Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ?

[JonC]

How is the Lord Jesus Christ our advocate?

If you mean what qualifies Christ as our advocate it is because not only is He God’s Son but He also became man and suffered as man and bearing our sins was obedient unto death. If you mean what does Christ do as our advocate, He intercedes for us with the Father.

What is His line of defence?

Christ does not need a line of defense as this is not a human courtroom and He is victorious.

Does He say, "Father, Martin Marprelate is innocent? That would be a lie under any circumstances but one. Does He say, "Yes, he's guilty, but there are extenuating circumstances"? Does He plead leniency because of my ignorance of the law? Does He argue that my good deeds outweigh the bad (James 2:10)?

No. He says “Martin Marprelate, you are forgiven.”

Can you give me the quotation please?

Sure. I was thinking of F.F. Bruce, The Gospel & Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes; Eerdmanns, 1994, pg. 50. “”We need not stay to enquire whether ‘expiation’ or ‘remedy for defliement’ would be a preferable rendering of hilasmos; ‘propitiation’ or ‘atonement’ will do well enough, if we use either word in its biblical sense – not as something which men must do to placate God, but something which God has provided in His grace to bring men into His presence with the assurance that they are accepted by Him, since He has removed the barrier that kept them at a distance – guilt, with its attendant retribution, the ‘punishment’ which is banished by ‘perfect love.’

 

[HankD]

A suffering tortured sacrifice is never pictured as a type in the OT.

yes there is agedman, Its called a crucifix. Jesus was nailed to it, He bled, He suffered, He died in agony and despair.

His death is revealed in the OT.
Psalm 22
14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
19 But you, O LORD, be not far off; O my Strength, come quickly to help me.


Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

 

[HankD]

My opinion:

Crucifixion is only symbolic of the death of Jesus Christ - humanly speaking It is perhaps the most agonizing death known to man.

It is symbolic in that Christ death was the most intense suffering of death experienced by any being in the universe. It had to be.

It was the propitiation of the wrath of God for the entire human race of which I don't believe we can comprehend, neither apparently is it necessary to our full understanding as it is only described in partial detail in Isaiah 53.

Why the resistance to this kind of death?

It is that we shrink in horror that the propitiation of the unrestrained wrath of God was/is the price of sin including my own.

 

[agedman]

yes there is agedman, Its called a crucifix. Jesus was nailed to it, He bled, He suffered, He died in agony and despair.

Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

I don’t know anyone who would even attempt to consider the crucifixion was any less than torturous. However, the fact is that every stripe, every wound, every bruise, every chastisement all were prophetic, and every was blood letting.

One of the remarkable items one should not ignore is that the actual crucifixion was designed to be both excruciatingly painful, but one not die from blood loss. The Romans were cunning in regard to this death to make it last often for days.

The wounds received prior to the actual nail piercing were where the great amount of blood was splashed.

Each time the Savior lifted his body to exhale, the wounds would be torn open.

But as Isaiah states, the people thought they were doing what was righteous, and he also states, it pleased God.

God did not torture His Son, the Son was in total control of the universe “holding all things” throughout.

 

[agedman]

My opinion:

Crucifixion is only symbolic of the death of Jesus Christ - humanly speaking It is perhaps the most agonizing death known to man.

It is symbolic in that Christ death was the most intense suffering of death experienced by any being in the universe. It had to be.

It was the propitiation of the wrath of God for the entire human race of which I don't believe we can comprehend, neither apparently is it necessary to our full understanding as it is only described in partial detail in Isaiah 53.

Why the resistance to this kind of death?

It is that we shrink in horror that the propitiation of the unrestrained wrath of God was/is the price of sin including my own.

You were doing so very well until that last sentence.

 

[HankD]

You were doing so very well until that last sentence.

Did it make you shrink in horror?

 

[The Archangel]

A suffering tortured sacrifice is never pictured as a type in the OT.

Unless you read about the suffering servant in Isaiah 53...

The Archangel

 

[agedman]

Unless you read about the suffering servant in Isaiah 53...

The Archangel

Who punished the suffering savior? God or human hands?

The problem is that some equate the suffering as imposed by God.

Nope. Not a single prophecy about the wrath of God poured out upon the messiah.

Though every detail of the. Crucifixion was part of prophecy, somehow the wrath of God was overlooked?

What wound, stripe, chastisement dislocation, blurring of vision... was by God’s hand?

Nope, it was all done by humans thinking they were just to do so,.

“Forgive them. They don’t know what they’re doing.”

Did not Isaiah state, “... it pleased God...”

Strange it is that some would find God pleased by pouring out wrath upon His own self as part of the trinity.

What is it that one would pronounce sever judgment upon a parent who would brutalize their own, yet would from that same mouth proclaim great swells of adoration for a God who took out His wrath upon His own?

So, not only is such not Scriptural, it doesn’t conform to human sense of justice - fallen as it is.

But, I must offer apologies to JonC. The topic has rushed off the rails.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

James Candlish, in his commentary on 1 John, speaks of 'righteous forgiveness.

Sorry, that should be Robert Candlish. I don't know what induced me to write 'James.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you mean what qualifies Christ as our advocate it is because not only is He God’s Son but He also became man and suffered as man and bearing our sins was obedient unto death. If you mean what does Christ do as our advocate, He intercedes for us with the Father.

I meant, how does Christ intercede for us with the Father?

Christ does not need a line of defense as this is not a human courtroom and He is victorious. No. He says “Martin Marprelate, you are forgiven.”

So in your view Christ is not an advocate and does not intercede for us and the Holy Spirit speaking through John is mistaken. Thank you.

Sure. I was thinking of F.F. Bruce, The Gospel & Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes; Eerdmanns, 1994, pg. 50. “”We need not stay to enquire whether ‘expiation’ or ‘remedy for defliement’ would be a preferable rendering of hilasmos; ‘propitiation’ or ‘atonement’ will do well enough, if we use either word in its biblical sense – not as something which men must do to placate God, but something which God has provided in His grace to bring men into His presence with the assurance that they are accepted by Him, since He has removed the barrier that kept them at a distance – guilt, with its attendant retribution, the ‘punishment’ which is banished by ‘perfect love.’

Thank you. I don't have that book.
When I was at a Brethren assembly, Bruce was regarded there as the world's greatest theologian since he was brethren. What he says here is correct enough, except that I don't think atonement is the same as propitiation. Other than that, it's thin.[/QUOTE]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Who punished the suffering savior? God or human hands?

'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But Christ dying for our sins does not mean He died a physical death so that we will not die a physical death. He died so that we would have life.

You have hit the nail on the head, brother.

Christ died so that we might have our sins washed away (Hebrews 10:19-22). He suffered and died to satisfy the justice and righteousness of God, and His wrath against sinners. @JonC's claim that Penal Substitution is 'man-centred' is grotesquely incorrect. It is God-centred to the core.

Isaiah 42:21. 'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will magnify the law and make it honourable.'

Romans 3:25-26. 'Whom God set forth as a propitiation.......to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.'

Last night I felt that I have not done justice to 1 John 1:5, 'God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.' There are no shades of grey, no shadow of compromise with His righteousness. 'Even when the Father hides His face, and "His sword awakes against the Man that is His fellow,"and the Son cries as one forsaken; even in that dark hour there is no evasion of heaven's light..... I think it is so significant that our Lord refused the wine mingled with myrrh when it was first offered to Him (Mark 15:23). '........There is no hiding then; no shrinking; no feeling as if truth might become a little less true, and holiness a little less holy, to meet the appalling emergency. The worst is unflinchingly faced. In the interest of light triumphing over darkness, not by any plausible terms of accommodation, but before the open face of eternal righteousness, pure and untainted, the Father gives the cup and the Son drains it to the dregs. In that great transaction, thus consummated, before all intelligences, between the Father and the Son, it is clearly seen and conclusively proved that "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all"' [Robert Candlish]

 

[JonC]

I meant, how does Christ intercede for us with the Father?

The intercession here is forgiveness in Christ. Jesus is the “last Adam”, the federal head of all who believe. We are cleansed by His blood, which substantiates this intercession. You seem to be caught in the allegory of a courtroom, brother, looking at Jesus as if He were standing before God pleading our case. When He became man He did not cease to be God. And when He ascended to the Father He did not cease to be man.

So in your view Christ is not an advocate and does not intercede for us and the Holy Spirit speaking through John is mistaken. Thank you.

Not at all. As I stated on the post you quoted (the part you ignored) Christ is our advocate and He intercedes with the Father on our behalf.

What I rejected was not what was written in Scripture but your philosophy. And that is why I am most opposed to the Theory of Penal Substitution. It seems to make people deal dishonestly with those who oppose its view. Before I entered into discussion here I rejected the theory but was not so opposed to it.

Thank you. I don't have that book.

When I was at a Brethren assembly, Bruce was regarded there as the world's greatest theologian since he was brethren. What he says here is correct enough, except that I don't think atonement is the same as propitiation. Other than that, it's thin.

You are welcome. I believe that Bruce filled in a gap when scholarship seemed to be lacking for a time. And yes, the quote in itself is “thin”. In Bruce’s defense, the section from which the quote came was not as thin (it was a short quote simply answering your question regarding my reference). And the material was written at a lay level. It was not an in depth exploration of 1 John.

What I appreciate about F.F. Bruce is that he seems able to look at Scripture objectively, even when he comes up with interpretations that may be objectionable. What I mean is that he looks at 1 John 2:2 and lists the major interpretations or the passage, and the reasons behind the interpretation. And then he explains why he favors one over the other. He is able to discern between Scripture and his interpretation of Scripture and therefore offer meaningful commentary.

This is something that has proven in excess of your ability. You seem unable to identify your interpretation, your philosophy, and your theory, from Scripture itself. This is the primary reason that I oppose the Theory of Penal Substitution. It is dangerous to the church because so many are unable or unwilling to truly engage Scripture. Too many read Scripture to reinforce their theology rather than to shape it. This is evident in your reply to me regarding Christ’s advocacy with the Father.

 

[JonC]

Christ died so that we might have our sins washed away (Hebrews 10:19-22). He suffered and died to satisfy the justice and righteousness of God, and His wrath against sinners. @JonC's claim that Penal Substitution is 'man-centred' is grotesquely incorrect. It is God-centred to the core.

Isaiah 42:21. 'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will magnify the law and make it honourable.'

Romans 3:25-26. 'Whom God set forth as a propitiation.......to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.'

Last night I felt that I have not done justice to 1 John 1:5, 'God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.' There are no shades of grey, no shadow of compromise with His righteousness. 'Even when the Father hides His face, and "His sword awakes against the Man that is His fellow,"and the Son cries as one forsaken; even in that dark hour there is no evasion of heaven's light..... I think it is so significant that our Lord refused the wine mingled with myrrh when it was first offered to Him (Mark 15:23). '........There is no hiding then; no shrinking; no feeling as if truth might become a little less true, and holiness a little less holy, to meet the appalling emergency. The worst is unflinchingly faced. In the interest of light triumphing over darkness, not by any plausible terms of accommodation, but before the open face of eternal righteousness, pure and untainted, the Father gives the cup and the Son drains it to the dregs. In that great transaction, thus consummated, before all intelligences, between the Father and the Son, it is clearly seen and conclusively proved that "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all"' [Robert Candlish]

This is an amalgamation of theory, philosophy and Scripture. The passage you quotes (the fragment you alluded to first) teaches that Christ's work was so that we could be in the presence of God (the author of Hebrews uses Temple or Tabernacle imagery - to "enter the holy place")- forgiveness being an important part. But you bring the courtroom setting into the passage (into every fragment of Scripture you've offered thus far).

Have you realized that you skip around cherry picking a verse here and a verse there (typically mashing it with some commentary, a song or poem) to support the Theory of Penal Substitution rather than genuinely engaging Scripture? And then you assume the Theory is correct and all encompassing, so you apply it to every verse you find can be extracted to "prove" the Theory.

No one here is arguing against Scripture. What we are arguing against is the theory, theology, and philosophy you are bringing into Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Unless you read about the suffering servant in Isaiah 53...

The Archangel

The Cross is in the New Testament (Jesus' suffering was not an "Old Testament sacrifice", but rather the Old Testament sacrifices foreshadowed the Cross (a shadow of the redemption to come).

Isaiah 53:3-12 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. 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. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. 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? His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; 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.

You may want to re-examine Isaiah 53. It was God's will that Christ suffer and die at the hands of the people. But you are mixing up God with man in the passage. Just as Abraham was not wrathful towards Isaac when he stepped up to the altar, God was never wrathful towards the Righteous One, His Servant.

Or as Peter told the Jews - they were guilty but it was God's will.

 

[HankD]

This is an amalgamation of theory, philosophy and Scripture. The passage you quotes (the fragment you alluded to first) teaches that Christ's work was so that we could be in the presence of God (the author of Hebrews uses Temple or Tabernacle imagery - to "enter the holy place")- forgiveness being an important part. But you bring the courtroom setting into the passage (into every fragment of Scripture you've offered thus far).

Have you realized that you skip around cherry picking a verse here and a verse there (typically mashing it with some commentary, a song or poem) to support the Theory of Penal Substitution rather than genuinely engaging Scripture? And then you assume the Theory is correct and all encompassing, so you apply it to every verse you find can be extracted to "prove" the Theory.

No one here is arguing against Scripture. What we are arguing against is the theory, theology, and philosophy you are bringing into Scripture.

This is the complaint of the JW's concerning our doctrine of the Trinity. "It's an amalgamation of scripture, its a man made doctrine". I know this because my sister is a JW.

If one rejects 1 John 5:7 as scripture there is no proof text for the Trinity.

Indeed it was 300 plus years after the LORD's departure that the doctrine of the Trinity became church dogma.

However Isaiah 53 has been there for millennia pre-dating the Incarnation.
It has been documented that Penal Substitution (so called) was believed and taught by several of the early church fathers from very early on in the church predating even the officiating of the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[JonC]

This is the complaint of the JW's concerning our doctrine of the Trinity. "It's an amalgamation of scripture, its a man made doctrine". I know this because my sister is a JW.

If one rejects 1 John 5:7 as scripture there is no proof text for the Trinity.

Indeed it was 300 plus years after the LORD's departure that the doctrine of the Trinity became church dogma.

However Isaiah 53 has been there for millennia pre-dating the Incarnation.
It has been documented that Penal Substitution (so called) was believed and taught by several of the early church fathers from very early on in the church predating even the officiating of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The JW's are right that our appeal must be to Scripture. But like many who hold to the Theory of Penal Substitution as an all encompassing doctrine, they fail by usurpung Scripture with tradition and reading God's Word through their theology rather than allowing Scripture itself to dictate what they believe.

But yes, Scripture affirms both penal and substitution aspects of Christ's work as a whole. We can see this in every theory that has been put forward. The Theory of Penal Substitution departs not in the Scripture it points to but in the philosophy it uses to misapply that Scripture.

 

[HankD]

The JW's are right that our appeal must be to Scripture. But like many who hold to the Theory of Penal Substitution as an all encompassing doctrine, they fail by usurpung Scripture with tradition and reading God's Word through their theology rather than allowing Scripture itself to dictate what they believe.

You keep ignoring the scripture we present to you.

Granted Isaiah 53 is the one that makes it very clear and is the scripture used from the 1st century onward by the church in support of the doctrine.

If we believe in the Trinity, The Hypostatic Union, The Kenosis, then the scripture "amalgamation" needed for the clarification for these doctrine is an important element of our faith.

The church for centuries, from the beginning taught penal substitution.

Are you prepared to reject these other doctrines aforementioned because they are only supported by "amalgamations" of scripture at the hands of men and early church fathers?

 

[JonC]

You keep ignoring the scripture we present to you.

Granted Isaiah 53 is the one that makes it very clear and is the scripture used from the 1st century onward by the church in support of the doctrine.

If we believe in the Trinity, The Hypostatic Union, The Kenosis, then the scripture "amalgamation" needed for the clarification for these doctrine is an important element if our faith.

The church for centuries, from the beginning taught penal substitution.

Are you prepared to reject these other doctrines aforementioned because they are only supported by "amalgamations" of scripture at the hands of men and early church fathers?

You are mistaking. Isaiah 53 was used to show that Christ bore our sins, and it was God's will to "crush" Him. Both penal and substitution aspects are present in Scripture and throughout Church history. But the Theory of Penal Substitution was not. It adopts an approach to divine justice that is absent both Scripture and pre-reformation history.

 

[agedman]

You are mistaking. Isaiah 53 was used to show that Christ bore our sins, and it was God's will to "crush" Him. Both penal and substitution aspects are present in Scripture and throughout Church history. But the Theory of Penal Substitution was not. It adopts an approach to divine justice that is absent both Scripture and pre-reformation history.

It is that very aspect in which the PS theory fails.

But rather then move away and see that the suffering was purposed, prophecied in every aspect, and approved by The Father, there are those that must cling to the some “divine justice” which is slanderous to the trinity, the Sovereignty, the prophecies, the types, and the consistency of Scripture.

It seems on this thread, that some would confuse the penal suffering and substitution as the total of the PS theory. It is not.

No one is denying the extent of physical suffering and the grevious sorrow of our Lord. But it seems that is what some posts would suggest.