Isaiah 53 doesn't support penal substitution

[Arthur King]

I'm not sure the response below was intended for my question.



My question, however, still remains unanswered:



You seem to be operating under the assumption that the justice of God being satisfied in the death of the servant must be the same as the servant dying justly. The very nature of the use of the word "substitute" means the death was not Jesus' to die, but those for whom He willingly substituted Himself.

Also, a proper citation of the passages you quote in Pierced for Transgressions would be helpful. As for what Dante (or whomever else) has said or might say, I'm not concerned with.

The Archangel

I don't understand how my response did not answer your question. I quoted a bunch of penal substitution advocates explicitly saying that Jesus' death was just. So I am not sure where the disconnect is.

Citation: Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), 60, 147.

 

[The Archangel]

I don't understand how my response did not answer your question. I quoted a bunch of penal substitution advocates explicitly saying that Jesus' death was just. So I am not sure where the disconnect is.

Citation: Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), 60, 147.

Thanks for the citation; I'll check it out.

As far as the "penal substitution advocates"... I'm not really interested in what they say as much as I am interested in Scripture. Now, certain "advocates" give logic, etc. more than anything else. Other advocates give exegetical detail, evidence, and argument--and these are the ones worth reading and interacting with and evaluating.

Furthermore, basing one's understanding and approach on those theologians of the past, can be helpful only insofar as they are in line with scripture. On the other hand, to reference those said theologians as the authority, is like trying advocate for the world being flat merely because old, long-dead science people thought it was--an unhelpful approach at best.

The Archangel

 

[Alan Gross]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the justice of God being satisfied in the death of the servant must be the same as the servant dying justly. The very nature of the use of the word "substitute" means the death was not Jesus' to die, but those for whom He willingly substituted Himself.

HERE, HERE! BRAVO!

THE WORDS of A SAVED CHILD of GOD!

I like this a lot, too;

"The logic is clear in all forms of penal substitution that Jesus’ death is just, that is deserved. Penal substitution defender Donald Macleod says, “Christ’s death, despite its dark, horrific backdrop, was just, because it was the death of the voluntary, divine sin-bearer, whose sacrifice satisfied God that it was right for him to forgive the sins of the world.” He says again that at the cross the “penalty was right” and that “it could only be right if it was deserved.” The Catholic poet Dante states in his Paradiso that the cross was God’s “just vengeance” upon human sin, and “Thus was the doom inflicted by the Cross, if measured by the nature so assumed, the most just penalty that ever was.” According to Dante, Jesus on the Cross assumes a fallen, sinful human nature, and suffers the most just penalty that ever was. The writers of Pierced for our Transgressions state that, “God acted justly in punishing him, for he saw him as guilty by virtue of his union with those whose sins he bore” and “Jesus is justly condemned by God for sins imputed to him.” Thus, it is clear that according to penal substitution, Jesus’ death was just. The reason why Jesus died was to satisfy God’s justice, specifically the penal or retributive demands of his justice. This is what it means for Jesus to “satisfy the wrath of God” according to penal substitution."

 

[JonC]

Where does the word of God say He received the wages for sins unjustly?

He who knew no sin became sin for us is one place. Another is in the Old Testament when God tells us it is an abomination to punish the righteous. This is Peter's explanation to the Jewish leaders (and many of them understood in his first sermon, to the point they cried out in repentance).

 

[JonC]

Why is his opinion not valid but Arthur's made up illustrations are?

Because @Arthur King used an illustration but also went directly to God's Word.

37818 could have addressed those passages. He could have addressed Arthur's points. But he didn't. He just kept saying his opinion is the chapter from which Arthur quoted means Penal Substitution.

When we hold beliefs we cannot defend we hold the beliefs of others - beliefs we have not earned.

My comment is he just says the verse means whatever to him. I could say it means whatever to me. But that is not dialogue.

What he needed to do, if he wanted to legitimately discuss the issue, was to go to Scripture and explain exactly how those verses teach Penal Substitution. Then he and Arthur could discuss differences.

 

[37818]

He who knew no sin became sin for us is one place. Another is in the Old Testament when God tells us it is an abomination to punish the righteous. This is Peter's explanation to the Jewish leaders (and many of them understood in his first sermon, to the point they cried out in repentance).

Christ's payment for sins is just. There is nothing in God's word to treach otherwise.

 

[DaveXR650]

After all our exchanges, and all the theologians I have quoted, I have no idea how you could say this. I have been abundantly clear.

You quote a bunch of guys who have varying views on the atonement. All that shows is that there are multiple views on the atonement. Also, like with Anselm and with Caesarius you don't quote their respective predominate beliefs on the atonement but use quotes from other things they said. Which is fine - unless you're trying to prove something. I can show you places where Owen talks about Christ as Victor and recapitulation but if I were to try to foist that off as his main view of the atonement it would be ridiculous.

No you have not shown one particular view consistently. Jon C isn't even sure what it is. The thing you have to remember is that as Caesarius of Arles said in the writings I read, when you look at Christ as Victor or any of the cosmic aspects of the atonement, you have to realize that God had the power to defeat Satan by direct action on his part. Our sin as humans, sin in Adam as well as individual sin, is what has caused God to come with this atonement that in some way made it needful for Christ to die and suffer as he did - rather than to just enact judgement upon the forces of evil directly. It seems to me that out of love for us that God devised a plan that would allow him to redeem us, remain righteous and just according to his nature, and then go after the forces of evil according to his sovereign will. There will always be, at the core level an aspect of the atonement where Christ is dealing directly with our sin which is somehow put on him.

 

[DaveXR650]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the justice of God being satisfied in the death of the servant must be the same as the servant dying justly. The very nature of the use of the word "substitute" means the death was not Jesus' to die, but those for whom He willingly substituted Himself.

Yes. And he does this repeatedly. I don't know if he realizes that in the sense of Jesus personally, his death had to be unjust because he had to be innocent or he would have been unqualified to be the substitute. He takes one the main points of penal substitution and turns it on it's head as if that is what makes penal substitution invalid!

 

[Arthur King]

Thanks for the citation; I'll check it out.

As far as the "penal substitution advocates"... I'm not really interested in what they say as much as I am interested in Scripture. Now, certain "advocates" give logic, etc. more than anything else. Other advocates give exegetical detail, evidence, and argument--and these are the ones worth reading and interacting with and evaluating.

Furthermore, basing one's understanding and approach on those theologians of the past, can be helpful only insofar as they are in line with scripture. On the other hand, to reference those said theologians as the authority, is like trying advocate for the world being flat merely because old, long-dead science people thought it was--an unhelpful approach at best.

The Archangel

I am quoting prominent penal substitution advocates because people are asking questions like "why do you say penal substitution claims that Jesus' death is just"? So I give quotations where they say precisely that.

Other people are saying that my view is not supported by Church history or outside the mainstream, so I quote theologians from Augustine to the present day to show this is not the case.

I agree with you that the Bible is the final authority.

 

[Arthur King]

Yes. And he does this repeatedly. I don't know if he realizes that in the sense of Jesus personally, his death had to be unjust because he had to be innocent or he would have been unqualified to be the substitute. He takes one the main points of penal substitution and turns it on it's head as if that is what makes penal substitution invalid!

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the justice of God being satisfied in the death of the servant must be the same as the servant dying justly.

How is this not the exact claim of penal substitution? I just quoted a bunch of prominent penal substitution advocates who explicitly state that Jesus' death was just, that is, deserved. Yes penal substitution explicitly teaches that "the justice of God being satisfied in the death of the servant must be the same as the servant dying justly."

But in the Bible, Jesus suffers death unjustly, so that justice would enact the reversal of death in his resurrection. The resurrection is the divine reversal of the unjust human verdict.

You quote a bunch of guys who have varying views on the atonement.

I quote a bunch of guys who have varying views on the atonement, and who do not teach penal substitution. Caesarius is clear that Jesus died unjustly - that puts him out of the penal substitution camp, even if he does have an unbiblical "debt of death" view.

The central mechanism of my view of the atonement is not the defeat of Satan, nor is the defeat of Satan the central aspect of the "Christus Victor" view - that is a misunderstanding. The central aspect of my view of the atonement is that Jesus died in order to bring about the reversal of death by his resurrection. Jesus' death alone brings about the reversal of death because he alone died unjustly as a perfectly innocent party.

Sin is not just something that deserves punishment. Sin is destruction. It is decreation. It is disorder. If God never lifted a finger to punish sin, sin itself would still destroy sinners. Anyone who denies this has a low view of God and a low view of sin and and low view of God's creation. So the solution to the sin problem is something that will (1) destroy sin (2) and repair sin's destruction. Penal substitution does neither of these things. In my view, our sin is destroyed when we die with Christ, when it is condemned in the flesh (Romans 8:3) when our body of sin is done away with, and then sin's destruction is repaired in the resurrection.

Ephesians 2:1-10 is a perfect summary of my view. And notice that Ephesians 2:1-10 frames the problem and solution narrative completely differently than penal substitution.

Our sin is put on Jesus - We killed him. By our sins, we all contributed to the death of Christ.

 

[DaveXR650]

Ephesians 2:1-10 is a perfect summary of my view. And notice that Ephesians 2:1-10 frames the problem and solution narrative completely differently than penal substitution.

This passage does not summarize your view. In fact, it talks about us formerly being children of wrath but now due to God's grace we have been made alive. It really doesn't say anything about the atonement directly except that as it relates to wrath which is what you can't bring yourself to admit. It talks about us walking according to the course of this world and the only damage specifically mentioned is being children of wrath, not that we might harm ourselves. I would reevaluate my stance on this if I were you.

 

[Arthur King]

This passage does not summarize your view. In fact, it talks about us formerly being children of wrath but now due to God's grace we have been made alive. It really doesn't say anything about the atonement directly except that as it relates to wrath which is what you can't bring yourself to admit. It talks about us walking according to the course of this world and the only damage specifically mentioned is being children of wrath, not that we might harm ourselves. I would reevaluate my stance on this if I were you.

Ephesians 2:1-10 says we were already dead in trespasses and sins. Not deserving of punishment in the future, as penal substitution would have it, but already dead. Jesus can't die in place of people who are already dead.

The problem/solution narrative is Problem: dead in sin and Solution:resurrection in Christ. It is not Problem: deserving punishment and Solution:avoiding punishment.

Indeed, Ephesians 2:1-10 claims we are ALREADY punished - already under the wrath of God. As Romans 1 says, the wrath of God is revealed (past tense and present tense) from heaven against ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness. We are children of wrath - born into a world subject to the judgments of God. From birth, we are exiled from Paradise and God's presence, consigned to physical death, under the Genesis 3 curses. Again, if Jesus died in your place, why do you still physically die? Physical death is a punishment for sin. Why do you still toil? Toil is a punishment for sin. Did Jesus not suffer those punishments in your place as your substitute? It seems that Jesus was very selective in the punishments he suffered in your place, no?

I have never shied away from the wrath of God. My argument is against the purpose of the wrath of God on penal substitution, and its relationship to the cross.

The cross averts the wrath of God and the resurrection reverses the wrath of God. The cross does not exhaust the wrath of God by way of displacement - which is what penal substitution claims.

 

[kyredneck]

I just quoted a bunch of prominent penal substitution advocates who explicitly state that Jesus' death was just, that is, deserved. Yes penal substitution explicitly teaches that "the justice of God being satisfied in the death of the servant must be the same as the servant dying justly."

If Christ's death was just God would not have raised Him from the dead:

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

The fact that God raised Him from the dead shows that God declared Christ to be righteous, after the Jews [The Serpent] had unrighteously judged Him to be worthy of death.

 

[Piper]

No, it is not a lot of rhetoric. That is an objectively false and substanceless characterization of what I have said. Lying on the internet is still lying.

I gave substantial, concrete examples of how penal substitution works vs how biblical atonement works.

You haven’t provided any rationale for why you think Isaiah 53 supports penal substitution in your last post , just your opinion.

He is not lying. Strong, sound exegesis supports Penal Substitution.

 

[Arthur King]

He is not lying. Strong, sound exegesis supports Penal Substitution.

I haven't heard any. If you've got it, bring it. I gave my arguments. Give your substantial rebuttal. Don't just say "I disagree." Show me where my analysis is wrong by responding to my arguments.

 

[kyredneck]

He is not lying. Strong, sound exegesis supports Penal Substitution.

Well, that's cinches it then, Piper has spoken, no need to carry this atonement theory discussion any further.

 

[kyredneck]

Give your substantial rebuttal.

...don't hold your breath.

 

[The Archangel]

The writers of Pierced for our Transgressions state that, “

"God acted justly in punishing him, for he saw him as guilty by virtue of his union with those whose sins he bore”

“Jesus is justly condemned by God for sins imputed to him.”

(My re-arrangement of the paragraph to extract the quotes in question)​

​

Citation: Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), 60, 147.

Maybe your page numbers are different.... But these quotes do not appear as quoted in my copy of Pierced for our Transgressions. There are parts of your quote(s) that come close, but they are not the same.

The Archangel

 

[Arthur King]

​

Maybe your page numbers are different.... But these quotes do not appear as quoted in my copy of Pierced for our Transgressions. There are parts of your quote(s) that come close, but they are not the same.

The Archangel

p. 60, in footnote 58, says "[Jesus] is justly condemned for sins imputed to him."

p.147 says at the top of the page "He was justly punished for sins that became his on account of his union with sinners."

 

[Piper]

Well, that's cinches it then, Piper has spoken, no need to carry this atonement theory discussion any further.

All people are in need of a substitute since all are guilty of sinning against the holy God. All sin deserves punishment because all sin is personal rebellion against God himself. While animal sacrifices took on the guilt of God’s people in the OT, these sacrifices could never fully atone for the sins of man. For that, Jesus Christ came and died in the place of his people (substitution), taking upon himself the full punishment that they deserved (penal). While there are other theories of the atonement, which point to other valid aspects of what happened in Christ’s death, the penal-substitutionary element of the crucifixion secures all other benefits that come to God’s people through the death of their representative.