The Penal Substitutionary Satisfaction by Jesus Christ in "The Council of Peace" from Eternity Past.

[Alan Gross]

They want the verse to say something like, “He made him who knew no sin to be sinful (or guilty of sin by imputation) on our behalf so that we might receive the righteousness of Christ from him (modifications in italics),” but this is not what the text says

Looks to me like you two are trying to make the Bedrock of Christianity into a pagan sacrifice, to "appease the gods", but that is exactly what the Bible says Jesus did not do.

"...he was made a sacrifice for sin, in order to make expiation and atonement for it; so the Hebrew word (hajx) signifies both sin and a sin offering; see ( Psalms 40:6; Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. ) and so (amartia) , ( Romans 8:3; For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: ) ( Hebrews 10:6; In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure).

"But besides all this, he was made sin itself by imputation; the sins of all his people were transferred unto him, laid upon him, and placed to his account; he sustained their persons, and bore their sins; and having them upon him, and being chargeable with, and answerable for them, he was treated by the justice of God as if he had been not only a sinner, but a mass of sin; for to be made sin, is a stronger expression than to be made a sinner:

"but now that this may appear to be only by imputation, and that none may conclude from hence that he was really and actually a sinner, or in himself so, it is said he was "made sin"; he did not become sin, or a sinner, through any sinful act of his own, but through his Father's act of imputation, to which he agreed;

"for it was "he" that made him sin: it is not said that men made him sin; not but that they traduced him as a sinner, pretended they knew he was one, and arraigned him at Pilate's bar as such;

"nor is he said to make himself so, though he readily engaged to be the surety of his people, and voluntarily took upon him their sins, and gave himself an offering for them;

"but he, his Father, is said to make him sin; it was he that "laid", or "made to meet" on him, the iniquity of us all; it was he that made his soul an offering for sin, and delivered him up into the hands of justice, and to death, and that "for us", in "our" room and stead, to bear the punishment of sin, and make satisfaction and atonement for it; of which he was capable, and for which he was greatly qualified..."

"... it is a righteousness "in him", in Christ, and not in ourselves, and therefore must mean the righteousness of Christ; so called, because it is wrought by Christ, who is God over all, the true God, and eternal life; and because it is approved of by God the Father, accepted of by him, for, and on the behalf of his elect, as a justifying one; it is what he bestows on them, and imputes unto them for their justification; it is a righteousness, and it is the only one which justifies in the sight of God.

"Now to be made the righteousness of God, is to be made righteous in the sight of God, by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

"Just as Christ is made sin, or a sinner, by the imputation of the sins of others to him; so they are made righteousness, or righteous persons, through the imputation of his righteousness to them; and in no other way can the one be made sin, or the other righteousness.

"And this is said to be "in him", in Christ; which shows, that though Christ's righteousness is unto all, and upon all them that believe, it is imputed to them, and put upon them; it is not anything wrought in them; it is not inherent in them. "Surely in the Lord have I righteousness and strength", says the church, ( Isaiah 45:24 ) and also, that the way in which we come by this righteousness is by being in Christ; none have it reckoned to them, but who are in him, we are first "of" God "in" Christ, and then he is made unto us righteousness.

"Secret being in Christ, or union to him from everlasting, is the ground and foundation of our justification, by his righteousness, as open being in Christ at conversion is the evidence of it."

from: 2 Corinthians 5:21 - Bible Verse Meaning and Commentary

If Paul is talking about a demonstration or manifestation rather than an imputation in this second part of the verse, it follows that he is doing the same thing in the preceding half of the verse, in which he says “God made him who knew no sin to be sin”.

God is doing the same thing in both half's of the verse, but it is not to deny the sinfulness and guilt of men or the Vicarious death of Jesus in their place, to make the guilty capable of being declared forgiven and God's Justice Satisfied.

I don't know what somebody has come up with, as some new and different scheme to bypass man's guilt before God and Jesus' Victory over sin, death, and the grave, in the Gospel of Christ's substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection, but it is not merely a "demonstration or manifestation rather than an imputation".

You must just not to want to preach the Gospel and tell people they are hopelessly guilty and their only hope is that the sins of people just like them that are Eternally offensive to their Creator were suffered, bled for and nailed Jesus to the cross and killed Him, as a Perfect Sacrifice, in their place.

"The word "atonement" occurs but once in the King James version of the New Testament. See Rom. 5:11. Here it is a translation of "katallage." This Greek noun occurs in three other passages: once in Rom. 11:15, where it is translated "reconciling"; once in 2 Cor. 5:18, where it is translated "reconciliation"; and once in the following verse, where it is again translated "reconciliation."


"The Greek verb "katallasso," corresponding to the noun "katallage," is also found in 2 Cor. 5:18,19, and in Rom. 5: 10 and 1 Cor. 7:11. In each of these instances it is translated to mean "to reconcile."


"According to the use of the Greek, the word "atonement" may be used of either the provision of the objective basis of salvation, in which we have a potential atonement, or of the actual accomplishment of salvation, in which we have an actual atonement in the application of the benefits of Christ's death and the offering of His blood in the heavenly temple.


"The Greek verb "katallasso" is used in the former sense in 2 Cor. 5:19, where we read: "'God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." The meaning here is that God was reconciling the world unto Himself by laying their trespasses on Christ. The passage refers, then, to what was accomplished in the death of Christ and not to what was accomplished through His preaching ministry.


"It is in this sense that the word "atonement" is ordinarily used in theological discussions..."

from: SIMMONS- THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT
...

Making an individual cognisant of their association with wrong doing, by observation of a photo, as in your two analogies, is meaningless with regard to the Spiritual reality of the sins of men against God, even if you worship graven images.

Is that what you do and call your system of salvation? Idol worship?

What do you say to lost souls?

"Look at the resurrection of Jesus
and understand He saves you from Hell, if you believe it?"
...
To say the following is just error and a departure from the faith.

“the righteousness of God” does not mean “the righteousness of Christ,” which would refer to the Messiah/Son’s legal status of righteousness. The “righteousness of God” refers, again, to God’s covenant faithfulness to bless all nations through Israel. When Paul says, “we become the righteousness of God,” he is saying that the people of God, the Church in Christ, has become an outworking, demonstration, and manifestation of God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises. Paul is not talking here about the imputation of Christ’s legal status of righteousness to us."

 

[Arthur King]

Looks to me like you two are trying to make the Bedrock of Christianity into a pagan sacrifice, to "appease the gods", but that is exactly what the Bible says Jesus did not do.

"...he was made a sacrifice for sin, in order to make expiation and atonement for it; so the Hebrew word (hajx) signifies both sin and a sin offering; see ( Psalms 40:6; Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. ) and so (amartia) , ( Romans 8:3; For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: ) ( Hebrews 10:6; In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure).

"But besides all this, he was made sin itself by imputation; the sins of all his people were transferred unto him, laid upon him, and placed to his account; he sustained their persons, and bore their sins; and having them upon him, and being chargeable with, and answerable for them, he was treated by the justice of God as if he had been not only a sinner, but a mass of sin; for to be made sin, is a stronger expression than to be made a sinner:


"It is in this sense that the word "atonement" is ordinarily used in theological discussions..."

from: SIMMONS- THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT
...

Making an individual cognisant of their association with wrong doing, by observation of a photo, as in your two analogies, is meaningless with regard to the Spiritual reality of the sins of men against God, even if you worship graven images.

Is that what you do and call your system of salvation? Idol worship?

What do you say to lost souls?

"Look at the resurrection of Jesus
and understand He saves you from Hell, if you believe it?"
...
To say the following is just error and a departure from the faith.

“the righteousness of God” does not mean “the righteousness of Christ,” which would refer to the Messiah/Son’s legal status of righteousness. The “righteousness of God” refers, again, to God’s covenant faithfulness to bless all nations through Israel. When Paul says, “we become the righteousness of God,” he is saying that the people of God, the Church in Christ, has become an outworking, demonstration, and manifestation of God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises. Paul is not talking here about the imputation of Christ’s legal status of righteousness to us."

Really hard to interact with such a long and rambling response. Try boiling it down?

In the mean time, these quotations from major theologians may be helpful in understanding the atonement view I am endorsing:

Here are quotations from theologians throughout history, from Augustine to CS Lewis, describing the atonement in biblically faithful terms that are contrary to penal substitution. Notice how they properly build their atonement mechanisms around the injustice of Jesus' death:

Augustine states that the cross is where the devil lost his right of death over humanity because he unjustly killed the Son of God in whom there was no sin:

-It is not then difficult to see that the devil was conquered, when he who was slain by Him rose again. It is something more, and more profound of comprehension, to see that the devil was conquered when he thought himself to have conquered, that is, when Christ was slain. For then that blood, since it was His who had no sin at all, was poured out for the remission of our sins; that, because the devil deservedly held those whom, as guilty of sin, he bound by the condition of death, he might deservedly loose them through Him, whom, as guilty of no sin, the punishment of death undeservedly affected. The strong man was conquered by this righteousness, and bound with this chain, that his vessels might be spoiled, which with himself and his angels had been vessels of wrath while with him, and might be turned into vessels of mercy.

-What then is the justice that overpowered the devil? The justice of Jesus Christ—what else? And how was he overpowered? The devil found nothing in Christ deserving of death and yet he killed him. It is therefore perfectly just that the devil should let the debtors he held go free, who believe in the one whom he killed without his being in his debt. This is how we are said to be justified in the blood of Christ. This is how that innocent blood was shed for the forgiveness of our sins.

John Chrysostom in the 5th century gives a similar cross narrative to Augustine,

-“It is as if Christ said, ‘Now shall a trial be held, and a judgment be pronounced. How and in what manner? He (the devil) smote the first man (Adam), because he found him guilty of sin; for it was through sin that death entered in. But he did not find any sin in Me; wherefore then did he fall on Me and give Me up to the power of death? . . . How is the world now judged in Me?’ It is as if it were said to the devil at a seat of judgment: ‘Thou didst smite them all, because thou didst find them guilty of sin; wherefore then didst thou smite Christ? Is it not evident that thou didst this wrongfully? Therefore the whole world shall become righteous through Him.’”

John of Damascus, who according to professor Tom McCall, “often serves as a sort of summary of mature Patristic theology,” in the 8th century says the same thing:

-Since our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin (for He committed no sin, He Who took away the sin of the world, nor was there any deceit found in His mouth ) He was not subject to death, since death came into the world through sin. Romans 5:12 He dies, therefore, because He took on Himself death on our behalf, and He makes Himself an offering to the Father for our sakes. For we had sinned against Him, and it was meet that He should receive the ransom for us, and that we should thus be delivered from the condemnation. God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant. Wherefore death approaches, and swallowing up the body as a bait is transfixed on the hook of divinity, and after tasting of a sinless and life-giving body, perishes, and brings up again all whom of old he swallowed up. For just as darkness disappears on the introduction of light, so is death repulsed before the assault of life, and brings life to all, but death to the destroyer.

Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, affirms the injustice of Jesus’ death as well:

“Christ's Passion delivered us from the devil, inasmuch as in Christ's Passion [the devil] exceeded the limit of power assigned him by God, by conspiring to bring about Christ's death, Who, being sinless, did not deserve to die. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, cap. xiv): "The devil was vanquished by Christ's justice: because, while discovering in Him nothing deserving of death, nevertheless he slew Him. And it is certainly just that the debtors whom he held captive should be set at liberty since they believed in Him whom the devil slew, though He was no debtor."

Martin Luther, in the 16th century, applies the loss of rights to the Law rather than the devil:

“Thou hearest that Christ was caught in the bondage in which we all were held, was set under the Law, was a man full of all grace, righteousness, etc., full of life, yea, He was even the Life itself; now comes the Law and casts itself at Him and would deal with Him as with all other men. Christ sees this, lets the tyrant perform his will upon Him, lets the reproach of all guilt fall against Himself as one accursed, yea, bears the name that He Himself is the curse, and goes to suffer for this cause, dies, and is buried. Now, thinks the Law, He is overpowered; but it knew not that it had so grievously mistaken itself, and that it had condemned and throttled the Son of God; and since it has now judged and condemned Him, who was guiltless and over whom it had no authority, it must in its turn be taken, and see itself made captive and crucified, and lose all its power, and lie under the feet of Him whom it had condemned.”

As CS Lewis says, when our Lord was roaming around Narnia in the form of a giant, magical, not-safe-yet-good lion, he said,

“when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.”

Moving on, even John Stott, a staunch penal substitution advocate, agrees that the resurrection was God’s reversal of man’s injustice:

“The resurrection was the divine reversal of the human verdict.”

NT Wright, makes a similar statement to John Stott about Jesus’ resurrection:

“Israel’s God, the creator, had reversed the verdict of the court, in reversing the death sentence it carried out. Jesus really was the king of the Jews; and, if he was the Messiah, he really was the lord of the world, as the psalms had long ago insisted.”

 

[Alan Gross]

Notice how they properly build their atonement mechanisms around the injustice of Jesus' death

Not only does Acts 2:23 not say, "23 Him, being delivered by the unjust determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

God is not unjust and it is God Who set forth Jesus to be a propitiation through faith in His blood.

The Triune Godhead is Just and the Justifiers of God's chosen children.

The death of Jesus Christ was just because the guilt of His children's sins was laid on Him, by God the Father, as Planned and Agreed to by Jesus, from Eternity Past and this is the proper foundation on which to formulate an atonement mechanism, not the opposite, for any given reason.


23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

So, in keeping with the OP of
The Penal Substitutionary Satisfaction by Jesus Christ being in "The Council of Peace" from Eternity Past, we see Jesus death as planned and caused, by God the Father, in Acts 2:23;

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Since, Jesus was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,
we know that He was not delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of the devil.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

So, these three can't be quoted as authorities on the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

And it places a big question mark on Author King's authority to do so.

Augustine

John Chrysostom

Thomas Aquinas

the devil lost his right of death over humanity because he unjustly killed the Son of God

the devil was conquered, when he who was slain by Him rose again.

The devil found nothing in Christ deserving of death and yet he killed him.

the one whom he killed

wherefore then did he fall on Me and give Me up to the power of death?

the devil exceeded the limit of power assigned him by God, by conspiring to bring about Christ's death, Who, being sinless, did not deserve to die.

And, nothing can exceed the limits of power assigned to them, by God, including the devil.

while discovering in Him nothing deserving of death, nevertheless he slew Him.

they believed in Him whom the devil slew, though He was no debtor."

...

his vessels might be spoiled, which with himself and his angels had been vessels of wrath while with him, and might be turned into vessels of mercy.

The vessels of wrath do not and did not belong to the devil.

And, per the OP regarding Eternity Past, the vessels of wrath were never changed into the vessels of mercy.

The vessels of mercy were Elected from Eternity Past
the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, and the vessels of wrath were left in their sins.

Romans 9:11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;"

that is, the sinless Jesus, Who was made sin,
not inherently, by a transfusion of sin into Him, which His Holy Nature would not admit of;

but imputatively, by a transfer of the guilt of sin unto Him,
by placing the guilt of sin to His account,
and making Him answerable for the guilt of sin;

which was done, not merely at the time of His suffering and death,
though then God openly and manifestly "laid upon him,"
or made to meet on Him, "the iniquity of us all," of all the Lord's people,
when "the chastisement of their peace was on him;"
or the punishment of their sin was inflicted on Him, to make peace for them;

but as early as The Council of Peace was held,
and the above method was concerted and agreed to.



This is beginning to articulate where you're at.

That is the most bazaar thing I've heard in a while.



Those verses don't intend to teach about salvation, by substitution, but the crucified lifestyle of the crucified flesh, after salvation, by the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling enablement.



This we know, so far; from How Does Penal Substitution Relate to Other Atonement Theories? "Of all the atonement theologies, only penal substitution best captures the God-centered nature of the cross. The alternatives either minimize or deny that God’s holy justice is essential to him, why our sin is first against God(Ps 51:4), and why Christ as our penal substitute is central to the cross.

"Before we can speak of the horizontal entailments of the cross, we must first speak of the vertical—namely the triune God, in his Son, taking his own demand on himself so that we, in Christ, may be justified before him (Rom 5:1–2).

"Other atonement views either miss or undermine this point. For them, the object of the cross is either our sin (forms of recapitulation), or Satan (ransom theory), or the powers (forms of Christus Victor). But what they fail to see is that the primary person we have sinned against is our great and glorious triune Creator and Lord, and as such, the ultimate object of the cross is God himself."

Thank you for posting that link from 9 Marks. It repeats a point that I have made more times than I care to remember over the years. The other views (Recapitulation, Christus Victor, Governmental, Moral Influence, Uncle Tom Cobley and all) all have something to recommend them, but on their own they all fall short of the full truth of God's word and fail to deal with the fact of God's righteous anger against son.
I wrote a while back that I must be enjoying taking part in this forum, because otherwise I wouldn't do it. However, on reflection I don't really think I am enjoying replying to the same old arguments again and again. Therefore I am going to stop doing it and take an extended and possibly permanent break.

 

[Arthur King]

Thank you for posting that link from 9 Marks. It repeats a point that I have made more times than I care to remember over the years. The other views (Recapitulation, Christus Victor, Governmental, Moral Influence, Uncle Tom Cobley and all) all have something to recommend them, but on their own they all fall short of the full truth of God's word and fail to deal with the fact of God's righteous anger against son.
I wrote a while back that I must be enjoying taking part in this forum, because otherwise I wouldn't do it. However, on reflection I don't really think I am enjoying replying to the same old arguments again and again. Therefore I am going to stop doing it and take an extended and possibly permanent break.

"fail to deal with the fact of God's righteous anger against sin."

I have addressed God's righteous anger in multiple ways:

1) I have summarized an entire list of God's righteous punishments in the Bible. See my post on Romans 3.

2) I have given the Biblical definition of propitiation, which is the aversion of wrath (righteous anger)

3) I have described the human condition in terms of God's righteous anger. We are exiled from paradise and the presence of God, consigned to physical death, under the Genesis 3 judgments of toil and relational strife, living in a world that God subjected to corruption. Indeed, we are "children of wrath" meaning we are born into a world that is under God's righteous judgments.

You have a specific assumption, not based in Scripture I would argue, about how righteous anger must be dealt with. Your conviction is that if someone is angry, that anger must be vented. So definitions of propitiation that merely avert anger, rather than exhaust it, don't work for you. (Although, you did give a good example of you giving your wife flowers as a propitiation, which is not her exhausting her anger, so not sure what to do there)

But I too tire of listening to people like yourself say that perfectly ordered human beings can somehow break God's law, and God only brings disorder upon them as a punishment for breaking His law. And I tire of hearing that sin, like suicide, rape, racism, gluttony, theft, murder and the like, are not inherently destructive—they are only destructive because God punishes them.

 

[Arthur King]

Not only does Acts 2:23 not say, "23 Him, being delivered by the unjust determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

God is not unjust and it is God Who set forth Jesus to be a propitiation through faith in His blood.

The Triune Godhead is Just and the Justifiers of God's chosen children.

The death of Jesus Christ was just because the guilt of His children's sins was laid on Him, by God the Father, as Planned and Agreed to by Jesus, from Eternity Past and this is the proper foundation on which to formulate an atonement mechanism, not the opposite, for any given reason.


23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

So, in keeping with the OP of
The Penal Substitutionary Satisfaction by Jesus Christ being in "The Council of Peace" from Eternity Past, we see Jesus death as planned and caused, by God the Father, in Acts 2:23;

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Since, Jesus was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,
we know that He was not delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of the devil.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

So, these three can't be quoted as authorities on the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

And it places a big question mark on Author King's authority to do so.

God can ordain events in which unjust acts take place, without Himself being unjust.

1 Peter 2:18-25 explicitly states that Jesus' death was unjust. Do you deny this?

See the words of the penitent criminal next to Jesus on the cross in Luke 23. His logic is not "in my place condemned he stood" but "he and I are both under condemnation, but me justly, him unjustly." Jesus' death is not unique in that he dies, but in that he alone dies unjustly as a perfectly innocent and divine party. His death therefore merits the reversal of death, hence the resurrection. Justice is satisfied in the resurrection as the reversal of his unjust death.

Romans 3:26 "That God would be just (faithful to his promises to bless all nations through Israel, and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (regardless of whether or not that person is Jew or Gentile)."

 

[Alan Gross]

I don't really think I am enjoying replying to the same old arguments again and again

After giving due diligence to bantering back and forth endlessly with certain folks I think, wait a minute, "they haven't contributed a nickels' worth in six months". Shazam! I hit their profile and click on the blue 'ignore' button to the right and PUFF. Peace and Love.

I almost ran out of people, but we're getting new ones, now. They are outsmarting how to sign up. I think someone said it didn't like taking a generic email like Gmail(?)

Anyway, give yourself a break.

Therefore I am going to stop doing it and take an extended and possibly permanent break.

You can't leave. You do not have my permission. We're not real quick to encourage people who do contribute a lot and your posts are always packed with THE LORD & SCRIPTURES.

We take you for granted. Hard core, heavy duty God honoring and posts that worship!

 

[Alan Gross]

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

I have to go with Jesus' death being unjust from the perspective of the men who killed Him had no reason. Pilate found no fault in Him and neither did God. Jesus was a Perfect sacrifice.

God, however, was not unjust and Jesus' death was not unjust in God putting Him to death, because my guilt was placed on Him. Jesus died because of the guilt my sin caused, but He committed himself to him that judgeth righteously, as that passage says.

God is Just and justifies righteously.

Jesus' death is not unique in that he dies, but in that he alone dies unjustly a

Jesus death was unique because He died the Just for the unjust.

God's Wrath was averted against His children Jesus died for, but His wrath was not averted against Jesus. The wrath I deserved fell on Him.

"First, with “Propitiation”: the first time we meet with this word, and as applied to Christ, is in Romans 3:25. “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation”; either to be the author of propitiation; for whose sake, and on account of what he was to do and suffer, God would be propitious to men—his justice be appeased—and he be at peace with them; laying aside all marks of displeasure, anger, and resentment against them:

"for this was Christ’s work as Mediator; he drew nigh to God, and treated with him about terms of peace, and entered into measures of peace with him; interposed between justice and them, became a Mediator between God and man, to bring them together; hence he has the names of Shiloh, the Prince of peace, the Man the Peace, and Jesus our peace, who has made both one:

"or else to be the propitiatory sacrifice for sin; such hilastic, propitiatory, and expiatory sacrifices there were under the law; typical of the expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ; and as God in them smelled a sweet savor of rest, as types of Christ; so his sacrifice was an offering of a sweet smelling savor to him; he was well pleased with it, it gave him content and satisfaction, because his justice was appeased by it, and the demands of his law were answered, yea, it was magnified and made honorable;

"the word used in the above text ιλαστηριον, is the same which the Greek version of Exodus 25:21 and which the apostle, in Hebrews 9:5 use of the mercy seat; which, with the cherubim upon it, and the ark, with the law therein under it, to which it was a lid or cover, formed a seat for the divine Majesty; and which was an emblem of his mercy and justice shining in the atonement made by Christ, which this exhibited to view; and gave encouragement to draw nigh to this mercy seat, or throne of grace, in hope of finding grace and mercy, and enjoying communion with God: a glimpse of this the poor publican had, when he said, “God be merciful”, ιλασθητι, “propitious, to me a sinner!” or be merciful to me, through the propitiation of the Messiah.

"Now Christ was “set forth” to be the propitiation in the purposes and decrees of God, προεθετο, God “foreordained” him, (OP) as he was foreordained to be the Lamb slain, as the ransom price and propitiatory sacrifice; whose sufferings and death, which were the sacrifice, were according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (1 Pet. 1:19; Acts 2:23; 4:28),

"and he was set forth in the promises and prophecies spoken of by all the holy prophets that were from the beginning of the world; as the seed of the woman that should bruise the serpents head, destroy him and his works, among which this is a principal one, making an end of sin, by a complete atonement for it;"

Romans 3:26 "That God would be just (faithful to his promises to bless all nations through Israel,

God was Just to punish my sin that was on Jesus, to the death, although He was as a Lamb without spot or blemish.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Alan Gross,
Bless you for your kind words, brother. I take your point about the 'ignore' button - 2 Timothy 2:16 applies - but there are certain people whom one can't put on ignore.
But also, my church is being blessed presently with a lot of new people coming in, some of whom are entirely unchurched and others who are coming from liberal or 'broad' evangelical churches and others again with mental frailties. There is a lot of discipling and counselling to do, and that has to be my main priority, at least until a new full-time worker arrives, and he himself, coming straight out of seminary, will need a fair bit of counselling.

 

[Arthur King]

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

I have to go with Jesus' death being unjust from the perspective of the men who killed Him had no reason. Pilate found no fault in Him and neither did God. Jesus was a Perfect sacrifice.

God, however, was not unjust and Jesus' death was not unjust in God putting Him to death, because my guilt was placed on Him. Jesus died because of the guilt my sin caused, but He committed himself to him that judgeth righteously, as that passage says.

God is Just and justifies righteously.

Jesus death was unique because He died the Just for the unjust.

God's Wrath was averted against His children Jesus died for, but His wrath was not averted against Jesus. The wrath I deserved fell on Him.

"First, with “Propitiation”: the first time we meet with this word, and as applied to Christ, is in Romans 3:25. “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation”; either to be the author of propitiation; for whose sake, and on account of what he was to do and suffer, God would be propitious to men—his justice be appeased—and he be at peace with them; laying aside all marks of displeasure, anger, and resentment against them:

"for this was Christ’s work as Mediator; he drew nigh to God, and treated with him about terms of peace, and entered into measures of peace with him; interposed between justice and them, became a Mediator between God and man, to bring them together; hence he has the names of Shiloh, the Prince of peace, the Man the Peace, and Jesus our peace, who has made both one:

"or else to be the propitiatory sacrifice for sin; such hilastic, propitiatory, and expiatory sacrifices there were under the law; typical of the expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ; and as God in them smelled a sweet savor of rest, as types of Christ; so his sacrifice was an offering of a sweet smelling savor to him; he was well pleased with it, it gave him content and satisfaction, because his justice was appeased by it, and the demands of his law were answered, yea, it was magnified and made honorable;

"the word used in the above text ιλαστηριον, is the same which the Greek version of Exodus 25:21 and which the apostle, in Hebrews 9:5 use of the mercy seat; which, with the cherubim upon it, and the ark, with the law therein under it, to which it was a lid or cover, formed a seat for the divine Majesty; and which was an emblem of his mercy and justice shining in the atonement made by Christ, which this exhibited to view; and gave encouragement to draw nigh to this mercy seat, or throne of grace, in hope of finding grace and mercy, and enjoying communion with God: a glimpse of this the poor publican had, when he said, “God be merciful”, ιλασθητι, “propitious, to me a sinner!” or be merciful to me, through the propitiation of the Messiah.

"Now Christ was “set forth” to be the propitiation in the purposes and decrees of God, προεθετο, God “foreordained” him, (OP) as he was foreordained to be the Lamb slain, as the ransom price and propitiatory sacrifice; whose sufferings and death, which were the sacrifice, were according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (1 Pet. 1:19; Acts 2:23; 4:28),

"and he was set forth in the promises and prophecies spoken of by all the holy prophets that were from the beginning of the world; as the seed of the woman that should bruise the serpents head, destroy him and his works, among which this is a principal one, making an end of sin, by a complete atonement for it;"

God was Just to punish my sin that was on Jesus, to the death, although He was as a Lamb without spot or blemish.

"I have to go with Jesus' death being unjust from the perspective of the men who killed Him had no reason."

But 1 Peter 2:19 says specifically that unjust suffering "finds grace with God." To answer Martin Luther's question of "how does one find a gracious God?" the answer is "unjust suffering." No unjust suffering, no grace from God. Who is the only one who can truly suffer unjustly? Jesus. Jesus' death is not simply unjust from a human perspective, that interpretation is simply disobedient to the text. Again, God can and does sovereignly ordain events in which sins and injustices take place without himself being unjust.

Jesus was "trusting in God who judges justly," in that God would raise him from the dead. Justice would enact the reversal of his unjust death in the resurrection. The resurrection is the divine reversal of the unjust human verdict. He was killed under the unjust judgment of humans, but raised by the just judgment of God. Jesus was "raised for our justification" (Romans 4)

1 Peter 2:18-24 is the longest New Testament commentary on Isaiah 53, and it explicitly states that Jesus' death is unjust, and that grace is found through the unjust suffering of Christ.

You mentioning that Jesus' is the "just for the unjust" only proves my point. Jesus is just, meaning, he is innocent. His sacrifice does not work if he is sinful or guilty. "For" does not necessarily mean "instead of" or "in place of." "For" must be understood as compatible with "with" for we have been "co-crucified WITH Christ."

The New Testament specifically connects Jesus' death to Abel's death. What is the similarity? Both were unjustly murdered. Jesus' blood speaks better than that of Abel's. What is the value of Abel's blood? It was innocent blood unjustly shed. Jesus' innocent blood infinitely more so, and Abel's blood can only be deemed innocent as a type and derivation from Jesus.

In Acts 7, Luke the author clearly wants us to see Stephen's death as similar to Christ's by the numerous parallels he makes to Jesus' death. What is the main similarity? Both Stephen and Jesus were unjustly murdered.

Jesus says in John 8 explicitly that his death is an act of murder by the devil. Hebrews 2:14-15 explicitly states that Jesus died so "that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives." Who had the power of death? The devil. How was he rendered powerless? The death of Christ. The devil murdered Christ when he had no right to, and therefore justice demanded the reversal of Jesus' unjust death, hence the resurrection.

Again, see the words of the penitent criminal next to Jesus on the cross in Luke 23. His logic is not "in my place condemned he stood" but "he and I are both under condemnation, but me justly, him unjustly." The penitent criminal agrees that Jesus is dying, the just (innocent) for the sake of the unjust/guilty (himself). The reversal of death that Jesus' will experience will be applied by the Holy Spirit to the penitent criminal.

 

[JonC]

The problem with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is that it not only misses the biblical meaning of the Cross but it replaces it.

Several have argued that Penal Substitution Theory can coexist with traditional Christianiy, but for the above reason it cannot. Either those who came before us in the first several centuries post Resurrection understood redemption or they did not. There is no in between.

Can somebody who believes the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement be saved? That is the ultimate question (the question of eternal significance). My answer is they can despite the error as I was saved while believing the Theory. But at the same time I did not base my faith on that theory. I think most don't as when pressed they often give answers contrary to Penal Substitution Theory (like denying Christ suffered God's wrath, denying God must punish sins in order to forgive, etc.) while calling their belief penal substitution.

Men are saved regardless and despite if their doctrine (whether Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Penal Substitution Theory) as long as the gospel is present.

And let's face it, Penal Substitution Theory is appealing because it is the only philosophy of the Cross that makes absolutely no demand of the believer.

But that does not mean the Theory is benign when it comes to matters of the Spirit because it does replace biblical redemption. It limits spiritual growth because it overshadows biblical truth. This is one reason God cautioned us against these philosophies.

It has also become an obstacle to those not brought up in the theory as they can more easily see the disconnect between God's Word and Penal Substitution Theory which can lead to the idea the Bible is just as much a product of man as is the Penal Substitution presentation of redemption.

 

[Alan Gross]

The devil murdered Christ when he had no right to, and therefore justice demanded the reversal of Jesus' unjust death, hence the resurrection.

"The devil murdering Jesus caused His resurrection"
sounds like something the devil himself would say.

Who came up with that?

 

[Arthur King]

"The devil murdering Jesus caused His resurrection"
sounds like something the devil himself would say.

Who came up with that?

No, justice caused Jesus' resurrection. This is why Hebrews 13 says that God "brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant." It was God's covenant justice that brought Jesus up from the dead. As Paul says in Acts 13:32, "God fulfilled his promises to our fathers in that he raised up Jesus from the dead." Justice is that which is owed based on promises (covenants) made. The resurrection is the fulfillment of God's covenant justice.

Read the texts again I provided from Augustine, John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Anselm, and CS Lewis.

Then respond to these texts. Simple yes or no questions:

Does Jesus say that the devil is a murderer (see John 8:44)? Yes or no?
Does Jesus say the people who killed him were doing the will of the devil (see John 8:40-44)? Yes or no?
In the lead up to his death, does Jesus say that the "ruler of this world is coming" (see John 14:30)? Yes or no?
Does the author of Hebrews says that the devil had the power of death (See Hebrews 2:14)? Yes or no?
Does the author of Hebrews says that Jesus' death rendered the devil powerless (See Hebrews 2:14)? Yes or no?

 

[kyredneck]

justice caused Jesus' resurrection

AMEN!

23 who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 1 Pet 2

The Jews murdered Him but God raised Him from the dead.

"The devil murdering Jesus caused His resurrection"
sounds like something the devil himself would say.

Who came up with that?

Christ. Matthew 23:33-37

37 I know that ye are Abraham`s seed: yet ye seek to kill me, because my word hath not free course in you.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard from God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. Jn 8

 

[kyredneck]

<-------------------------------->

 

[37818]

The penal substitution is God's plan, the devil opposes.

1 Corinthians 2:7-8, ". . . But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. . . ."

 

[kyredneck]

The penal substitution is God's plan, the devil opposes.

Devil got duped into fulfilling God's plan.

God has always played Satan and the spirits like a banjo string.

 

[JonC]

“The resurrection was the divine reversal of the human verdict.”

Yep.

If we use a courtroom setting, the Cross was not Jesus standing before God's court in our place but God standing in the world's court and being found unjustly guilty.

Somebody (maybe Wright?...I don't think so, though) said Jesus did not step into God's sin machine but man's. And He was vindicated.

It amazes me how many cling to individual verses while ignoring passages as a whole. I do not understand how they miss this reading Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53.

I still maintain that once somebody tells you the ink blot is a bat you will see the bat you were told was there rather than the ink blot it is. It is difficult to move on from traditions once one is indoctrinated. That is the only explanation I can come up with.

 

[kyredneck]

If we use a courtroom setting, the Cross was not Jesus standing before God's court in our place but God standing in the world's court and being found unjustly guilty.

Excellent! And the 'world's court being this 'world':

20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Jn 18

 

[Alan Gross]

Acts 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

How many convoluted three ring circuses are you advocating?

Justice is that which is owed based on promises (covenants) made

Jesus' death is not unique in that he dies, but in that he alone dies unjustly as a perfectly innocent and divine party.

His death therefore merits the reversal of death

Justice is satisfied in the resurrection as the reversal of his unjust death.

His sacrifice does not work if he is sinful or guilty. "For" we have been "co-crucified WITH Christ."

No, justice caused Jesus' resurrection

It was God's covenant justice that brought Jesus up from the dead.

The resurrection is the fulfillment of God's covenant justice.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. Jn 8

...

If we use a courtroom setting, the Cross was not Jesus standing before God's court in our place but God standing in the world's court and being found unjustly guilty.

What?

Somebody (maybe Wright?...I don't think so, though) said Jesus did not step into God's sin machine but man's. And He was vindicated.

What?

the 'world's court being this 'world':
20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Jn 18

When Jesus spoke to the world, what did He talk about? A court being the world?
A mechanism He has invented to affect reversals? Satan being paramount in His Eternal Plan of Salvation? An element of unjustness causing the resurrection?

Or, Satan murdering Jesus unjustly causing a reversal of Justice which raised Jesus from the dead, giving Satan credit for making the resurrection take place, as the power of life over death?

Where are all the covenants for this stuff above?

Jesus was the fidejussor & expromissor of the Eternal Covenant of Grace.