes Psalm 22:1. 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' If words have any meaning at all, they signify that the Father forsook (deserted, abandoned) the Son upon the cross. The verse continues, 'Why are you so far from helping Me and from the words of My groaning?' I take it that Christ never ceased to be God whilst on the cross, so it must have been as a Man that He felt Himself so utterly deserted. We are told that half way through His ordeal (Mark 15:25, 33) that darkness came over the land. This may account for Psalm 22:2. "O My God, I cry out to you in the day time, but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent.'

Now we all know that God is omni-present, so this does not mean that the Father deserted that particular piece of space. It means that the intimate fellowship that the Father and the Lord Jesus had enjoyed through all eternity (Proverbs 8:22-36; John 17:24 etc.) was, for those few hours, utterly broken. He had no comfort from the Father, no sense of His presence, no angel to strengthen Him. He hung there in the gloom with the Pharisees gloating over Him and no comfort save for His mother looking on impotently in unutterable grief.

A major part of the pains of hell is separation from God. 'He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord.....' (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9). By being deserted by the Father for those hours on the cross, our Lord Jesus paid that part of our sentence as well as the torment of hell.

But after the ninth hour, the darkness lifted and the Father's wrath against the sins of His people was satisfied. It was finished; communion was restored, and the Saviour was able to say, "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.'

Hey brother, I am looking forward to hearing your sermon. I've enjoyed your blog and past sermons. It is good to have your feedback.

I trust you realize we both agree the passage says he was stricken and afflicted. My only comment here is that I believe the "we" of the passage represents Jews who thought he was stricken because of his own sins and not theirs. I believe this is evident, not only with the next verse but also with Peter's sermon as he says the Jews acted in ignorance. I did not realize this point was so controversial or I would have left it out.

I realize most here see no difference in penal substitution expressed in other theories and PST itself. All I can say is that this has been and is a debate among people on the topic, and historically distinctions have been made.

So I thought I would try to see the difference by exploring how these two sides view punishment in the atonement. The answer is here no one sees a difference. And I can accept that.

I'm afraid to ask, but how did my understanding on the last thread stack up? Where do we disagree?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I trust you realize we both agree the passage says he was stricken and afflicted. My only comment here is that I believe the "we" of the passage represents Jews who thought he was stricken because of his own sins and not theirs.

But how does this square with what you wrote earlier?

One “proof” offered on this forum is easily dismissed. That Jesus was “smitten of God” is not stated in this verse as an absolute truth. In fact, it is not stated at all. What the passage says is that “we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted”. But “we” were wrong.

Either you have changed your mind very quickly or you have an urgent need to write more clearly need to write more clearly.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hey brother, I am looking forward to hearing your sermon. I've enjoyed your blog and past sermons. It is good to have your feedback.

I'm glad you've enjoyed my efforts. The new sermon should be on the website today. I wasn't pleased with my delivery. I seemed to be tripping over my tongue on a few occasions.