The Biblical Basis for Penal Substitution, part 2

[JonC]

Well actually, it does say that the blood makes atonement for one's life. What it doesn't say is that the altar makes atonement for one's life. It appears from v.7 that the Israelites had been making sacrifices that were not specifically to the LORD but, apparently, to false gods and demons. Therefore God commanded them to bring their sacrifice to the door of the Tabernacle and for the priests to offer the blood upon the altar.
However, when David was bringing the Ark up to Jerusalem, it seems that every six paces that he travelled, he sacrificed oxen and sheep (2 Sam. 6:13), yet the Tabernacle was in the city (v.17).

Yes, in that case (because that was where you brought us).

But it is this way in every case. In atoning for the altar (cleansing) the blood is applied. The door of meeting? It is the blood applied. Same with covenants. It is not the shedding of blood but the sprinkling.

But you are right - these are not directly speaking of atoning for sins.

So let's look at the Day of Atonement.

“He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. 16 In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness. 17 No one is to be in the tent of meeting from the time Aaron goes in to make atonement in the Most Holy Place until he comes out, having made atonement for himself, his household and the whole community of Israel.:

Lets look at the Passover as well.

Did death pass over the families when God noticed they had shed the blood of a lamb?

Nope. It was their application of the blood.


Taking life (removing life from the animal) is mot, as PSA theorists assume, the atonement according to Scriptute.

It was always the application of the blood (the application of this life) that was viewed as making atonement.

Yes, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

But you are wrong to stop there.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

The main problem is not your misunderstanding of the Old Testament. The main problem is your reading of your theory into the New Covenant as well.

Hebrews 9

But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,so that we may serve the living God!


You have been decieved into believing what is false. Remove the lenses of your leaders and read what God has actually said.


Athough we argue strongly against each other - you for your sect teaches and me for the what is written in God's Word, I have not stopped remembering you in my prayers. I ask that the God may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you. I pray one day you will lean not on your own understanding but on His words and that this will bring you to know "the faith once delivered".

 

[JonC]

Again, on what basis did God have His stored up wrath towards us while were yet sinners go, did it just disappear, did God forget He had done that?

The wicked were storing up wrath for themselves for the Day of Wrath.

You rewrote the verse in the image of your understanding.

You do not need to ask me when God has given you the answer -

The actual passage is in Romans 2:

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.


What is the basis those people are storing up wrath for themselves?

It is because of of their stubbornness and your unrepentant heart.

But to those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Christ Himself is the Propitiation for our sins. There is no wrath for true Christians (God's wrath has been propitiated, not exercized or "poured out".


And I apologize to you. I thought I had you on ignore because you lack understanding of simple language (wrath, anger, love, kindness, joy, happiness, etc. are not things that are literally stored).


Per Scripture those stubborn people who refuse to repent and remain in their wickedness are doing so awaiting the condemnation that will come "on the day of wrath".


Anyway, I realize you do not comprehend and I have not the time nor inclination to teach figures of speech. Let's leave it at wrath, love, etc cannot be stored as these are not things; wrath, kindness, joy, etc. does not "go" anywhere; there are not four corners of the Earth (the Earth is not a rectangle or square); God does not literally use the Earth as a footstool.

Again, sorry that I accidentally took you off ignore. Only stupid people think there are no stupid questions. We only say that there are none so a legitimate one does not go unanswered.

 

[JonC]

Well actually, it does say that the blood makes atonement for one's life.

Yes.

He is to dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle some of it seven times before the Lord, in front of the curtain of the sanctuary.
The priest shall then put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense that is before the Lord in the tent of meeting. The rest of the bull’s blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

And atoning for sin - the people (here the elders) kill the animal. Then the anointed priest is to take some of the bull’s blood into the tent of meeting. He shall dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle it before the Lord seven times in front of the curtain. 18 He is to put some of the blood on the horns of the altar that is before the Lord in the tent of meeting. The rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

It is never the shedding of blood, although certainly required, that is the atonement in the OT. It is always the blood. And this blood is not an appeasement but a vleansing.


My point is PSA mishandles the OT sacrifices in order to cover the theories mishandling of New Covenant atonement.

 

[JonC]

Look....here is my point. It is VERY simple. AND you do not need to take my word for it. You can read it in your Bible.

In the Bible offering the sacrifice is different from making atonement.

A sacrifice is for atonement. Atonement is when the blood of the sacrifice is applied.

How does the priest make atonement? The elders kill a male lamb. The priest sprinkles the blood at the entrance and the on the altar. The remaining blood is poured around the altar.

This foreshadows the New Covenant atonement. Christ's blood cleanses from all unrighteousness.


Look at the passover in Exodus.

The Isralites sacrificed a lamb. Did this sacrifice keep them from death? No. They applied the blood.

When the Lord goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.

 

[JonC]

God commanded them to bring their sacrifice to the door of the Tabernacle and for the priests to offer the blood upon the altar.

Exactly. The elders of Israel slaughtered the sacrifice. But the priest took the blood and made atonement for the people.

PSA has interpreted sacrifices under the Law as pagan sacrifices (as adopting a pagan worldview where the gods can be appeased). Pagans viewed the sacrifice itself as an appeasing the wrath of their gods, or as gaining favor.

But the Hebrew sacrifice itself was about obedience (a "gift" of obedience) rather than appeasing God.

Then the priest took the blood (life is in the blood) and sprinkled it to "make atonement" by "cleansing" the people of sin.

This is the model in the NT as well. It was Christ's obedience even to death on a cross. Perfect obedience. Perfect Sacrifice.

But it is this blood when applied (when received by faith) that cleanses us ftom all unrighteousness.

 

[percho]

Ummm....no.

I believe that Leviticus 17:11 is correct. You are changing it, even though it is a slight change, to suit your understanding. We should not change Scripture.

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

The verse does not say the shedding of blood is the atonement. It says the blood has been given TO MAKE atonement ON THE ALTAR.

The animal was not killed on the altar.

Gen 22:9,10 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

 

[JonC]

Gen 22:9,10 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

Yes. But this was not to be an atonement. It was to be a sacrifice (an act of obedience).

What I mean is, God did not tell Abraham to make his son an atoning sacrifice for his sins.

 

[percho]

Yes. But this was not to be an atonement. It was to be a sacrifice (an act of obedience).

What I mean is, God did not tell Abraham to make his son an atoning sacrifice for his sins.

Was God's Son an atoning sacrifice for our sins? Wasn't the passage in Genesis given as a type?

 

[JonC]

Was God's Son an atoning sacrifice for our sins? Wasn't the passage in Genesis given as a type?

Yes, Jesus is the Atoning Sacrifice. The passage in Genesis does point to Christ, but not the forgiveness of sins. As you move on in Scripture you will get a lot more detail.

"The elders of the community are to lay their hands on the bull’s head before the Lord, and the bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord. Then the anointed priest is to take some of the bull’s blood into the tent of meeting. He shall dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle it before the Lord seven times in front of the curtain. He is to put some of the blood on the horns of the altar that is before the Lord in the tent of meeting. The rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the tent of meeting"


Did you notice who offers the sacrifice (who sheds the blood, who kills the animal)?

Is it the priest symbolizing that bridge between God and man? No. It is the leadership, the elders. Not the priest.

The priest takes the blood to the altar and makes atonement for the people.


PSA changes this to mimic the pagan sacrifices where the priest kills the animal in order to appease the wrath of their gods or seek favor with their gods.

In the OT the sacrifice is an offering of obedience. We see this in the NT as Chriat becoming obedient to death, even the death on a cross.

In the OT the priests make atonement for the people by applying the blood for the cleansing of sin. In the NT we recieve the atonement by faith (the application) and Christ's blood cleanses from all unrighteousness.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, in that case (because that was where you brought us).

But it is this way in every case. In atoning for the altar (cleansing) the blood is applied. The door of meeting? It is the blood applied. Same with covenants. It is not the shedding of blood but the sprinkling.

But you are right - these are not directly speaking of atoning for sins.

So let's look at the Day of Atonement.

“He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. 16 In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness. 17 No one is to be in the tent of meeting from the time Aaron goes in to make atonement in the Most Holy Place until he comes out, having made atonement for himself, his household and the whole community of Israel.:

Lets look at the Passover as well.

Did death pass over the families when God noticed they had shed the blood of a lamb?

Nope. It was their application of the blood.

Nope. It was the faith of the Israelites who applied the blood to the doorposts. Having a meal of roast lamb saves no one.

Taking life (removing life from the animal) is mot, as PSA theorists assume, the atonement according to Scriptute.

It was always the application of the blood (the application of this life) that was viewed as making atonement.

Yes, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

But you are wrong to stop there.

So the Lord Jesus didn't need to die? Would it have been enough if He had bled for a while? I don't think so. '....Because He poured out His soul unto death.' 'While we were still sinners, Christ died for us......... It is Christ who died....' (Romans 5:8; 8:34). But certainly the blood, and the death of Christ, need to be applied to our hearts by faith.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Exactly. The elders of Israel slaughtered the sacrifice. But the priest took the blood and made atonement for the people.

PSA has interpreted sacrifices under the Law as pagan sacrifices (as adopting a pagan worldview where the gods can be appeased). Pagans viewed the sacrifice itself as an appeasing the wrath of their gods, or as gaining favor.

But the Hebrew sacrifice itself was about obedience (a "gift" of obedience) rather than appeasing God.

Pagan sacrifices were/are also about obedience.

Then the priest took the blood (life is in the blood) and sprinkled it to "make atonement" by "cleansing" the people of sin.

This is the model in the NT as well. It was Christ's obedience even to death on a cross. Perfect obedience. Perfect Sacrifice.

But it is this blood when applied (when received by faith) that cleanses us ftom all unrighteousness.

Exodus 12:13. 'When I see the blood, I will pass over you.' Why? Because the blood on the doorposts signified that the creature had died, and also that the Israelites were trusting in that death to make atonement for them. The priesthood followed afterward. 'And this I say, that the law...... cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ' (Gal. 3:17).

I have a load of stuff to do and sermons to prepare over the next week or so. You just seem to me to be floundering about. Whether or not I make any further posts will depend on how well I'm getting on with my work.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have a load of stuff to do and sermons to prepare over the next week or so. You just seem to me to be floundering about. Whether or not I make any further posts will depend on how well I'm getting on with my work.

Once again. Thanks for trying. But you won't get anywhere. The next objection will be that it was the "building of the doorframe" which served as a basis for where the blood should be applied, thus proving without a doubt the error of penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

Nope. It was the faith of the Israelites who applied the blood to the doorposts.

This is what I mean about you denying God's words to accept your understanding of God's words.

"The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you"

You say "No! He saw the faith of the people and passed over them!" You assume. And you make your assumptions your religion.


Now, it was through their obedience, as they obeyed God's words and applied the blood.

 

[JonC]

So the Lord Jesus didn't need to die? Would it have been enough if He had bled for a while?

I already answered this several times.

The sacrifice has to die. That is the sacrifice. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

The elders killed the animal. They made the sacrifice. This, in the OT, was not pagan appeasement but a "gift" of obedience.

The priest took the blood and made atonement for the people. The blood cleansed, or purified.


At no point in the sacrifice system is the sacrifice a punishment or the atonement an appeasement.

The sacrifice is obedience.
The atonement is cleansing.

We have to respect God's words. I do not know the solution for you. Maybe when your understanding stands in contrast to God's words it would be best not to give voice to that understanding. Or maybe you should conform your understanding to God's word. Those are just suggestions (you may have other ways, I don't know).

It just seems like you go out on a limb when you, as a teacher, put your understanding out there as if it were God's words.

I hope your teaching goes well. Just something to consider-

Maybe it would better to simply read God's words to a congregation than to teach what is not there. That seems far safer given God's caution to those who would teach.

I mean, we (obviously) do not lean on our own understanding. It seems worse to convince others to lean on our understanding. Just something to consider.

I do not think that all the "wolves in sheeps clothing" realize they are "wolves".

 

[JonC]

Once again. Thanks for trying. But you won't get anywhere. The next objection will be that it was the "building of the doorframe" which served as a basis for where the blood should be applied, thus proving without a doubt the error of penal substitution.

This post does not make sense.

God did not instruct them on how to build the doorframe. I do not even know how it was built (we don't have that detail).

The doorframe would have been built prior to Moses giving the instruction. It has nothing to do with the passage I gave.

I just gave this passage, not realizing you found objectionable -

"When the Lord goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down."

I then offered two observations -

1. God would keep death from them when he passed over IF he saw the blood applied.

2. They obeyed and applied the blood.


You introduced the idea that the building of doorframes were important to the blood applied on the doorframe.

I understand that you hold a fairly liberal view of Scripture, and that we will because of that disagree in interpretation. I also know you hold a fairly new theology. I expect disagreement between us.

But you need to explain your objection a bit more because I do not see where building the doorframe is relevant.

I also do not see your objectionable to the points I made. You objected, obviously. But you did not articulate the objection.

If it helps, here (again) were my points you rejected:

1. God would keep death from them when he passed over IF he saw the blood applied.

2. They obeyed and applied the blood.

 

[DaveXR650]

You introduced the idea that the building of doorframes were important to the blood applied on the doorframe.

I understand that you hold a fairly liberal view of Scripture, and that we will because of that disagree in interpretation. I also know you hold a fairly new theology. I expect disagreement between us.

But you need to explain your objection a bit more because I do not see where building the doorframe is relevant.

Jon. Please tell me that this was an AI generated response.

 

[JonC]

Jon. Please tell me that this was an AI generated response.

??

No. It was not.

With the Exodus I stated that God would keep death from the Isralies when he passed over IF he saw the blood applied. They obeyed and applied the blood.

Your response had something do with how the door frames were built.

Unless you were mocking the passage I posted (which I cannot think this was the case as I believe you are a Christian and would not mock God at least out of fear) you had some questions about the construction of door frames.

Now, the ancient Egyptions and Hebrews did not have door frames as we would think of them. They had a post and beam system (two posts supporting an overhead beam).

But the issue of the passage I provided had nothing to do with the construction of these entrances.


Here is the passage you were addressing -

"When the Lord goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down."

Here was my understanding that you were addressing-

The Isralites were obedient. They killed the lambs and applied the blood. God saw the applied blood and did not allow the destroyer to enter those homes.


Nothing about building door frames.

 

[JonC]

Jon.

Sorry. I re-read your post.

I now see it was ad hominem employed to dismiss God's words through mockery. I missed it, I guess because I thought better of you.


But no. What I posted was my belief that God saw the blood that the Isralites applied on their door posts (and beam) and He did not allow the destroyer to enter their homes.

I do believe that it was important for the Israelite to apply the blood rather than simply kill the animals.

And I believe that this, the Passover, was foreshadowing what was to come (the atonement).

I do not believe it was an accident that God commamded the blood be applied to the door posts, and that this blood be the sign God acknowledged to save them from death.

I also do not believe it was a coincidence that in the Old Testament it was the elders who shed the blood of the sacrifices but the priest who made atonement for the sins by applying the blood to the alter.

I do not believe God's telling us that it is Christ's blood that cleanses us is insignificant.

 

[DaveXR650]

Sorry. I re-read your post.

I now see it was ad hominem employed to dismiss God's words through mockery. I missed it, I guess because I thought better of you.

It was dismissing you. All anyone has to do is go back through these posts and they will notice that you have such a blatant animosity and refusal to acknowledge the clear scripture that you will always come up with some nuance, some added "point" which can deflect whenever anyone points out to you as clear scripture. This is always the same with you on these debates. You start out merely instructing the rest of us with wit and humor, then move on to the fact that we must be misunderstanding you. From there, and you can see it coming, it moves to we must be blaspheming, or putting forth some strange and evil new thing. The fact is, you are floundering. You are all over the place. And cannot do simple engagement of anyone's points.

The doorpost was an attempt at humor, illustrating just how you always raise a new objection. After being refuted regarding the necessity that a sacrifice actually die, we nuance it by saying that it is the application of the blood, not the death itself that is important. When the fact is you can't answer the point being made. It's checkmate but instead of just reevaluating your position, which you are backed into because I don't think you really want to be a Socinian - your ego won't allow that so instead we keep on with these ridiculous posts which put forth arguments that even the true opposers of PSA don't try to use.