Atonement (Not PSA)

[JonC]

I want to speak respectfully here, because my concern is not with you as a person, but with the view itself. I cannot accept the idea that the cross was not a legal, substitutionary act, because Scripture uses that language directly. The Bible says, “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), and it also says that Christ “was wounded for our transgressions” and that “the chastisement of our peace was upon him” (Isaiah 53:5). Paul writes that Christ “redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). These are not later theological additions. They are the words of God.

For that reason, I believe the substitutionary and penalty‑bearing nature of the cross is part of the plain teaching of Scripture. My disagreement is not with your sincerity or your desire to honor the text. It is simply that when I read these passages, I see substitution everywhere, and I cannot set that aside without setting aside the language Scripture itself uses. Yours in Him, Tony

Thank you for being respectful. I hope I come across the same.

I agree with you. The cross was substitutionary rather than a legal act. We can know this as a fact several ways. Jesus is the "last Adam" of whom Paul spoke. In Him God was reconciling man to Himself. I would even say this is inherent in the Word becoming flesh.

I also believe that Christ bore our sins so we would bear His righteousness, that God laid our iniquity on Him so that God would clothe us in His righteousness. It pleased the Lord to crush Him, to put Him to grief, and it is by His stripes we are healed. He did become a curse for us to redeem us from the curse. He was made sin for us.


I am not saying that the Atonement is less than substitutionary, far from it. I am saying that Christ did not die as a penal substitute.

Penal Substitution is both legal and substitution. It is a type of substitution that satisfies a judicial demand. Otherwise you have a form of Anselm's view (Christ stepping in for us to accomplish what Adam could not by merit).

BUT penal substitution views Jesus as suffering divine punishment instead of us. The penal part makes the theory a legal act via substitution.



If penal substitution were in fact the "plain teaching of Scripture" then you would have provided a passage actually teaching penal substitution. But you didn't. You provided passages that Christians believed centuries before penal substitution was articulated.


Now - I do believe that when you read the Bible you see penal substitution all over the place. I believe that for two reasons. First, you strike me as an honest man. Second, I also saw penal substitution from Genesis to Revelation. Once somebody tells you the ink blot is a bat you can never see it for what it really is.

But that is you, and was me. Who cares what people "see" as being taught by the Bible? These understandings are a dime a dozen. What matters is not our understanding of what we think the Bible teaches but the words that proceed from God.

 

[JonC]

@Anthony Pritchard

I know people define terms differently. On this board we have several who believe they hold Doctrines of Grace while rejecting a major point if the doctrine. So I like to ask a few questions so that I better understand your perspective.


1. Do you believe that God forgives sins or that God must punish sins in order to be just?

Typically PSA theorists believe the latter. John Calvin held that judicial philosophy (secularly and theologically) and in developing PSA Calvin explained that justice requires all crimes be punished as it is the duty of the judge to avenge the law.

God, under this view, satisfies the requirements of justice by punishing the Just in order to clear the guilty. But this is not forgiveness. Forgiveness is not dependent on the means or the one being forgiven.

I ask this because I do not believe that judicial philosophy is just, much less divine justice.

2. Do you believe that God views punishing the Just and clearing the guilty both to be abominations? If so, do you believe God punished Jesus instead of us?

I ask this one because I do not believe God punishes the Just. I also do not believe God will clear the guilty.

 

[atpollard]

Post #18 left off with the Levitical Offerings.

Just saying that I am patiently waiting to read what comes next.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

@Anthony Pritchard

I know people define terms differently. On this board we have several who believe they hold Doctrines of Grace while rejecting a major point if the doctrine. So I like to ask a few questions so that I better understand your perspective.


1. Do you believe that God forgives sins or that God must punish sins in order to be just?

Typically PSA theorists believe the latter. John Calvin held that judicial philosophy (secularly and theologically) and in developing PSA Calvin explained that justice requires all crimes be punished as it is the duty of the judge to avenge the law.

God, under this view, satisfies the requirements of justice by punishing the Just in order to clear the guilty. But this is not forgiveness. Forgiveness is not dependent on the means or the one being forgiven.

I ask this because I do not believe that judicial philosophy is just, much less divine justice.

2. Do you believe that God views punishing the Just and clearing the guilty both to be abominations? If so, do you believe God punished Jesus instead of us?

I ask this one because I do not believe God punishes the Just. I also do not believe God will clear the guilty.

Brother, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful reply. I appreciate the tone, and I want to answer in the same spirit. I do not want to argue philosophy or systems, only to stay with the words God has given us.

For me, the question is not whether the atonement is substitutionary. We both agree it is. The question is whether Scripture itself describes that substitution in penal terms. When I read the passages, I see that it does.

“The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). “He was wounded for our transgressions… the chastisement of our peace was upon him” (Isaiah 53:5). “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). “He made him to be sin for us” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

These are not philosophical categories. They are the Spirit’s own words. Wages, curse, chastisement, iniquity laid on another, sin borne by another. These are penal terms. They describe guilt, consequence, and judgment transferred to a substitute.

To your first question, yes, I believe God forgives sins. But Scripture also says that forgiveness is grounded in the shedding of blood. “Without shedding of blood is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22). Forgiveness is free to us, but it was not free in itself. It was purchased.

To your second question, I do not believe God punishes the just in the sense of condemning the innocent. But I do believe what Scripture says, that Christ “the Just for the unjust” suffered once for sins (1 Peter 3:18). He was not punished as a sinner. He bore the penalty of sin as the spotless Lamb of God. That is why He could redeem us.

So my disagreement is not with your sincerity or your desire to honor the text. It is simply that when I read these passages, I cannot separate substitution from the penal language God Himself uses. I do not want to add anything to Scripture, but I also do not want to remove anything from it.

I appreciate the conversation, Brother, and I am grateful for the respectful tone.

 

[old regular]

Signs Of The Times 1899:
Atone means to make reparation, satisfaction and reconciliation. When this is done, the injury is atoned for. Atonement applies to sin or wrong doing. Sin is violation of law, either divine or human. To every transgression of law there is a penalty. The laws of God are so strong and perfect that every sin must receive its just penalty. God is holy and he will never pardon the least sin, unless it is atoned for. To do this, the broken law must he fulfilled. Perfect obedience only will fulfill and satisfy the law. No sinner can do this, because he is already imperfect and disabled or weak. Sin entails guilt, condemnation and death. The whole world is guilty before God, because all have sinned. “The wages of sin is death,” and every sinner must die. God is just and holy, therefore, in the condemnation of all men under his holy law. Right here is where the truth of salvation by free grace alone comes in, and every mouth is stopped, because there is none good, no, not one. None have any claim upon God for justification, or any blessing. “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” All men in the flesh are forever condemned by the law, and are under its curse. Mercy and grace only can save any sinner. Yet all men in the flesh depend upon their works to obtain salvation, and they claim the blessings of God as rewards for religious service. They make salvation conditional in part upon their supposed obedience to the holy commandments of God. Thus, thy must either hold that their obedience is perfect, or that the divine commandments are imperfect and will accept of faulty obedience. This was the fatal blindness of the Jewish Pharisees, who trusted in themselves and their self- righteousness. They therefore did not believe in Christ as the Savior of sinners, nor trust in his atoning blood to cleanse them from all sin. Nay, but they depended upon their boasted ability and good works to make atonement or satisfaction to the law of God, which is holy. Just so does every doctrine and principle of conditional salvation on man’s part virtually deny both the complete fullness and sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and the need of it; for every feature and sort of conditional salvation necessarily claims to save us from some sin and its punishment or wages. This is nothing else but making atonement in part for ourselves, by our works of conditional salvation. It is evident, therefore, that the doctrine of conditional salvation, in any part, is a denial of the perfection and fullness of Christ’s atonement for all the sins of his people. For a full and complete atonement for all our sins, is full redemption, free justification and perfect salvation. Conditional salvation from any sin, either of commission or omission, contradicts this full and perfect salvation through the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and charges imperfection and failure in part to his perfect work of obedience unto righteousness and full justification and salvation. Conditional salvation denies that all salvation and its joys and blessings come to us through Christ’s atoning suffering unto death for our sins, but claims that salvation in part comes to us because of our own obedience; that is, the atonement for our sins of disobedience is in part conditional, and depends upon our good works of obedience. There is no escape from this fatal consequence of conditional salvation, for all salvation is from sin and death, and that which brings salvation is an atonement for sin; if this is our works, then it is not the blood of Christ that obtains our salvation and God’s blessing. Unitarians deny the divinity, vicarious sufferings and atonement of our only Lord Jesus Christ; therefore they depend upon their own works of supposed obedience to the commandments of God to atone for their sins and obtain salvation for themselves; that is, they hold to personal atonement by works of obedience, and to conditional salvation either present or future; for it all depends upon works, and is not by grace.
With thanks to God for his unspeakable gift, we turn away from this bloodless atonement and faithless salvation, to the “fountain filled with blood, drawn from Immanuel’s veins, and sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains,” and in joyful faith and praise we say,
“Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
Let us notice, 1st. The necessity of the atonement. We read, “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” “There is none righteous, no, not one.” “And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” “For the wages of sin is death.” The Savior of shiners, therefore, must give his life-blood and die for their sins, as the atoning sacrifice and price of their redemption. Christ thus gave himself for all his people, and made this perfect offering and sacrifice of himself. “By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”
2nd. The completeness of Christ’s atonement. Atonement must cover all sin, pay all the debt, redeem from all iniquity, remove all guilt and every curse, and justify from all things, in order to fulfill the law and satisfy justice. Should the least stain of sin remain upon the body of Christ, the church, then both he and his people for whom he died must have remained forever under the curse of the law, and the dominion of sin and death. Paul shows this in 1 Cor. xv. But blessed be God, the obedience and death of his holy Son possessed this perfection and infinite merit and saving power. So, we read, “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.”
3rd. Since the atonement of Christ removes all guilt and cleanses from all sin, it freely justifies us from all things, and none can condemn or lay anything to the charge of God’s elect. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.”
4th. Paul testifies that God raised Christ from the dead for our justification, and that whom God justifies he also glorifies. “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” This full and free justification not only makes us forever free from all sin and guilt and condemnation, but it also brings us into righteousness and salvation and eternal life, as heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”
5th. The atonement of Christ, then, makes an end of sin, destroys death, and brings in life and immortality for all who are his. This is the holy and blessed estate of all for whoso sins Christ died. Their sins are all blotted out forever for Jesus’ sake, and they have free and full and everlasting forgiveness from God their Father. Yea, they are born of God, have passed from death unto life, and shall live for evermore, because Christ lives in them. His fullness of grace and glory is theirs in him, and in him is their full salvation and all spiritual blessings, both for time and eternity. “If Christ is mine, then present things and things to come are mine.” When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with him in glory.
D. Bartley

David Bartley​

David Bartley (1826-?) was an American Primitive Baptist preacher. He served the pastorate of several churches and became a popular itinerate preacher traveling to many parts of the United States. He was a frequent contributor to Gilbert Beebe’s the Signs of the Times and was the author of several books.

\​

 

[atpollard]

"But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."
- Jesus Christ

 

[JonC]

Brother, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful reply. I appreciate the tone, and I want to answer in the same spirit. I do not want to argue philosophy or systems, only to stay with the words God has given us.

For me, the question is not whether the atonement is substitutionary. We both agree it is. The question is whether Scripture itself describes that substitution in penal terms. When I read the passages, I see that it does.

“The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). “He was wounded for our transgressions… the chastisement of our peace was upon him” (Isaiah 53:5). “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). “He made him to be sin for us” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

These are not philosophical categories. They are the Spirit’s own words. Wages, curse, chastisement, iniquity laid on another, sin borne by another. These are penal terms. They describe guilt, consequence, and judgment transferred to a substitute.

To your first question, yes, I believe God forgives sins. But Scripture also says that forgiveness is grounded in the shedding of blood. “Without shedding of blood is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22). Forgiveness is free to us, but it was not free in itself. It was purchased.

To your second question, I do not believe God punishes the just in the sense of condemning the innocent. But I do believe what Scripture says, that Christ “the Just for the unjust” suffered once for sins (1 Peter 3:18). He was not punished as a sinner. He bore the penalty of sin as the spotless Lamb of God. That is why He could redeem us.

So my disagreement is not with your sincerity or your desire to honor the text. It is simply that when I read these passages, I cannot separate substitution from the penal language God Himself uses. I do not want to add anything to Scripture, but I also do not want to remove anything from it.

I appreciate the conversation, Brother, and I am grateful for the respectful tone.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I understand your position here. I held it most of my life (through seminary, through my preaching ministry, and through most of my time teaching).

You lean on the language of Scripture, and I appreciate that sentiment. But I do want to point out you are also reading a theology into the text.

The language goes both ways, and to actually rely on the language demands we be consistent. Jesus is our substitute in the same way we are Jesus' substitute. The language demands this. We are talking representative substitution.

He bore our sins and we bear His righteousness. He died for is and we live for Him. God laid our iniquities on Him and God lays His righteousness on us.

It is not according to the text of Scripture that one will say Jesus bore our sins as a simple substitute (instead of us) because they will not hold that we now (and in the future) bear Jesus' righteousness instead of Him.

We are talking reconciliation, not simple substitution. It is representation. He is the "second" Adam, the Son of Man. We are the body of Christ, ambassadors.

I challenge you to read these biblical passages just pretending that PSA is wrong. I get it is difficult not to see the bat.

The penal language God uses is there. I am not ignoring that at all. But I am suggesting that you may be misapplying both the penal and substitutionary aspects in the Atonement, not intentionally but because of the worldview you have adopted.

To demonstrate what I mean - you cannot provide a passage that states your belief without providing clarification about what the passage really teaches. This is problematic because every sect, all of these diverse and competing theories, can provide passages and then tell you what it really teaches.

It cannot be objectively tested with Scripture because the crux of these views is human understanding.

Again, thank you for both your tone and your content. I enjoy discussing this topic, even if we never come to the same view. Iron sharpens iron, and I believe both of us are willing to change our belief to match more closely God's words.

 

[JonC]

Post #18 left off with the Levitical Offerings.

Just saying that I am patiently waiting to read what comes next.

Lol.... true. I kinda jumped towards the end (figured nobody was reading). But I will pick back up.

THE LEVITICAL SACRIFICE SYSTEM

The Law codified the existing sacrifices but also made provision for sins to be addressed.

BURNT OFFERINGS – People worshipped God by making burnt offerings (herd animals and birds). They offered the animals at the doorway of the tent of meeting, putting their hand on the head of the offering that it may be accepted as an atonement on his behalf. He killed the animal and the priests offered up the blood by sprinkling it on the alter that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting. Then he burned the offering. This was a “soothing aroma to the Lord”. I believe that the “soothing aroma to the Lord” was not the literal smell of burning flesh but instead the obedience of the people in worship.

PEACE OFFERINGS – The people made peace offerings in a similar fashion. They killed the animal outside of the tent and the priests sprinkled the blood around the altar.

I am not going to discuss grain offerings and first fruit offerings as I do not believe they are pertinent to this discussion. But they were offerings of worship to God.

SIN OFFERING – If a person sins unintentionally then they offered a sin offering. They brought the animal to the doorway of the tent and killed the animal. The priest took some of the blood and sprinkled the veil of the sanctuary seven times. The priest also applied the blood to the horns of the alter and poured all of the remaining blood at the base of the alter.

GUILT OFFERING – The people also made guilt offerings. This type of offering was to cleans the person of guilt. The person was to confess that in which he has sinned. He then brought the guilt offering so that the priest could make atonement on behalf for his sin. Atonement in this case is not by the shedding of blood (although the shedding of blood is certainly necessary) but by the priest applying the blood to the altar on behalf of the person.

THE LAW OF ATONEMENT

The priest would prepare a sin offering for himself. This was to make atonement for himself and his household. He took two goats and cast lots. The first was for the Lord and the other for Azael (the “scapegoat”). The goat for the Lord was offered as a sin offering. The priest would take the blood of the goat and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat seven times. He would make atonement for the holy place itself with the blood of the animal. It was the blood of the animals that was taken into the tabernacle to make atonement (the bodies were taken outside the camp and burned).

The scapegoat was presented alive, to make atonement up it, and it was sent into the wilderness. The priest would confess the sins of the people and the goat would (symbolically) take their sins away to a solidary place. The people would drive the goat out and guard against its return.

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I [God] have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.” (Lev 17:11).

 

[JonC]

How does the Sacrifice point to the work of Christ?

First we have God offering His Son as a Sacrifice. This was His will (It was His will to crush Him, to put Him to grief). But this was for a purpose, our salvation. Although Jesus would suffer He would delight in the result of His suffering.

Jesus is our High Priest. Through His own blood (rather than the blood of an animal) He entered the Most High Place not made with hands. God set Him forth as an Atonement through His blood, and this blood is applied to us by faith.


Notice in the sacrifice system there is no substitution. The animal is killed. But this is not the atonement. The animal is not viewed as a substitute. The priest applies the blood to "make atonement", but this is not to make ammends. Instead the blood cleanses.

Likewise, Jesus did not die as a substitute. We will experience the same death, although probably not in the same way. Our atonement - our reconciliation with God - is achieved when the blood of the Sacrifice is applied to us, when it is received by faith.

Christ's blood cleanses from all unrighteousness. We are made new creations in Christ, we will be conformed to His image, the old will no longer exist, the new will have come.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I understand your position here. I held it most of my life (through seminary, through my preaching ministry, and through most of my time teaching).

You lean on the language of Scripture, and I appreciate that sentiment. But I do want to point out you are also reading a theology into the text.

The language goes both ways, and to actually rely on the language demands we be consistent. Jesus is our substitute in the same way we are Jesus' substitute. The language demands this. We are talking representative substitution.

He bore our sins and we bear His righteousness. He died for is and we live for Him. God laid our iniquities on Him and God lays His righteousness on us.

It is not according to the text of Scripture that one will say Jesus bore our sins as a simple substitute (instead of us) because they will not hold that we now (and in the future) bear Jesus' righteousness instead of Him.

We are talking reconciliation, not simple substitution. It is representation. He is the "second" Adam, the Son of Man. We are the body of Christ, ambassadors.

I challenge you to read these biblical passages just pretending that PSA is wrong. I get it is difficult not to see the bat.

The penal language God uses is there. I am not ignoring that at all. But I am suggesting that you may be misapplying both the penal and substitutionary aspects in the Atonement, not intentionally but because of the worldview you have adopted.

To demonstrate what I mean - you cannot provide a passage that states your belief without providing clarification about what the passage really teaches. This is problematic because every sect, all of these diverse and competing theories, can provide passages and then tell you what it really teaches.

It cannot be objectively tested with Scripture because the crux of these views is human understanding.

Again, thank you for both your tone and your content. I enjoy discussing this topic, even if we never come to the same view. Iron sharpens iron, and I believe both of us are willing to change our belief to match more closely God's words.

John, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate your tone and your desire to handle Scripture carefully. I want to respond to one central point you raised. You said the language of Scripture demands that Jesus is our substitute in the same way we are His substitute. I do not see that symmetry in the text. Scripture says He bore our sins in His body on the tree. It does not say we bear His righteousness in our body on a tree. Scripture says He was wounded for our transgressions. It does not say we are wounded for His righteousness. Scripture says He was made a curse for us. It does not say we are made a curse for Him. The bearing is not symmetrical. His bearing is penal and substitutionary. Our bearing is participatory and transformative. He dies for us. We live for Him. These are not parallel acts. They are different in nature and different in purpose. Representation is certainly part of the atonement. But Scripture does not reduce substitution to representation. Isaiah 53, 1 Peter 2:24, and Galatians 3:13 all speak in penal and substitutionary terms, not representative terms. I am not reading a system into the text. I am reading the text as it stands. I appreciate the dialogue and your willingness to sharpen iron with iron.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

How does the Sacrifice point to the work of Christ?

First we have God offering His Son as a Sacrifice. This was His will (It was His will to crush Him, to put Him to grief). But this was for a purpose, our salvation. Although Jesus would suffer He would delight in the result of His suffering.

Jesus is our High Priest. Through His own blood (rather than the blood of an animal) He entered the Most High Place not made with hands. God set Him forth as an Atonement through His blood, and this blood is applied to us by faith.


Notice in the sacrifice system there is no substitution. The animal is killed. But this is not the atonement. The animal is not viewed as a substitute. The priest applies the blood to "make atonement", but this is not to make ammends. Instead the blood cleanses.

Likewise, Jesus did not die as a substitute. We will experience the same death, although probably not in the same way. Our atonement - our reconciliation with God - is achieved when the blood of the Sacrifice is applied to us, when it is received by faith.

Christ's blood cleanses from all unrighteousness. We are made new creations in Christ, we will be conformed to His image, the old will no longer exist, the new will have come.

John, thank you again for the careful way you are laying out your view. I want to respond to one central point. You said the sacrificial system contains no substitution. But the text of Scripture says the opposite. Leviticus 1:4 says, “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” The worshiper lays his hand on the animal. The animal is accepted for him. The atonement is made for him. That is substitution. The same pattern appears throughout Leviticus. The priest makes atonement for him and it shall be forgiven him. The scapegoat bears the sins of the people and carries them away. That is substitution. The blood makes atonement because the life has been taken. That is substitution. The New Testament uses the same language. Christ bore our sins in His body on the tree. Christ was made a curse for us. Christ suffered, the just for the unjust. These are penal and substitutionary statements. I agree that the blood cleanses, but Scripture says it cleanses because the life has been given. Cleansing and penalty are never separated in the biblical system. I respect your view, but I cannot set aside the plain wording of the text. The sacrificial system was substitutionary, and the Cross fulfills it. I appreciate the dialogue. Yours in Him, Tony.

 

[JonC]

John, thank you again for the careful way you are laying out your view. I want to respond to one central point. You said the sacrificial system contains no substitution. But the text of Scripture says the opposite. Leviticus 1:4 says, “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” The worshiper lays his hand on the animal. The animal is accepted for him. The atonement is made for him. That is substitution. The same pattern appears throughout Leviticus. The priest makes atonement for him and it shall be forgiven him. The scapegoat bears the sins of the people and carries them away. That is substitution.

Tony,

I am breaking this up into two responses for clarity. I do not know if it will help but it appeared lengthy as a whole.

You are right that one central point I have made is that the sacrificial system was not one of substitution. This includes the burnt offering. But maybe it would be good to look at the burnt offering before determining that laying one’s hands on the animal indicates substitution.

During the First and Second Temple periods, burnt offerings were central to daily and festival worship. The burnt offering what Abraham was commanded to give of Isaac, and what he did with the ram God provided. This offering is a sacrificial act that symbolizes devotion and surrender. It is atonement (reconciliation, or a state of being reconciled).

In the process of a burnt offering the one presenting the sacrifice would lay his hands on the animal signifying identification with the animal. This offering was completely burned on the altar, representing full surrender and consecration to God.

The term olah literally means “that which goes up” as the smoke would symbolically go up to God. Leviticus 1:9 tells us that this is a “food offering”, an aroma pleasing to God.

I am suggesting that you are reading substitution into the practice of laying hands, which is “identifying with” rather than substitution. We see this throughout scripture. In 1 Timothy laying on of hands indicates identifying with others (and we are cautioned not to do this hastily). In Acts it is identifying with the people and the vehicle through which those people received the Spirit. In Genesis it is identifying with a particular person. In Exodus it is identifying with the people of Israel. In Numbers it is Israel identifying with the Levites. In Mark it is identifying with Christ through the Apostles. But it is never a substitution.

More to the point, I suppose, substitution would not be logical with a burnt offering as the animal did not represent the person offering the sacrifice.

Anyway, I hope that you will consider that in the spirit it was given. Burnt offerings were important, and our constant surrender to God is important. But it is not substitution.


The other issue is the goat given to Azazel (the one not given to God). I am not sure how you see substitution in this animal. The animal did represent the sins of the people, and the people drove the animal (their sins) away. They guarded against its (their sins) return. This is not substitution. It signified the removal of sins and guarding against returning to that sin.

I wanted to spend more time on the last part of your post so I will address it separately.

John

 

[JonC]

@Anthony Pritchard

You made the comment that the blood makes atonement because life has been taken. I have seen this type of belief quite often. Blood represents death. This is common sense in our world (if you ever watched a movie where somebody is killed, anyway). Christ’s blood is symbolic of Christ’s death for us.

But does it? I am not sure where that idea comes from, but reading Genesis, reading about the Old Testament sacrifices, reading the gospel accounts, and reading the Epistles I cannot agree.

Blood does not represent a life that has been taken. Blood does not represent death. Biblically, blood represents life. Life is in the blood (Genesis 9; Leviticus 17, Deuteronomy 12, for example). The life of every creature is in its blood: its blood is its life.

In Hebrews we read “Indeed, under the Law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” In the sacrifice system the significance of the blood sprinkled on the altar was not the death of an animal but the life in the blood. Likewise, Christ’s blood cleanses from all unrighteousness, not because it represents death but because it is Life. Christ is this Life.

The sacrifice (the offering) was an act of obedience. Likewise, offered Himself as a guilt offering, obedient even to death on a cross. Although Hew was God’s Son, He learned obedience through what He suffered. But the priest made atonement for the sins of the people by applying the blood.


It is Christ's blood, Christ's life, that cleanses us and gives us life.

This is the more interesting aspect of our discussion, in my opinion.


There is nothing in the actual sacrifice system to indicate substitution. But I agree that the system pointed to the cross and the individual atonement that follows when received by faith.


We are those who have died to sin as we were baptized into Jesus' death. We were buried with him through baptism into death so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead, we too may live a new life.

We have been united with him in a death like His and we will certainly be united with Him in a resurrection like his. Our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin would be done away with (we are no longer be slaves to sin) because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.


This idea of penal substitution is a relatively new theory. Long before penal substitution Christians viewed the atonement as being accomplished through solidarity or unity, a reconciliation of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ through who's blood we are imparted a new life.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

@Anthony Pritchard

You made the comment that the blood makes atonement because life has been taken. I have seen this type of belief quite often. Blood represents death. This is common sense in our world (if you ever watched a movie where somebody is killed, anyway). Christ’s blood is symbolic of Christ’s death for us.

But does it? I am not sure where that idea comes from, but reading Genesis, reading about the Old Testament sacrifices, reading the gospel accounts, and reading the Epistles I cannot agree.

Blood does not represent a life that has been taken. Blood does not represent death. Biblically, blood represents life. Life is in the blood (Genesis 9; Leviticus 17, Deuteronomy 12, for example). The life of every creature is in its blood: its blood is its life.

In Hebrews we read “Indeed, under the Law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” In the sacrifice system the significance of the blood sprinkled on the altar was not the death of an animal but the life in the blood. Likewise, Christ’s blood cleanses from all unrighteousness, not because it represents death but because it is Life. Christ is this Life.

The sacrifice (the offering) was an act of obedience. Likewise, offered Himself as a guilt offering, obedient even to death on a cross. Although Hew was God’s Son, He learned obedience through what He suffered. But the priest made atonement for the sins of the people by applying the blood.


It is Christ's blood, Christ's life, that cleanses us and gives us life.

This is the more interesting aspect of our discussion, in my opinion.


There is nothing in the actual sacrifice system to indicate substitution. But I agree that the system pointed to the cross and the individual atonement that follows when received by faith.


We are those who have died to sin as we were baptized into Jesus' death. We were buried with him through baptism into death so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead, we too may live a new life.

We have been united with him in a death like His and we will certainly be united with Him in a resurrection like his. Our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin would be done away with (we are no longer be slaves to sin) because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.


This idea of penal substitution is a relatively new theory. Long before penal substitution Christians viewed the atonement as being accomplished through solidarity or unity, a reconciliation of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ through who's blood we are imparted a new life.

John,
I want to respond to one central issue. You are redefining every sacrificial category in a way that removes substitution before you ever examine the text. You redefine laying on of hands as identification rather than transfer. You redefine blood as life rather than life taken. You redefine atonement as reconciliation rather than satisfaction. You redefine sacrifice as obedience rather than penalty. You redefine the scapegoat as symbolic removal rather than bearing sin. Once these redefinitions are in place, substitution becomes impossible by definition, not by exegesis.

But the text does not support these redefinitions. Leviticus 1:4 says the burnt offering “shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” That is substitution. Leviticus 16:22 says the scapegoat “shall bear upon him all their iniquities.” That is substitution. Leviticus 17:11 says the blood makes atonement because the life has been given. That is substitution. The New Testament uses the same language. Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust. Christ was made a curse for us. Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree. These are penal and substitutionary statements.

You are correct that blood is life. Scripture says so. But the life is poured out. The blood is shed. The life is taken. That is the point of sacrifice. The life given makes atonement for the life guilty. That is the entire structure of the sacrificial system.

I respect your view, but I cannot accept a system built on redefinitions that the text itself does not support. The sacrificial system was substitutionary, and the Cross fulfills it. ~ Tony

 

[JonC]

John,
I want to respond to one central issue. You are redefining every sacrificial category in a way that removes substitution before you ever examine the text. You redefine laying on of hands as identification rather than transfer. You redefine blood as life rather than life taken. You redefine atonement as reconciliation rather than satisfaction. You redefine sacrifice as obedience rather than penalty. You redefine the scapegoat as symbolic removal rather than bearing sin. Once these redefinitions are in place, substitution becomes impossible by definition, not by exegesis.

But the text does not support these redefinitions. Leviticus 1:4 says the burnt offering “shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” That is substitution. Leviticus 16:22 says the scapegoat “shall bear upon him all their iniquities.” That is substitution. Leviticus 17:11 says the blood makes atonement because the life has been given. That is substitution. The New Testament uses the same language. Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust. Christ was made a curse for us. Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree. These are penal and substitutionary statements.

You are correct that blood is life. Scripture says so. But the life is poured out. The blood is shed. The life is taken. That is the point of sacrifice. The life given makes atonement for the life guilty. That is the entire structure of the sacrificial system.

I respect your view, but I cannot accept a system built on redefinitions that the text itself does not support. The sacrificial system was substitutionary, and the Cross fulfills it. ~ Tony

Tony,

I understand how you view the sacrifice system as I once held that same position. And I am confident that I would not have been able to change the mind of a decade younger me if given the opportunity.

You made a mistake with the word “redefine”. My view does not redefine the sacrificial system to exclude substitution. It is a different definition than you use, but it is an older definition with ties to Yom Kippur and early Christianity. I argue that reading substitution in the sacrifice system is not only impossible by definition but it is also impossible by exegesis. There are too many assumptions that would have to be proven, which cannot be biblical proven, for it to be exegesis.

You are redefining “atonement”. The burnt offerings (God calls them “food offerings”) was atonements. But this is reconciliation (it was submission to God). Atonement is not substitution. The animal being sacrificed is not substitution. When you give money in the offering plate that money is not a substitute for you.

I respectfully point out that Leviticus 17:11 does not say the blood makes atonement because the life has been given. Even if it did, that is not substitution (at best it would be a means). But more importantly, the verse actually says “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.” You are reading into the passage what is not in the words.

I agree with you that the scapegoat bore their iniquities (symbolically, anyway). But that is not substitution. If I wipe dirt off my child with a sponge that sponge is not a substitute for my child, although it does bear the dirt. You are stretching the passage to include what is not there. But I do understand why you read it in the passage.

The goat offered to Azazel (I believe it was Tynedale who coined the term “escape goat” which became “scapegoat) has parallels in the Levitical ritual for cleansing of disease. If the person had been healed of their disease (skin disease) then two clean birds would be brought. One would be killed to purify or cleanse the person and the other would be released. The symbolism with both is a carrying away. This is not substitution in any form. It was not the cleansing of sin, just as it was not the cleansing from disease. The sins (and disease) were carried away.

I absolutely agree that the shedding of blood is the point where sacrifice occurs. But it is not atonement. Under the Levitical system the sacrifice (the offering of the animal, the killing of the animal) was acts or “gifts” of obedience. It was only the blood applied that is called “making atonement” because the life is not in the flesh of the animal but in the blood.

This also points to the cross. When does Jesus propitiate (atone for) our sins? At His death? No, not according to Scripture. He offered Himself (was obedient even to death) and entered the Most Holy Place not made by hands through His own blood. There what happens? He makes atonement for us when we sin. This atonement is applied or received by faith.

I do not expect you to adopt my view. Like I have said countless times, I would not have been able to change my younger mind. But you have to consider that from my perspective your system is built literally on redefinitions that are not supported by the text (your system is relatively new while mine is ancient (in terms of the sacrificial system, my view is centuries older than the Crucifixion). My view is not only supported by the Scriptures, it is without additions and subtractions (although I assume my understanding is incomplete and will be in this life).

 

[JonC]

@Anthony Pritchard

I need to ask this (I thought I had) –

Do you believe that the God of the Bible would punish the Just?

Do you believe that the God of the Bible would clear the guilty?

Do you believe that the God of the Bible would abandon the Righteous?

Do you believe that the God of the Bible would transfer sins from one to another?


The reason I ask is that there are multiple passages that state God will not, or that to do so is an abomination (an “evil”). But so many times it seems people think that our sins were transferred from us to Christ, that Christ suffered God’s punishment for our sins, that in this way God clears the guilty, and even that God abandoned Christ on the cross.


A few more questions I had (I can’t remember if I asked) –

Christ bore our sins. We bear His righteousness.

God lay our iniquities on Him. God lays His righteousness on us.

If the text itself demands the first part of each sentence to be substitution then how does it not demand the second part to be substitution as well?


I simply believe that Calvin was incorrect. I understand how he developed Penal Substitution (only because he explained it in his writings) but I disagree with his philosophy and the Catholic traditions he carried into his theology. I believed Penal Substitution for most of my life (to include in the ministry). But having realized it is not actually supported by the biblical text it is not something that I can believe again.

I told you that once somebody tells you the ink blot is a bat it is difficult to see it for what it really is. But at the same time, once you see it for what it really it is impossible to think of it as a bat again because you have seen it for what it is in reality.

 

[JonC]

Oops... @Anthony Pritchard I forgot one.

Do you believe God can forgive sins or is "forgive" an euphemism for punish sins on Christ to clear the guilty?

I ask this because PSA holds that it is impossible for God to forgive sins. The reason is the judicial philosophy at its heart. If God forgave sins it would mean He was unjust.

Many PSA theorists have coined a phrase "simple forgiveness" to introduce a new definition of forgiveness.

The problem with the redefining of words is forgiveness by definition is not dependent on the one to be forgiven or the crime. It is ontological to the one forgiving.

If God punished our sins on Jesus to clear us then it cannot (by definition) be true that God forgives sins. Forgiveness would be literally impossible for God. But try to square that with Scripture. Hence the redefining of "forgiveness" to mean "redirected punishment".

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Oops... @Anthony Pritchard I forgot one.

Do you believe God can forgive sins or is "forgive" an euphemism for punish sins on Christ to clear the guilty?

I ask this because PSA holds that it is impossible for God to forgive sins. The reason is the judicial philosophy at its heart. If God forgave sins it would mean He was unjust.

Many PSA theorists have coined a phrase "simple forgiveness" to introduce a new definition of forgiveness.

The problem with the redefining of words is forgiveness by definition is not dependent on the one to be forgiven or the crime. It is ontological to the one forgiving.

If God punished our sins on Jesus to clear us then it cannot (by definition) be true that God forgives sins. Forgiveness would be literally impossible for God. But try to square that with Scripture. Hence the redefining of "forgiveness" to mean "redirected punishment".

John, thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I will answer you plainly and from Scripture, because that is the only ground worth standing on.

You say your view is older and that substitution is impossible by definition. But Scripture does not define atonement the way you do. Scripture defines it by life given for life, by bearing iniquity, by the innocent accepted for the guilty. That is not Calvin. That is Moses, Isaiah, and the apostles.

You say I am redefining atonement. I am simply reading the words as they stand.

Leviticus 1:4 says, “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” The offering is accepted for him. That is substitution.

Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” God Himself says the blood makes atonement for the soul. That is life for life.

You say the scapegoat bearing iniquity is symbolic only. But Scripture does not say symbolic. It says, “And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities” (Leviticus 16:22). The language of bearing iniquity is never used in Scripture for a sponge wiping dirt. It is used for guilt, judgment, and penalty.

You say atonement is reconciliation by submission. But Scripture says reconciliation is the result of atonement, not the definition of it. “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death” (Colossians 1:21–22). Reconciliation comes through death, not instead of it.

You say your view is older than the Crucifixion. But the vicarious atonement is older still. It is in Genesis 22 when God provides a ram in the place of Isaac. It is in Exodus 12 when the lamb dies so the firstborn does not. It is in Leviticus 1, 4, 16, and 17. It is in Isaiah 53. It is in the words of Christ Himself.

This is not Calvin. This is Scripture.

Now to your questions.

You ask if God would punish the Just. Scripture answers this directly. “It pleased the Lord to bruise Him. He hath put Him to grief” (Isaiah 53:10). Christ is the Just One. God bruised Him. Scripture says so.

You ask if God would clear the guilty. Scripture says He will not. “He will by no means clear the guilty” (Exodus 34:7). That is why Christ bore our sins. God does not clear the guilty by ignoring guilt. He clears the guilty by placing their guilt on Christ.

You ask if God would abandon the Righteous. Scripture again answers plainly. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Psalm 22:1). Christ spoke these words on the cross. He was forsaken in judgment, not in essence, because He bore our sins.

You ask if God would transfer sins from one to another. Scripture says He did. “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” (Isaiah 53:6). That is transfer. Scripture uses the language of laying, bearing, carrying, and being wounded for our transgressions.

Now to the question you added.

You ask if God can forgive sins, or if forgiveness is only a euphemism for punishing Christ. Scripture again answers plainly. God forgives sins because Christ bore them. Forgiveness is not the absence of judgment. Forgiveness is judgment satisfied by another.

Ephesians 1:7 says, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.” Forgiveness comes through His blood. That is not redirected punishment. That is grace through substitution.

Colossians 2:13–14 says, “Having forgiven you all trespasses, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross.” Forgiveness is God removing the record of guilt because Christ bore it.

Psalm 103:12 says, “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us.” He removes them because Christ carried them.

Forgiveness is not God ignoring sin. Forgiveness is God removing sin by placing it on Christ. That is not a redefinition. That is the plain teaching of Scripture.

You ask why, if Christ bore our sins, we do not bear His righteousness in the same way. But Scripture says we do. “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This is the great exchange. Our sins imputed to Him. His righteousness imputed to us.

You say substitution is impossible by definition. Scripture says it happened. You say bearing sin is symbolic. Scripture says it is real. You say atonement is obedience. Scripture says it is blood. You say your view is older. Scripture is older still.

I do not hold penal substitution because Calvin taught it. I hold it because Moses, Isaiah, Paul, Peter, and Christ Himself taught it. It is not a system imposed on the text. It is the text.

Respectfully, Tony