A Biblical Based view of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

I never said it was hypothetical! I said your question is flawed due to the actual fact that no fallen child of Adam is "innocent" and we are not dealing with Roman or American jurisprudence but specifically with DIVINE LAW for atonement (Leviticus). Divine Law DEMANDS that ONLY an "innocent" man can atone for the unjust, thus the "just for the unjust."

The biblical writers repeatedly make it clear the animal qualified for atonement symbolizes JESUS CHRIST "without spot and blemish."

Sorry, jon but you are just wrong and I think that objective readers can easily see you are wrong!

 

It is obvious that you are completely and totally blind to the flaw of your question. My response is "offensive" to you because it totally annihilates your humanized philosophic speculative theory.

You say "yet Scripture insists that Jesus was in fact innocent" and that is my point, he is the ONLY human being that is "innocent" but what you are missing is that scriptures equally insist by DIVINE LAW that atonement can only be provided by this one and only "just" or "innocent" man (animal symbolizes that one and only innocent man - Jesus Christ.).

There can be no doubt that the sacrificial animal under Divine Law (Levitical law) that defines God's perimeters for atonement represents Jesus Christ as the only man "without spot or blemish" and "the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world." This is not debatable.

Moreover, DIVINE LAW that governs the perimeters of atonement DEMANDS the "just for the unjust" with regard to atoning sinners and their sins. Roman or American jurisprudence may not demand this but may deny this, but divine law with regard to the law of atonement DEMANDS THIS. The languague is clear and explicit and is not debatable: The High priest on the day of atonement confesses all the sins of all the people while laying his hands upon the head of the goat - here is the symbolism of transferring the sins of the unjust to the just. Moses explicitly states that the shedding of blood is the atonement "for the people" "because of their transgressions....all their sins." No figurative language here just plain simple statements that explicitly give the design for atonement. This is not debatable.

Finally, the penalty of sin is DEATH and the atonement is "shedding of blood" unto death and Christ (symoblized by the innocent animal) has his blood shed unto death in the LAWFUL POSITION where the just can suffer for the unjust which is upon a BRAZEN ALTAR (JUDGEMENT) AND FIRE (WRATH) IN THE PLACE OF GOD'S PEOPLE FOR THEIR SINS. The animal is not put to death for anything wrong found in it, because it is without spot or blemish, but is put to death to make atonement for sinners and their sins ("for the people.....because of their transgressions". This is not debatable.

Your speculative philosophy based on the traditions of men and American and Roman jurisprudence. Both American and Roman jurisprudence is based upon fallen men being characterized as "just" and "unjust" but Divine Law that governs atonement demands that ONLY the "just" can be put to death for the sins of others. If Divine Law is final authority then your question which is based upon laws dealing with FALLEN man is not applicable. This is not debatable.

 

NOTE:

My concern is for those steeped in human traditions on this doctrine and argue from the basis of American and Roman jurisprudence or even from National Jewish jurisprudence which all deal with divisions of "just" versus "unjust" with regard to FALLEN HUMAN BEINGS" are reading this kind of jurisprudence into DIVINE LAW that governs atonement (Leviticus). According to these laws it is unjust to punish a just person in the place of an unjust person because their designations of "just" versus "unjust" equally apply to fallen human beings.

However, DIVINE LAW which governs atonement (levitical law) demands the thing that all other systems of jurisprudence condemn. Divine Law that governs atonement demands that ONLY the "just" can atone (shed blood unto death) for the "unjust" as other than Jesus Christ there is no other person who is "just."

All Scripture precepts concerning Biblical atonement harmonizes perfectly with Levitical sacrificial Law (Divine law).

1. The sacrificial animal SYMBOLIZES Jesus Christ
2. The brazen altar and fire upon the altar SYMBOLIZES the wrath of God and the LEGAL POSITION where divine law justifies the just suffering for the sins of the unjust.
3. Laying of hands by the High Priest upon the head of the goat while confessing the sins of the people SYMBOLIZES legal substition with regard to transferrence of the sins of the people to the innocent animal (Christ).
4. The LITERAL explanation given to explain the Divine design that it is a substitionary penal atonement the innocent dying "for the people......because of the sins of the people" is clear and explicit. This LITERAL explanation is repeated over and over again throughout the rest of scriptures (Isa.53; 2 Cor.5:21; etc..).

Those who are steeped in secular philosophy and have as their final authority behind their rationalizations and interpretations of scripture to be American or Roman or Jewish jurisprudence all of which deals with FALLEN mankind divided into "just" and "unjust" cannot possibly have an objective view when dealing with DIVINE LAW for atonement and the scriptures containing DIVINE LAW for atonement as these are antithetical systems of jurisprudence.

 

If your charge had any merit, any legitimacy, then proper exegesis would expose my view. But where is it? Nada, Zilch, Nothing! Why? Because your view and intepretation is not based upon scripture but upon a another system of jurisprudence foreign to Divine law that governs atonement.

Indeed, my interpretation exposes the very heart of your eisgetical basis which is rooted in non-Divine Law. Your very question is derived from jurisprudence which deals with FALLEN human beings catergorized as "just" versus "unjust." Whereas, atonement is based on Divine law which categorizes mankind into "sinless" versus "sinful" categories.

So, you are practicing "projection" and accusing me of what you are actually doing.

Here is the challenge to prove whether your charges have any merit! Produce textual based expositon of scripture that can be defended exegetically which exposes my exposition as eisegesis! I say you can't do it, and that is why you don't even bother to go there! In contrast, my views are based upon clear and explicit statements consistent with context which you never challenge by offering textual based arguments but only make unfounded accusations against.