Featured Did Jesus die as payment we owe?

This is an excellent starting point because if helps answer a lot of the questions @JasonF is asking as to why this gets so complicated. Penal substitution is about the idea that in his death Christ suffered the penalty for our breaking of the law and that he did this in our place. This is absolutely true. But if that is all you say about it will you have a complete understanding of our salvation? For instance, is it possible to believe this true definition of atonement and have a view of God as wrathful towards us, waiting to punish us, and Jesus then stepping in and fixing the situation by getting God to calm down by taking this punishment on himself? But Romans 5:8 corrects that by saying that God himself was involved in our redemption by his own plan and purpose - and that the motive was His love for us, even while we were under His wrath because of our sin. So you can read reams of good information and study a lot of scripture about how this happened, why it happened, what was the relationship in all this between the Father, the Son, and mankind (and then, in addition us as individuals).

What I would suggest to Jason is that you seem to know enough and so, if you have the time, first find out what is really the case for penal substitution and exactly what is it. It is improperly defined on here a lot in order to make it appear unbiblical and newer than it is. J.I. Packer's book "Knowing God" is good. For sake of time just read the chapter called "The Heart of The Gospel".
Then, get on the internet and bring up the many, easily retrieved articles by various authors that show penal substitution in the writings of the early church fathers. This is where you first have to understand what penal substitution demands for it to be defined as such because it is sometimes defined in a narrow way to try to show that this is not the case. Figure this out yourself.

Also, and this relates to the point above, be ready for a straw man argument. When someone says "show me where Jesus paid for my sins" in scripture as if this is proof penal substitution is not scriptural, go back and see if the theologians that advocate penal substitution define it that way. And then see where the references to "paying for our sin" came from and what they referred to. In other words, familiarize yourself first with exactly what penal substitution requires and what it doesn't and then you determine if it makes sense. Make sure you are not getting someone's own opinion of a caricature of penal substitution rather than what it is.

Also, don't forget that the advocates of penal substitutionary atonement do not claim that all other things written about the atonement are wrong. In the Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermon archive there are about 15 sermons on the atonement. Much of this is about other aspects of the atonement than penal substitution - and this is by an advocate of PSA. You will see other views and other aspects of the atonement presented as if they replace PSA or contradict it, but often they just add to our understanding.

Lastly, as a laymen, you should have a desire to see what churches are, or have moved away from the idea of penal substitution. Ideas don't come out of a vacuum and have consequences. Historically, churches and schools of thought that come out against penal substitution seem to have as a goal the desire to eliminate the need for Christ to die on the cross and rise again as being directly essential to our salvation. And/or they don't believe that any of it actually happened and that Jesus was just a moral teacher and example. No one, in the course of all these discussions has shown me a healthy church who has done this so you can draw your own conclusions here.

So just keep reading and remember that much of our theology and arguing is based on our tendency to say "well if this be true the won't that mean this?" and so on. There may be things in scripture that we can't do that with and when talking about the atonement it may border on blasphemy to do too much conjecture and what if's.

 

The penalty was what was earned, Romans 6:23, ". . . For the wages of sin is death; . . ."

 

Exodus 34:7 That will by no means clear the guilty.

"Pause, my soul, over these solemn words! Will not Jehovah clear the guilty? And art thou not guilty? How then wilt thou come before God, either now or hereafter? Hearken, my soul, to what thy God hath also said; "deliver him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom." Oh! soul-reviving, soul-comforting words! yes, Jesus became my surety, took my guilt, and bought me out of the hands of law and justice. God hath not therefore cleared the guilty, without taking ample satisfaction on the person of the sinner's surety. Hence now the double claim of justice and grace demands the sinner's pardon. Here then, my soul, rest thy present and thine everlasting plea. Keep up a daily and hourly remembrance of it at the mercy seat. While Jesus lives, and lives there as thine advocate, never doubt thy acceptance in the beloved: guilty as thou art in thyself, yet spotless in him. The same God which made thy Jesus to be sin for thee, who knew no sin, makes thee the righteousness of God in him."

- Robert Hawker, The Poor Man's Morning and Evening Portions, January 9, Morning

"There is no hope for poor guilty sinners but in the truth. For when the Lord declares his name to Moses, this is part of it, "I will by no means clear the GUILTY,"—Exodus 34:7. This must be very distressing to sensible sinners. I know one who has found it so. My poor soul has been sadly distressed with this text. But the Spirit teaches that the truth of God is inviolably preserved, while the guilty sinner is perfectly saved in the Lord Jesus, with an everlasting salvation. Jesus stood as our guilty substitute. The Lord laid all our iniquities upon him. He suffered as our surety all the wrath due to our transgressions, "and with his stripes we are healed."—Isaiah 53:5. The reputed guilty died. The real guilty become guiltless. "His blood cleanseth them from all sin,"—1 John 1:7. "God is just while he is the justifier of the ungodly sinner who believes in Jesus,"—Romans 3:26. Glory to the condescending Lord, who leads us out of the destructive paths of natural pride, self-will, and self-righteousness, "and gives us repentance to the acknowledging of the truth,"—2 Timothy 2:25, "that we may be sanctified through the truth."—John 17:17."

- excerpt from William Mason's A Spiritual Treasury for the Children of God, Volume 1, June 30

(emphasis mine)

 

As far I am aware, I've done what I can for you, JonC. I will now disengage from our conversation. I hope you have a nice weekend.

 

Yes, Jesus paid our debt. The word “redemption” literally means to pay a price to free a person from bondage.

Jesus paid our debt of obedience. Sin is a lack (debt) of obedience. Jesus pays that debt by his obedience.

What Jesus does not pay is a “debt of punishment.” Because there is no such thing as a debt of punishment. Punishment doesn’t pay anything. If the murderer of my daughter goes to prison (as he should) that does absolutely nothing to pay me what I lost: my daughter.

 

If you mean his obedience in that he accomplished the will of the Father in going all the way to the cross and dying in order to redeem us then fine. The Reformers would have called this his passive obedience and you still have to answer the question of what did this obedience consist of and why did it have to be dying on the cross. And they also said that Christ's active obedience in living a perfect life can be imputed to us and that indeed this is necessary for our salvation. It's funny that after all these threads when it suits you it seems OK to use "payment" words after all. "Debt of punishment" is another awkward term that I don't see used by theologians who advocate penal substitution but even so there is something that a piled up bunch of offenses against someone means in real terms and there must be a way to deal with it. And what you are saying does not do that. In fact you seem to be saying that there is no need to deal with it.

If Jesus had obeyed the Father in every way since his birth and that was it, would salvation have been possible according to scripture? Did Jesus have to die on the cross? This is important because if the answer is no you are not a Christian. If it is yes then please explain what this did. I agree that it's not necessary to know everything about this. I feel uncomfortable at the extent with which we do study this. I almost feel like we are trying to peer into the Ark or sneak into the innermost part of the tabernacle. But how in the world can you come up with this idea that God shouldn't have wrath toward people who sin or have a right to punish them?

 

I have been very consistent that Jesus pays our debt. The debate is over the currency being paid. Penal substitution says Jesus pays in punishment. Scripture says Jesus pays in obedience.

Currency matters. If I owe you $1,000 dollars, and on pay day I give you 1,000 banana peels instead, you won’t be happy. Because currency matters.

Similarly, if Bob owes you 1 million dollars, and on pay day he says, “I’m going to spend 5 years in prison instead of paying you your money. I’m going to pay you in punishment” You will be mad. Because you are still out 1 million dollars. That’s a lot of money, and prison time does not give you that.

Are you tracking? Does this make sense? I will answer your other questions, but just want to make sure we are tracking here.

I have been very consistent that God should and does punish sin. But punishment by itself does not accomplish payment. Punishment stops sin, it does not repair sin’s destruction.

 

Do we then agree that Jesus had to die on the cross? Had to shed his blood? Or else there would be no salvation? Because if we do then we can agree the actual death and shedding of blood accomplished something in relation to those that are saved. If you are hung up on the concept of the exact nature of the interacting that took place between the Father and the Son during the crucifixion and what amount of pain Jesus had to endure for each sin of each person - while I know theologians go there it seems to me to be almost irreverent to do so. What you need for penal substitutionary atonement is that it has to be based on legal justice, and it has to be substitutionary in that Jesus was acting in our place. In practical terms it has to be of a nature that satisfies what God the Father and the Son determined necessary to allow reconciliation between God and men who have sinned. This is why I don't like your statements which indicate a mindset that God is not a just ruler of the universe and has a nature that will not allow sin against his holiness to not be satisfied. If that truly isn't necessary then you don't need an atonement at all. But you do, and once again God the Father and the Son had a plan whereby it would be possible for the Son, being one with the Father and also fully human to satisfy the legal requirements (penal) by acting in place of us (substitutionary). Exactly how this works I guess we can look into reverently but I would be careful about critiquing it.

You still need to explain what is meant by Jesus paying in obedience. I am not tracking the use of banana peels versus cash versus going to jail when talking about the Atonement. We have no right to evaluate what should have been sufficient to atone for sin. But we know what happened. The thing we have to answer is what did it mean to us? Can we at least get to the point of agreeing that Jesus died for our sin as a necessary thing to happen in order that we might be saved?

 

Do we then agree that Jesus had to die on the cross?

Yes

Had to shed his blood?

Yes. Innocent blood, unjustly shed. The innocent blood of Jesus, unjustly shed, "speaks better than the blood of Abel" (who was also unjustly murdered) in that it cries out for the reversal of injustice. The reversal of Jesus' unjust death. Hence the resurrection. The resurrection is the divine reversal of the unjust human verdict.

If our sins are imputed to Jesus such that his blood is no longer innocent, the entire mechanism of the atonement fails.

Jesus' innocent blood is the only currency that can be paid to repair man's self-destruction.

Here is a more in depth explanation:

The crucifixion of Jesus is the most evil act and most evil event in all of history. It is the summation and culmination of all evil acts and events. It is not just that Jesus’ crucifixion was worse than any of the sins you or I or Hitler has committed—but that the sins you and I and Hitler have committed were a participation in the crucifixion of Jesus. Under the divine jurisdiction of history, our sins are a contribution to the crucifixion of Jesus. We all put him to death. God laid on him the iniquity of us all.

At the cross, we take all of our sins against God and all of our sins against man, and pour them out on the God-man Jesus Christ. He suffers all of our sins against God and all of our sins against man. Psalm 69 says the words of Jesus when it says, “The reproaches with which they have reproached You (God) have fallen on me.” Jesus participates in the suffering of every offended party and every victim. This is part of what I think it means when Paul says that Jesus “became sin.” His crucifixion was the epitome of human sin.

At the same time that we see the greatest sin of humanity, however, we also see the greatest love of God. In fact, what God is doing at the cross is turning all of humanity’s sin into a display of His love. How is this possible? Jesus willingly suffers the cross for the sake of his love for God and for the sake of his love for humanity. Jesus therefore turns all of our sin into a display of His love for God and his love for humanity. At the cross, God makes all of human sin into a display of the greater love that exists within the Trinity.

At the cross, our disobedience of God only serves to show Jesus’ greater obedience to God.
At the cross, our covenant unfaithfulness to God only serves to show Jesus’ greater covenant faithfulness to God.
At the cross, our pride against God only serves to show Jesus’ greater humility before God.
At the cross, our wrath against God only serves to show Jesus’ greater compassion that comes from God.
At the cross, our condemnation of God only serves to show Jesus’ greater forgiveness that comes from God.
At the cross, our self-sufficiency only serves to show Jesus’ greater trust in God.
At the cross, our disunion with God only serves to show Jesus’ greater union with God.
At the cross, our giving into temptation only serves to show Jesus’ greater resistance to temptation.
At the cross, our idolatry against God only serves to show Jesus’ greater worship of God.
At the cross, our sin against God only serves to show Jesus’ greater love of God.
At the cross, our ungodliness only serves to show Jesus’ Godliness.

At the cross, Jesus displays all of our sin as his love; his love for God and his love for humanity. This is how the debt of our disobedience is paid by the obedience of Jesus.



The evil of our sin is redeemed. By suffering our evil on the cross, Jesus makes it into the means of obtaining an infinitely greater good: the display of God’s Trinitarian love, and the means of salvation for all of humanity. It is as if Jesus said “I have made your sin against me into the means of saving you from your sin.”

 

Two observations. First:

There seems to be a sticking point regarding punishment for sin, because of the metaphor employed in “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23a), as though death is the conscious goal of the sinner. But the obvious idea is that death is what one deserves for sin, that is, death is a well-earned punishment, a just end, contrasted with the undeserved reward which cannot be earned, namely “God’s gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23b).

Second observation:

The payment the sinner owes is not death but life, that is, the sacrifice of his life. However, Jesus gave his sinless life, that is, died as the perfect sacrifice, as a ransom for many (sinners). Jesus is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” Again, the perfect, sinless life sacrifice for sin. (See Mark 10:45, Matthew 20:28, John 1:29.)

 

@Arthur King . Thanks for taking the time for that thoughtful response. I am asking, once again, where do you get these ideas? Is there some church or school teaching this? This is important to me not to use against anyone, but I see certain elements of this that I am assuming will lead to conclusions that are anti-Christian and I need to know if I'm on the right track of if my own presuppositions are just getting in the way of my thinking.

You dance around issues like Jon C but not in the same way. And like Jon, much of what you say is true. But, there is nuance and contradiction in a lot of it. For instance, Jesus was killed unjustly and it indeed was the greatest crime in all of human history. But was it not part of a plan also by which the Father and Son would save people? So can you understand why people who believe that God is in control of the course of history would believe the injustice was ordained and even planned? And this even to the point of a side argument in these threads concerning Jesus' severe reaction to Peter trying to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem, saying "Get thee behind me Satan". In other words, this was something Jesus was determined to accomplish - more so than just taking an unjust event and being able to turn it into something good. With too much parsing of words or nuanced statements you can't really say anything.

Now the list of things the cross serves to show is good and we should spend much time meditating on these things. But at the core level the dying of Christ and the shedding of his blood did something. If you have ever benefited from a difficult medical procedure or surgery you might make a similar list of how the surgeon demonstrated his skill, his knowledge, the advantages of western medicine, even his concern for you. But at the core level - he did something to you directly. I believe it's the same way with the atonement. And I don't understand why the need to carefully avoid this aspect. It looks obvious that this is being done, to the point of being deliberate and to the point of it looking forced and awkward. And that again is the reason I need to know where these ideas are coming from.

This indeed sums up nicely what I am talking about. First of all "the evil of our sin is redeemed" is impossible to understand. We can be redeemed but not our sin. And while the display of all these things is indeed wonderful, it's still true that for something to be displayed, it had to first actually have been done. What is done? Your explanation of the atonement never goes there. It always stops with various "displays".

And lastly, the statement "I have made your sin against me into the means of saving you from your sin", unless I'm completely misunderstanding you is a ghastly statement. At best, it sounds a lot like Romans 6, "what then, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" At the worst, it sounds like you are substituting our sin for the shedding of Christ's blood as the means of our salvation, which while I don't really think that is what you intend, I would take another look at that statement.

 

Where is this taught in the gospel of John, or Romans? For that matter, where in the New Testament?

 

Direction: The Atonement in Anabaptist Theology
I post that so that you can see where I'm coming from and the problems I have with some of the explanations being given. I grew up mostly in a United Missionary Church, which is closely tied to Mennonite thought. I left for reasons unrelated to any disagreement with doctrine or conflict and I have huge respect for Mennonite beliefs and for Anabaptist beliefs, to the extent that they can be truly discovered. (And the writer of the article points out that that is a difficulty in Anabaptist theology). And that's why I posted the link for those that are interested.

If anyone is interested, when you read this you will notice that a lot of what the Anabaptists believed was not systematized to where we can agree on what they believed. And I notice that there are a lot of parallel concepts like the necessity of good works and a changed life. That's the very thing that attracted me to Puritan writings, rather than the rational arguments about determinism and free will. Also, keep in mind that an Anabaptist who says that works are necessary for salvation has nothing on a Puritan like Owen who says we are saved by faith alone but a faith that is never alone. Also, I think the idea that the atonement affects true changes in everyone who participates in it is very close to saying that being born again is real and that regeneration causes true and identifiable change in everyone so affected.

I don't really have much else to say on this but just for the record, I consider Anabaptists and Mennonites to be full Christian brothers. I don't know if there are any identifiable Anabaptist churches but I do know that many of us are influenced to some extent by their theology and philosophy just like Smyth was in the development of the non-Calvinist wing of the Baptists.

 

The correct answer to the question “Why did Jesus die?” is summed up in John 3:16.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

The sacrifice of the Son of God was the ultimate expression of love, by God!

This is not a minor point. It is the point. Paul expounds on this profoundly and emphatically in 1 Corinthians 13.