THe Biblical Place for Penal Substitution

[Martin Marprelate]

Before Christmas, @Salty requested that there should be no more threads on Penal Substitution for a while, but I think that the time has come for one more. It has been suggested over many years that there is no Biblical evidence for P.S., but about ten years ago I posted a lengthy rebuttal laying out the Biblical and theological evidence for P.S. Unfortunately, no one from the other side ever engaged with it, so I put it on my blog. Here it is: The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

So what I propose to do here is to try to show from the Bible that the Lord Jesus did indeed satisfy God’s judicial anger against sin.

Firstly then, it needs to be shown that our Lord took and bore our sins which God laid on Him. Secondly, that He took them so as to undergo the punishment due to them, and thirdly that He did this on our behalf and instead of us.

• Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people? Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).
• Did He take our sins so as to undergo the punishment due to them? Yes. ‘The chastisement [ESV, NIV: ‘punishment’] for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many’ (Mark 10:45); “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people” (Rev. 5:9).
• Did the Lord Jesus do this on our behalf and instead of us? Yes. “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:5); “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’ (Gal. 3:13).

 

[Van]

As with all efforts to claim Christ died only for the specific sins to those supposedly chosen before creation, once again we see selective quoting and unwarranted assumptions read into the selected texts.

PSA is simply a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement, nothing more. We see Mark 10:45 cited, Christ gave His life as a ransom for "many." But the many refers to the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2. Christ bought (ransomed) those heading for swift destruction, 2 Peter 2:1, as well as those to be saved.

Everyone who believes is NOT justified, but everyone who believes into Him is justified. The difference is only those whose faith God credits as righteousness are transferred into Christ.

What does the Greek word mean, translated as redeemed in Galatians 3:13? The Greek word is "exagorazō" (G1805) and refers to buying someone or something out of the requirements of the Law. Thus He ransomed, rather than redeemed. This is established with Galatians 4:5 which Christ's action is presented with clarity, He paid the ransom so that He might redeem, resulting in being in our bodily redemption at Christ's second coming.

 

[JesusFan]

As with all efforts to claim Christ died only for the specific sins to those supposedly chosen before creation, once again we see selective quoting and unwarranted assumptions read into the selected texts.

PSA is simply a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement, nothing more. We see Mark 10:45 cited, Christ gave His life as a ransom for "many." But the many refers to the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2. Christ bought (ransomed) those heading for swift destruction, 2 Peter 2:1, as well as those to be saved.

Everyone who believes is NOT justified, but everyone who believes into Him is justified. The difference is only those whose faith God credits as righteousness are transferred into Christ.

What does the Greek word mean, translated as redeemed in Galatians 3:13? The Greek word is "exagorazō" (G1805) and refers to buying someone or something out of the requirements of the Law. Thus He ransomed, rather than redeemed. This is established with Galatians 4:5 which Christ's action is presented with clarity, He paid the ransom so that He might redeem, resulting in being in our bodily redemption at Christ's second coming.

PSA is the spokesmodel for the Atonement of Christ period

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Before Christmas, @Salty requested that there should be no more threads on Penal Substitution for a while, but I think that the time has come for one more. It has been suggested over many years that there is no Biblical evidence for P.S., but about ten years ago I posted a lengthy rebuttal laying out the Biblical and theological evidence for P.S. Unfortunately, no one from the other side ever engaged with it, so I put it on my blog. Here it is: The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

So what I propose to do here is to try to show from the Bible that the Lord Jesus did indeed satisfy God’s judicial anger against sin.

Firstly then, it needs to be shown that our Lord took and bore our sins which God laid on Him. Secondly, that He took them so as to undergo the punishment due to them, and thirdly that He did this on our behalf and instead of us.

• Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people? Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).
• Did He take our sins so as to undergo the punishment due to them? Yes. ‘The chastisement [ESV, NIV: ‘punishment’] for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many’ (Mark 10:45); “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people” (Rev. 5:9).
• Did the Lord Jesus do this on our behalf and instead of us? Yes. “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:5); “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’ (Gal. 3:13).

I am a "New Guy" here. Always considered it as the biblical explation for Christ's finished work of redemption and have held this position before I even knew what "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" was along with all the other differing "Theories" of atonement.

If someone has an objective to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement, I am all game for seeing them make a biblical case for their position if they are able to do so. We can argue until we are blue in the face regarding what "He Said" or "She Said" throughout Church history. Fact of the matter is you can find a quote from any Church father or other historical character and say that they held to whatever atonement theory you would care to champion here! Those citing historic precedence seem also to be the same ones decrying creeds and confessions and saying "We ought to stick to the scriptures" and I agree. We need to be consistent! I would assert that no "Atonement Theory" perfectly explains Christ's perfect redemptive work and we should therefore formulate a view that is firmly grounded upon scriptural truth.

How about thread discussions for each of the respective atonement theories where we could discuss their strengths, weaknesses, and scriptural arguments for or against each theory? Can we expect the moderators to actually ACT as moderators and operate with some objectivity?

 

[Armchair Apologist]

PSA is simply a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement, nothing more. We see Mark 10:45 cited, Christ gave His life as a ransom for "many." But the many refers to the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2. Christ bought (ransomed) those heading for swift destruction, 2 Peter 2:1, as well as those to be saved.

And here we go! Care to elaborate how PSA is a trojan horse for the Calvinist view of a limited atonement? Seems to me that you are a proponent of the "Ransom Theory" but do you believe that the ransom theory fully explains Christ's redemptive work?

 

[JonC]

The problem with saying "the biblical basis for PSA is..." is that none of the passages provided actually speak of PSA.

A Mormon could take those verses, apply them to his faith, and say "there biblical basis for Mormonosm is...".

This is the problem with all these unbiblical theologies. They start with a theory and then look to the Bible for support.

We need to start with the Bible and first simply believe God's words.

‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ . ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ ‘The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many’. “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people”.“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’. “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses”. ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’.

I believe the above. Many of us do, even some who advocate PSA believe those passages to an extent and in their own way.

The difference is PSA has to add "now let me tell you what that "really" means when "properly" understood.

The obvious question is...what if those words mean exactly what they say?

 

[DaveXR650]

The obvious question is...what if those words mean exactly what they say?

. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’

Then I guess you have just shown penal substitution to anyone truly reading the passage with an open mind. And then, if you could find that in a context linked with some of the passages in Isaiah, that would be even more proof. Oh, wait. That's what 1 Peter 2:24 does. Remember, with your view of theology, confessions, and interpretation of scripture, you say yourself you have no right to demand I look at that any differently than I do.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

The problem with saying "the biblical basis for PSA is..." is that none of the passages provided actually speak of PSA.

A Mormon could take those verses, apply them to his faith, and say "there biblical basis for Mormonosm is...".

This is the problem with all these unbiblical theologies. They start with a theory and then look to the Bible for support.

We need to start with the Bible and first simply believe God's words.

‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ . ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ ‘The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many’. “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people”.“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’. “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses”. ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’.

I believe the above. Many of us do, even some who advocate PSA believe those passages to an extent and in their own way.

The difference is PSA has to add "now let me tell you what that "really" means when "properly" understood.

The obvious question is...what if those words mean exactly what they say?

This is where I would like to hear your biblical reasons why you reject the Penal Substitutionary atonement. Can you show me exactly where is it unbiblical citing scripture references which refute this theory? Mormons take the scriptures and twist them however they need to in order to make everything fit their own twisted beliefs. This is the textbook reason why creeds and confessions are relevant but let's stay on topic here.

 

[Jerome]

PSA is the spokesmodel for the Atonement of Christ period

Well said!

 

[JonC]

This is where I would like to hear your biblical reasons why you reject the Penal Substitutionary atonement. Can you show me exactly where is it unbiblical citing scripture references which refute this theory? Mormons take the scriptures and twist them however they need to in order to make everything fit their own twisted beliefs. This is the textbook reason why creeds and confessions are relevant but let's stay on topic here.

My biblical reason for rejecting PSA is that PSA is not in the Bible. I can’t show you a text stating “PSA is not true” as you can’t prove a negative. The closest I can get is to simply say that God will not punish the just and He will not clear the wicked.

As far as the passages provided (and any passages, for that matter) there is no passage that states Jesus experienced God’s wrath, that God cannot forgive sins, that God must punish sins regardless of the sinner, etc.

Look at what @Martin Marprelate posted.

God laid the iniquity of us all on Jesus.
Jesus bore our sins in His on body on the tree.
The chastening for our peace was upon Him.
By His stripes we are healed.
Christ came to give His life a ransom for many.
Jesus was slain and have redeemed us to God by His blood.
Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
He was wounded for our transgressions
He was bruised for our iniquities
By Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Mosaic Law.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”.

I would add –

It pleased the Lord to bruise Him, He put Him to grief, He made His Son an offering for sin (and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand).

And

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.


I believe all of that. But that is not PSA. PSA tries to tell us what that “really” means when “properly” understood.


But what if the biblical text is what the Bible really teaches?

What if 5th century RCC doctrine of sin was wrong? What if Anselm was more wrong than his choosing of honor?

What if the secular judicial philosophy (the philosophy Calvin studied in France, the same philosophy that Calvin's lawyer contemporaries tried to enact in France) is not divine justice?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The problem with saying "the biblical basis for PSA is..." is that none of the passages provided actually speak of PSA.

A Mormon could take those verses, apply them to his faith, and say "there biblical basis for Mormonosm is...".

This is the problem with all these unbiblical theologies. They start with a theory and then look to the Bible for support.

We need to start with the Bible and first simply believe God's words.

‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ . ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ ‘The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many’. “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people”.“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’. “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses”. ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’.

I believe the above. Many of us do, even some who advocate PSA believe those passages to an extent and in their own way.

The difference is PSA has to add "now let me tell you what that "really" means when "properly" understood.

The obvious question is...what if those words mean exactly what they say?

What this cloud of verbiage really means is that you have no answer. You don't start with the Bible. You start with a denial of what the Bible so clearly teaches and then stop. You don't make any effort to deal with the written text of the Bible. You are so invested in your own faulty theory that you cannot stop, look, and see the truth.

 

[KenH]

Before Christmas, @Salty requested that there should be no more threads on Penal Substitution for a while, but I think that the time has come for one more. It has been suggested over many years that there is no Biblical evidence for P.S., but about ten years ago I posted a lengthy rebuttal laying out the Biblical and theological evidence for P.S. Unfortunately, no one from the other side ever engaged with it, so I put it on my blog. Here it is: The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

So what I propose to do here is to try to show from the Bible that the Lord Jesus did indeed satisfy God’s judicial anger against sin.

Firstly then, it needs to be shown that our Lord took and bore our sins which God laid on Him. Secondly, that He took them so as to undergo the punishment due to them, and thirdly that He did this on our behalf and instead of us.

• Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people? Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).
• Did He take our sins so as to undergo the punishment due to them? Yes. ‘The chastisement [ESV, NIV: ‘punishment’] for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many’ (Mark 10:45); “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people” (Rev. 5:9).
• Did the Lord Jesus do this on our behalf and instead of us? Yes. “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:5); “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’ (Gal. 3:13).

Amen!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What if 5th century RCC doctrine of sin was wrong? What if Anselm was more wrong than his choosing of honor?

What if the secular judicial philosophy (the philosophy Calvin studied in France, the same philosophy that Calvin's lawyer contemporaries tried to enact in France) is not divine justice?

What if you are doing is simply denying the truth and trying to taint the Bible by bringing up dead theologians whom I never mentioned?

 

[JonC]

What this cloud of verbiage really means is that you have no answer. You don't start with the Bible. You start with a denial of what the Bible so clearly teaches and then stop. You don't make any effort to deal with the written text of the Bible. You are so invested in your own faulty theory that you cannot stop, look, and see the truth.

No. I gave you my answer (Scripture).

What does God say about us standing?

He (Jesus) will make us stand
In Him there is no condemnation
He will give us a new spirit
He will put His Spirit in us
He will give us a new heart
He will make us new creations
He will conform us into the image of Christ
He will glorify us
His (Jesus') blood cleanses from all unrighteousness
He will forgive sins


What do You say?

You will stand only if Christ has taken your sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full.

You have drifted far from Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Then I guess you have just shown penal substitution to anyone truly reading the passage with an open mind. And then, if you could find that in a context linked with some of the passages in Isaiah, that would be even more proof. Oh, wait. That's what 1 Peter 2:24 does. Remember, with your view of theology, confessions, and interpretation of scripture, you say yourself you have no right to demand I look at that any differently than I do.

No. I showed God's words. @Martin Marprelate gave you the difference when he said one can only stand if (followed by a lot of things NOT in the Bible at all).

I agree we do not have a right to demand others look at things differently. That is not our place.

I have friends who are Mormons. I can witness to them. I can, like I have done with you, point to God's Word. BUT I have no right to demand they change.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

My biblical reason for rejecting PSA is that PSA is not in the Bible. I can’t show you a text stating “PSA is not true” as you can’t prove a negative. The closest I can get is to simply say that God will not punish the just and He will not clear the wicked.

As far as the passages provided (and any passages, for that matter) there is no passage that states Jesus experienced God’s wrath, that God cannot forgive sins, that God must punish sins regardless of the sinner, etc.

Look at what @Martin Marprelate posted.

God laid the iniquity of us all on Jesus.
Jesus bore our sins in His on body on the tree.
The chastening for our peace was upon Him.
By His stripes we are healed.
Christ came to give His life a ransom for many.
Jesus was slain and have redeemed us to God by His blood.
Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
He was wounded for our transgressions
He was bruised for our iniquities
By Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Mosaic Law.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”.

I would add –

It pleased the Lord to bruise Him, He put Him to grief, He made His Son an offering for sin (and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand).

And

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.


I believe all of that. But that is not PSA. PSA tries to tell us what that “really” means when “properly” understood.


But what if the biblical text is what the Bible really teaches?

What if 5th century RCC doctrine of sin was wrong? What if Anselm was more wrong than his choosing of honor?

What if the secular judicial philosophy (the philosophy Calvin studied in France, the same philosophy that Calvin's lawyer contemporaries tried to enact in France) is not divine justice?

Attached is my seminary paper on atonement theories. Feel free to cite your objections...

 

[JonC]

I am a "New Guy" here. Always considered it as the biblical explation for Christ's finished work of redemption and have held this position before I even knew what "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" was along with all the other differing "Theories" of atonement.

If someone has an objective to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement, I am all game for seeing them make a biblical case for their position if they are able to do so. We can argue until we are blue in the face regarding what "He Said" or "She Said" throughout Church history. Fact of the matter is you can find a quote from any Church father or other historical character and say that they held to whatever atonement theory you would care to champion here! Those citing historic precedence seem also to be the same ones decrying creeds and confessions and saying "We ought to stick to the scriptures" and I agree. We need to be consistent! I would assert that no "Atonement Theory" perfectly explains Christ's perfect redemptive work and we should therefore formulate a view that is firmly grounded upon scriptural truth.

How about thread discussions for each of the respective atonement theories where we could discuss their strengths, weaknesses, and scriptural arguments for or against each theory? Can we expect the moderators to actually ACT as moderators and operate with some objectivity?

I was the same way. PSA came naturally (but, to be fair, the Christianity I was exposed to assumed it correct).

I never once questioned it, until I did. I was a Calvinist. I coukd understand questioning election or reprobation...but PSA? Nope.

After preaching one Sunday I went to bed and all was well. When I woke I had a conviction that I had preached my own understanding and not God's Word. But to my surprise it was about PSA rather than Calvinism in general.

I bought dry erase boards and over the ne t few months compared PSA to the Bible. It is not there.

I had a choice. Abandon my view of Scripture - that God has revealed to us in His Word all essential doctrines (such as Atonement) and abandon the idea that we must test doctrine against "what is written" and cling to "the faith once delivered" OR abandon PSA.

I, obviously, chose the latter.

Over the next couple of years I struggled not to read PSA into the biblical text and instead to take God's words for what they are rather than lean on my own understanding.

This was work. It was hard. I praise God that I moved towards His Word and away from PSA, even though it would have been much easier (then and now) to simply remain in that quagmire .


The problem with PSA is less what it adds to God's Word and more what it obscures. Those things PSA says the Bible "really" teaches takes the place of what is actually written.


I am not here to change anybody's mind. A decade ago I could not have changed my mind.

What I do is provide God's Word and invite others - on their own - to prayerfully and intentionally read the Bible just pretending that PSA is wrong. Just see what the words themselves, as a narrative, say.

Then make up your own mind.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

t

No. I gave you my answer (Scripture).

What does God say about us standing?

He (Jesus) will make us stand
In Him there is no condemnation
He will give us a new spirit
He will put His Spirit in us
He will give us a new heart
He will make us new creations
He will conform us into the image of Christ
He will glorify us
His (Jesus') blood cleanses from all unrighteousness
He will forgive sins


What do You say?

You will stand only if Christ has taken your sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full.

You have drifted far from Scripture.

You have made no answer to the O.P. Here it is again:

• Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people? Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).
• Did He take our sins so as to undergo the punishment due to them? Yes. ‘The chastisement [ESV, NIV: ‘punishment’] for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many’ (Mark 10:45); “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people” (Rev. 5:9).
• Did the Lord Jesus do this on our behalf and instead of us? Yes. “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:5); “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’ (Gal. 3:13).

Let's take John 1:29. "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." The reference to a lamb would not have been lost on any Israelite. At the Passover, a lamb had to be sacrificed by every Israelite household. Why? Because, in themselves, the Israelites were no better than the Egyptians - they were sinners. So Israel was rescued from slavery to Egypt by the death of a lamb - their sin was taken away so that God could be just to rescue them; and in the same way believers are rescued from slavery to sin by the death of the Lamb of God.
But there's more to it than that. The very first sacrifice that was ever made by a human to God was that of a lamb, offered by Abel. And the Lord respected Abel's sacrifice, but not that of Cain. Why? Several reasons, but one is that Abel was a prophet (Luke 11:50-51), and he looked down the millennia and saw the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. Another reason is that 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.' What! Not if we get a new heart, and a new spirit and are conformed into the image of Christ? No. 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.'
We might add to that the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, who is likened to a lamb in verse 7, who would lay down His life, pour out His soul unto death and be numbered with the transgressors (v.12; cf. Mark 15:27-28).

Attached is my seminary paper on atonement theories. Feel free to cite your objections...

I think this is very good. I recommend others to read it.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

I was the same way. PSA came naturally (but, to be fair, the Christianity I was exposed to assumed it correct).

I never once questioned it, until I did. I was a Calvinist. I coukd understand questioning election or reprobation...but PSA? Nope.

After preaching one Sunday I went to bed and all was well. When I woke I had a conviction that I had preached my own understanding and not God's Word. But to my surprise it was about PSA rather than Calvinism in general.

I bought dry erase boards and over the ne t few months compared PSA to the Bible. It is not there.

I had a choice. Abandon my view of Scripture - that God has revealed to us in His Word all essential doctrines (such as Atonement) and abandon the idea that we must test doctrine against "what is written" and cling to "the faith once delivered" OR abandon PSA.

I, obviously, chose the latter.

Over the next couple of years I struggled not to read PSA into the biblical text and instead to take God's words for what they are rather than lean on my own understanding.

This was work. It was hard. I praise God that I moved towards His Word and away from PSA, even though it would have been much easier (then and now) to simply remain in that quagmire .


The problem with PSA is less what it adds to God's Word and more what it obscures. Those things PSA says the Bible "really" teaches takes the place of what is actually written.


I am not here to change anybody's mind. A decade ago I could not have changed my mind.

What I do is provide God's Word and invite others - on their own - to prayerfully and intentionally read the Bible just pretending that PSA is wrong. Just see what the words themselves, as a narrative, say.

Then make up your own mind.

If you have done all this work then you should have a solid, biblical foundation upon which your current position is based correct? You seem like a smart person and it would be interesting to hear your rationale. As it stands now, all I am seeing is a subjective testimony of your journey away from PSA. Read my paper. I welcome any criticism from you and perhaps our dialogue could be a little more substantive. Who knows, perhaps your idea of PSA is completely different from mine?

 

[JonC]

t

You have made no answer to the O.P. Here it is again:

• Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people? Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).
• Did He take our sins so as to undergo the punishment due to them? Yes. ‘The chastisement [ESV, NIV: ‘punishment’] for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many’ (Mark 10:45); “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people” (Rev. 5:9).
• Did the Lord Jesus do this on our behalf and instead of us? Yes. “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:5); “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’ (Gal. 3:13).

Let's take John 1:29. "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." The reference to a lamb would not have been lost on any Israelite. At the Passover, a lamb had to be sacrificed by every Israelite household. Why? Because, in themselves, the Israelites were no better than the Egyptians - they were sinners. So Israel was rescued from slavery to Egypt by the death of a lamb - their sin was taken away so that God could be just to rescue them; and in the same way believers are rescued from slavery to sin by the death of the Lamb of God.
But there's more to it than that. The very first sacrifice that was ever made by a human to God was that of a lamb, offered by Abel. And the Lord respected Abel's sacrifice, but not that of Cain. Why? Several reasons, but one is that Abel was a prophet (Luke 11:50-51), and he looked down the millennia and saw the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. Another reason is that 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.' What! Not if we get a new heart, and a new spirit and are conformed into the image of Christ? No. 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.'
We might add to that the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, who is likened to a lamb in verse 7, who would lay down His life, pour out His soul unto death and be numbered with the transgressors (v.12; cf. Mark 15:27-28).

I think this is very good. I recommend others to read it.

Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

This is a a good reference.

And yes, at passover the lambs blood was placed on the door post and death passed over.

The Passover was God freeing Israel from bondage as they had been held captive by pagan Egypt. God, through this work, defeated the hold Egypt held over Israel.

Likewise, it is through Christ's blood shed for us that we are freed from the bondage of sin and death, Christ defeating the hold Satan held over man.

But I think that the Day of Atonement is also important and plays a role here. The reason is the removal of sin.

At the Day of Atonement the blood of the goat separated to God was sprinkled on the altar and Isralites sins were covered.

This is more supportive of my position than it is PSA. The killing of the Lamb at Passover was necessary but the focus was on the blood which would cover the people as death passed over.

Also, at the Day of Atonement it was not the sacrifice of the animal but the sprinkling of the blood that cleansed from or covered sin.

Even the goat dedicated to Azazel , which represented sin that one must guard against returning (repentance), matches my position rather than PSA.

What you do is read PSA into the OT sacrifice system and then miraculously find it.