Featured My (JonC) view of the Atonement

The same manner as the OT. God provided a Lamb and was pleased with the the sacrifice and the High Priest that brought the blood.

 

Our sins were imputed to him and as the sin bearer, God the father judged Him as if we were on that Cross!

 

Where and how was His holy wrath propitiated and averted?

 

Perhaps this personal reminiscence may be helpful, and with this I'm finished on this thread, apart from a reply I owe to @agedman.

When Mrs M and I were about to be married, almost 42 years ago, it became clear that my prospective father-in-law was very ill with a brain tumour and had only a very short time to live.
He was able to walk his daughter down the aisle, but giving the customary Bride's Father's speech was beyond him, so he sought a substitute. He asked Mr Brown, an old family friend, to give the speech for him. This Mr Brown did, rather well as I recall.
Did Mr B give the speech on behalf of my father-in-law? Yes, he did. He did for his friend what he could not do himself, taking the responsibility for it.
Did he give the speech as the representative of my f-i-l? Yes he did. He spoke the words that Mrs M's father would have spoken had he been well enough.
Did he give the speech instead of my f-i-l? Yes he did. Father-in-law did not have to give the speech because he had a substitute. Mr B spoke 'in his stead' or 'in his room' as the old Puritans would have put it Had he not spoken, either the wedding speech would not have been given or my father-in-law would have had to try to do what he knew himself to be unable to do. Full satisfaction was given to the wedding guests in respect of a Father-of-the-bride's speech, but it was given by someone else.

So, did the Lord Jesus die on behalf of sinners? Yes, He did. They were under the righteous anger of God (Psalms 7:11 etc.) and were quite unable to assuage it themselves (Romans 5:6).
Did the Lord Jesus die as the representative of sinners? Yes He did. To be an effective mediator, He had to come in the likeness of human flesh, and reconcile man to God by giving satisfaction to God's outraged justice.
Did the Lord Jesus die instead of sinners? Yes He did. 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.' Why not? Because He has satisfied divine justice so that God can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. He suffered condemnation and punishment so that we do not have to.

 

I have never thought of the Lord Jesus as having been ground to powder. We can read for ourselves hat actually happened to Him.
My knowledge of Hebrew is very small indeed. This is from The complete Wordstudy Dictionary (Old Testament) by Warren Baker & Eugene Carpenter (AMG Publishers)

"Strongs 1792. daka. A verb meaning to crush, to beat down, to bruise, to oppress. The Hebrew word is often used in a poetic or figurative sense.
Eliphaz spoke of those who lived in houses of clay, whose foundation were easily crushed (Job 4:19).
The Psalmist prayed that the king would crush an oppressor (Psalms 72:4) and accused the wicked of crushing the Lord's people (Psalms 94:5).
Proverbs 22:22 exhorts others not to crush the needy in court.
The word can also be used metaphorically in the same way that the English word crushed is used to mean dejected or sad (Isaiah 19:10)."

Take your pick from that lot. I will only add that the Lord Jesus' sufferings were physical as well as spiritual, and not metaphorical.

 

So, God crushed/bruised Jesus and by that act we escape the wrath to come. This is how I read your declaration.
The subtlety of what you are saying is escaping me because it sounds to me like what all whom you accuse of PSA also believe.

 

You really do need to provide me Scripture to support your opinion..

 

Did you read my response?

 

Austin,

The words of Isaiah do not state God did the crushing (bruising). Only that it was pre planned and accomplished accordingly, and such was pleasing to Him.

By insisting that God poured wrath out on the Son, it violates Scriptures and Scripture principles of the relationship concerning the trinity, the fullness of God, and other portions.

However, if you consider that Isaiah DOES state that Humankind thought that Beating, whipping, bruising, and other torture was done for the sake of honoring God, then such does conform to every other presentation of the crucifixion in Scriptures.

For example: look at Psalm 22. Who is persecuting the Christ? What are they called by the Redeemer?

Look down at the latter portion. What is God’s response.

Don’t forget, that Paul shared how believers also (as did example the Lord) the sufferings. He compared his own to that of the Christ. Do we then share such wrath of God?

Jesus said that believers would certainly drink of the same cup (not a different but the same) which was the sorrows, the torture, even unto body ceasing vitality? Is this God pouring His wrath upon us, too?

When you rightly align Isaiah, then the Scriptures fit perfectly to not only the Christ, but to all believers.

 

Aw, that is a touching reflection. Sorrow and gladness blended. Thank you for sharing.

I can understand that you present "substitution" with that list. However, Christ did not substitute for humans, He substituted himself for the atonement Lamb.
Christ did not represent us, but in Hebrews He is referred to as the High Priest that offers the blood - His blood.

Did Christ die on behalf of sinners? Yes - I do agree that He did. What He did not do was remove the death, for the body still ceases vitality as a result of sin's wages; however, the sting of death, the judgement following death is replaced by eternal life. His death brought benefit only to believers, imo.

Did the Lord Jesus die as the representative of sinners? Only in that believers also do drink of the same cup as our Lord. Believers are bruised, whipped, tortured, abused, even to death. The representation is that there is eternal life by the resurrection. I don't see the mediatory work as a part of the death, but the victory over the grave. But that would be a small issue for me to be corrected.

Was God satisfied? Certainly, and as a result there cannot possibly be wrath poured out, just as the OT sacrifice and offerings when brought correctly resulted in no wrath.

Did the Lord Jesus die instead of sinners - No. For the wages of sin is death, and we all will cease to have a viable earthy body.
One must be careful (as I suggested in a previous post) concerning the "for" in English.
For example: 1 Thessalonians 5:10:

He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with Him.

The "for" is a preposition "peri" and does not carry "in our place, but as a result of a cause or in respect to, or about.

The same word is used in 1 Peter 3:18, again it is not "in our place" but a different meaning.​

Divine Justice was satisfied by the blood, not the wrath of God. See Hebrews and Colossians referenced previously

I assume, then, you can see by your own work that "wrath" was not the intended meaning to apply to Isaiah 53, and therefore, Isaiah 53 cannot be used to support the thinking of PSA.

Martin, I have so much to be thanking you for.

You allow my mind to refocus and consider alternatives. Do not ever think that part of your ministry is not to folks on the BB.

We may certainly not always agree, but we seek each other to grow in Christ that He be glorified.

 

So I still don't know that I see the distinction.

It pleased God to crush Him. We agree.

Next, however, you seem to be saying that the evil of this world crushed Christ, not God.

But, you had just said that God crushed Him.

Honestly, many, many people have died under the evil of this world.

What makes God's Son's death a sin offering? To whom was Jesus giving his body as a sin offering?

This whole idea of a sacrificial sin offering is found in the Old Testament covenant that God made with Moses on Mount Sinai. The unblemished lamb was slain as a substitute for the sinner to appease God. But this substitute was a fully satisfactory substitute. It had to be done year after year. (Read Hebrews)

Jesus is that perfect Lamb of God. An unblemished, perfect, Lamb of God was our substitute, taking on the sins of all who believe in the atoning work of the Lamb.

God was pleased with this atoning sacrifice as it met all the requirements of His holy law..

Jon, why do you add "under the evil of this world?" I see no place in scripture that says this.

 

Jon, what you say here has NOTHING to do with the atonement.
No Christian thinks that s/he should be treated better than Jesus. Jesus is perfect, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. We are wretched sinners to the core. There is nothing in us of any value whatsoever. All our righteousness is as filthy rags.
Our only hope is that we are found in Christ Jesus. That when God looks upon us, our intercessor is the one who saves us from our impending doom.
Hebrews 7:25
Therefore he is able, once and forever, to save those who come to God through him. He lives forever to intercede with God on their behalf.

Jon, do you understand the covenant that was established in Jesus sacrifice? Do you understand how we find ourselves in Christ because of that covenant that Jesus established for us by his death?

What you have presented above has nothing to do with atonement.

 

dude, you should not get involed in things that you are wrong about.

Firstly, I will respond to number 3, you say that I am "not the sole authority on the BB in languages. Thankfully there are others, so do not become puffed up in your own presentations". WRONG! I have never claimed to be any "authority" on my knowledge of Hebrew, Greek and Latin! I have yet to be corrected on anything that I have commented on, in these languages, here on BB. I don't pretend like some do on here, even those who are supposed to know better!

Secondly, I have posted on BB, a number of times, clear evidence from the Greek usage, where the preposition ὑπέρ, as used in places like Galatians 3:13, does have the meaning, "INSTEAD OF", as is very clear form its use in Philemon 13, "that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me" (KJV), etc. @JonC who says he knows Greek, simply ignores this fact!

Thirdly, please feel free to correct my errors here on BB, should you see any. I always am open to learning, and never claim to know it all!

 

In Galatians 3:13:

“Hyper” is never used in the Greek as “instead of.” You should know that. It is not a word signifying replacement or substitution.​

in Philemon 13:

10I appeal to you for (peri-concerning) my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment. 11(Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.) 12I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. 13I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. 15For (gar- the cause) this perhaps is why he was parted from you for (indicating distance) a while, that you might have him back forever, 16no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
​

ok, I have shown what you should already know. Neither verse you want as proof supports “instead of.”

Perhaps you can find substitution in some other Scripture.

Are you will to learn?

Then try to find “substitution” as related to any OT atonement sacrifice. You might.

Usually it is “transfer, transferring, …” and typically aligned with satisfaction.

But you might find something different.

if you do, please share.

 

It was the will of the father to have Jesus die in our place and stead as our sin bearer! God the father, agreed upon by Lord Jesus, was the One who placed Him upon that Cross!

 

God the father placed Jesus upon that Cross, as they both agreed that he was to come and bear in himself the due penalty for us as sinners