Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ? 2

OK... Good questions!

1. The sacrificial animal is punished. A cow or a deer (being shot by a hunter) is not. But the cow and the deer are not being brought for the express purpose of sacrifice. In the same way, a lamb being eaten by an Israelite family for food on some random Wednesday evening is not a sacrifice and is not punished.

So, the event--the sacrifice--is the definer (if you will) of punishment. When a lamb is brought for the purpose of sacrifice (ie. a sin offering), it is understood the lamb is a substitute.

2. Yes. But, the means of punishment (death) may be different. The sacrificial system deals, ultimately, with the sin(s) of the people of Israel. The idea presented in Scripture is that the life is in the blood and the blood is spilled in substitution for a person or persons: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." (Leviticus 17:11 ESV) It is interesting that blood is spilled to make atonement for the souls of Israelites.

3. We are told in Hebrews that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin; but we are also told that the blood of bulls and goats does make atonement. The apparent contradiction is solved by Romans 3 when Paul tells us God passed over sins and Christ was therefore necessary as a Propitiation.

Now, the idea was simply satisfaction punishment, it could be argued that Christ's sacrifice was not needed. But Paul makes it clear that it was needed precisely because the justice of God had not been satisfied in the sins He had passed over.

It is almost as if God had a "credit card" and the sins "atoned for" by the sacrificial system (and Abraham's sins, etc.) were placed on that credit card and the bill was paid in Christ on the cross. This is precisely why Paul's use of the word "Propitiation" is so important. To Paul in Romans 3 the righteousness of God is called into question by passing over those sins. So, for God to be "Just" sin must be punished. Paul's use of Propitiation carries that weight--punishment, wrath being poured out, etc. so that God's wrath is averted.

See... If God can simply avert the sins of man without wrath being poured out against that sin(s), He isn't righteous or just. Paul's use of Propitiation seeks to show that wrath is poured out (and satisfied) on Christ. Without that happening, the justice and righteousness of God is still in question.

The Archangel

 

Neither of us is surprised by this, right?

I'm just dealing with this now because I'm short on time.

If this is the case, then why do we see God's absolute insistence on blood? Of course it is as you say "without shedding... no forgiveness." However, the shedding of blood is described in a life-for-life kind of way and, as such, substitution is unmistakable.

But, please, explain your above quote further so I can try to understand what exactly you're arguing.

The Archangel

 

"My God, My god, why have you forsaken me?"

 

David was writting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in giving vivid description to the Cross and death of Jesus Christ!

 

He endured the Cross, as he saw the end result would be many sinners brought to glory in Him to God!

 

I realize that it is you and JonC discussing this aspect, and I only desire to remind those reading that the blood of the Cross was designed by the Romans to be extremely limited.

The Romans did not desire one to die from lack of blood, but to die from trauma, that is because the body was no longer able to sustain the brutality the muscles would begin to become unresponsive and the ability to fight off such things as the birds and other insects that feast on the dead would cause the person to expire.

Also be aware that the blood was shed from the garden to the grave. The torture of the interrogation was not bloodless, and more often such interrogations were meant to present the prisoner agreeing to any accusation (as often torturous ordeals reveal not the truth but what is intended).

Here is a very good Journal of American Medicine article that examined the crucifixion.

Those of you who would desire to be able to get a greater picture of what took place as typical of crucifixions, and more particularly that of the Christ, will no doubt want to investigate this review.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf

The focus upon the cross as the high point is as one climbing to a perceived mountaintop to only see that it is a false peak of a greater height yet in need to ascend.

For, if we do not worship a risen Lord, as Paul said, our preaching is vain.

 

Martin, Archangel and I are ALL support from and by the scriptures Pst, but you keep redefining that term redefine how it applies, redefine what wrath and propitiation really means in regards to the Cross!

 

It would be accurate, had the use of Scriptures such as Isaiah 54 were actually about the Lord Jesus Christ.

But they are NOT.

That such yanking out of context is becoming a problem as folks are desperate to cling to what cannot be supported by the Scriptures taken accurately.

Look for yourself, Yeshua.

Do you not recognize the "city" mentioned further in that song?

The chapter starts as an address to Israel. It moves to the work of the messiah.

It (as was the previous section (53) given to the exiles in Babylon that they not wander to deeply into despair, but realize that from desolation God will draw permanent glory.

 

God wrath towards willful sin violations MUST be appeased /satisfied, and the death of Jesus accomplished just that fact! The Ftaher treated the Son as the Sin bearer, pouring out His wrath in full upon Jesus!

 

Was Isaiah 53 concerning Jesus?

 

You are not supporting Scripture appropriately with Scripture.

That is seen again and again in the threads.

Although, I have personally as I did to you above, shown that what was sighted in Isaiah as proof was actually not proof, there is a obstinance that remains.

This is not uncharacteristic.

Typically the human mind does not accept change, especially that view in which they have long agreed and supported.

At best, the work of laying out the teaching of the texts (as I showed in Isaiah 54) to show the appropriate use will eventually sink into the reasoning.

But, maybe not.

It took me decades to come to terms with how very wrong the aspect of the wrath of God being poured out upon the Son thinking of PSA was just not supported by the clearest teaching of Scriptures.

 

I just wonder why youaare so against the concepts of God forsaking Jesus, or of suffering wrath in our stead?

 

Jesus was the sin bearer, the sacrifice to the father, who took on the punishment due to sin. God judged Him as if he was the summation of all sins by humanity, he experienced the Judgement on all of those sins that were ever done, was it jt physical death that he wanted to avoid the Cross if at all possible? Jesus knew that he would be required to drink of/from the Cup of Wrath stored up by the father in order to save his own!

 

Gosh! You really think so? It's the pope and the bears in the woods again, folks! [/QUOTE]

What is mistaken is to take one text, bounce up and down on it like a trampoline and not compare Scripture with Scripture. I think Proverbs 11:14b comes into this: 'In the multitude of counsellors there is safety.'