Punishment in the Atonement

[Aaron]

It is Isaiah 53 which nullifies your proposal.
To deny it and offer writings of those in agreement does not change the scripture.

Isaiah 53
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

To me there is no dispute, no doubt.
He was punished for our sins.

HankD

Pretty much.

 

[Aaron]

There has been a connection suggested that Penal Substitution Theory is proven through Levitical sacrifice as the burnt-offering itself necessitates the symbolism of God punishing the object of the sacrifice with the punishment reserved for the worshippers. I suggest this conclusion is eisegesis, that the practice of burnt-offerings (and specifically in terms of propitiation) has never been interpreted by its practitioners as implying the punishment due the worshipper symbolically being inflicted on the sacrifice itself. For arguments sake, I am contending here that the idea is a modern concept foreign to the ANE world in which God called Abram and the Hebrew religion.

Scripture itself offers several examples of burnt-offerings that could not be defined as propitiation as they do not have wrath in mind. All animal sacrifice where an animal is slaughtered, in the Hebrew religion, result in at least a part of the sacrifice being consumed by fire. The use of fire apart from an appeasement of divine wrath demonstrates a function that does not have punishment in view.

The process of atonement in ANE culture served to make things or people acceptable or pleasing to a deity and averting the course of evil loosed by some action or force. Actions of propitiation turn aside wrath.

Here are a few examples:

1. In the ancient Akitu Festival (dating back the time of Abraham) animal ritualistic sacrifices were offered to the god Marduk. The ritual lasted 12 days and consisted of purification of the temple, sacrifice, propitiation, penance and absolution (this is the festival with the “humbling” of the king…something I wish we could do today with D.C.). Wrath awaiting the king is averted and the king is forgiven. The evil of the king is viewed as resting on the sacrifice. The god is appeased, BUT the wrath that would have resulted because of that evil is not presented as being inflicted on the sacrificed animal.

There is also a sacrifice which removes evil from the people and places it on the sacrificed animal. The animal is not offered, here, as a burnt-offering but is instead discarded outside of the city. The evil, however, is not viewed as sins but rather demons or evil spirits. Regardless, what is laid upon the sacrifice is the evil endangering man, not punishment inflicted by deity.

2. The kispum ritual (essentially a family cult ceremony to dead ancestors) was practiced twice a month during the full and new moon, and animal sacrifices were rendered to the gods. The purpose here was not appeasement of wrath but honor and worship. The mode of the sacrifice did not imply the gods acting on the object sacrificed at all.

3. The pagrā’um-ceremony, connected with the god Dagan, offered dead animals in honor of the dead. Again, no punishment is placed on the object sacrificed.

4. The Ugaritic texts found at Ras Shamra describe ritual sacrifice. The people presented a donkey as an offering for purification and atonement for the purpose of appeasing the wrath of the gods, to turn aside their anger. But again, the idea that the gods punished the object sacrificed with the punishment due the worshippers is foreign to the cult.

I am not suggesting that the Levitical system of atonement is based on pagan ritual. But I am suggesting that the practice of ritualistic sacrifice, specifically burnt-offerings, existed prior to the Mosaic Law. This is evident through Scripture (the offering of Noah, the near-sacrifice of Isaac) as well as the ANE rituals just presented. Therefore, when introduced within the Levitical system, the idea of burnt-offerings was not a foreign concept to the Israelites. Just as common was the idea of atonement. What was foreign to these people was the notion that the punishment for man’s sin would be inflicted on the object being sacrificed.

In Scripture, burnt-offerings are associated with appeasement and not the exercise of wrath on the part of God. Likewise, I do not know of a passage that states God poured out his wrath (in terms of inflicting punishment due sinners) on Christ as the atoning sacrifice, but rather that God sacrifices His Son.

Since the notion that atonement consists of the sacrifice not only representing man but also being punished (symbolically with animal sacrifices, literally with Christ) with the punishment due the worshipper is foreign to both the world that made these sacrifices and Scripture, where did it originate?

(Sources: Julye Bidmead, “The Akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia”; John Walton, “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible”;Samuel Kramer, “The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character”; Eugene Merrill, Rooker, and Grisanti, “The Word and the World”; Dennis Pardee, “Ritual and Cult at Ugarit”).

Burnt, Peace, and Meat offerings were not offered for sin, and no one needs to cite the heathen to know that, but the Sin and Trespass offerings were offered for sin, and in those, the individual offers for his sins, not those of someone else. The victim in each one, is Christ.

 

[JonC]

Burnt, Peace, and Meat offerings were not offered for sin, and no one needs to cite the heathen to know that, but the Sin and Trespass offerings were offered for sin, and in those, the individual offers for his sins, not those of someone else. The victim in each one, is Christ.

The sin offering for Israel (as guilt incurs passively because of the sin of a priest), may be considered differently. Regardless, the entire Law points to Christ rather than Christ and the cross being defined by the Law.

Jesus experienced God's wrath against sin in our stead (or as our representative, that's not the argument here). This is not only a general statement but also a specific one (Jesus is the Savior of all man, especially the elect, He lay down his life for the sheep).

But I believe the debt to be a simple debt rather than a debt of punishment (I don’t believe Paul, when speaking of purchase, price, debt, ect.) was trying to explain a complex system focusing on the need for the debtor (or his representative) to suffer loss. Rather, I think Paul was illustrating the atonement by a simple transaction. Jesus paid our debt, we are indebted to Jesus. When one pays a debt (simpliciter) then the one for whom the debt was paid becomes dependent to another for the price. If you pay my debt, then it is up to you to forgive the debt or to demand it paid to you.

I think we all believe that Jesus experienced the consequence of human sin (corporately, as the Last Adam) but insofar as individually we seem to differ. One difference is punishment. Did Jesus experience a punishment for my sins, in my stead, or did Jesus experience my punishment for my sins in my stead?

I suppose the question could be asked in these terms: Did Jesus experience the wrath of God in our stead in such a way as to retain God's nature (holy, separate from sin and evil, eternally One, ect.), or in such a way as to cease being God by definition (separate from God, absence of the Spirit, void of life, ect.)?

If we extend beyond physical death, then it goes back to "our punishment" of the second death. BUT if the resurrection of all men (some to life and some to judgment) is also dependent on the work of the Cross then can it legitimately be said that apart from the cross that would have been our fate?

 

[Aaron]

One difference is punishment. Did Jesus experience a punishment for my sins, in my stead, or did Jesus experience my punishment for my sins in my stead?

Did the individual who sinned have to bring sacrifice for his own sin? Or did he just wait for the Day of Atonement? Did that sacrifice cover his own sin, or also the sin of his neighbor?

I think it's elementary.

 

[HankD]

I think that the issue you have is that you just realized what is plainly obvious - that if Jesus did not experience Hell, the "outer darkness", God's hatred and casting away, being revealed as completely evil with no hope of reconciliation, and void of the Spirit, void of life, void of Truth, void of Light, and all of this for eternity...then Jesus was not punished with our punishment. Instead he had to be punished for our sins, but not with our punishment in our stead. But if Jesus did experience all of those things, then he ceased being God because God cannot literally be darkness, evil, void of the Spirit,ect. You either have to concede that Jesus suffered punishment for our sins rather than our punishment for our sins, that the consequence here was physical death and that conquered, or Jesus ceased being God on the cross. Or that your view hangs on one word "forsaken" regardless of context and chalk the rest of Scripture up to "mystery".

Again you are attributing human logic and reasoning to God e.g. "But if Jesus did experience all of those things, then he ceased being God" Well so say you Jon but not necessarily God. Or "You either have to concede that Jesus suffered punishment for our sins rather than our punishment for our sins" No I don't and I don't .

HankD

 

[HankD]

The sin offering for Israel (as guilt incurs passively because of the sin of a priest), may be considered differently. Regardless, the entire Law points to Christ rather than Christ and the cross being defined by the Law.

Jesus experienced God's wrath against sin in our stead (or as our representative, that's not the argument here). This is not only a general statement but also a specific one (Jesus is the Savior of all man, especially the elect, He lay down his life for the sheep).

But I believe the debt to be a simple debt rather than a debt of punishment (I don’t believe Paul, when speaking of purchase, price, debt, ect.) was trying to explain a complex system focusing on the need for the debtor (or his representative) to suffer loss. Rather, I think Paul was illustrating the atonement by a simple transaction. Jesus paid our debt, we are indebted to Jesus. When one pays a debt (simpliciter) then the one for whom the debt was paid becomes dependent to another for the price. If you pay my debt, then it is up to you to forgive the debt or to demand it paid to you.

I think we all believe that Jesus experienced the consequence of human sin (corporately, as the Last Adam) but insofar as individually we seem to differ. One difference is punishment. Did Jesus experience a punishment for my sins, in my stead, or did Jesus experience my punishment for my sins in my stead?

I suppose the question could be asked in these terms: Did Jesus experience the wrath of God in our stead in such a way as to retain God's nature (holy, separate from sin and evil, eternally One, ect.), or in such a way as to cease being God by definition (separate from God, absence of the Spirit, void of life, ect.)?

If we extend beyond physical death, then it goes back to "our punishment" of the second death. BUT if the resurrection of all men (some to life and some to judgment) is also dependent on the work of the Cross then can it legitimately be said that apart from the cross that would have been our fate?

Again, again, human logic and reason, no scripture quoted, and/or no exegesis thereof.

HankD

 

[JonC]

Again you are attributing human logic and reasoning to God e.g. "But if Jesus did experience all of those things, then he ceased being God" Well so say you Jon but not necessarily God. Or "You either have to concede that Jesus suffered punishment for our sins rather than our punishment for our sins" No I don't and I don't .

HankD

No. I am attributing the nature of God as reveled in Scripture to the picture of Jesus people are portraying. Scripture says that Jesus is life, light, holy, indwelt by the Spirit, one with the Father. In other words, the punishment of Hell as the second death - what the lost will experience at Judgment as they are cast into the Lake of Fire, the separatedness, hopelessness, knowledge of an unending and everlasting punishment, left to their sin, withdrawn completely from God, cast into the "outer darkenss" - is not a picture of God himself.

Jesus is light. In Him there is no darkness. The punishment of Hell is being cast into "outer darkness". Jesus is one with the Father. The punishment of Hell is an eternal separation from the Father. Jesus is holy. The punishment of Hell is one of being left in sin. Jesus is the beloved of God. The punishment of Hell is one of hate (or apathy, withdrawal of love, ect. depending on whose doing the defining). And Jesus is immutable in nature because he is God.

In short, Jesus did not die and go to Hell. He did not suffer the punishment that those who remain lost will suffer, that which was reserved for Satan and his demons. The issue is not one of logic (on my side) because Scripture never says Jesus bore the punishment of the "second death". The issue is one of logic (poor logic) on the other side by adding to Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Again, again, human logic and reason, no scripture quoted, and/or no exegesis thereof.

HankD

I did not quote those passages because I thought them obvious. When I have time, if needed, I will provide them for you.

But for now I'll just ask if you denying that Scripture says Jesus is one with the Father, indwelt by the Spirit, Life, Truth, Light? That in God there is no turning, no darkness, no evil? Or that the punishment of the second death is an eternal damnation as objects of hate, experiencing "outer darkness", ect.?

 

[The Biblicist]

No, Edwards is right on this point. Jesus only suffered God's wrath in such a way as he was capable of, being an infinitely holy person, knowing that God was not angry with him personally (actually, Scripture says God was well pleased...even that the cross was God's will), and that he was the Beloved of God - obedient (to the Father) even to death on a cross. You are completely off base here, brother.

I never said anything different! I said God's wrath was not a PERSONAL vendetta against Christ. God was pleased with Christ PERSONALLY in all that he did - all! However, on the cross he did suffer the wrath of God, meaning he was the object of God's wrath, not due to PERSONAL sin but to his LEGAL POSITION in the place of sinners. You don't seem to grasp the difference between PERSONAL and POSITIONAL but the wrath is the same and comes from the same source - God.

In fact, even thought Edwards did not say it here, Scripture tells us that Jesus accomplished the work of the cross through the Spirit. And that God, rather than leaving him there, was actively offering him as a sacrifice (not walking away and letting men finish him off). And that Jesus' faith was in God to deliver him from that forsaken state (Psalm 22).

You are picking and choosing here! It is not this or that but BOTH. Of course Christ was "obedient unto death" even the death of the cross. However, it was his "travail" that "satisfied" God's wrath upon him as a LEGAL SUBSTITUTE, who stood in the POSITION of sinners and suffered the wrath of God in their behalf.

I think that the issue you have is that you just realized what is plainly obvious - that if Jesus did not experience Hell, the "outer darkness"

No, there was complete "darkness" on the cross. There was complete separation from God "My God, My God why hast thou FORSAKEN ME." The severity of physical pain was as much any any human could be subjected unto in the lake of fire. Christ was God, infinite and eternal which made his suffering infinite and eternal.


,

God's hatred

You think there is TWO kinds of wrath? One which is an expression of love and another which is an expression of hatred???????? Christ experienced the wrath of God against His own person as a LEGAL OBJECT of wrath in the place of sinners - meaning his own person endured the wrath of God against sinners and sin. Again, it was not PERSONAL in the sense that sin was found in his own person, but it was LEGAL because His own person was being "made sin" POSITIONALLY and LEGALLY as a SUBSTITUTE.

and casting away, being revealed as completely evil with no hope of reconciliation, and void of the Spirit, void of life, void of Truth, void of Light, and all of this for eternity...then Jesus was not punished with our punishment.

Your line of reasoning is oxymornonic. The punishment is death and death begins at birth with sickness, pain, abuse,that succumbs in physical death, then separation of the spirit in hades, while the body is in the grave, then resurrection unto complete and final separation of spirit, soul, and body in Gehenna in fire and darkness forever.

Again, you are picking and choosing. You can't deny he suffered pain, abuse, and physical death. On the cross, he suffered spiritual separation as a man from God, he suffered the most severe pain, he suffered in darkness and he physically suffered spiritual separation from his body. His suffering as infinite God united with humanity has a VALUE that when God saw "the travail of his soul shall be SATISFIED." That VALUE equaled an eternity of lost humans in Gehenna, because this was the Son of God suffering as a SINLESS but INFINITE substitute.

Instead he had to be punished for our sins, but not with our punishment in our stead.

If that is so, then he is no PENAL SUBSTITUTE as "penal" with regard to sinners is determined by Law to be condemnation unto death in all of its extent. Your view denies that! Your view even denies that Christ is a substitute UNDER LAW and thus cannot be a substitute of the CONDEMNATION of the Law. You have invented another penalty that has no basis in the law, no relationship to the condemnation of the Law. You are in reality repudiating both PENAL and SUBSTITIONARY atonement as your view has NO RELAITONSHIP to either as both are INSEPARABLY related to each THROUGH LAW.

The truth is,it is not this or that but BOTH - He was punished "for our sins" and "with our punishment" as both "sins" and "punishment" are defined by the same LAW which your view repudiates, thus repudiating the whole doctrine of penal substitution as the doctrine of penal substitution HAS NO EXISTENCE APART FROM LAW AS IT IS THE INSEPARABLE CONSEQUENCE OF LAW.

 

[The Biblicist]

My all capitals bold blue is meant to scream emphasis as this is the real issue here. Jon's view is a repudiation of penal substitutionary atonement BECAUSE both "penal" and "substitute" have absolutely no meaning apart from THE LAW and Jon rejects the law as the basis for either. It is the Law that calls for PENAL consequences, and defines them as "penal" but John removes the law thus removing all grounds for PENAL consequences as well as repudiating any reason to call it "penal" consequences. It is the condemnation of the Law against sinners that must be satisfied but John removes the law with regard to satisfaction. Jon's view logically repudiates any kind of "penal" atonement as his view repudiates the very thing that demands it is penal - the law.

His view repudiates "substitution" as he has Christ doing something that has no relationship to the condemnation against the sinner. The sinner will be suffering the consequences of THE LAW's condemnation which is the PENAL part. However, Jon's view has Christ suffering without any LEGAL basis whatsoever, as he repudiates the Law is involved thus has Christ suffering no PENAL consequences because he repudiates what makes "penal" to be "penal" which is the condemnation by THE LAW.

Also, Jon's view CHANGES the law's penal consequences to something other than what the Law prescribed. Thus the sinner is suffering something quite different than what He has Jesus suffering - hence, repudiating any kind of "substitution" as one cannot be called a "substitute" if they are not dealing with the same penal condemnation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jon, your version of "substitutionary" atonement is more like "substitute" for cream for coffee, something DIFFERENT IN THE PLACE OF, rather than a different person in the place of the sinner. You have Christ suffering differently, without any LEGAL cause, without any LEGAL definition or consequence as you totally repudiate any basis for any LEGAL condemnation of sin or sinners as Christ in your view has no relationship to either the just basis for their condemnation or satisfaction of the just basis for their condemnation. Indeed, your view cannot be called "penal" as that requires a LEGAL consequence for violating Law and you repudiate the law with regard to Christs satisfaction of sin and consequences against sinners.

You want to juxtapose "for sin" against "for sinners' when BOTH are included and the repudiation of one is repudiation of BOTH as they are inseparably related to each other and to THE LAW. You have a lawless "penal" consequences, and a lawless substitution as both are inseparable from the Law and its condemnation of sin and the sinner.

 

[JonC]

Do I believe there are two kinds of wrath? Certainly. For example, chastisement does not carry the same intent as hatred. In Scripture God is said to hate evil and even people as objects of this wrath. On the other hand, sometimes people experience wrath as chastisement or discipline (love, not hate). And Scripture describes this relationship between the Persons of an immutable God as one of love (God's beloved Son, or so Scripture says).

The punishment of the wicked is that they become fully the objects of God's wrath/hate. The punishment of the Son was not of God's hatred (God cannot hate God), but of his wrath.

 

[JonC]

Jon, your version of "substitutionary" atonement is more like "substitute" for cream for coffee, something DIFFERENT IN THE PLACE OF, rather than a different person in the place of the sinner.

Not at all. You are holding a version centered on man and not God (God has to collect an exact punishment to satisfy an injury to his holy nature). If you focused instead on God and his holiness you might begin to see that what was paid far exceeded the penalty of our punishments. The One through whom everything was created and by Whomever everything exists, suffered and died for our sins. I find it arrogant to believe that the sum of our punishments would have met that value.

 

[HankD]

I did not quote those passages because I thought them obvious. When I have time, if needed, I will provide them for you.

But for now I'll just ask if you denying that Scripture says Jesus is one with the Father, indwelt by the Spirit, Life, Truth, Light? That in God there is no turning, no darkness, no evil? Or that the punishment of the second death is an eternal damnation as objects of hate, experiencing "outer darkness", ect.?

Jesus is one with the father, no contest - but He can and has been the object of the father's wrath and still remained one with the father.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Jesus is capable of time compression...
Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

If He wants to suffer an infinite amount in a moment time He, being God, is capable.
But in fact it was finite because the number of the human race is finite.

Even as a human being He had no limitation(s) in power and ability.

John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

True, in Him there is no sin, never was, never will be.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

This is the power of God, to be made to have an identity with sin yet able to remain holy and without the knowledge of sin, a divine paradox revealed through the apostle Paul. Note - this was for our benefit that we might be made the righteousness of God.

HankD

 

[JonC]

My all capitals bold blue is meant to scream emphasis as this is the real issue here. Jon's view is a repudiation of penal substitutionary atonement BECAUSE both "penal" and "substitute" have absolutely no meaning apart from THE LAW and Jon rejects the law as the basis for either. .

Yes, you are right that I believe that sin is an offense against God Himself and not only against the Law, and I believe that Judgment will be based on God Himself, not just what is revealed of God in the Law.

But you are wrong to suggest that I believe Christ has to do something that has no relation to the condemnation against the sinner. Where we disagree is that you seem to diminish the price paid, the precious blood of Christ offered, to the punishment due all of those saved combined. My argument is that all of the punishments that would be inflicted on all mankind for all sin, multiplied by a thousand would pale in comparison to the punishment Jesus endured for our salvation. It is not the same punishment. God's sacrifice in sending His beloved Son, Christ's sacrifice of his own precious blood....nothing that man would be forced to endure equals this payment. You offering me a priceless diamond in exchange for a piece of dirt would not even come close to illustrating the difference.

God was not torn apart in his spirit, his nature. God was not made the object of divine hatred. God did not go to Hell, period. Your position diminishes the holiness of God in order to elevate the value of man.

 

[JonC]

Jesus is one with the father, no contest - but He can and has been the object of the father's wrath and still remained one with the father.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Jesus is capable of time compression...
Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

If He wants to suffer an infinite amount in a moment time He, being God, is capable.
But in fact it was finite because the number of the human race is finite.

Even as a human being He had no limitation(s) in power and ability.

John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

True, in Him there is no sin, never was, never will be.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

This is the power of God, to be made to have an identity with sin yet able to remain holy and without the knowledge of sin, a divine paradox revealed through the apostle Paul. Note - this was for our benefit that we might be made the righteousness of God.

HankD

John 3:33-36
33 "He who has received His testimony has set his seal to this, that God is true.
34 "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure. 35 "The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand.
36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

I am not saying that the Father did not withdraw, as Joel Beeke phrased it, his gracious presence. I am, however, saying that Scripture is correct when it states that Jesus accomplished the work of the Cross through the Spirit. And that the Spirit rested upon. And that he is one with the Father.

You mentioned logic over Scripture, but notice what you just said. "Jesus suffered an infinite amount in a moments time". But even with going here, it is not the punishment the lost will suffer at Judgment. As Edwards pointed out, the horror of Hell is that it is everlasting. There is no hope. There is no trusting in God for deliverance (which is the point of Psalm 22, which Jesus was quoting). It is simply a different punishment.

And since Jesus is God, through Whom all is created, the cross is a much more severe punishment than the whole of mankind suffering the fires of Hell for all eternity.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, Edwards is right on this point. Jesus only suffered God's wrath in such a way as he was capable of, being an infinitely holy person, knowing that God was not angry with him personally (actually, Scripture says God was well pleased...even that the cross was God's will), and that he was the Beloved of God - obedient (to the Father) even to death on a cross. You are completely off base here, brother.

In fact, even thought Edwards did not say it here, Scripture tells us that Jesus accomplished the work of the cross through the Spirit. And that God, rather than leaving him there, was actively offering him as a sacrifice (not walking away and letting men finish him off). And that Jesus' faith was in God to deliver him from that forsaken state (Psalm 22).

I think that the issue you have is that you just realized what is plainly obvious - that if Jesus did not experience Hell, the "outer darkness", God's hatred and casting away, being revealed as completely evil with no hope of reconciliation, and void of the Spirit, void of life, void of Truth, void of Light, and all of this for eternity...then Jesus was not punished with our punishment. Instead he had to be punished for our sins, but not with our punishment in our stead. But if Jesus did experience all of those things, then he ceased being God because God cannot literally be darkness, evil, void of the Spirit,ect. You either have to concede that Jesus suffered punishment for our sins rather than our punishment for our sins, that the consequence here was physical death and that conquered, or Jesus ceased being God on the cross. Or that your view hangs on one word "forsaken" regardless of context and chalk the rest of Scripture up to "mystery".

That was when Jesus experienced the feeling of being forsaken by His Father, as God wrath was poured out upon His own Son, who became the sin bearer, and tasted hell on the Cross...

Jesus never ceased to be God, and was still with the Gather in His deity, but in His Humanity, did feel what sinners will under judgement of God wrath!

 

[JonC]

tasted hell on the Cross...

Jesus never ceased to be God, and was still with the Gather in His deity, but in His Humanity, did feel what sinners will under judgement of God wrath!

1. Our punishment would not have been to "taste hell". It would have been confined to a hopeless eternity as the object of divine hate, to be made eternally and completely evil. 2. What passage speaks of Jesus switching from his human and divine nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, you are right that I believe that sin is an offense against God Himself and not only against the Law, and I believe that Judgment will be based on God Himself, not just what is revealed of God in the Law.

Here is where your theory completely breaks down. You have never been able to respond to the evidence I have repeatedly placed before you about this very point. If you have replied, I have never read it.
Romans 3:21 expressly teaches that the Law is the manifestation of God's own personal righteousness. That is precisely why we find universal terms are used in Romans 3:9-20 with reference to "the Law" of God.

1. Both Gentiles and Jews - v. 9
2. "none....all...none....all.... - vv. 10-23
3. "all the world....no flesh...every mouth" - vv. 19-20

It is universal not because the Law was given to Gentiles but because it reveals God's own moral nature as Creator over "all the world..every mouth".

Furthermore, the law can be reduced to one MORAL value - love just as God can be summarized by one MORAL value - Love, just as God can be summarized by one MORAL value - LOVE. Therefore the Law is the written MANIFESTATION of God's own righteousness just as Paul says in Romans 3:21 and in other places.

But this is the just the tip of the iceberg concerning your problems with rejecting the Law as the revelation of God's nature.

1. The term "penal" has no meaning apart from LAW - nothing!!
2. There is no "condemnation" apart from LAW and therefore there is NOTHING to base a "penal" or "substitutionary" atonement upon.
3. Your view defines "substitutionary" as we would define "cream substitute" in the place of real cream thus wholly contrary in nature to cream. Moreover, your view would repudiate any penal consequences as "substitutionary" in value as you repudiate what defines such as consequences, and what defines such as penal and therefore the need for substitution at all.

 

[Yeshua1]

1. Our punishment would not have been to "taste hell". It would have been confined to a hopeless eternity as the object of divine hate, to be made eternally and completely evil. 2. What passage speaks of Jesus switching from his human and divine nature.

Jesus in His deity could never physically die, but he did physical die as being a Man also!