Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ?

[agedman]

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

The NIV gives a bit clearer statement (though I am not usually that friendly toward the NIV):

Isaiah 53:

10Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makesc his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
​

Throughout Scriptures HOW does God cause suffering?

By withdrawing His support and allowing the fallen forces of both humankind and nature to prevail.

Hence, the very cry of or Lord, “Father, why have you forsaken me?”

God’s statements concerning the treatment of the redeemer were purposefully fulfilled not out of some wrath, but because of design set down over the millennia concerning the redemption.

Other versions highlight various perspectives of this passage.

The ESV gives this from Isaiah 53:

10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;g
when his soul makesh an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
​

It seems to highlight that the Fatherks reaction (for lack of a better word) at watching the Son at the crucifixion was to pronounce blessing and not wrath.

The NASB makes the declaration that of an “if/then” statement.

10But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, (then)
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
​

The point being that at no place is the wrath of God poured out upon the Son on display or even suggested by Isaiah.

 

[HankD]

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.

Isaiah 53:5 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.

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53:5 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.

Exactly. He was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our inniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him. And by His stripes we are healed.

Scripture presents the atonement as penal and substitution and victory an love. But not Penal Substitution Theory.

You can't read that passage without applying the Theory, can you?

 

[HankD]

[QUOTE="JonC, post: 2400905, member: 12639"
You can't read that passage without applying the Theory, can you?[/QUOTE]
speakest for thyself John Alden?

 

[JonC]

[QUOTE="JonC, post: 2400905, member: 12639"
You can't read that passage without applying the Theory, can you?

speakest for thyself John Alden?[/QUOTE]No. I was speaking of those who would alter the passage to read "He was punished with our punishment for our sins as God poured His wrath upon Christ".

My comment was that you see the Theory of Penal Substitution as the "obvious" meaning of the passage when the text itself neither demands nor confirms the conclusion. You do not seem to recognize Penal Substitution Theory as a theory.

 

[HankD]

"speakest for thyself John Alden" No. I was speaking of those who would alter the passage to read "He was punished with our punishment for our sins as God poured His wrath upon Christ".

Ditto on "those who would alter the passage".

 

[JonC]

Ditto on "those who would alter the passage".

Yes, we need to be faithful to Scripture and recognize interpretation and theory from Scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.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.

Getting an answer out of you is like getting blood out of a stone. Christ is our advocate and He intercedes with the Father on our behalf. How can one intercede with anyone without words? How can He intercede without pleading our case? Yes, the Biblical allusion is definitely to a court case. So what does he say, man?

What I rejected was not what was written in Scripture but your philosophy.

No, what you reject is the Scripture. Christ is our advocate. That is the Scripture, and you are rejecting it because your philosophy does not allow you to answer it. 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

Tu quoque.

. Before I entered into discussion here I rejected the theory but was not so opposed to it.

Before I entered the discussion I supported it, but I am grateful to you insofar as you have driven me to search the Scriptures more thoroughly so that I have come to see the vital importance of the doctrine.

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.

I have read a fair amount by Bruce in the past, though I now have only two of his books. My main objection to his writing is that he gives too much respect to modern, unbelieving thought, but I suppose that is inevitable given his position in a secular university, and I can understand how that would endear him to you.

 

[Darrell C]

JonC" said:
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.
Darrell C said:
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.

First, I would point out that when I said Jon hit the nail on the head I mean that. Christs came to bestow life to men, life they had not previously received before. The Cross was the means by which Atonement was made, and by the resurrection we are immersed into God and born again, now having that life.

I'm not all that interested in debating "penal substitution," but, I will say that my comments are centered on how Jon views it:

I define the Penal Substitution Theory as the theory formulated by the Reformers as an extension of Satisfaction Theory: Christ died as a substitute for sinners; God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ and he, in our stead, bore the punishment that would have otherwise been ours. God, having received full payment for our sins by visiting the wrath due sinners upon Christ could forgive sinners without compromising divine justice.

I would agree that God did not visit His wrath on Christ in the sense that Christ bore our penalty, which would have meant eternal separation, an impossibility in itself. The penalty for sin is death, Christ died in our stead, and He deemed the penalty paid while still on the Cross.

The sinner, though, will endure eternal separation.

But again, I don't spend much time on doctrines of men. Usually, there are truths in both sides, so it is best just to stick with what Scripture teaches and not go to extremes which take us outside of the boundaries we are given in Scripture. Obviously I hold to substitution, because I view Christ dying in our stead, just as animals died in the stead of the sinner in previous Ages and that brought about atonement and remission (though on a temporal level). Perhaps if you stated some of the issues you guys disagree on?

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.'

In the first verse what I see is Christ will magnify the Law and make it honorable, as opposed to men failing to keep it.

In the second verse, "at the present time" contrasts those who were under Law, who were justified by obedience. You left out "...to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past..."

And I view Propitiation here, since the context deals with a contrast between justification by the Law and that freely given by grace, as pointing to Christ's work in a reconciliatory sense, where we would draw a parallel between His blood (death) and the Mercy Seat. It holds within its its framework expiation, reconciliation, and a continuing quality of His redeeming work.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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).

That is because 1 John 2:1 is referencing a courtroom setting. Parakletos, as you must surely know, is a word used to denote a legal assistant, a counsel for the defence or, wait for it.......an advocate. But the reason for quoting Isaiah 42:21 is simply to note that God, in His salvation plan, would exalt His righteousness magnify His law-- 'by no means clearing the guilty.' But when Christ the sinless one is made sin (2 Corinthians 5:21), we become the righteousness of God in Him so the Lord is well pleased for His righteousness' sake.

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.

Thomas Binney's hymn is based on 1 John 1:5ff and so I thought it might be helpful but if you don't like it you don't have to sing it . I see that you are allowed to quote F.F. Bruce but I am not allowed to quote Robert Candlish; how does that work? With regard to 'cherry-picking' verses, we are to compare Scripture with Scripture to find the truth. 'These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.' That is what is called, 'rightly dividing the word of truth.' If you can't keep up, that is your problem, not mine.
The fact is that the whole Scripture testifies to Penal Substitution, so I have a wide variety of texts to choose from.

No one here is arguing against Scripture.

I think you'll find you are.

What we are arguing against is the theory, theology, and philosophy you are bringing into Scripture.

What you are arguing against is the word of God, and you're not doing that very well.

 

[JonC]

Getting an answer out of you is like getting blood out of a stone. Christ is our advocate and He intercedes with the Father on our behalf. How can one intercede with anyone without words? How can He intercede without pleading our case?

This is what I mean when I say you cannot get past your theory. You imagine Jesus standing in front God's throne mounting a defense for us. So you ask "How can Jesus do this without words? How can He intercede without pleading our case?"

You are trapped in an allegory of your own making, brother. The use of "advocate" leads you to envision Christ standing before the Judge pleading our case. You are taking this to a very unbiblical level.

Jesus IS God, and all judgment is given Him. Jesus does not have to convince God to let us live. We HAVE life in Him.

No words needed. No pleading required. It is finished and redemption is here.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you're not interested in discussing the subject I won't detain you, but just point out a few things.

I would agree that God did not visit His wrath on Christ in the sense that Christ bore our penalty

1 Peter 2:24. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' The use of the word xulon, 'tree' rather than stauros, 'cross' is a reference to Deuteronomy 21:23 and Deuteronomy 28:27. 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us' (Galatians 3:13). He expiated the curse that was upon us by taking it upon Himself.

which would have meant eternal separation, an impossibility in itself. The penalty for sin is death, Christ died in our stead, and He deemed the penalty paid while still on the Cross.

God Himself deemed the penalty paid when the sun re-appeared at the ninth hour. Had Christ been a sinful man, he could not have paid our penalty at all had He suffered for all eternity, but as the sinless God-Man, His sufferings were of infinite worth.

 

[Darrell C]

If you're not interested in discussing the subject I won't detain you, but just point out a few things.

I just said I wasn't interested in discussing "penal substitution," and until you can show me that in Scripture I will stick with what is in there.

I would agree that God did not visit His wrath on Christ in the sense that Christ bore our penalty, which would have meant eternal separation,

1 Peter 2:24. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' The use of the word xulon, 'tree' rather than stauros, 'cross' is a reference to Deuteronomy 21:23 and Deuteronomy 28:27. 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us' (Galatians 3:13). He expiated the curse that was upon us by taking it upon Himself.

You parsed my statement right in the middle, so I have put it back into its original context.

First, the penalty for sinners is not just death, but everlasting death, which is the absence of the Life Christ bestows to the redeemed. Christ did not have to suffer that, His physical death was sufficient to atone for our sin.

Secondly, note "on the tree," that is the significant aspect of this verse in relation to this discussion. He did not actually become a "curse," and I don't see that we have to see God pouring our sins into Christ in some spiritual manner.

When animals were sacrificed they also took upon themselves the sins of the men they died for. The bull did not become an idolater spiritually, and the goat did not become a spiritual heathen.

God Himself deemed the penalty paid when the sun re-appeared at the ninth hour.

Right. While He was still on the Cross. It coincides with His physical death, right?

Had Christ been a sinful man, he could not have paid our penalty at all had He suffered for all eternity,

Exactly. His death was sufficient based on His guiltless and sinless offering of Himself.

On the other hand, the Justice of God is exacted in an eternal quality on those who pay their sin debt themselves.

God has the right to exchange the death of His Son, to whom no blame could be imposed on, for the deaths of countless sinners.

but as the sinless God-Man, His sufferings were of infinite worth.

And I think everyone is in agreement with that, amen.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

This is @Martin Marprelate 's claim:

The Father elected me to salvation. He chose me and drew me. He gave me to Christ. He offered Christ as a payment for me. He punished Jesus in my place and with my punishment so He can forgive me. And now Christ stands before the Father in a courtroom setting pleading for my life.

Theory built on theory.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is what I mean when I say you cannot get past your theory. You imagine Jesus standing in front God's throne mounting a defense for us. So you ask "How can Jesus do this without words? How can He intercede without pleading our case?"

First of all, I imagine nothing.
1 John 2:1b, NKJV. 'And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.'
1 John 2:1, NIV. But if anyone does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defence-- Jesus Christ the righteous One.'

You are trapped in an allegory of your own making, brother. The use of "advocate" leads you to envision Christ standing before the Judge pleading our case. You are taking this to a very unbiblical level.

I am taking it to a totally Biblical level-- well someone's got to! If it is an allegory, it is a divine one, but in fact it is imagery. But the image is of Christ, our great High Priest, interceding for us before the Father. Read Exodus 28:29-30. Christ as High Priest bears the names of His people upon His heart and pleads His all-sufficient sacrifice of Himself before the Father.

Jesus IS God, and all judgment is given Him. Jesus does not have to convince God to let us live. We HAVE life in Him.

No words needed. No pleading required. It is finished and redemption is here.

If that is so, why are we told, 'Therefore [Christ] is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He ever lives to make intercession for them' (Hebrews 7:25)? You have your liberal philosophy; I am quoting the Scriptures. So, when He is making this intercession, what does He say or do?

I know you dislike me quoting hymns, but too bad! They do at least show that I am not unsupported:

'he died; but lives again,
And by the throne He stands,
There shows how He was slain,
Opening His pierced hands:
Our Priest abides and pleads the cause
Of us who have transgressed His laws.' [John Cennick]

'See where before the throne He stands,
And pours the all-prevailing prayer,
Points to His side and lifts His hands,
And shows that I am graven there.' [Charles Wesley]

'Jesus, my Great High Priest
Offered His blood and died;
My guilty conscience seeks
No sacrifice beside.
His powerful blood did once atone,
And now it pleads before the throne.' [Isaac Watts]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is @Martin Marprelate 's claim:

The Father elected me to salvation.

Ephesians 1:4.

He chose me and drew me.

Romans 8:30; John 6:44.

He gave me to Christ.

John 6:39.

He offered Christ as a payment for me.

Romans 3:25-26; Revelation 5:9.

He punished Jesus in my place and with my punishment so He can forgive me.

2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13.

And now Christ stands before the Father in a courtroom setting pleading for my life.

Hebrews 7:25; 1 John 2:1.

Theory built on theory.

Scripture all the way through.

 

[JonC]

Ephesians 1:4. Romans 8:30; John 6:44. John 6:39.
Romans 3:25-26; Revelation 5:9. 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13. Hebrews 7:25; 1 John 2:1.
Scripture all the way through.

Yes. Those are verses pulled out of Scripture. I agree. Now go back and read the entire context without adding your Theory and see what you have. I guarantee it won't be the Theory of Penal Substitution.

Why put so much weight in a theory anyway, when we have Scripture at our finger tips?

 

[JonC]

Ok, let’s run through this theory of @Martin Marprelate one more time. Maybe this time someone can see the problems associated with it.

The Father, in eternity past, elected men to salvation.
The Father chose men to be saved.
The Father drew these men.
The Father gave these men to Christ.
The Father offered Christ as a propitiation for these men’s sins.
The Father poured out the wrath these men deserved on Christ.
The Father punished Christ with the punishment reserved for these men’s sins.
The Father satisfied His wrath towards these men by visiting it on Christ.

Now Christ advocates for us by standing before the Judge pleading that the Father spare our lives.

Never mind how far this strays from Scripture, does anyone else see the inconsistency in this theory????

 

[Yeshua1]

Sure. But first, I am mostly opposed to those who cannot distinguish between the Theory of Penal Substitution (or any other theory) and Scripture itself. I can fellowship, worship, and study with people who hold to the Penal Substitution Theory without hesitation.

I define the Penal Substitution Theory as the theory formulated by the Reformers as an extension of Satisfaction Theory: Christ died as a substitute for sinners; God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ and he, in our stead, bore the punishment that would have otherwise been ours. God, having received full payment for our sins by visiting the wrath due sinners upon Christ could forgive sinners without compromising divine justice.

Propitiation itself is defined as the wrath of God being appeased/paid for by someone, who allows God to now reconcile lost sinners back to Himself!

 

[Yeshua1]

You have hit the nail on the head, brother.


God bless.

Jesus died in our stead, He took the sin penalty due to us, receiving the wrath of God that would come towards us!