Penal Substitution Reprised

[JonC]

I'm having to jump into your reply to someone else because you seem to be avoiding interacting with my OPs once again.
But will you please tell me what happened to Christ when He was made sin? And (for the second time) will you please tell me what 'He bore our sins' means? Thank you.

Sorry, I missed your reply to post #2. I'll revisit. It's been a busy day and I just got home (I've been just hitting topics on my phone).

Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh

I believe that Christ bore our sins and was made sin by coming in the likeness of sinful flesh as an offering for sin.

 

[JonC]

What do you see as the difference? The Greek word in the relevant passages is usually huper, with the genitive case, 'on behalf of.'
If I write a letter for someone, I write it on his behalf. I write it, he doesn't. I write it instead of him.
If I pay a debt for someone, I pay it on his behalf. I pay it, he doesn't. I pay it instead of him.
If I die for someone, I die on his behalf. I die, he doesn't. I die instead of him.

The word can have several meanings. For example "Christ suffered once "instead of" or even "on behalf of" our sins doesn't work. Christ suffered because of our sins. There is a very important distinction here.

 

[Calminian]

Yes. It is odd that two people can read the same verse and hear different things. Can you show me where one of those verses state what Christ experienced was God's anger, or that what Christ suffered was God's punishment?

I would ask the converse. How in the world you can read these texts and not come to the conclusion Christ experienced God's anger for our sakes. It's a no brainer.

Unless I'm missing a subtle nuance you're focused on.

 

[thatbrian]

Not that it is unbiblical for God to exercise vengeance, but that it is unbiblical for God to pour out His wrath and anger by punishing the Righteous. Nowhere in Scripture is God said to condemn the Just, or to be angry at His Son. It simply isn't there.

Your major issue is that you don't understand how forgiveness works. Your secondary issue is that you don't understand the unity of the Trinity.

First, forgiveness is never free. It always costs. If I forgive you the $100 you owe me, it cost me $100. If you break my antique lamp, and I forgive you, it cost me either the value of replacement or the use and beauty of the lamp. If I don't make you pay me for the lamp, if I forgive you, I absorb the cost. That's what God does in forgiving men.

When God forgives men He absorbs the cost Himself. Salvation is a Trinitarian venture. God the Father, Son and Spirit have one will. The Father does not unjustly punish the innocent in Christ's death, the Godhead assumes/absorbs the cost. This isn't one member of the Trinity being unjust to another member of the Trinity. It's God forgiving men by absorbing the debt into Himself.

 

[thatbrian]

I would ask the converse. How in the world you can read these texts and not come to the conclusion Christ experienced God's anger for our sakes. It's a no brainer.

Unless I'm missing a subtle nuance you're focused on.

Penal substitutionary atonement is obvious to any reader of the text, but often people come to the text with an agenda, and they only see what they came looking for.

There is at least one a reason why someone would be opposed to the forgiveness of God through Christ's blood, and it has to do with the very nature of men: self-justification is the default mode of the (sinful) human heart.

 

[Aaron]

While I agree with those who have questioned the scholarship of Pierced for Our Transgressions, the concern revolves around liberties taken with the writings of others and not Penal Substitution itself. So let’s go through the definition you have settled upon:

“God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin’

I agree that God loved the world by giving His Son. Scripture describes Jesus as the Messiah, God’s Anointed, His Holy One, His Righteous One, His Obedient One and His Beloved in Whom He is well pleased. And God offered His own Son for our redemption, to suffer for us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin.

What is your support for using “instead of” rather than “for” in the definition you have chosen?

The offerings for sin under the law. Why was a victim brought by the penitent?

 

[JonC]

I would ask the converse. How in the world you can read these texts and not come to the conclusion Christ experienced God's anger for our sakes. It's a no brainer.

Unless I'm missing a subtle nuance you're focused on.

My point is that that conclusion is not driven from the text itself (if you did not already hold the view God was pouring his wrath on Christ, punishing Him, you would not conclude this from the verses alone). Whether right or wrong the idea does not come from Scripture itself but from assumptions.

The simple fact that you can only see it through that one theory (and as a "no brainer") when most of Christianity has not seen it that way (either historically or at present) speaks volumes.

I work around the house, but I do not like to finish sheet rock. If someone else does it the wall may have imperfections, but if I don't know about them I don't see them. BUT once I see an imperfection I cannot "un-see" it and pretend it does not exist. I could never view the Cross as God pouring out His anger towards His Son for two reasons. First, I have seen the imperfections in that theory. Second, I have read Scripture apart from those imperfections and discovered an atonement that is so much greater than your theory allows. Ignorance may be bliss, but we are not called to be blissfully ignorant.

 

[JonC]

The offerings for sin under the law. Why was a victim brought by the penitent?

The idea of the offering being a "victim" rather than a sacrifice is pagan, not Scripture. And even looking at ANE rituals the offerings are typically sacrifices (Sitqānu , for example, in the Ugaritic culture literally means "to slaughter"). But more importantly, the offerings under the Law were sacrificial pointing to Christ, who was not a "victim". He lay down his own life. It was not taken. The offering points to this act of God, giving of Himself for man. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

 

[JonC]

Your major issue is that you don't understand how forgiveness works. Your secondary issue is that you don't understand the unity of the Trinity.

First, forgiveness is never free. It always costs. If I forgive you the $100 you owe me, it cost me $100. If you break my antique lamp, and I forgive you, it cost me either the value of replacement or the use and beauty of the lamp. If I don't make you pay me for the lamp, if I forgive you, I absorb the cost. That's what God does in forgiving men.

When God forgives men He absorbs the cost Himself. Salvation is a Trinitarian venture. God the Father, Son and Spirit have one will. The Father does not unjustly punish the innocent in Christ's death, the Godhead assumes/absorbs the cost. This isn't one member of the Trinity being unjust to another member of the Trinity. It's God forgiving men by absorbing the debt into Himself.

Not at all. My primary argument is not that PSA is incorrect, but instead that it is absent from the biblical text itself. It assumes a context (it is something introduced into Scripture, not taken out of it). You are assuming that the wages of sin constitute a debt along the lines of financial accounting (in this case, an injury to God). I believe the contextual framework you bring is false, but more importantly it is foreign to Scripture. That's the point. Even if you are right, you did not arrive at the position through Scripture itself.

If someone strikes me in the cheek and I turn the other and forgive him, I am not absorbing the cost of retaliation. I am simply forgiving the man.

If you reject as false what I have said, I forgive you. And that costs me nothing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The word can have several meanings. For example "Christ suffered once "instead of" or even "on behalf of" our sins doesn't work. Christ suffered because of our sins. There is a very important distinction here.

Right. 1 Peter 3:18. 'For Christ also suffered once for sins [peri hamartion].........' Peri with the genitive case means 'Concerning' or 'in respect of.' See Matthew 2:8; 6:29; 22:16 etc. So what does it mean that Christ suffered in respect of our sins? The rest of the verse can help us. '........The Just for the unjust [huper adikon] that He might bring us to God.' Huper with the genitive case means 'on behalf of' as I wrote earlier. See Matthew 5:44; Luke 22:19-20; John 10:11 etc.

So we're back where we started.
If I write a letter for someone, I write it on his behalf. I write it, he doesn't. I write it instead of him.
If I pay a debt for someone, I pay it on his behalf. I pay it, he doesn't. I pay it instead of him.
If I die for someone, I die on his behalf. I die, he doesn't. I die instead of him.

But if we ask how Christ the just One suffered in respect of sins, Peter has already explained it to us: 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). So He, the just One, bore the sins of us, the unjust, on our behalf. Where is He bearing them? On the 'tree.' So when Peter says bearing our sins and 'suffering,' he means suffering crucifixion 'in respect' of them. He is bearing them 'on our behalf.'

If I bear sins for someone, I bear them on his behalf. I bear them, he doesn't, I bear them instead of him.

Finally, why does Peter say that Christ bore our sins 'on the tree' [epi to xulov] instead of 'on the cross' [epi to staurion]? Because he has Deuteronomy 21:23 in mind. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.' mankind is under a curse because of sin (Galatians 3:10), but 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us' [huper hemon] Huper with the genitive again. Christ became a curse on our behalf.

If I become a curse for someone, I become a curse on his behalf. I am cursed, he isn't. I suffer the curse instead of him.

'By His wounds we are healed.' Christ has borne the penalty of sin on our behalf. Penal Substitution. He has suffered instead of us the penalty in respect of sin. 'God is angry with sinners every day,' but He is no more angry with His people because Christ has redeemed them, by paying the penalty on their behalf so that God can be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

 

[JonC]

Right. 1 Peter 3:18. 'For Christ also suffered once for sins [peri hamartion].........' Peri with the genitive case means 'Concerning' or 'in respect of.' See Matthew 2:8; 6:29; 22:16 etc. So what does it mean that Christ suffered in respect of our sins? The rest of the verse can help us. '........The Just for the unjust [huper adikon] that He might bring us to God.' Huper with the genitive case means 'on behalf of' as I wrote earlier. See Matthew 5:44; Luke 22:19-20; John 10:11 etc.

So we're back where we started.
If I write a letter for someone, I write it on his behalf. I write it, he doesn't. I write it instead of him.
If I pay a debt for someone, I pay it on his behalf. I pay it, he doesn't. I pay it instead of him.
If I die for someone, I die on his behalf. I die, he doesn't. I die instead of him.

But if we ask how Christ the just One suffered in respect of sins, Peter has already explained it to us: 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). So He, the just One, bore the sins of us, the unjust, on our behalf. Where is He bearing them? On the 'tree.' So when Peter says bearing our sins and 'suffering,' he means suffering crucifixion 'in respect' of them. He is bearing them 'on our behalf.'

If I bear sins for someone, I bear them on his behalf. I bear them, he doesn't, I bear them instead of him.

Finally, why does Peter say that Christ bore our sins 'on the tree' [epi to xulov] instead of 'on the cross' [epi to staurion]? Because he has Deuteronomy 21:23 in mind. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.' mankind is under a curse because of sin (Galatians 3:10), but 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us' [huper hemon] Huper with the genitive again. Christ became a curse on our behalf.

If I become a curse for someone, I become a curse on his behalf. I am cursed, he isn't. I suffer the curse instead of him.

'By His wounds we are healed.' Christ has borne the penalty of sin on our behalf. Penal Substitution. He has suffered instead of us the penalty in respect of sin. 'God is angry with sinners every day,' but He is no more angry with His people because Christ has redeemed them, by paying the penalty on their behalf so that God can be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

Jesus became a curse for us - "on our behalf", NOT on "the behalf" but "because of" our sins - pointing to our sinful condition (our nature "in Adam").

He offered Himself as a guilt offering, lay down His own life. It is for this reason God loves Jesus, not considers Him evil or unrighteous. And this is the damage of your theory. You look at the Cross and see God's anger when the Bible looks at the Cross and sees God's love.

 

[Revmitchell]

The idea of the offering being a "victim" rather than a sacrifice is pagan, not Scripture.

You almost always give reasoned arguments even when I disagree with you. this statement quoted effects your credibility in a negative way as it makes your reasoning inferior. It is not necessary, it is inflammatory, and a cheap shot. Stick to well reasoned arguments.

 

[Revmitchell]

The idea that Scripture itself, and what the Bible says of Christ's suffering, is insufficient and needs expounding upon is appalling.

If I take these words at face value I am forced to say you don't know what your talking about. Jesus expounded on scripture to even His disciples. It is a rather puzzling statement coming from you.

 

[JonC]

You almost always give reasoned arguments even when I disagree with you. this statement quoted effects your credibility in a negative way as it makes your reasoning inferior. It is not necessary, it is inflammatory, and a cheap shot. Stick to well reasoned arguments.

You have misunderstood me. I did not mean insult but observation. Roman paganism partook of the victim in "sacrifice". But Scripture is clear - the OT sacrifice pointed to Christ. Christ was not a victim but lay down His own life and in this the Father loved him.

 

[Revmitchell]

You have misunderstood me. I did not mean insult but observation. Roman paganism partook of the victim in "sacrifice". But Scripture is clear - the OT sacrifice pointed to Christ. Christ was not a victim but lay down His own life and in this the Father loved him.

They got it from us. Just because pagans do it does not make it wrong, neither does it mean they are the original source of it. Further I would add that anytime in discussions you compare Christians or what they believe to "pagans" it will be inflammatory. Neither is it necessary.

 

[JonC]

They got it from us. Just because pagans do it does not make it wrong, neither does it mean they are the original source of it. Further I would add that anytime in discussions you compare Christians or what they believe to "pagans" it will be inflammatory. Neither is it necessary.

ANE religions offered sacrifices long before the Mosaic Law came about. They did not get it from us.

I am not comparing Christian belief to pagan belief. I am stating that the idea of offering a victim is NOT Christian belief. The idea was of a sacrifice pointing to Christ as the Sacrificial Lamb - the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.

You can find my view offensive, but at the same time I find your idea that Christ was a victim rather than the Lamb of God laying down His own life just as damaging to Scripture. Perhaps the difference is that I am not offended by your view. Saddened, but not offended.

 

[Revmitchell]

ANE religions offered sacrifices long before the Mosaic Law came about. They did not get it from us.

The Mosaic law was not the beginning of sacrifices. Sorry for your misunderstanding.

 

[agedman]

The Mosaic law was not the beginning of sacrifices. Sorry for your misunderstanding.

Isn't that what JonC stated?

"ANE religions offered sacrifices long before the Mosaic Law came about. They did not get it from us."
​

Did I miss something?

 

[agedman]

Right. 1 Peter 3:18. 'For Christ also suffered once for sins [peri hamartion].........' Peri with the genitive case means 'Concerning' or 'in respect of.' See Matthew 2:8; 6:29; 22:16 etc. So what does it mean that Christ suffered in respect of our sins? The rest of the verse can help us. '........The Just for the unjust [huper adikon] that He might bring us to God.' Huper with the genitive case means 'on behalf of' as I wrote earlier. See Matthew 5:44; Luke 22:19-20; John 10:11 etc.

So we're back where we started.
If I write a letter for someone, I write it on his behalf. I write it, he doesn't. I write it instead of him.
If I pay a debt for someone, I pay it on his behalf. I pay it, he doesn't. I pay it instead of him.
If I die for someone, I die on his behalf. I die, he doesn't. I die instead of him.

But if we ask how Christ the just One suffered in respect of sins, Peter has already explained it to us: 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). So He, the just One, bore the sins of us, the unjust, on our behalf. Where is He bearing them? On the 'tree.' So when Peter says bearing our sins and 'suffering,' he means suffering crucifixion 'in respect' of them. He is bearing them 'on our behalf.'

If I bear sins for someone, I bear them on his behalf. I bear them, he doesn't, I bear them instead of him. ...

In not one of your illustrations does it state that the letter writer, the debt payer, the life giver was rebuked by the recipient of the payment, much less was the letter or the writer angrily received.

NOT ONE has the just retribution of such payment that of rebuke and anger been the result, not even a hint of disgust. Rather, the recipient is pleased.

There are a lot of illustrations, many have been heard and used, that could sustain that which Christ did was on our behalf. But, none can show the recipient in any manner of displeasure and remain Scriptural.

Writing letters, making payment, ... is the NOT basis of the actual question.

What has not been shown as Scriptural is that the tortuous conditions and even the crucifixion were signs of God's wrath.

Again, Isaiah "It PLEASED..." So, where is wrath in being joyful, in agreement, in love?

If there is a single longer passage that expresses the events from the perspective of Christ it is found in Psalms 22.

Certainly, in that place in which the very thoughts of the Christ are revealed (for they were not spoken on the cross, with the exception of a single phrase).

So, certainly, in that place the Scriptures would reveal Christ's perspective that the Father "poured His wrath out upon the Son" in just retribution for making payment.

Perhaps you can use Psalms 22 as a foundation and show were the wrath from God is stated?

I have not found such.

Indeed, I have not found such in any passage of Scriptures!

That leads to the obvious conclusion.

There was NO wrath of God poured out upon the Son at ANYTIME.

 

[agedman]

Penal substitutionary atonement is obvious to any reader of the text, but often people come to the text with an agenda, and they only see what they came looking for.

There is at least one a reason why someone would be opposed to the forgiveness of God through Christ's blood, and it has to do with the very nature of men: self-justification is the default mode of the (sinful) human heart.

The argument is NOT that from the garden the events were not tortuous.

The argument is NOT that from the garden the events were not forensic substitution.

What IS the argument is that at NO time (ANYtime) was God displeased, and "poured wrath out upon the Son."

Those that teach penal substitution atonement in such a manner are mistaken.

They are mixing retribution theory into penal substitution theory.

There is a place one can find retribution in the Scriptures.

Just not at the scenes concerning the crucifixion.

I posted that if there is a place that reveals the very thoughts of Christ while being crucified, it is Psalms 22. As He raised His body to exhale, He breathed out one short statement from the Psalm, and in order to understand that statement one MUST attend to the Psalm.

Therefore, if Christ considered it was the Father pouring wrath out upon Him, then it would be in the Psalm - somewhere - but it is not.

There is NO indication that can sustain that the Father poured out wrath upon His Son at the crucifixion or at anytime.

Therefore, such expressions concerning God's wrath poured out upon the Son by one teaching penal substitution theory are in error.