Featured Punishment in the Atonement

Yes, I do. This is the primary difference between what some call the "Latin" view (penal substitution as a theory articulated by John Calvin) and all other theories and motifs (Christus Victor, Substitution, Moral, Governmental, ect.). The difference is not penal substitution but the theory that views God as punishing Christ with the individual punishments reserved for the sinful actions of others rather than the consequence of human sin.

 

You mean you don't see the difference between Jesus as the atonement for the sin of mankind and the Father punishing Jesus with the punishment set aside for the actions of others?

 

I am amazed that we disagree on this passage. I was only mentioning it in passing (I never intended it to be a “sticking point”.

What I am suggesting is the “we” of verse 3 is the same “we” of verse 6. What I stated in post#2 is those who esteemed Jesus as stricken of God did so in error as they view him as afflicted because of his sins when in fact he was being offered as a sacrifice for their sin, bearing their iniquity. You disagreed, and called that view “false”, “grasping at straws”, and “absurd”. I responded in post#12 by offering an explanation by Darrell Bock, that the men believed Jesus smitten by God for his sins, when in fact he was smitten for their redemption.

Since you disagree so strongly, please name the sin that Jesus committed during his earthly ministry and settle the debate. If you can’t name even one sin, then I will continue to believe that verse 4 remains in context with the passage. They viewed Jesus as stricken by God and afflicted BUT he was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our well-being fell upon him and by his scourging we are healed.

Have I ever said the cross was painless? That’s one problem we have. You make assumptions that have already been settled. My statement was that God offered Jesus as an atoning sacrifice, it was his will to crush him, that he was sinless but smitten of God for our sins.

But here is the difference (in the bold part of your comment). You are not emphasizing God offering his Son (as fore-typed by Abraham and Isaac), or Jesus laying down his life, or our iniquities being laid upon Christ as the Propitiation for our sins. You emphasize pain as the punishment due the sins of others, inflicted as punishment on Christ as the Atoning Sacrifice. And you pretend that this is what the Levitical priests were doing – punishing animals in their stead. And on another thread you even went so far as to say the fire at the altar symbolized those punished animals being punished in Hell.

Your view is foreign to the ANE definition of atonement, the Hebrew definition of atonement, and the early church definition of atonement. There is no evidence that it was ever articulated, as you hold it, outside of Calvinism. So I ask again, where do you get the idea that the Levitical priest was symbolically punishing the animals for their sins? Where do you get the idea that the Father was punishing the Son with the punishment set aside for the individual actions of other people? Where do you come up with the idea that punishment itself can be applied to the act without being applied to the perpetrator of the crime? How did you arrive at the conclusion that divine justice is focused on offense and punishment rather than God and men (justice means a sin must be punished regardless as to who receives the punishment)?

Yet here you are.

I believe that Jesus died as an atonement for our sins. I believe that God laid our sins on Jesus as the perfect Lamb, and offered His Son as an atonement for us. Jesus suffered more than we could imagine. I doubt his physical sufferings constituted his greatest pain (no greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friends…yet Jesus was abandoned by his disciples, and he was obediently enduring death on the cross through the power of the Spirit to redeem those who were crucifying him).

You believe that Jesus died to be punished with the punishment our sins deserved. You believe that God placed our sins on Jesus, looked at him as if he were a sinner, and inflicted pain on him as a punishment for those sins.

I know you disagree with my position and see it as oxymoronic. I see yours as unbiblical and unsubstituted. Regardless as to how you got there, it is an altered or reformed RCC doctrine. What I am asking is where you developed the idea that Jesus was being punished with the punishment for our actions.

 

The consequences are the same - death. But the statements are not the same at all. The first is accepted historically. The second is Calvinistic (not Reformed because it was not originally common across Reformed faith).

Historically Christ was viewed as bearing our sins and the consequences of that sin - death. But sin was human sin and the Atonement was looked upon as a victory over death and sin as Christ died in our place, as our representative, to free us from the bondage of sin and death. These people looked through the cross and held a resurrection hope. Atonement is penal and substitutionary as the Father offered the Son as atoning sacrifice, was pleased to crush him, and he bore our sins. We still die, but we live now 'in Christ' looking to the time we will be resurrected to life in him. The consequence of sin is death.

Some theologies of Calvinistic trajectory depend on a system where punishment is linked to sinful acts. God's justice demands a penalty, in the form of punishment, be paid for acts of sins. The focus is on punishment and sin, not God and man. So the question (for some) becomes for which sins was Christ punished? If he was not punished for those sins that you committed, then you still owe the debt because every action must be accounted for or God is no longer just. The consequence of sin is death.

 

Maybe.

Still, this was at one time a fairly large issue (it still is with some). And for a long time the idea that on the cross God was punishing Jesus with our punishment was undocumented. We can see penal substitution (or at least elements that would form penal substitution) throughout history. But not until fairly recently does the cross become the place where God punishes the Messiah with the punishment due the sins of men.

When you look at beliefs that stem from this divergent, the issue becomes clearer. This establishes an erroneous view of limited atonement (Jesus suffered the punishment for some individual sins, but not others), an erroneous view of the nature of Christ (the Holy Spirit left Jesus on the cross), an erroneous view of God's work of redemption (a disconnect between Father, Son, and Spirit), an erroneous picture of the gospel (so many gospel messages leave out what Paul insists is the most important part - the Resurrection), and a narrow, shallow view of redemption that is foreign to Scripture.

So while I agree the error is, at the start, minor to the point it may exist as a difference without distinction, it is also a splinter that festers into what we have seen here - a focus of the Levitical priest as inflicting pain on the animal being sacrificed symbolizing the pain the Father will inflict on the Son as punishment for the sin the elect have committed against him.

 

Hey Van,
I haven't replied because I've been thinking about your comment, and thinking is not always my best ability (just ask The_Biblicist).

Here is what I'm considering - limited atonement has existed outside of PST, and PST exists outside of limited atonement. Luther held to Anselm's theory, not PST, but it seems he held to a form of limited atonement. Arminians hold to PST as they are of a trajectory of Calvinism. But they do not hold to limited atonement.

I think that perhaps it is not always the conclusions of a doctrine but the foundations that support that doctrine. One version of penal substitution is PST as articulated on this thread. Limited Atonement or universal salvation is the only option for those who hold this position (that the Atonement means Jesus suffered the punishment set aside for the sinful acts of those who are saved). Either PST (on this ground) is true and only the elect were ever proper candidates for salvation or all men are saved. There are no other options except inconsistent doctrine.

But I believe in limited atonement (that Jesus died on the cross not only to save those who would believe but with them in mind). That said, when he died on the cross he died as a propitiation for the sin of mankind. And all, because of the cross and Christ conquering sin and death, will be resurrected - some to eternal life and others to eternal death.

I think that perhaps the doctrine of the Atonement has been simplified down, by a few, to an exercise in accounting in order to make every part of their doctrine click like clockwork. If you reduce things down to the simplest terms, ignore everything else, then you have a view of salvation that you can write on the back of a napkin. And ultimately this becomes their gospel - they sinned, God's justice means he has to hurt someone because he was wronged, Jesus stepped in and took the beatings for us, and because of this God forgave us.

This corruption of the Atonement is, I suppose, a back door for a corrupt view of limited atonement or universal salvation. Either would work, but nothing else will fit.

 

I just noticed this comment. I am not sure if it has been addressed (it's too early for me to remember), but no one is denying that the chastisement fell upon Christ for our sins. No one is denying that Jesus suffered the consequence of death for the sins of mankind.

The issue is whether or not he was punished with the punishment reserved for the sins of the elect, effecting salvation for those people. This is the type of PST I am questioning - not that penal substitution is correct (or incorrect) but this view of punishment in the atonement.

 

I believe He suffered the consequence of human sin.

 

Hey brother, I am looking forward to hearing your sermon. I've enjoyed your blog and past sermons. It is good to have your feedback.

I trust you realize we both agree the passage says he was stricken and afflicted. My only comment here is that I believe the "we" of the passage represents Jews who thought he was stricken because of his own sins and not theirs. I believe this is evident, not only with the next verse but also with Peter's sermon as he says the Jews acted in ignorance. I did not realize this point was so controversial or I would have left it out.

I realize most here see no difference in penal substitution expressed in other theories and PST itself. All I can say is that this has been and is a debate among people on the topic, and historically distinctions have been made.

So I thought I would try to see the difference by exploring how these two sides view punishment in the atonement. The answer is here no one sees a difference. And I can accept that.

I'm afraid to ask, but how did my understanding on the last thread stack up? Where do we disagree?