Isaiah 53 doesn't support penal substitution

Arthur King said:

No, the animal does not die under the priest or a representative of the justice system. It is always the sinner that slays the sacrifice. The animal does not suffer a divine judicial execution. Take a look at the list:

In a Burnt Offering (Lev 1:5, 1:11) the sinner slays the sacrifice.

In a Peace Offering (Lev 3:2, 3:4, 3:13) the sinner slays the sacrifice.

In a Sin Offering (Lev 4:4, 4:14, 4:24, 4:29, 4:33) the sinner slays the sacrifice.

In a Guilt Offering (Lev 7:2) the sinners slays the sacrifice.

On the Day of Atonement, the sinners (represented in the priest) slay the sacrifice.

In the Ordinance of the Red Heifer (Num 19:3) the sinners slay the sacrifice.

In the Passover (Ex 12:6), the sinners slay the sacrifice.

In the Declaration of Innocence (Deut 21:4) the elders who could be charged with sin slay the sacrifice.

That is 15 examples - a lot of data, representing nearly every sacrifice. There is a clear pattern here. The priest only slays the animal if it is a corporate sacrifice, in which he sums up the congregation in himself; he is the community of sinners. And he only does this after slaying a sacrifice for his own sins. The priest slays the animal as a representative of sinners in need of redemption, not as a representative of the one offended by sin or of the justice system.

When a person sins, they are already dead - this is a key point that penal substitution advocates don't get. They are already dead in trespasses and sins. And so the purification offered by the blood brings them from a state of death to life, from corruption to purification.

Click to expand...

The point I was making--which you are avoiding--is that the animal (for a sin or guilt offering) is the substitute. The point is not who inflicts the judgment; the point is that the animal got what the person deserved.

The Archangel

Arthur King said:

Overall, I am just not getting any defense that Jesus dies instead of us rather than with us, or that Jesus' death is just rather than unjust.

Click to expand...

Your statement here has it backwards. You claim, essentially, "Jesus dies with us." But, in the NT Paul describes our union with Christ, not Christ's union with us. So, yes... believers die when Christ dies and are resurrected when He is resurrected. But, it is we that die and are raised with Him; it is not Him who dies and is raised with us.

The Archangel

The Archangel said:

The point I was making--which you are avoiding--is that the animal (for a sin or guilt offering) is the substitute. The point is not who inflicts the judgment; the point is that the animal got what the person deserved.

The Archangel

Click to expand...

The sacrifice dies so that the offerer can be brought from a state of death to a state of life.

But the sacrifice does NOT suffer the wrath of God in place of the offerer as a substitute. Furthermore, God’s motives for carrying out His wrath or restraining His wrath are different. In the Bible, God’s motive for exercising wrath is to purify and protect His good creation, not simply to carry out a legal duty to punish, or defend His honor. His goal is to “destroy those who destroy the earth (Rev 11:18)” in order to protect the earth and its inhabitants. God’s reason for withholding wrath from the offerer is not that He has exhausted His wrath on a substitute, but that the corruption His wrath would eliminate has been purified, and so His wrath is no longer necessary. The offerer’s avoidance of wrath is secondary to the offerer’s transition from a state of corruption to purification, and by analogy, from a state of death to a state of resurrection.

Furthermore, all of the people who lived during the time of the OT sacrificial system are dead. They physically died. They suffered that punishment for sin. Neither the OT sacrifices, nor even the death of Christ, saved them from that fate. So not sure what you are arguing.

Again the function of Jesus' death is to bring people from a state of death to a state of life. Read Ephesians 2:1-10. The problem is death in sin. The solution is resurrection in Christ.

Sinners are already dead in sin. Jesus cannot die in place of people who are already dead. He can die with them. So that we can die with him - which is EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. "I have been co-crucified with Christ." "We have been baptized with Christ into his death." I just don't see why people are having such a hard time with this. It is not complex.

Arthur King said:

Why do I care what Torrance says? He is wrong on penal substitution, just like any other penal substitution advocate.

And Karl Barth may be my least favorite theologian. Highly overrated.

Click to expand...

By the way. Just a note for anyone else who may be reading these posts. I'd be careful about spending too much time on Torrance. And I agree with Arthur in this case and would definitely not spend much time with Barth. And if anyone knows of a post Reformation theologian who is truly against the idea of penal substitution please let me know so I can read what they say. I have been unsuccessful in getting such information so far and my contention is that no one is espousing this who anyone on here, Calvinist or non Calvinist, would recognize as a reliable source. I'm not interested here in early church fathers or obscure monks from the early middle ages. My taking up the writings of Torrance was because I was under the impression that he was against penal substitution. While he has brought out some additional aspects of the work of Christ which I find helpful it turns out he believed in the idea of penal substitution after all. But he's harder to read than Owen so I'm just saying.

DaveXR650 said:

By the way. Just a note for anyone else who may be reading these posts. I'd be careful about spending too much time on Torrance. And I agree with Arthur in this case and would definitely not spend much time with Barth. And if anyone knows of a post Reformation theologian who is truly against the idea of penal substitution please let me know so I can read what they say. I have been unsuccessful in getting such information so far and my contention is that no one is espousing this who anyone on here, Calvinist or non Calvinist, would recognize as a reliable source. I'm not interested here in early church fathers or obscure monks from the early middle ages. My taking up the writings of Torrance was because I was under the impression that he was against penal substitution. While he has brought out some additional aspects of the work of Christ which I find helpful it turns out he believed in the idea of penal substitution after all. But he's harder to read than Owen so I'm just saying.

Click to expand...

I agree...depending on your goal. Studying Barth and Torrance (and Calvin, Owen, Wesley, Wright, and the like) is necessary if pursuing a degree in theology or wanting to develop an understanding of theological positions as a whole. But in terms of understanding God's Word they are unnecessary.

@Arthur King provided a fairly extensive list of Christians who reject Penal Substitution. I would recommend reading those. I'd add Anabaptist theologies, but mainly because I like that theology.

JonC said:

@Arthur King provided a fairly extensive list of Christians who reject Penal Substitution. I would recommend reading those. I'd add Anabaptist theologies, but mainly because I like that theology.

Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it but I didn't catch anyone but C.S. Lewis who was modern. I'm not familiar with his views but I'm a huge fan but don't consider him a theologian. I'm interested in someone who opposes penal substitution as being wrong, and wrote about why it is wrong. Those who have a different take on it or a different emphasis, like the Anabaptists or the ECF's I have no problem with.
Yes. Trying to read Torrance has given me a greater appreciation for theology students. I cannot imagine, as a young man in college, with all the distractions and other things you need to do, trying to understand him under a timeline. Talk about your head exploding!

DaveXR650 said:

Maybe I missed it but I didn't catch anyone but C.S. Lewis who was modern. I'm not familiar with his views but I'm a huge fan but don't consider him a theologian. I'm interested in someone who opposes penal substitution as being wrong, and wrote about why it is wrong. Those who have a different take on it or a different emphasis, like the Anabaptists or the ECF's I have no problem with.
Yes. Trying to read Torrance has given me a greater appreciation for theology students. I cannot imagine, as a young man in college, with all the distractions and other things you need to do, trying to understand him under a timeline. Talk about your head exploding!

Click to expand...

Lewis was not trained as a theologian (neither was Calvin, for that matter). But his writings are very good.

The following are a few well known and more contemporary theologians that reject penal substitution theory (Baptist scholars, Anabaptist theologians and professors, Anglicans, and Lutherans...so they don't agree on everything):

Thomas Finger, Joel Green, Ted Grimsrud, Earl Zimmerman, Earl Zimmerman, James McClendon, N.T. Wright, Alan Mann, Georges Florovsky, Denny Weaver, Greg Boyd, Steve Chalke, and Gudina Tumsa.

There are many more, but that's a good start.

DaveXR650 said:

By the way. Just a note for anyone else who may be reading these posts. I'd be careful about spending too much time on Torrance. And I agree with Arthur in this case and would definitely not spend much time with Barth. And if anyone knows of a post Reformation theologian who is truly against the idea of penal substitution please let me know so I can read what they say. I have been unsuccessful in getting such information so far and my contention is that no one is espousing this who anyone on here, Calvinist or non Calvinist, would recognize as a reliable source. I'm not interested here in early church fathers or obscure monks from the early middle ages. My taking up the writings of Torrance was because I was under the impression that he was against penal substitution. While he has brought out some additional aspects of the work of Christ which I find helpful it turns out he believed in the idea of penal substitution after all. But he's harder to read than Owen so I'm just saying.

Click to expand...

no one is espousing this who anyone on here, Calvinist or non Calvinist, would recognize as a reliable source.

Augustine is not a reliable source?
Gregory of Nyssa is not a reliable source?
John Chrysostom is not a reliable source?
Anselm is not a reliable source?
Thomas Aquinas is not a reliable source?
Martin Luther is not a reliable source?
CS Lewis is not a reliable source?
NT Wright is not a reliable source?

All of these theologians have described the atoning work of Christ and the atonement mechanism in the terms I have set forth.

Other prominent Bible Scholars today who have serious criticisms of penal substitution are Tom McCall at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Tim Mackie with the Bible Project.

I would not trust anyone who did not find the above reliable.

Arthur King said:

no one is espousing this who anyone on here, Calvinist or non Calvinist, would recognize as a reliable source.

Augustine is not a reliable source?
Gregory of Nyssa is not a reliable source?
John Chrysostom is not a reliable source?
Anselm is not a reliable source?
Thomas Aquinas is not a reliable source?
Martin Luther is not a reliable source?
CS Lewis is not a reliable source?
NT Wright is not a reliable source?

All of these theologians have described the atoning work of Christ and the atonement mechanism in the terms I have set forth.

Other prominent Bible Scholars today who have serious criticisms of penal substitution are Tom McCall at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Tim Mackie with the Bible Project.

I would not trust anyone who did not find the above reliable.

Click to expand...

This topic has taken a strange turn to me. So many sources have been offered. But the sources not only seem to be ignored, the offering of the sources seem to be ignored as well.

I can quickly list at least 10 theologians who hold Penal Substitution and at least 10 who don't...and that off the top of my head.

That we are still arguing about whether there are theologians who reject Penal Substitution is a bit bewildering.

I am starting to think it is a ploy to avoid addressing tye shortcomings of penal substitution via Scripture.

Arthur King said:

Augustine is not a reliable source?

Click to expand...

Don't know enough except that he was much different in doctrine than most of us who claim him as a founder would admit.

Arthur King said:

Gregory of Nyssa is not a reliable source?

Click to expand...

Is he the one who thought Jesus deceived Satan by taking on a human body? Nuff said.

Arthur King said:

John Chrysostom is not a reliable source?

Click to expand...

Don't know enough to comment.

Arthur King said:

Anselm is not a reliable source?

Click to expand...

Satisfaction. Close in my mind, especially considering the time period.

Arthur King said:

Thomas Aquinas is not a reliable source?

Click to expand...

Seemed to combine several theories which is OK.

Arthur King said:

Martin Luther is not a reliable source?

Click to expand...

I have seen enough of his writings that argue that he did believe in PSA, but had other ideas as well.

Arthur King said:

CS Lewis is not a reliable source?

Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of his and end up always trying to defend his orthodoxy. True enough, he had problems with PSA but doesn't seem to me to really refute, or to have been interested in doing so.

Arthur King said:

NT Wright is not a reliable source?

Click to expand...

Now that's a good one, if true. I honestly don't know. But it helps me tell where you are coming from.

Arthur King said:

Other prominent Bible Scholars today who have serious criticisms of penal substitution are Tom McCall at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Tim Mackie with the Bible Project.

Click to expand...

Don't know them but at least there is a place to check out. I haven't said they were unreliable as I don't know who they are.
You are just giving examples who don't agree and had a variety of their own ideas.

JonC said:

That we are still arguing about whether there are theologians who reject Penal Substitution is a bit bewildering.

Click to expand...

Why would it be? Some in the list above are errors, as was the monk Caesarius. And I am asking because this enables one to see where people are coming from. I know there are "hot" topics among the trendy theological circles but I haven't seen any known Baptists on board with this. N.T. Wright may be one of the most controversial theologians out there so that is helpful.

JonC said:

I am starting to think it is a ploy to avoid addressing tye shortcomings of penal substitution via Scripture.

Click to expand...

That's why there isn't anything more to say, really. Why am I supposed to address shortcomings I don't believe are there? You guys look right at the same scriptures I look at and get a completely different meaning out of it. I try to get some info on actual theologians or top leaders that back up your interpretation and get a charge of avoiding the issue. What if the issue is you and your interpretation? Upon reviewing Torrance I find one who doesn't like him and another who was wrong in their assessment of his views. When looking at the ECF's I see massive problems, same with Augustine, although I have nothing but admiration for them given their time. I happen to think you are flat out wrong on Luther. I'll take a look at the 2 guys Arthur listed when I get time and see where they are coming from but I think I've given you all plenty of chance to disprove penal substitution.

DaveXR650 said:

Don't know enough except that he was much different in doctrine than most of us who claim him as a founder would admit.

Is he the one who thought Jesus deceived Satan by taking on a human body? Nuff said.

Don't know enough to comment.

Satisfaction. Close in my mind, especially considering the time period.

Seemed to combine several theories which is OK.

I have seen enough of his writings that argue that he did believe in PSA, but had other ideas as well.

I'm a big fan of his and end up always trying to defend his orthodoxy. True enough, he had problems with PSA but doesn't seem to me to really refute, or to have been interested in doing so.

Now that's a good one, if true. I honestly don't know. But it helps me tell where you are coming from.


Don't know them but at least there is a place to check out. I haven't said they were unreliable as I don't know who they are.
You are just giving examples who don't agree and had a variety of their own ideas.


Why would it be? Some in the list above are errors, as was the monk Caesarius. And I am asking because this enables one to see where people are coming from. I know there are "hot" topics among the trendy theological circles but I haven't seen any known Baptists on board with this. N.T. Wright may be one of the most controversial theologians out there so that is helpful.

That's why there isn't anything more to say, really. Why am I supposed to address shortcomings I don't believe are there? You guys look right at the same scriptures I look at and get a completely different meaning out of it. I try to get some info on actual theologians or top leaders that back up your interpretation and get a charge of avoiding the issue. What if the issue is you and your interpretation? Upon reviewing Torrance I find one who doesn't like him and another who was wrong in their assessment of his views. When looking at the ECF's I see massive problems, same with Augustine, although I have nothing but admiration for them given their time. I happen to think you are flat out wrong on Luther. I'll take a look at the 2 guys Arthur listed when I get time and see where they are coming from but I think I've given you all plenty of chance to disprove penal substitution.

Click to expand...

None of those on the list are errors.

Penal Substitution, right or wrong aside, developed over time as Christians worked out, refined, and reformed ideas.

When Anselm reformed Augustine's atonement theory some followed. Others didn't. When Aquinas refined Anselm's theory some followed (well....just about all followed). When Calvin reformed Aquinas' theory some followed, most didn't. Luther maintained a satisfaction view. Zwingli maintained a satisfaction type position. Anabaptists continued to view the Reformers as maintaining Catholic doctrine to an extent (not going far enough).

Just on those few sects you have four very different views, only one being Penal Substitution. And those people were theologians.


NT Wright is controversial. But he once was not. He was, at one time, praised by Reformed theologians (like Sproul, Piper, and Packer) for his scholarship on Paul. But when that led him to reject the "Latin view" he became controversial. That does not negate his scholarship.

The interesting thing about Wright is those who praised him and relied on his scholarship became severe critics once he said something they disagreed with. And I don't even follow Wright (I've read him, obviously, because I studied theology....but I don't think his position is worked out enough).

ANY scholar who rejects penal substitution will be considered controversial among those who hold the theory. That does not negate their scholarship.

And NT Wright is only one in that list.

Just pick one. How about John Yoder? He is certainly a well known theologian, scholar and former professor of theology.

Arthur King said:

The sacrifice dies so that the offerer can be brought from a state of death to a state of life.

Click to expand...

No. The "offerer" exists in a state of death which is not brought about by any given individual sin. Once the sacrifice has been offered and the sin(s) atoned for, the offerer is still not in a state of life. The "State of life" does not come in full until after the final resurrection. This is what has been called the "Already/Not Yet." In the Old Testament, because of the sacrifice, the offerer is "forgiven" but (as Hebrews 10:4 says) the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin. So, in a sense the one who offers the sacrifice in the OT is already forgiven, but in another he or she is not yet forgiven (until Christ's death). Whether in the NT or the OT, the one who is forgiven still must experience physical death. Paul explains this in depth in 1 Corinthians 15.

Arthur King said:

But the sacrifice does NOT suffer the wrath of God in place of the offerer as a substitute. Furthermore, God’s motives for carrying out His wrath or restraining His wrath are different. In the Bible, God’s motive for exercising wrath is to purify and protect His good creation, not simply to carry out a legal duty to punish, or defend His honor. His goal is to “destroy those who destroy the earth (Rev 11:18)” in order to protect the earth and its inhabitants. God’s reason for withholding wrath from the offerer is not that He has exhausted His wrath on a substitute, but that the corruption His wrath would eliminate has been purified, and so His wrath is no longer necessary. The offerer’s avoidance of wrath is secondary to the offerer’s transition from a state of corruption to purification, and by analogy, from a state of death to a state of resurrection.

Click to expand...

The sacrifice experiences the "wages of sin" instead of the one who is offering said sacrifice. God's expression of His wrath is multifaceted. But in no way does someone transition to a state of resurrection as you're describing here. If that were so, again, as you've described it here, then we would expect that person to never sin again, and we know that doesn't happen. For this to apply to the OT as you've described, you'd have to argue that the state of resurrection would have to be lost upon each sin and re-awarded by each sacrifice. This understanding of the atonement is much more in line with the theology of the Roman Catholic church than it is with scripture.

Arthur King said:

Furthermore, all of the people who lived during the time of the OT sacrificial system are dead. They physically died. They suffered that punishment for sin. Neither the OT sacrifices, nor even the death of Christ, saved them from that fate. So not sure what you are arguing.

Click to expand...

Again... the already/not-yet is important here. To be consistent--since you argue the sacrifice brings the offerer to a state of resurrection--that since death is experienced, the sacrifice was not effective. Of course, you're not really arguing that--so you are inconsistent.

Arthur King said:

Again the function of Jesus' death is to bring people from a state of death to a state of life. Read Ephesians 2:1-10. The problem is death in sin. The solution is resurrection in Christ.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of Ephesians 2:1-10. I've translated it from the Greek and written a rather lengthy exegetical treatment of it. It is arguing nothing close to what you've suggested here as the main point. And, I might add, Ephesians 2 cannot be separated from the whole of Ephesians (just as, by the way, Isaiah 53 cannot be separated from the rest of the book.

Arthur King said:

Sinners are already dead in sin. Jesus cannot die in place of people who are already dead. He can die with them. So that we can die with him - which is EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. "I have been co-crucified with Christ." "We have been baptized with Christ into his death." I just don't see why people are having such a hard time with this. It is not complex.

Click to expand...

Your statements aren't complex, that's true, but they are simply wrong. Your assumption "Jesus cannot die in place of people who are already dead" is just that--your assumption. It is, in essence, the lens through which you are processing the biblical information--and it is coloring your understanding for the worse.

The biblical text, in many places, says clearly that Christ died for our sins. That would clearly include those you're arguing are already dead. So, biblically, at root, the atonement is Christ dying to pay for the sins of those dead in sin so that they may be forgiven and raised to newness of life as a new creation. But the payment of "sin" is the prerequisite to all of the other stuff.

The Archangel

DaveXR650 said:

Don't know enough except that he was much different in doctrine than most of us who claim him as a founder would admit.

Is he the one who thought Jesus deceived Satan by taking on a human body? Nuff said.

Don't know enough to comment.

Satisfaction. Close in my mind, especially considering the time period.

Seemed to combine several theories which is OK.

I have seen enough of his writings that argue that he did believe in PSA, but had other ideas as well.

I'm a big fan of his and end up always trying to defend his orthodoxy. True enough, he had problems with PSA but doesn't seem to me to really refute, or to have been interested in doing so.

Now that's a good one, if true. I honestly don't know. But it helps me tell where you are coming from.


Don't know them but at least there is a place to check out. I haven't said they were unreliable as I don't know who they are.
You are just giving examples who don't agree and had a variety of their own ideas.


Why would it be? Some in the list above are errors, as was the monk Caesarius. And I am asking because this enables one to see where people are coming from. I know there are "hot" topics among the trendy theological circles but I haven't seen any known Baptists on board with this. N.T. Wright may be one of the most controversial theologians out there so that is helpful.

That's why there isn't anything more to say, really. Why am I supposed to address shortcomings I don't believe are there? You guys look right at the same scriptures I look at and get a completely different meaning out of it. I try to get some info on actual theologians or top leaders that back up your interpretation and get a charge of avoiding the issue. What if the issue is you and your interpretation? Upon reviewing Torrance I find one who doesn't like him and another who was wrong in their assessment of his views. When looking at the ECF's I see massive problems, same with Augustine, although I have nothing but admiration for them given their time. I happen to think you are flat out wrong on Luther. I'll take a look at the 2 guys Arthur listed when I get time and see where they are coming from but I think I've given you all plenty of chance to disprove penal substitution.

Click to expand...

Anselm did not teach penal substitution. Even the writers of Pierced for our Transgressions don't include him in their historical survey, and they are overall eager to claim pretty much every theologian supported penal substitution, even when they didn't (like Augustine).

When someone says Anselm taught penal substitution or something "close", that is a good indication they don't understand Anselm, or penal substitution, or neither.

As William Lane Craig clarifies, “On Anselm’s view Christ does not die in our place or pay the penalty for our sins; rather, he offers a compensation to God on our behalf. When Anselm affirms that Christ “allowed himself to be slain for the sake of justice” one must keep in mind that the demands of justice can be satisfied by either punishment or compensation. Christ offers compensation.” According to Anselm’s model, Jesus does not go to the cross to pay humanity’s debt of punishment; only sinners in hell pay what could be called a “debt of punishment” to restore God’s damaged honor.

In Anselm’s salvation narrative, sin primarily damages not humanity or creation, but God’s honor. To repair the damaged honor, the sinner must either make compensation through obedience (pay a debt of obedience), or be punished. Given that the worth of God’s honor is of infinite value, the compensation made must be of infinite value, or the punishment must be of infinite magnitude, i.e. eternal punishment in hell. Jesus’ death on the cross makes infinite compensation to God for humanity’s sins; the compensation is infinite because Jesus is God, and it is on behalf of humanity because Jesus is a human being.

Consider Bob: in committing a crime Bob has damaged the honor of the state, and to repair the damaged honor he can either pay $100,000 or go to jail. Jesus pays Bob’s debt of $100,000, but Jesus does not go to jail in Bob's place. What you need for penal substitution is for Jesus to go to jail instead of Bob so that Bob does not have to. But this is not in Anselm's model.

Though Anselm does not affirm penal substitution and I think Anselm’s atonement formulation is for the most part correct, I think the manner in which he talks about sin primarily damaging God’s honor is problematic. I think that a focus on sin as damage to God’s honor distracts from sin being fundamentally self-destructive and self-dishonoring towards humanity. When we ignore that sin is self-destructive and only emphasize that sin deserves punishment, we become prone to think that sin itself is actually a path to happiness that God happens to dislike and therefore punishes. Sin is not properly recognized as a violation of God's Created Order or violation of the natural law, necessarily resulting in self-destruction, it is just the pursuit of real happiness in a way that God has declared He dislikes and so He punishes it. Additionally, Anselm’s view makes God into a victim of our sin apart from the cross. But the truth is that the only way that God becomes a victim of humanity’s sin is through the cross.

On the honor of God:

Consider this illustration: Let’s say a father takes his 5 year old son to the community swimming pool. He tells his son, “Don’t run by the pool, or you will slip and hurt yourself.” His son disobeys and runs by the pool, slips, and hurts himself. Is the father’s honor damaged? Of course not. Exactly what he said would happen, did happen. The father is the offended party, but the son is the injured party. The offense was to the damage of the offender. The father does not come across as foolish, the son does. Everyone watching this scenario thinks, “That’s why you listen to your Dad.”

The same dynamic is at play in the Garden with Adam and Eve. God says, “Don’t eat from the tree, or you’ll die.” Adam and Eve eat from the tree and they die, before God even enters the scene. God is not made to look like a fool—Adam and Eve are. The moral of the story is, “That’s why you should listen to God.”

To return to the image of the fountain of living waters from Jeremiah 2:13, the glory of a fountain is to satisfy and sustain those in the desert. When someone refuses to drink from it and dies of thirst, the glory of the fountain is not damaged, but demonstrated. Similarly, the glory of a brick wall is its strength. The glory of the brick wall will be demonstrated whether or not someone leans against the brick wall for support, or punches the brick wall and breaks his arm. Finally, when sinners reject God’s laws and thereby destroy themselves, the glory of God is not damaged, but demonstrated. And so, it is not God or His honor that are damaged by sin, but sinners that are damaged by sin. In the case of sin against God, the offense is to the destruction and dishonor of the offender.

Furthermore, when considering sins such as suicide or self-harm, how does God reclaim what is owed to him by punishment? “Someone damages God’s honor by harming themselves, and God reclaims his honor by harming that person through punishment.” That’s nonsense. Again, the self-destructiveness of sin causes a redundancy problem for that theory of punishment.

The Archangel said:

No. The "offerer" exists in a state of death which is not brought about by any given individual sin. Once the sacrifice has been offered and the sin(s) atoned for, the offerer is still not in a state of life. The "State of life" does not come in full until after the final resurrection. This is what has been called the "Already/Not Yet." In the Old Testament, because of the sacrifice, the offerer is "forgiven" but (as Hebrews 10:4 says) the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin. So, in a sense the one who offers the sacrifice in the OT is already forgiven, but in another he or she is not yet forgiven (until Christ's death). Whether in the NT or the OT, the one who is forgiven still must experience physical death. Paul explains this in depth in 1 Corinthians 15.

The sacrifice experiences the "wages of sin" instead of the one who is offering said sacrifice. God's expression of His wrath is multifaceted. But in no way does someone transition to a state of resurrection as you're describing here. If that were so, again, as you've described it here, then we would expect that person to never sin again, and we know that doesn't happen. For this to apply to the OT as you've described, you'd have to argue that the state of resurrection would have to be lost upon each sin and re-awarded by each sacrifice. This understanding of the atonement is much more in line with the theology of the Roman Catholic church than it is with scripture.

Again... the already/not-yet is important here. To be consistent--since you argue the sacrifice brings the offerer to a state of resurrection--that since death is experienced, the sacrifice was not effective. Of course, you're not really arguing that--so you are inconsistent.

I'm well aware of Ephesians 2:1-10. I've translated it from the Greek and written a rather lengthy exegetical treatment of it. It is arguing nothing close to what you've suggested here as the main point. And, I might add, Ephesians 2 cannot be separated from the whole of Ephesians (just as, by the way, Isaiah 53 cannot be separated from the rest of the book.

Your statements aren't complex, that's true, but they are simply wrong. Your assumption "Jesus cannot die in place of people who are already dead" is just that--your assumption. It is, in essence, the lens through which you are processing the biblical information--and it is coloring your understanding for the worse.

The biblical text, in many places, says clearly that Christ died for our sins. That would clearly include those you're arguing are already dead. So, biblically, at root, the atonement is Christ dying to pay for the sins of those dead in sin so that they may be forgiven and raised to newness of life as a new creation. But the payment of "sin" is the prerequisite to all of the other stuff.

The Archangel

Click to expand...

The biblical text, in many places, says clearly that Christ died for our sins.

Yes! It says that Jesus died FOR us, and it also says Jesus dies WITH us. But if I go to the grocery store WITH my wife and FOR my wife, that excludes that I went to the grocery store INSTEAD of my wife.

If Jesus dies WITH us and FOR us, that excludes him dying INSTEAD of us.

That would clearly include those you're arguing are already dead.

Yes. Jesus dies WITH them and FOR them. He does not die INSTEAD of them. Impossible, since they are already dead.

So, biblically, at root, the atonement is Christ dying to pay for the sins of those dead in sin so that they may be forgiven and raised to newness of life as a new creation. But the payment of "sin" is the prerequisite to all of the other stuff.

Yes! Agree with everything here. But this is not penal substitution. It meets none of the necessary conditions of penal substitution. Do you even know what penal substitution actually is? I would go back to the original post and make sure you know what penal substitution is before claiming to defend it. Because what you have written here ain't it.

To your other points about the sacrificial system - just as Jesus' physical death is a forerunner to our own physical death, so also the death of the sacrificial animal is a forerunner of the eventual physical death of the offerer. Of course, the sacrificial animal does not actually take away sins, it is a symbol of Christ. But neither the death of the sacrificial animal, nor the death of Christ, saved anyone ultimately from physical death. It may have saved them from a certain instance of exile or execution, but not ultimately.