Penal Substitution and the Trinity

[Allan]

Ha! You just made my point. The definitions come from the context in which they are used, else the word's meaning wouldn't make sense. .

By the way, you can't take a root meaning and make it the very meaning. A root means it is derived from or has the sense of something, like your example of "bitter" but the word is "rebellion". You cannot replace rebellion with 'bitter' but you can see the bitterness in rebellion because it 'comes from' the word but it is NoT the word itself. They have to different meanings.

 

[Darrell C]

Whether the Trinity itself was "broken" for a short period of time is, ultimately, unknowable.

I think you are the first to suggest that the Trinity could be separated. While I would understand if one argued for a separation between God and Christ on a physical basis, that separation was possible on an eternal level, from a spiritual perspective, is not something I think many would agree with. I could be wrong about that though.

The Father was with Christ in that hour:


John 16:31-32
King James Version (KJV)

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

I believe it was, but on logical ground only (as opposed to textual grounds).

Belief apart from "textual grounds" is not logical.

So, if there is disagreement, it isn't a big issue.

I think its an important issue. That Christ was forsaken is based on His quotation of David in Psalm 22, and the fact is...David was not forsaken:


Psalm 22:23-24
King James Version (KJV)

23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.


Christ also quotes this:

Psalm 31
King James Version (KJV)

5 Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.


And goes on to say...


Psalm 31:22
King James Version (KJV)

22 For I said in my haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes: nevertheless thou heardest the voice of my supplications when I cried unto thee.

However, it is nearly undeniable that the "cup" that Jesus spoke of was the cup of God's wrath.

Christ does not forgive the Father for what He does, but...


Luke 23:34
King James Version (KJV)

34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Is Jesus asking for another way? Yes.

Again, a point debated in the thread. I take the position it makes little sense for God to manifest in flesh for the very purpose of the Cross and then waver at the end.

I see the Lord as asking that the cup, which entails His Incarnation, His suffering (which itself lends itself to more than being brutalized, but having to partake of human flesh itself), and His atoning for those that made Him weep...pass.

I think it is just that simple: "Father, let this be the time that we get this done."

God answered "No.

If we apply "My God my God why hast Thou forsaken Me," then we should equally apply...


Psalm 22:23-24
King James Version (KJV)

23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.


As well as...


Hebrews 5:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Was Jesus forsaken? Yes, absolutely.

Some see it that way. I see that as an impossibility due to the fact God cannot be separated from Himself.

Does that being forsaken necessitate a fracture in the Trinity, perhaps not, but it could.

Just not a possibility.

God is always One, eternally.

Sorry for taking so long to respond, it has been a little busy.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

Ha! You just made my point. The definitions come from the context in which they are used, else the word's meaning wouldn't make sense. .

By the way, you can't take a root meaning and make it the very meaning. A root means it is derived from or has the sense of something, like your example of "bitter" but the word is "rebellion". You cannot replace rebellion with 'bitter' but you can see the bitterness in rebellion because it 'comes from' the word but it is NoT the word itself. They have to different meanings.

I suspect the reason many translations lean towards "bitter" is how the verse corresponds with the broader context of Job. We have to keep in mind that we are choosing English words to represent ideas conveyed by Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words.

 

[Allan]

Ok, I went back to look up the word because initially I was just responding to your post and not the actual wording. In light of that, the word's basic definition here is - bitterness but is used figuratively as rebellion. The root is more regarding "to make" bitter, not just bitter. Thus the word here is about being in a state of bitterness or a sense of rebellion.

 

[JonC]

Ok, I went back to look up the word because initially I was just responding to your post and not the actual wording. In light of that, the word's basic definition here is - bitterness but is used figuratively as rebellion. The root is more regarding "to make" bitter, not just bitter. Thus the word here is about being in a state of bitterness, which can be seen as rebellion figuratively depending on the contextual usage of one bitter against God or His workings instead of bitter at their circumstances in general.

And in the context of Christ being made sin the verse can interpreted to be a "sin offering" or "considered as sinful", but not literally "made sin". This is a good example of where the lexicon alone could be misleading (no one is claiming a literal interpretation that Christ was somehow made unrighteous or evil).

 

[Allan]

And in the context of Christ being made sin the verse can interpreted to be a "sin offering" or "considered as sinful", but not literally "made sin". This is a good example of where the lexicon alone could be misleading (no one is claiming a literal interpretation that Christ was somehow made unrighteous or evil).

No, it cannot be because not only will the context will not allow for it, nor the wording, but the very meaning of 'made' (to become) is specific. If the text stated "like", or "as", then yes your point is valid but it does not. Here is your problem in the text... it is worded specifically 'made sin' and thus must be understood as in the same way. You are adding to the text a pretext to replace the text that is given. It was written "made sin" because that was the way it was to be interpreted, context. Again, you must go back to OT Law to understand the sacrifice, what it embodied and what was needed for the law to be satisfied and WHY? While it is a foreshadowing (meaning a picture of what is to be depicted via an image) does not negate the fact of what it means nor entails.
Another point, As A.T. Robertson, a widely accepted and renowned Greek scholar, puts it: ""Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb. God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin."

Anyhoo.. done on this thread. Have a great day. I'm out... lots of work

 

[JonC]

As one who knows, reads, and understands Greek I can say - No, it cannot be because not only will the context will not allow for it, nor the wording, but the very meaning of 'made' (to become) is specific. If the text stated "like", or "as", then yes your point is valid but it does not. Here is your problem in the text... it is worded specifically 'made sin' and thus must be understood as in the same way. You are adding to the text a pretext to replace the text that is given. It was written "made sin" because that was the way it was to be interpreted, context. Again, you must go back to OT Law to understand the sacrifice, what it embodied and what was needed for the law to be satisfied and WHY? While it is a foreshadowing (meaning a picture of what is to be depicted via an image) does not negate the fact of what it means nor entails.
Another point, As A.T. Robertson, a widely accepted and renowned Greek scholar, puts it: ""Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb. God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin."

Anyhoo.. done on this thread. Have a great day. I'm out... lots of work

Yet those commentators I quoted do know Greek. I only studied the language for a year at the graduate level so reference others. Most scholars I have read favor the interpretation thay God treated Christ as sin, but at the same time recognize "sin offering" as another possible meaning.

That said, I do believe Christ was made sin (made in the likeness of sinful flesh, became man, numbered among the transgressors, bore our sins, etc.). The verse does not, however, prove that God was wrathful to Christ.

 

[Darrell C]

As one who knows, reads, and understands Greek I can say - No, it cannot be because not only will the context will not allow for it, nor the wording, but the very meaning of 'made' (to become) is specific. If the text stated "like", or "as", then yes your point is valid but it does not. Here is your problem in the text... it is worded specifically 'made sin' and thus must be understood as in the same way. You are adding to the text a pretext to replace the text that is given. It was written "made sin" because that was the way it was to be interpreted, context.

First, I have to ask, are you saying that on the Christ Christ became a sinner? That is Jon's point, that He was not actually a sinner. You seem to be arguing He was.

Secondly, based on your argument here, this...


2 Corinthians 5:21
King James Version (KJV)

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.


...means we are literally the righteousness of God. When in fact the righteousness in view is what God has done through Christ. We are the result, not the cause.

Again, you must go back to OT Law to understand the sacrifice

Exactly, and what that pictures is a symbolic transference of sin to an animal who is then put to death in the stead of the sinner.

No different with the Sacrifice of Christ. He did not become a sinner on the Cross, it is because He was sinless that His Sacrifice can be substituted for the death we would have died.

what it embodied and what was needed for the law to be satisfied and WHY?

It was very simple, the wages of sin is death, when someone sinned, they had to die.

Enter the Grace of God, which provided the sacrificial system so that instead of the sinner dying, an animal died in their place. The animal did not become a sinner in order to satisfy the requirement of the provision, it simply...died.

And only Christ could be the scapegoat and the sacrifice. In this we see one offering dying, one offering living, and the twain are made one in two ways: Christ died and lived, and the sinner died (in Christ, symbolically) and lives (in Christ).

While it is a foreshadowing (meaning a picture of what is to be depicted via an image) does not negate the fact of what it means nor entails.

Precisely.

Another point, As A.T. Robertson, a widely accepted and renowned Greek scholar, puts it: ""Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb. God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin."

Gesundheit.




God bless.

 

[JonC]

Robert and William Mounce both translate the word "sin offering" (and they are not slouches when it comes to Greek).

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, no. Most of the time when we see the NT quoting the OT, we are looking at a quote from the LXX. When John quoted Isaiah 53 he quoted from the LXX.

Here is the difference in terms of Isaiah 53. The LXX does not allow Isaiah 53:10 to present God as pouring His wrath upon Christ. The Hebrew text allows it, but does not demand it.


But that is not what Acts 2:23 teaches.

Which was the inspired text then, the LLX or the Hebrew one of the OT?
And the Acts passage indeed tells to us that the Father determined that Messiah would die as the Suffering Servant, and that He used the sinful acts of sinners there to accomplish that Feat!

 

[Yeshua1]

I know of many discrpancies between the LXX and the Hebrew text. I also know well that most of the New Testament's quotes of the Old Testament are of the LXX. Ultimately, neither of these things matter when it comes to the passage at hand.

I noticed that you did not deal with this: Here is the passage in Greek: καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς, I see nothing here that suggests what you are saying.



You seem to be hung up on the word "Condemn." 1 Peter 3:18 says, "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God..." (ESV) Christ here, the righteous one, is suffering, not for his unrighteousness, but for the unrighteousness of others. There is condemnation, but it is not full and final. This goes along perfectly with Isaiah 53.

I do not think God delights in crushing the Servant, but finds delight in the Servant's sacrifice. But, the meaning of that sacrifice is not left to our imagination. Isaiah 53:4-6 clearly tells us that the servant bears our sin and suffers for them. Isaiah makes this abundantly clear.



And how is your "interpretation" not influenced by something? I find it particularly ironic that in the 1 Jn 2:2 discussions, you totally disallowed any appeal to any other text. Yet here, you insist on doing it yourself. It is curious.

The Archangel

JonC keeps on claiming that on this issue, you and me and Martin are trusting in traditions of men over the scriptures for our understanding, but is he not doing here the very same thing he claims that we are? his presumptions on wrath of God and Jesus not having to face that wrath is coloring his understanding here?

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree we are not tied to the LXX. It is still interesting that John uses it to quote Isaiah 53, but that proves nothing. The point, however, is that the LXX does not allow your interpretation while the Hebrew does not dictate it.

At a minimum Isaiah 53:10 states the same as Peter's sermon in Acts 2 (that it was God's will to crush him". I am taking the interpretation at this point (not adding to it "by pouring upon Christ His wrath). In this vein I agree with the LXX (and, coincidentally, the early church). So you could say I am influenced by the LXX, the early church writings, and passages of Scripture denying God could have been wrathful to the Righteous. Guess you could say I'm a minimalist.

God had to see jesus as the Sin bearer, and to remain true to his holiness, had to have the Messiah suffer for the sake of the redeemed, in order to be able to declare them righteous.

 

[Yeshua1]

You do this every time you are losing a debate. You claim that you are arguing from Scripture and your opponents are following 'tradition.' It's a cheap shot and a lot easier than arguing from Scripture. That is why you are unsuitable to be a moderator

You would not accept that from me. You would demand Scripture and accuse me of following tradition. God set the Lord Jesus forth as a propitiation to demonstrate His righteousness. That is Scripture (Romans 3:26 if you're not sure). John 3:16 makes no reference to the cross. God loved the world in that He sent His Son into it to be the propitiation for our sins ( 1John 4:10. But He shows His righteousness at the cross and His hatred of sin.

The evidence of course is that you have turned your ears away from the truth and have been turned aside to fables (2 Timothy 4:4). Now are we going to stop insulting each other or shall we carry on? And yes, Christ is the sacrifice that turns away wrath.

God MUST have his wrath appeased and accounted for, in order to be able to declare sinners right with Himself now, in order to have His justice/judgement and Holiness all stand!

 

[Yeshua1]

Once again; those are my beliefs and my understanding of the Scriptures. I do NOT come from a Reformed tradition. Please stop saying that I do. Now that I have told you that I do not, to repeat that false statement would be a lie rather than an error.

Is it JUST Reformed that hold to the Pst, as before coming over to the reformed salvation position and the Pst, many Baptist authors seemed to hold it in same regard, and none of them quoted calvin!

 

[Yeshua1]

And in the context of Christ being made sin the verse can interpreted to be a "sin offering" or "considered as sinful", but not literally "made sin". This is a good example of where the lexicon alone could be misleading (no one is claiming a literal interpretation that Christ was somehow made unrighteous or evil).

Jesus in HIMSELF never became a sinner or sinful or hasd a sin nature, but as the Sin Bearer, God had to treat Him as if he were all of those!

 

[JonC]

Which was the inspired text then, the LLX or the Hebrew one of the OT?
And the Acts passage indeed tells to us that the Father determined that Messiah would die as the Suffering Servant, and that He used the sinful acts of sinners there to accomplish that Feat!

Well, as you are fond of saying, John and Jesus used the LXX and when John quoted Isaiah 53 it was from the LXX.

I believe both say the same thing (both the Hebrew and the LXX can support my view). You believed the LXX erroneous because it does not allow for your view.

 

[JonC]

Jesus in HIMSELF never became a sinner or sinful or hasd a sin nature, but as the Sin Bearer, God had to treat Him as if he were all of those!

Any time you bind God by saying He had to do something you need to reevaluate your words.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, as you are fond of saying, John and Jesus used the LXX and when John quoted Isaiah 53 it was from the LXX.

I believe both say the same thing (both the Hebrew and the LXX can support my view). You believed the LXX erroneous because it does not allow for your view.

No, I believe that the Hebrew text was inspired of God, not the LLX

 

[Yeshua1]

Any time you bind God by saying He had to do something you need to reevaluate your words.

God, in order to remaun faithful to his holiness/wrath/love/justice, to Himself, had to treat and view Jesus on the Cross as being Sin Bearer, as being as it were very sin....

 

[JonC]

No, I believe that the Hebrew text was inspired of God, not the LLX

Most of the quotes in the NT come from the LXX. Do you believe the authors were wrong not to use the Hebrew text?