Featured Just how does the wrath of god be appeased if no penal Substitution?

I agree, but I am not sure how this responds to the argument. My point is that Hebrews 9:22 does not refer to the necessity of punishment when it refers to the shedding of blood, but the death necessary for the benefits of a will to be transferred.

 

If you are saying that our sin-debt is death, then you are saying the exact opposite of what the Bible says. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. Wages are the exact opposite of debts. Death is therefore something we earn from God, not something we owe God. Sinners have earned these wages of death justly because of our sin, whereas Jesus received the wages of sin unjustly because he was innocent. Justice therefore demands that his wages be returned, that his death be reversed, hence his resurrection. It is exactly as the penitent thief on the cross says:

"we indeed are suffering death justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

The uniqueness of Jesus' death is not that he alone dies, but that he alone dies unjustly, and therefore merits the reversal of death in his resurrection.

 

Agree. Not sure how this proves anything regarding Hebrews 9:22 being about the necessity of punishment.

 

If Isaiah 53 supported penal substitution, it would say "by his wounds we avoid be wounded" and not "by his wounds we are healed." The logic of the text is "by his death, the dead will be raised to new life" and not "by his death, those deserving death avoid it."

Furthermore, it is clear that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is suffering unjustly, not justly as penal substitution requires. The longest New Testament commentary on Isaiah 53, 1 Peter 2:18-25, makes it clear that Jesus' death was unjust, and it is his unjust suffering that secures grace with God.

 

"Sin bearer" just means that he suffered the consequences of our sins, or suffered our sins. No one is arguing that point. We all, by our sin, put Jesus to death. Jesus unjustly suffered the corruption and death that our sin brought upon the world. To prove penal substitution, you have to prove that Jesus (a) suffered the consequences in our place so we wont have to suffer them, and (b) that he suffered those consequences justly.

Yes, Jesus was treated as one accursed by God, but he was treated this way unjustly. Divine justice therefore demanded the reversal of the curse, hence his resurrection.

 

Thanks for the Welcome! Happy to contribute.

 

Psalm 22, which Jesus quotes upon the cross, is about someone who feels forsaken of God because of present suffering, but realizes that in fact, God "has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard. (v.24)"

The Psalm depicts someone who conflicted between his knowledge of God's presence and his faithfulness, and his feelings of forsakenness, but the resolution of this conflict is a resounding affirmation of God's deliverance. No, Jesus was not forsaken by God on the cross, but he certainly was tempted to feel that way as our sin was putting him to death.

 

This exchange, which I have not heard from you on yet, I think is a key scriptural issue:

If you are saying that our sin-debt is death, then you are saying the exact opposite of what the Bible says. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. Wages are the exact opposite of debts. Death is therefore something we earn from God, not something we owe God. Sinners have earned these wages of death justly because of our sin, whereas Jesus received the wages of sin unjustly because he was innocent. Justice therefore demands that his wages be returned, that his death be reversed, hence his resurrection. It is exactly as the penitent thief on the cross says:

"we indeed are suffering death justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

The uniqueness of Jesus' death is not that he alone dies, but that he alone dies unjustly, and therefore merits the reversal of death in his resurrection.

 

Utter nonsense, did anyone say our faith was the basis of our justification? Nope, so just more deflection and misrepresentation. Our faith, if credited as righteousness by God, provides our access to the grace in which we stand. Romans 5:2

 

No, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. No separation between Father and Son in the sense of the Father forsaking the Son, or turning His face away from the Son, or withholding love from the Son. The event of the Cross is the love that exists within the Trinity overcoming the sin of humanity.

The cup that Jesus drinks is the cup of exile. Exile to the power of evil forces, which for Israel meant captivity under foreign empires (Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) and for humanity means exile unto death. But that which was a just punishment for Israel and humanity, was unjust persecution for Jesus. Jesus suffers our exile unto death unjustly so that justice will reverse our exile through his resurrection. Also, notice how this does away with the substitutionary argument. The logic of the narrative is not "Jesus drank the cup of exile so his people wouldn't have to" but "Jesus drinks the cup of exile precisely because his people drank the cup of exile." Isaiah 51:17 says that Israel drank the cup of exile down to the dregs. Daniel 9:11 says that Israel suffered the curse, along with the oath, because of their transgressions. There is just no way of arguing that Jesus suffers exile so that his people won't have to.