Featured The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

I mean in a general sense, not you literally. I appreciate your explanations. I just got back in and will read your replies.

 

Brother, you continue to spread accusations against me and I am not sure why. You have said that I based my view on Wright (which was an absurd claim), and the backed off to say that Wright also holds to some sort of Christus Victor theory as at least being somewhat true. And now you are saying that I have rejected Scripture.

Do you know the phrase "put up or shut up"? I don't mean it bad (don't take it wrongly), but put up or shut up. If you are going to accuse me of refusing to accept "Scriptures themselves" then provide a list - NOT YOUR COMMENTARY OR THEORIES BUT A LIST, of the verses you are claiming I have refused to accept.

Like this: John 1:1; Mark 1:1, etc. (No need to provide the text, I have a Bible).

 

You don't know my view ...... and sorry....I'm working backwards to find my place again. We just got out of the ER (wrestling with my son and asthma).

 

Ok, I found where we were.

Most typologists I have read consider the brazen alter to symbolize the Judgment of God in a general sense. Bronze often alludes to God’s judgment. The Laver or Basin is also bronze, as well as the clasps (holding the tent together as a unit). In the Temple, the pillars, basin (sea), stands, vessels used for service, etc. are all bronze. So yes, judgment is certainly in focus (as evidenced by the necessity of atonement).

Hebrew word for burnt-offering denotes that which ascends, or mounts up, as the flame and smoke did on this author when the sacrificial element was consumed. You made the connection between fire (a necessity in burnt-offerings) and the Brazen Altar to symbolize punishment on the altar. That symbolism is as unnecessary as saying the Tabernacle was anchored to the earth, and the earth symbolizes Adam because Adam was made of the dirt. We need to be careful about forcing symbolism.

But except for the fire, I think that you have been observant. The Brazen Altar did indeed have God’s judgment in mind. But this still does not justify the interpretation that the atonement or alter symbolizes God’s punishment laid upon the sacrifice.

This is something that I believe you carried into the text as an addition. Perhaps the reason that you believe this is you read it in a commentary, but it is not in Scripture itself (not even when symbolism in the Tabernacle is dealt with later on in Scripture) - and my question is, if not from extra-biblical influences or a sense of contemporary justice, where did it originate…if elsewhere in Scripture then please provide the passage.

Scripture says it is summed up in one. Obey that and you obey the Law. But we have not been talking about my understanding. We’ve been talking about yours and the fact that you believe it is derived straight from Scripture alone without extra-biblical influencers and reasoning.

But, you have not answered the question. You stated that the atonement of Leviticus 4-5 are for moral violations of the Law. My question was (and is still) how a man who falls and accidently touches a corpse is guilty of a moral sin against God? And your answer is _________.

 

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed.

That reads a little different when you consider all of the words.

Again, you are bringing in ideas that have thus far been unsubstantiated via Scripture. This passage presents God, the Father, offering his Son, and his Son offering himself as a אָשָׁם‎ (asham) or a “guilt/offense” offering. So yes, this is what the sacrificial system points to. But what you have presumed (either by ideology or commentary) is that the atoning sacrifice became the object upon which divine punishment would be vicariously inflicted.

I am certain that you do not understand the fact to which I point. I am really not arguing against your position. I am, however, saying that nowhere in Scripture is the atoning sacrifice presented as receiving the punishment of the one for whom atonement is accomplished. If you cannot see what you are bringing into the text (even if your conclusions prove true), then there is an issue of discernment.

 

He's 13 and we're still trying to get a plan together. He just starts coughing and can't breathe. Second time in 2 months an ambulance had to take him from school. Hopefully we'll get this figured out soon.

And thank you.

 

Brother, I have repeatedly warned you about this. You are proving to be a gossip.

 

Isn't that the point (to dismantle our evidences and look at them closely alongside Scripture)?

This is how I was taught to do theology. Take apart everything and try to recognize what I bring and what is there. Try to get as objective as possible, evaluate what you have, make adjustments as needed, and put that back together (knowing what part is your own reasoning, and the alternate views).

Anyway, this was my goal. For about 4 years (excluding college and seminary) I had the joy of being able to do this with several coworkers. I guess I'm drawn to this site because it's the closest I can get to that type of objectivity, but we never really get close enough. Even then it was not like seminary (where a prof would call us on any fallacies we'd sneak in...either purposely or unaware).

So, I hope at least our conversation has helped you see that there is an element of human reasoning in your theory (I hope you see what it is), because if we end up building on that reasoning what is built can never be stronger than the weakness of man. My theory is to believe, but know where you stand.

Thank you for the thoughts and kind words concerning my son. Thank you also for what has been an interesting (but perhaps short) conversation.

*** And fire/burnt offerings are mentioned in other contexts as well (Genesis 8, for example), not only with the Hebrews but also with ANE religion in general...so probably carries a meaning other than "Hell".

 

I agree. I kept saying to others, "but you don't know what I believe"...I was wondering if anyone would bother to ask.

I only have a moment, but I will answer you as detailed as I can, this evening if possible.

When I moved to Germany I thought that I would at least be away from the J.W.'s. Turns out I moved a block away from a Kingdom Hall.

I was not, however, asking The_Biblicist to explain his view, or even to defend it. I was not disagreeing with his position at all. He had stated that he derived his view directly Scripture without external influences. I asked him to prove it and he stumbled (not on the doctrine he holds, but on how he came about to believe those doctrines). The Reformation has had a profound impact on how we view things. But also the Enlightenment has contributed to a fairly unified sense of justice between Western nations. I did not have to read John Calvin, or be taught Penal Substitution, to automatically gravitate to that position. And I doubt The_Biblicist did either. BUT that does not mean we arrived at those views uninfluenced. That was my point.

Again, my point was that we not only need to know what we believe but why we believe it. Offering passage after passage cannot get the job done when we are dealing with systematic theology (or theories developed over time). When we are done, we need to know how much depends on our reasoning, understanding, and ideologies (at least as much as possible....I don't believe we can ever rid theology of the human component, but we can at least be aware it exists).

 

I believe that the atoning work of Christ properly begins with the Incarnation.

Atonement indicates sacrifice. The worshipper “draws near” the purposed sacrifice, lays his hands on the head of the animal, kills the animal (some miss this point, the animal was killed by the worshipper except when representing Israel…or if the atoning offering was a bird), the priest deals with the blood depending on the sacrifice, and the animal was burned on the altar (some part of the animal was always burnt on the alter as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord”). This foreshadows the Atonement of Christ.

God draws near. Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:5-8

I believe that the Atonement is both penal and substitutionary. Christ died on the cross in our place, as our representative, bearing our iniquities, so that the justice of God is satisfied and the wrath that we rightfully deserve is averted. The Father offered his Son at the Cross (he did not literally leave him, but he forsook him – he gave him over to Judas, to the Jews, to Pilate, and to the Cross and there offered him as an atoning sacrifice, laying upon him our iniquity).

Galatians 3:13 - 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"—

Isaiah 53:5-6 - But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.

Hebrews 10:8-10 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


But I also believe it covenantal. Some here either deny the idea or shove it off to the peripheral - slightly out of focus and barely in view.

Genesis 17 speaks of the “Everlasting Covenant” between God, Abraham and his descendants – man's part was circumcision (those without the sign had broken the covenant).

Deuteronomy describes another covenant - Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Jeremiah looks to a New Covenant - "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, ... "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. .. for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34

New Testament insists that the covenant God made with Abraham is on a different footing than the covenant given at Sinai. Paul links this covenant with the New Covenant as these New Covenant people are the benefactors of the promises made to Abraham (true Israel, true Jews, circumcised hearts). The Atonement ushered in the New Covenant as all covenants involved sacrifice. But the New Covenant is a better covenant, founded on better promises (Hebrews 8:6), and not of the letter but of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Galatians 3:13-14 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"— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” Luke 22:19-20

I also believe that the Atonement should be viewed in terms of Jesus’ death accomplishing victory over sin and death. This is a position that some strongly deny, at least strongly deny it should exist except as a footnote to penal substitution (their “primary” view. I do not believe there can be such a thing as a “primary” view. Scripture is scripture). This view of the Atonement takes on the symbolism of the Passover.

I always found it interesting that the first prophesy of the Atonement was on grounds of Christ’s victory.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

John 12:31-32 "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

Ephesians 4:7-10 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN." (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)

And there are other passages that I accept as well. I hope that this answers your question and perhaps even highlights our disagreement for future discussion.