Penal Substitution

I went back to the now closed thread to see if you responded to the particulars of my post. I found no such responses by you. Perhaps you are thinking of an earlier post on another thread where i quoted the same texts. However, in no previous thread did I point out the particulars of verses 10-11 as I have in the post that you did not respond to. Perhaps you overlooked it as there are no responses to the particulars of my post on that thread. I will repeat the post and please pay attention to the particulars that I put into rhetorical questions:

Isa. 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

One cannot get any clearer than the above language. Was the Son the object of God's wrath? ANSWER: "it pleased the Lord to bruise him....put him to grief". How could God be "pleased" to do that if there were no JUST basis to do it? Answer: he could not apart from a JUST basis! What is his purpose for being pleased, for bruising him, for putting him to grief? Answer: "make his soul an offering for FOR SIN." Why would he make such an offering for sin that included brusing him and putting him to grief? ANSWER: "he shall see the TRAVAIL of his soul AND BE SATISFIED." Why must he be "satisfied"? Better yet, WHY would it take this to "satisfy" him? Would not his perfect righteousness "satisfy" him sufficiently? That is your theory! There is something beyond mere sinless perfection that needs satisfaction that only be accomplished by being "pleased" to "bruise him" "put him to grief" and "travail" as a "sin offering"!! It is his wrath against sin and Christ legally taking the place of sinners and sin on the cross! Thus a PENAL satisfaction!

Now, this is the obvious import of these two texts in this context and you must EXPLAIN IT AWAY.

 

That is precisely what you have done! You simply ignore the specifics of the post. Look at the questions and look at the words the questions are linked with in the text.

God does not "bruise" and "put to grief" anyone just for the fun of it but it is the JUST recompense in being an "offering for sin". Your view does not need God being "satisfied" by infliction at all. Bruising and putting to grief is by definition infliction. It is this infliction by God that brought "travail" upon his "soul" and it is this kind of offering for sin that SATISFIES God just recompense toward sin and sinners. That is the natural import of the language. You either have to dissect and separate the words from the sense and meaning of the text or ignore it. you have chosen to ignore it.

 

Certainly God can JUSTLY punish Jesus for the sins of others simply because he is acting as a SUBSTITUTE for others. What don't you understand about being a substitute?

 

What is the just basis for the Father to crush anyone or put anyone to grief or put any soul in "travail" in connection with an "offering for sin"? What basis would any judge have to bring travail upon anyone who stood before them?

 

On the great day of Atonement an innocent lamb is laid upon the altar and the High priest confesses the sins of all the people over it while laying his hands on its head. This is the great type of Christ "the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world." He is "made to be sin for us WHO KNEW NO SIN"

You are tripping over your own feet and entangled in foolish thinking as this truth is self-evident in the types and in language you repeatedly explain away when the simple meaning is starring you right in the eyes.

 

Yes, and He is HOLY and JUST and that is precisely why his law is HOLY and JUST. The truth is looking you in the face but you can't see.

Because God's Word says it is just! "He who KNEW NO SIN was MADE SIN"! Who made this innocent person to be sin? God did and that is what Isaiah 53 says over and over again but you just explain away the obvious. Why is it just for a person who knew no sin to be made sin for us? Why do you think it is just to slay a lamb without spot and blemish as a "sin offering" for God's people? Did not Christ freely offer himself to "satisfy" God's wrath against the sinner for his sins? It is so self-evident!

 

Who is it that is being made sin? Answer; THE JUST! Who is it that he is being made sin FOR? Answer: THE UNJUST!! Who is it that makes him so? Answer: GOD! Therefore, God says it is JUST to condemn THE JUST in behalf "for" "THE UNJUST" in order to JUSTIFY the wicked!

Who is it that demands a ceremonial sacrifice that is "without spot and blemish"? Answer: God What does the typology of "without spot and blemish" mean? Answer: the type of THE JUST. Who is the typological Just sacrificed in behalf of? Answer; THE UNJUST. What is the nature of this sacrifice? Answer "FOR SIN" "FOR US" not either/or but BOTH. Why does God need satisfaction by sacrifice for sin and sinners? Answer: Because God's holy Law demands penal consequences for violation of its holy standards. Why does the Law's penal consequences need to be satisfied? Answer: Because God is Just and Holy!! Who demanded the penal conquences for violation of His Law? Answer: God did. Who satisfies both the righteous and penal demands of His Law? Answer: Jesus voluntarily satisfies both in behalf of, for, in the place of His people.

Jon, I just don't know why you can't see the obvious? Your questions are nothing but loops of irrationale.

 

There is no forgiveness where there is no satisfaction of the Law's penalty! There is no grace where there is no satisfier of the Law's penalty.

First, the law in principle IS LOVE. His Law is simply a revelation of His own Person and personal righteousness (Rom. 3:21-22). The Law manifests His holiness and defines for us what it is to be JUST. His law is more perfectly manifested in the LIFE of Christ. To separate God's Law as principle from God is to annihilate God Himself. That is precisely why Jesus denied he had come to destroy the Law but rather to fulfill it as that is the only possible response God can have to his law.

I think you are reasoning from the Phariseeical perspective of the law, not according to its principle but according to its letter and as a Jewish covenant. That is entirely a different thing altogether.

 

You have done an incredible job in laying the truth out clearly and forcefully. Jon has an endless loop of irrationality in his line of arguments. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

 

There is no such thing as righteousness at the expense of justice! No such righteousness of that kind exists in our court systems or in God's court system.

Paul is referring to the life AND death of Christ as the satisfaction for sin in this context (Rom. 3:19-25).The righteousness manifested apart from the Law is found in the LIFE and DEATH of Christ - the incarnation and sacrifice.