PSA as defined in "Pierced for My Trangressions"

[JonC]

It is not the same at all. In John 15:13 huper plainly means both 'on behalf of' and 'instead of.'

This is very interesting. The word used in John 1:30 according to the T.R. and Majority text is peri, 'concerning,' 'about,' which obviously makes much more sense than, 'on behalf of.' However, that does not change the meaning of John 13:15.

But also, you are wrong about huper only appearing four times in John. Check out, John 10:11; 10:15 (the shepherd dies, the sheep don't); 11:50, 51, 52; 18:14 (one Person dies, the people don't). Greek prepositions have a notoriously large semantic range. Huper does not always mean 'instead of,' but sometimes the context very clearly indicates that it does.

You say "plainly" because that is what your theology teaches - NOT because the text dictates the meaning. A man can lay down his life for a friend in that persons behalf, for that person, to that person's benefit. I have a friend who lay down his life for his country (killed by a landmine while we were in Bosnia). He did not lay down his life instead of his country.

You are pushing the meaning of that passage. The result can be to spare the life of another person but it does not mean instead of the other person. There is a difference between a shepherd dying to protect the sheep, or a soldier dying to protect his country, and the way PSA corrupts Scripture to develop a theory whereby God punishes Jesus instead of punishing us.

 

[JonC]

I'm leaving for awhile - I actually get to dress and go to work (go to a government building and interview someone for a record, anyway). It feels strange after so long working by phone and fax.

 

[37818]

Using your method this is not quite accurate.

Physical death will be done away prior to the final judgment (it is appointed men once to die and then the judgment).

False, Matthew 10:28, Revelation 20:13-14.

 

[JonC]

False, Matthew 10:28, Revelation 20:13-14.

True.

Hebrews 9:27-28
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

 

[Yeshua1]

You say "plainly" because that is what your theology teaches - NOT because the text dictates the meaning. A man can lay down his life for a friend in that persons behalf, for that person, to that person's benefit. I have a friend who lay down his life for his country (killed by a landmine while we were in Bosnia). He did not lay down his life instead of his country.

You are pushing the meaning of that passage. The result can be to spare the life of another person but it does not mean instead of the other person. There is a difference between a shepherd dying to protect the sheep, or a soldier dying to protect his country, and the way PSA corrupts Scripture to develop a theory whereby God punishes Jesus instead of punishing us.

Punishing Jesus for our sakes, due to our sins, as that was the agreed upon plan of the Godhead to redeem lost sinners!

 

[JonC]

Punishing Jesus for our sakes, due to our sins, as that was the agreed upon plan of the Godhead to redeem lost sinners!

The only problem is that this aggred upon plan does not exist in Scripture.

I have no problem with PSA. I have no problem with Greek Mythology either (I actually enjoy reading Greek Mythology). But I understand that while both can convey philosophical truths in the end neither are true.

 

[Yeshua1]

The only problem is that this aggred upon plan does not exist in Scripture.

I have no problem with PSA. I have no problem with Greek Mythology either (I actually enjoy reading Greek Mythology). But I understand that while both can convey philosophical truths in the end neither are true.

There was the Plan of the Cross before the foundation of the earth, and the trinity themselves agreed upon it!

 

[George Antonios]

PSA replaces the historical Christian concept and biblical truth that Christ died for us with the addition (the “changing of Scripture”) that Christ died instead of us.

Why do you suppose the Jews had to lay hands on the sacrifice before it was offered?
Lev 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat [and other such verses say the same about other sacrifices], and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

If you PUT your sins, whose wages is DEATH (Ro.6:23) on someone ELSE who then suffers as a result = that's "penal substitution" by definition, and by illustration, in case we missed the definition.

You don't think the scapegoat [and the other goat, the flip side of the coin, was killed (Lev.16:15)] suffered instead of Aaron?

1Pe_3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust [hearkening back to Leviticus 16], that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

You still don't think that the Lamb died instead of you?

 

[JonC]

Why do you suppose the Jews had to lay hands on the sacrifice before it was offered?
Lev 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat [and other such verses say the same about other sacrifices], and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

If you PUT your sins, whose wages is DEATH (Ro.6:23) on someone ELSE who then suffers as a result = that's "penal substitution" by definition, and by illustration, in case we missed the definition.

You don't think the scapegoat [and the other goat, the flip side of the coin, was killed (Lev.16:15)] suffered instead of Aaron?

1Pe_3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust [hearkening back to Leviticus 16], that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

You still don't think that the Lamb died instead of you?

Aaron was the high priest and represented Israel. The sacrifices were acts of obedience covering the sins of Israel.

Yes, I still deny that Christ died instead of me because that is not in the Bible (I have a high standard when it comes to essential doctrines). But I do believe Christ died for my sins and the chastening for my well being fell upon Him, we are redeemed by His precious blood and freed from the bondage of sin and death AND in Him we escape the wrath to come.

 

[Yeshua1]

Aaron was the high priest and represented Israel. The sacrifices were acts of obedience covering the sins of Israel.

Yes, I still deny that Christ died instead of me because that is not in the Bible (I have a high standard when it comes to essential doctrines). But I do believe Christ died for my sins and the chastening for my well being fell upon Him, we are redeemed by His precious blood and freed from the bondage of sin and death AND in Him we escape the wrath to come.

The soul that sins must die, not maybe should die!

 

[George Antonios]

Aaron was the high priest and represented Israel. The sacrifices were acts of obedience covering the sins of Israel.

Well yes, but you simply ignored the case laid out.
Why were they to place their hands on the sacrifices and place their sins on them?
Why were their sins transferred to the scapegoat?

 

[Yeshua1]

Well yes, but you simply ignored the case laid out.
Why were they to place their hands on the sacrifices and place their sins on them?
Why were their sins transferred to the scapegoat?

To die in their stead!

 

[JonC]

Well yes, but you simply ignored the case laid out.
Why were they to place their hands on the sacrifices and place their sins on them?
Why were their sins transferred to the scapegoat?

I understand the case laid out, but yes, I did simply ignore it in my response.

The reason is that I believe the Atonement is a foundational doctrine. I personally stick very close to Scripture when it comes to foundational doctrines. If Scripture makes sense without having to add theories then I don't add theories. That said, the OT system highlighted our sin, foretold Christ and the Cross, but redemption would come as God's righteousness manifested apart form the law, not through it. The sacrifices were not a model for Christ to follow but a foretelling or shadow of the greater Priest and Sacrifice to come.

People get too caught up in their theologies and theories that they often miss Scripture. It sounds strange but it is true. As there are no passages that say God punished Christ instead of punishing us I have no interest in expounding on ideas that could illustrate this unstated idea.

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand the case laid out, but yes, I did simply ignore it in my response.

The reason is that I believe the Atonement is a foundational doctrine. I personally stick very close to Scripture when it comes to foundational doctrines. If Scripture makes sense without having to add theories then I don't add theories. That said, the OT system highlighted our sin, foretold Christ and the Cross, but redemption would come as God's righteousness manifested apart form the law, not through it. The sacrifices were not a model for Christ to follow but a foretelling or shadow of the greater Priest and Sacrifice to come.

People get too caught up in their theologies and theories that they often miss Scripture. It sounds strange but it is true. As there are no passages that say God punished Christ instead of punishing us I have no interest in expounding on ideas that could illustrate this unstated idea.

Jesus died in our stead/place, so whatever we were to get done to us due to us being sinners would be what he got from God the father!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

People get too caught up in their theologies and theories that they often miss Scripture.

Amen! Here's some Scripture. Caiaphas speaking. '"You know nothing at all., nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for [Gk. huper] the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for [Gk. huper] the nation, and not for that nation only.........' (John 11:49-52).
He prophesied that Jesus would die on behalf on the nation so that the nation would not perish. In other words, that our Lord would perish instead of the nation.

 

[JonC]

Amen! Here's some Scripture. Caiaphas speaking. '"You know nothing at all., nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for [Gk. huper] the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for [Gk. huper] the nation, and not for that nation only.........' (John 11:49-52).
He prophesied that Jesus would die on behalf on the nation so that the nation would not perish.

I agree. Jesus died in behalf of the nation, for the nation, so that the nation would not perish.

We can be united in the truth that Jesus died for Israel (and the part you snipped as well, that He died to gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad) so that they would not perish. And Jesus died so that we would have life (so that we would not perish).

This does not, obviously, mean that God was punishing Jesus instead of punishing Israel. That is where PSA becomes a false doctrine emptying the cross of meaning. Christ died instead of Israel perishing to gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad. There is no need to add your theory to Scripture as we can agree on what is written.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. Jesus died in behalf of the nation, for the nation, so that the nation would not perish.

We can be united in the truth that Jesus died for Israel (and the part you snipped as well, that He died to gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad) so that they would not perish. And Jesus died so that we would have life (so that we would not perish).

This does not, obviously, mean that God was punishing Jesus instead of punishing Israel. That is where PSA becomes a false doctrine emptying the cross of meaning. Christ died instead of Israel perishing to gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad. There is no need to add your theory to Scripture as we can agree on what is written.

Where would be the wrath of God towards sins and sinners being propitiated then?

 

[JonC]

Where would be the wrath of God towards sins and sinners being propitiated then?

That does not make sense. "Wrath" is not something that is contained in a place and "sin" is not something upon which wrath can be directed. God's wrath is against unrighteousness in the context that it is against the sinner (the one who sins). Change the sinner there is no wrath. God is not a child who has to be appeased to do right.

 

[Yeshua1]

That does not make sense. "Wrath" is not something that is contained in a place and "sin" is not something upon which wrath can be directed. God's wrath is against unrighteousness in the context that it is against the sinner (the one who sins). Change the sinner there is no wrath. God is not a child who has to be appeased to do right.

God has been storing up his wrath against sinners, due to His very nature as being Holy!

 

[JonC]

God has been storing up his wrath against sinners, due to His very nature as being Holy!

Where did God keep it? A wrath cabinet? You are misrepresenting Scripture, Brother.