Biblical Penal Substitution

[JonShaff]

Thanks for the post. I will take some time to evaluate the difference, if any, between Jesus dying “instead of us” and Jesus dying “for us” as it concerns the punishment for sin
and the wrath of God.

Perhaps you could explain why dying “for us” is distinctly tied to penal substitution Christus Victor and not penal substitution atonement?

peace to you

My post #18 speaks to that, just FYI.

 

[canadyjd]

I have been contemplating this a lot myself.

Jesus died for us--this doesn't mean He necessarily died "instead" of us, but He died "For" us. Meaning, He didn't "die in our place" (we all still physically die), but that His death was "For our benefit". Like giving a gift at Christmas--I bought this FOR you.

But i will say, 1 Peter 3:18 does bring in some form of PSA:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

which still shows it was His physical death that accomplished the work of God.

He died willingly for our sins.

I found it. Thanks for the insight.

I’ve been trying to understand the difference between “for us” and “instead of us”.

My son made an interesting observation. He said the difference lies in the reason behind the act. That makes sense to me.

If Jesus died “instead of us” then the primary reason for the cross is appeasing the wrath of the Father and demonstrating His holiness and judgement. The secondary effect is providing salvation to those that believe.

If Jesus died “for us” then the primary reason for the cross is the redemption and salvation of His chosen people. The secondary effect is satisfying God the Father’s wrath, Holiness, judgement.

Peace to you

 

[Yeshua1]

This is the part that i do not believe is actually Biblical, thus making the modern Penal Substituionary Atonement, in some form, incorrect. Scripture clearly teaches:

Romans 5:9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Ephesians 2:3
At one time we all lived among them, fulfilling the cravings of our flesh and indulging its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature children of wrath.

1 Thessalonians 1:10
and to await His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead--Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.

Another aspect of the Penal Substitionary Atonement that modern proponents adhere to is that the "spiritual death" of Christ is what actually atoned for our sin. That is also incorrect. It was the physical death, the blood of Jesus Christ that atoned for our sin. The passage i mentioned above states that and many others:

Colossians 1:20; 22
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross

yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach

Those holding to Pst would not see spiritual death of Jesus, as that would be word of faith heresy, and bible clear that God has stored up his wrath towards sins and sinners, so how would that be propitiated and appeased except by Pst?

 

[Yeshua1]

From what you posted, I see two events. The first is the death of Jesus as propitiation. That evolves penal substitution. The second is resurrection/exaltation of Jesus. That involves Christus Victor.

The two are linked, of course, but not the same event. Perhaps a good argument is that penal substitution laid the foundation for Christus Victor as did all other aspects of the life of Jesus.

Perhaps you could explain exactly how your view of penal substitution differs from 15th-16th century reformers view and how that relates to a Passover sacrifice verses an atonement sacrifice?

peace to you

Whatever else happened on that Cross, Pst had to be done and accomplished first!

 

[Yeshua1]

Could you give an example of someone or group that holds to the spiritual death atonement theory. I have never heard of this before.

peace to you

Word of faith, as they were 'revealed" that Jesus suffered spiritual death on Cross, took on Satan nature, went to hell, and had to get born again!

 

[Yeshua1]

@Martin Marprelate offered a statement on another thread that I will borrow and use here (it shows the difference, I think, fairly well). The statement was from Pierced for our Transgressions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach.

Penal Substitution Atonement says - " that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin"

BUT penal substitution in Christus Victor says that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer for us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

Those two statements are very similar, but they are saying two very different things.

Pst incudes wrath of God involved, other does not, as somehow they would see it "not right" for Jesus to be still righteousness and forced to suffer in our stead!

 

[Yeshua1]

I found it. Thanks for the insight.

I’ve been trying to understand the difference between “for us” and “instead of us”.

My son made an interesting observation. He said the difference lies in the reason behind the act. That makes sense to me.

If Jesus died “instead of us” then the primary reason for the cross is appeasing the wrath of the Father and demonstrating His holiness and judgement. The secondary effect is providing salvation to those that believe.

If Jesus died “for us” then the primary reason for the cross is the redemption and salvation of His chosen people. The secondary effect is satisfying God the Father’s wrath, Holiness, judgement.

Peace to you

For God to be both Holy and judge and freely justify lost sinners, someone must die in judgement for our sins!

 

[JonC]

Thanks for the post. I will take some time to evaluate the difference, if any, between Jesus dying “instead of us” and Jesus dying “for us” as it concerns the punishment for sin
and the wrath of God.

Perhaps you could explain why dying “for us” is distinctly tied to penal substitution Christus Victor and not penal substitution atonement?

peace to you

If I provide that explanation for you, is it me providing that explanation instead of you?

 

[JonC]

I have been contemplating this a lot myself.

Jesus died for us--this doesn't mean He necessarily died "instead" of us, but He died "For" us. Meaning, He didn't "die in our place" (we all still physically die), but that His death was "For our benefit". Like giving a gift at Christmas--I bought this FOR you.

But i will say, 1 Peter 3:18 does bring in some form of PSA:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

which still shows it was His physical death that accomplished the work of God.

He died willingly for our sins.

We cannot dismiss penal substitution. But I do thing that PSA takes it too far (or at least contains too many presuppositions).

The crux of the difference comes in how we view the work of Christ.

PSA views this as the Father punishing our sins laid upon Christ as a punishment instead of us receiving that punishment and thereby making forgiveness possible.

Christus Victor views the Father as offering the Son to the world to suffer and die under the powers of darkness (sharing in our infirmity rather than taking our infirmity instead of us) and freeing us from the bonds of those powers with the Father justifying Christ in the resurrection.

Sometimes people like to say that these two views illustrate truths, but in truth they are opposing positions.

 

[JonShaff]

And to be honest--Most of us only learned one view of the atonement and it's difficult to "unlearn" and "relearn"...checking our presuppositions and preunderstandings at the door before we engage in "listening" during these discussions is quite difficult for anyone, myself included. Especially when pride rears its ugly head and says what i learned "has to be right".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have been contemplating this a lot myself.

Jesus died for us--this doesn't mean He necessarily died "instead" of us, but He died "For" us. Meaning, He didn't "die in our place" (we all still physically die), but that His death was "For our benefit". Like giving a gift at Christmas--I bought this FOR you.

But i will say, 1 Peter 3:18 does bring in some form of PSA:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

which still shows it was His physical death that accomplished the work of God.

He died willingly for our sins.

Thanks for the post. I will take some time to evaluate the difference, if any, between Jesus dying “instead of us” and Jesus dying “for us” as it concerns the punishment for sin
and the wrath of God.

I think we need to pause here a minute.
The preposition generally used and translated 'for' in the relevant passages is huper, which means 'on behalf of.' as in Galatians 2:20 and 3:13. for example Now if I buy pay a bill on your behalf (not likely to happen!), I pay it and you don't. If Christ suffers on our behalf, He suffers and we don't. That is substitution and if a penalty is involved, it is penal substitution. Let's look at Galatians 3:13. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for [Gk. huper] us.' He becomes a curse and we don't. That's penal substitution.

There are some places where the preposition anti is used. It tends to mean 'over against' or 'instead of.' Luke 11:11. '...Will he for [Gk. anti. 'instead of''] a fish give him a serpent?' Now look at Mark 10:45 or Matthew 20:28. '.....And give His life a ransom for [Gk. anti] many.' The ransom is paid to God's justice. Christ pays it; we don't. Penal Substitution.

There are several other Greek prepositions translated 'for' but I think these two are the most important.

 

[JonC]

And to be honest--Most of us only learned one view of the atonement and it's difficult to "unlearn" and "relearn"...checking our presuppositions and preunderstandings at the door before we engage in "listening" during these discussions is quite difficult for anyone, myself included. Especially when pride rears its ugly head and says what i learned "has to be right".

This ^^^^^ is the key. I have not held PSA for about five or six years. But for over 40 years that is what I believed and how I viewed Scripture. It was automatic. If you asked "why" I'd say "it's right there in the Bible".

I have been deployed to many countries. I lived in a tent for a year in war torn country. But the hardest thing I have ever done was try to look past my view, to "unlearn", and I still fail at times. But when I can set aside what I would have otherwise carried, the results are amazing. Scary in a way, but amazing. God is good.

 

[JonShaff]

I think we need to pause here a minute.
The preposition generally used and translated 'for' in the relevant passages is huper, which means 'on behalf of.' as in Galatians 2:20 and 3:13. for example Now if I buy pay a bill on your behalf (not likely to happen!), I pay it and you don't. If Christ suffers on our behalf, He suffers and we don't. That is substitution and if a penalty is involved, it is penal substitution. Let's look at Galatians 3:13. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for [Gk. huper] us.' He becomes a curse and we don't. That's penal substitution.

There are some places where the preposition anti is used. It tends to mean 'over against' or 'instead of.' Luke 11:11. '...Will he for [Gk. anti. 'instead of''] a fish give him a serpent?' Now look at Mark 10:45 or Matthew 20:28. '.....And give His life a ransom for [Gk. anti] many.' The ransom is paid to God's justice. Christ pays it; we don't. Penal Substitution.

There are several other Greek prepositions translated 'for' but I think these two are the most important.

Caveat--it (Gk. huper) sometimes means "on behalf of". Other times, most of the times, it does not.

 

[JonC]

I think we need to pause here a minute.
The preposition generally used and translated 'for' in the relevant passages is huper, which means 'on behalf of.' as in Galatians 2:20 and 3:13. for example Now if I buy pay a bill on your behalf (not likely to happen!), I pay it and you don't. If Christ suffers on our behalf, He suffers and we don't. That is substitution and if a penalty is involved, it is penal substitution. Let's look at Galatians 3:13. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for [Gk. huper] us.' He becomes a curse and we don't. That's penal substitution.

There are some places where the preposition anti is used. It tends to mean 'over against' or 'instead of.' Luke 11:11. '...Will he for [Gk. anti. 'instead of''] a fish give him a serpent?' Now look at Mark 10:45 or Matthew 20:28. '.....And give His life a ransom for [Gk. anti] many.' The ransom is paid to God's justice. Christ pays it; we don't. Penal Substitution.

There are several other Greek prepositions translated 'for' but I think these two are the most important.

But "on our behalf" does not mean "instead of". It means for. I have written reverences for people - "on their behalf" or "for" them - but not "instead of them".

"on one's behalf" can also mean for that person's benefit. A parent signs a document on a child's behalf, not instead of the child as the child cannot legally sign the document anyway. A speaker can speak on the behalf of another, not instead of them but for their benefit.


It seems that we each choose the interpretation of words that suit our interpretation of the topic as a whole.

 

[JonShaff]

But "on our behalf" does not mean "instead of". It means for. I have written reverences for people - "on their behalf" or "for" them - but not "instead of them".

"on one's behalf" can also mean for that person's benefit. A parent signs a document on a child's behalf, not instead of the child as the child cannot legally sign the document anyway. A speaker can speak on the behalf of another, not instead of them but for their benefit.


It seems that we each choose the interpretation of words that suit our interpretation of the topic as a whole.

I think one of the clearest examples of this is Romans 5:8

God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.

So, if we say Christ died in our place, He died physically so we wouldn't have to? But we still do die physically. So, Him taking our place does not seem like a good interpretation here.

However, if we say "Christ died for our benefit" here, then the passage makes sense. Look at the context.

Rarely does anyone die for a righteous man. That's not talking about "in his place" but for him, to benefit him or his cause.

A soldier can die "for his country", but He does not die "in place of" his country.

 

[JonC]

Part of the issue is that Scripture tells us Jesus’ death is “according to the Scriptures”, not according to a few texts we can pull out as proof text while holding Scripture at an arms length.

This is one reason that I ended up rejecting PSA.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think one of the clearest examples of this is Romans 5:8

God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.

So, if we say Christ died in our place, He died physically so we wouldn't have to? But we still do die physically. So, Him taking our place does not seem like a good interpretation here.

I'm sorry; this is wrong. Because of what Christ has done on my behalf, I have eternal life - right now! "Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes My word and believes Him who sent Me has [right now] everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24; c.f. John 8:51-52). I have already died with Christ (Galatians 2:20; Colossians 3:3 etc.), and I have been raised with Him and am seated with Him in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:5-6 etc.). It is true that at some point I shall shuffle off this mortal coil, but I have eternal life right here and now, and I trust that you do also.

However, if we say "Christ died for our benefit" here, then the passage makes sense. Look at the context.

Rarely does anyone die for a righteous man. That's not talking about "in his place" but for him, to benefit him or his cause.

I disagree, absolutely. All sorts of people have died to save others, dying instead of them. That is what Christ has done.

A soldier can die "for his country", but He does not die "in place of" his country.

This is true so far as it goes, but a soldier can die for his comrades, "in place of" them, and many have. Jesus Christ did not die for any particular country; He suffered and died for sinners - in their place, the place of punishment, instead of them.

One thing I know beyond any doubt: if the Lord Jesus has not paid the penalty for my sins in full, I shall have to pay for them myself, and that I could never do though I spend an eternity in hell.

 

[JonShaff]

I'm sorry; this is wrong. Because of what Christ has done on my behalf, I have eternal life - right now! "Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes My word and believes Him who sent Me has [right now] everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24; c.f. John 8:51-52). I have already died with Christ (Galatians 2:20; Colossians 3:3 etc.), and I have been raised with Him and am seated with Him in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:5-6 etc.). It is true that at some point I shall shuffle off this mortal coil, but I have eternal life right here and now, and I trust that you do also.

I disagree, absolutely. All sorts of people have died to save others, dying instead of them. That is what Christ has done.

This is true so far as it goes, but a soldier can die for his comrades, "in place of" them, and many have. Jesus Christ did not die for any particular country; He suffered and died for sinners - in their place, the place of punishment, instead of them.

One thing I know beyond any doubt: if the Lord Jesus has not paid the penalty for my sins in full, I shall have to pay for them myself, and that I could never do though I spend an eternity in hell.

Proper Hermeneutics doesn't agree with your assessment, brother.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But "on our behalf" does not mean "instead of". It means for. I have written reverences for people - "on their behalf" or "for" them - but not "instead of them".

"on one's behalf" can also mean for that person's benefit. A parent signs a document on a child's behalf, not instead of the child as the child cannot legally sign the document anyway. A speaker can speak on the behalf of another, not instead of them but for their benefit.


It seems that we each choose the interpretation of words that suit our interpretation of the topic as a whole.

But as I have pointed out, it can also mean instead of. If I pay a bill on your behalf, I pay it, you don't; I pay it instead of you.
If I am due to speak in court, a lawyer can do it on my behalf; he speaks, I don't. And so on and so on.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Proper Hermeneutics doesn't agree with your assessment, brother.

I think you'll find they do.