5 Biblical Corrections to Penal Substitution

[Van]

Acts of the Apostles 13:38-39
“Therefore let it be known to you, brothers, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,
and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses"

Here we have the ubiquitous "all things" which is vague but contextually freed from whatever God holds against us is the idea.

The resurrection fulfills the promise of a descendant of David being the savior. See Romans 1:1-7

 

[JonC]

No, that's what it means.

Tell me what it means that He "bore our sins in His own body on the tree," without simply repeating the text.

Jesus shared in our infirmitiy, our sickness. He took upon Himself our sins, our curse. He became man, became flesh and blood just as you and I are flesh and blood. He experienced the death that you and I earned.

As far as the verse goes, it means what it said. He took upon Himself our sins bodily on the cross.

 

[Arthur King]

The issue is the resurrection of Jesus did not "reverse" or create a just sacrifice.

The resurrection reverses Jesus' unjust death. It is the divine reversal of the unjust human verdict. I don't know what you mean by "create a just sacrifice." I have never used that terminology myself.

 

[Van]

The resurrection reverses Jesus' unjust death. It is the divine reversal of the unjust human verdict. I don't know what you mean by "create a just sacrifice." I have never used that terminology myself.

My view is Christ's sacrifice was just according to God.

Your view is Christ's sacrifice was unjust according to God and had to be "reversed" (or create a just sacrifice from an unjust sacrifice).

All of God's actions are just, as He is perfect.

Deuteronomy 32:4
“The Rock! His work is perfect,
For all His ways are just;
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,
Righteous and just is He.

 

[Arthur King]

My view is Christ's sacrifice was just according to God.

Your view is Christ's sacrifice was unjust according to God and had to be "reversed" (or create a just sacrifice from an unjust sacrifice).

All of God's actions are just, as He is perfect.

Deuteronomy 32:4
“The Rock! His work is perfect,
For all His ways are just;
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,
Righteous and just is He.

Was the rape of Dinah unjust? Was the abuse of Joseph by his brothers unjust? Was the slaying of Abel (which the New Testament explicitly connects to Christ) unjust? Was the murder of Naboth unjust? Was the murder of the prophets unjust?

Did God's sovereignty slip up in allowing these unjust events to take place? Or can God ordain events in which injustices take place without himself being unjust?

 

[Aaron]

"and not subject to the penalty brought upon our sins in His own body on the tree."

Will you physically die?

That has yet to be seen. 1 Corinthians 15:51

But answer my question first.

Of whom is the one who hangs on a tree accursed?

 

[Aaron]

Jesus shared in our infirmitiy, our sickness. He took upon Himself our sins, our curse. He became man, became flesh and blood just as you and I are flesh and blood. He experienced the death that you and I earned.

As far as the verse goes, it means what it said. He took upon Himself our sins bodily on the cross.

Let me help you out.

First, there was an exchange. He took our sins and gave us His righteousness. He took our curse, and gave us His blessedness.

What happened to our sins in the body of Christ?

 

[JonC]

Let me help you out.

First, there was an exchange. He took our sins and gave us His righteousness. He took our curse, and gave us His blessedness.

What happened to our sins in the body of Christ?

Describe a sin that was transferred from us to Christ.

 

[Aaron]

Describe a sin that was transferred from us to Christ.

Take your pick. There's a plethora mentioned in relationship to the sin and trespass offerings.

Again, we are told He bore our sins in His own body on the tree.

Describe a sin that wasn't.

 

[Arthur King]

That has yet to be seen. 1 Corinthians 15:51

But answer my question first.

Of whom is the one who hangs on a tree accursed?

God ordained that Jesus would suffer the curse unjustly. God can ordain events in which injustices take place without himself being unjust. God ordained that Abel would be unjustly murdered. The New Testament explicitly relates Abel's death to Christ's.

See the words of the penitent criminal on the cross next to Jesus in Luke 23. His logic is not "in my place condemned he stood," but "Jesus and I are under the same sentence of condemnation, me justly, him unjustly." That is the precise logic that I am defending, because it is right there in Scripture.

1 Peter 2:18-25, which is the longest New Testament commentary on Isaiah 53, explicitly states that Jesus' suffering was unjust, and that his unjust suffering finds grace with God. No unjust suffering means no grace.

 

[Arthur King]

As usual, your rabbis have missed the point, which is why they reject Christ. I've noticed a Judaistic list in your posts. Your earlier assertion that God's desire is to bless the nations through Israel caught my eye. No, the Seed of Abraham is Christ. Not Israel. But that's another discussion.

LOL. Sez who? That's baloney. Besides, the offerer kills the sin offering only if he is able to bring one from his herds or flocks. The poorer among them brought fowls, and in that case the priest is commanded to kill the offering, and to drain the blood at the base of the altar. Where is the commandment to sprinkle the offerer?

Alas for the poor folks!

Not always.
Leviticus 1:14-15, 5:7-8


The sacrifices were divided into two main groups, those that were burned on the brazen altar, and those that were not.

Those that were burned on the altar, or more accurately, those that rose as a sweet savor are the Burnt, Meat (or Meal), and Peace Offerings, and those that weren't were the Sin and Trespass offerings.

The first group are not offered for sin. This is the devout Isrealite, not a penitent, bringing an offering in worship to Jehovah. Many are confused by the word "atonement" in the description of the Burnt Offering. But it's not atonement for sin. It's the satisfaction of righteousness, not wrath. And so it is wholly burnt on the altar, and rises as a sweet savor, pleasing to God.

And notice the reason for the laying on of the worshipper's hands. That signifies that the worshipper is identifying with the offering, and it is "accepted for him." In other words, it is accepted in his place. The offering is seen as the offerer. It is his substitute.

Christ is not only our substitute in judgment, but in service. It is His righteousness that is imputed to us.

The second group is the group offered for sin. These are not burned on the altar, except for a memorial portion. Again, the offerer places his hands on the head of the offering, signifying, as in the Burnt Offering, it's "acceptance for him." And the offering is killed, then carried outside the camp and burned on the ground, not on the altar of God, and the sins of the offerer are judged.

According to the cited law, of whom is the one hanging on the tree accursed?

"No, the Seed of Abraham is Christ. Not Israel. But that's another discussion."

It is not "Christ not Israel." But rather "Christ is the true Israel." Christ is the fulfillment of God's promise to bless all nations through Israel.

"LOL. Sez who? That's baloney."

I got the observation that the offerers would be covered in blood from Al Mohler, himself a penal substitution advocate. He had experience with butchery of animals that he used to support his point. Take it up with him.

"Alas for the poor folks!"

You are using too small of an exception to try to debunk the rule. That sinners slay the sacrifices is clear and consistent through all types of sacrifices. Just as on the cross, sinners slay the sacrifice. There is smooth continuity between the OT sacrifices and the crucifixion.

"And notice the reason for the laying on of the worshipper's hands."

No, the animal is not a stand-in for the offending party, but for the victim. That is, the sacrificial animal is not a substitute or representative of the sinner, but it is a representative of the one sinned against. As a jumping off point into explaining the rationale behind this, let’s look at the Declaration of Innocence ritual in Deuteronomy 21.

All the elders of that city which is nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley; and they shall answer and say, ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it. Forgive Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, O Lord, and do not place the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of Your people Israel.’ And the bloodguiltiness shall be forgiven them. So you shall remove the guilt of innocent blood from your midst, when you do what is right in the eyes of the Lord.

Look at the central act of cleansing near the end of the ritual: the washing of hands and declaration of innocence. The elders of the city are washing their hands over the dead heifer and saying “Our hands did not shed this blood.” So who does the heifer represent? It represents the slain man. The victim. Everything about the ritual is a sort of recapitulation of the crime itself, but with the commentary that the elders did not see the crime and are not guilty of shedding blood.

So, if what is being expressed in this sacrifice is “Our hands did not shed this blood”, what are we to think is being expressed in the majority of sacrifices, in which the offerer is guilty of sin? In a regular sacrifice, the declaration is “My hands did shed this blood.” For that declaration to make sense, “this blood” must belong to the victim. The animal is a representative of the victim. Why would a victim need a representative? Because the representative, the animal without blemish, is the only one who is truly innocent, that is, unfallen. Without an innocent victim suffering alongside us, none of us would be able to claim that our suffering is unjust, and therefore that our suffering deserves reversal.

"Christ is not only our substitute in judgment, but in service. It is His righteousness that is imputed to us."

No, Jesus is not righteous so we don't have to be righteous. Jesus is righteous so we can become righteous. His righteousness is applied to us in the Holy Spirit. You are showing how substitution undermines the application of the Holy Spirit of the promise, incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus to believers.

 

[Van]

Was the rape of Dinah unjust? Was the abuse of Joseph by his brothers unjust? Was the slaying of Abel (which the New Testament explicitly connects to Christ) unjust? Was the murder of Naboth unjust? Was the murder of the prophets unjust?

Did God's sovereignty slip up in allowing these unjust events to take place? Or can God ordain events in which injustices take place without himself being unjust?

Surely it is not too difficult to grasp the distinction of humans treating someone unjustly, and God treating His Beloved Son unjustly.

 

[Arthur King]

Surely it is not too difficult to grasp the distinction of humans treating someone unjustly, and God treating His Beloved Son unjustly.

Can God ordain events in which injustices take place without himself being unjust? Yes or no? Just answer that question.

 

[Van]

Can God ordain events in which injustices take place without himself being unjust? Yes or no? Just answer that question.

God can and does allow human sinful and unjust thoughts and actions. Duh...
Did God's predetermined plan to crucify Christ include fulfillment of prophecies such as standing mute? Of course.

God utilizes some actions meant for evil to accomplish good. That is a long way from saying God acts unjustly.

All of God's actions are just, as He is perfect.

Deuteronomy 32:4
“The Rock! His work is perfect,
For all His ways are just;
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,
Righteous and just is He.

My view comes from scripture, your view, as far as I can discern, comes from the speculation of people.

 

[Van]

Comments on the OP:
1) " Problem: deserving wrath / Solution: avoiding wrath "
Here the idea is that the consequence imposed by God for failure to think and act according to God's will is (a) separation from God - thus "dead in sin" and (b) obtaining a "sin burden" - what God holds against the individual thus incurring divine punishment.

But I do agree with the "corrected view" of "Problem: dead in sin / Solution: resurrection in Christ.
Here the idea is that when God transfers an individual from the domain of darkness (in Adam) into the Kingdom of His Beloved Son (in Christ) the individual is made alive (no longer dead in sin) together with Christ (Ephesians 2:5) and having undergone the "washing of regeneration" which makes the person alive and removes the "sin burden" resulting in those born anew being holy blameless and forgiven.

2) Jesus death was unjust and this was corrected by His resurrection. I disagree. Jesus was treated unjustly, but His sacrifice, the just for the unjust, was according to God's just plan as God is never unjust.

3) The problem with Penal Substitution is that it limits Christ's provision of the means of salvation to preselected individuals, rather than providing the means of salvation for all of humanity, the whole world. 1 John 2:2

4) Jesus bought everyone, those to be saved and those never to be saved (2 Peter 2:1) such that He became the means of salvation for everyone, but only those God transfers into Him spiritually receive the reconciliation He provides.

5) Christ's substitutionary death provided justification to life for all humanity, Romans 5:18. Or justification for life from death to all humanity, thus providing the opportunity for all, and the actuality for those who receive the reconciliation

 

[Arthur King]

God can and does allow human sinful and unjust thoughts and actions. Duh...
Did God's predetermined plan to crucify Christ include fulfillment of prophecies such as standing mute? Of course.

God utilizes some actions meant for evil to accomplish good. That is a long way from saying God acts unjustly.

All of God's actions are just, as He is perfect.

Deuteronomy 32:4
“The Rock! His work is perfect,
For all His ways are just;
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,
Righteous and just is He.

My view comes from scripture, your view, as far as I can discern, comes from the speculation of people.

No one is saying that God acts unjustly. I have simply defended that God can ordain events in which injustices take place without himself being unjust, which you agree with. One of the main acts of injustice was the crucifixion of Christ. We are told explicitly many times in the New Testament that the death of Christ was unjust. So not sure what the issue is here.

 

[Van]

No one is saying that God acts unjustly. I have simply defended that God can ordain events in which injustices take place without himself being unjust, which you agree with. One of the main acts of injustice was the crucifixion of Christ. We are told explicitly many times in the New Testament that the death of Christ was unjust. So not sure what the issue is here.

And I have simply said God does not cause events in which injustice according to God's value system occurs, as all His actions are just.

We are not told even once, God sacrificing His Son was unjust in God's eyes.

 

[Aaron]

God ordained that Jesus would suffer the curse unjustly. God can ordain events in which injustices take place without himself being unjust. God ordained that Abel would be unjustly murdered. The New Testament explicitly relates Abel's death to Christ's.

See the words of the penitent criminal on the cross next to Jesus in Luke 23. His logic is not "in my place condemned he stood," but "Jesus and I are under the same sentence of condemnation, me justly, him unjustly." That is the precise logic that I am defending, because it is right there in Scripture.

1 Peter 2:18-25, which is the longest New Testament commentary on Isaiah 53, explicitly states that Jesus' suffering was unjust, and that his unjust suffering finds grace with God. No unjust suffering means no grace.

You could have just said you didn't want to answer the question.

 

[Aaron]

It is not "Christ not Israel." But rather "Christ is the true Israel." Christ is the fulfillment of God's promise to bless all nations through Israel.

Not Israel; Abraham.

I got the observation that the offerers would be covered in blood from Al Mohler, himself a penal substitution advocate. He had experience with butchery of animals that he used to support his point. Take it up with him.

The offerer didn't do the butchering. The priests did. The offerer only killed the animal. It is not hard to stand where you don't get sprayed. Besides, the priests had to catch the blood in a vessel, and, knowing the attention to the letter, would not think it a successful sacrifice if the offerer got in the way.

You are using too small of an exception to try to debunk the rule.

No I'm not.

That sinners slay the sacrifices is clear and consistent through all types of sacrifices. Just as on the cross, sinners slay the sacrifice. There is smooth continuity between the OT sacrifices and the crucifixion.

That the offerer kills the sacrifice in the higher varieties of each offering is clear. In the case of Christ, God was the offerer. He gave His Son, and He was also the one to do the violence to it. The sinners were merely the instrument.

You can see the picture in the offerings, and also in the rending of the veil, from top to bottom.

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; - Hebrews 10:19-20
​

And in the straightforward comment of the Son Himself:

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. - John 10:17-18 ​

No, the animal is not a stand-in for the offending party, but for the victim. That is, the sacrificial animal is not a substitute or representative of the sinner...

Except that it says right there in the text, that it will be "accepted for him," which means "on his behalf,"

Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. - Leviticus 1:4 NKJV

You are to lay your hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on your behalf to make atonement for you. - Leviticus 1:4 NIV
​

Which means as his substitute.

...but it is a representative of the one sinned against.

No, the one sinned against dwelt between the Cherubim.

*snip digression into irrelevant passage*

No, Jesus is not righteous so we don't have to be righteous.

*sigh*
That's not what was said. That's how you're wresting it.

Jesus is righteous so we can become righteous.

That is not the Gospel.

The Gospel is that He became sin, so that we might become the righteous of God in HIM. That is the message to be preached by his faithful ambassasors

You are showing how substitution undermines the application of the Holy Spirit of the promise, incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus to believers.

Well, I would agree that substitution undermines fallacious notions about the role of the Spirit, yes, and would add that you are showing how faithless is any notion that would deny the truth of substitution.

 

[Arthur King]

You could have just said you didn't want to answer the question.

I answered the question. God ordained for Jesus to suffer the curse unjustly. You need to make the argument that for God to ordain Jesus to suffer the curse necessarily means that Jesus suffers the curse justly, that is, to satisfy the retributive demands of God's justice. But that argument does not work. See a passage like this Psalm 44:


All this has come upon us, but we have not forgotten You,
And we have not dealt falsely with Your covenant.
Our heart has not turned back,
And our steps have not deviated from Your way,
Yet You have crushed us in a place of jackals
And covered us with the shadow of death.

Notice the language of God "crushing" them and "covering them with the shadow of death" and earlier it says God "rejected" them. Does any of this provide evidence of the people suffering justly to satisfy the demands of retributive justice? No. They explicitly say they have not transgressed his covenant. So language of God "crushing" or "striking" or "rejecting" provides no evidence of just suffering in order to fulfill the demands of retribution. That language is also used to refer to unjust suffering, as it does in places like Psalm 44.