The Biblical Basis for Penal Substitution, part 2

Martin Marprelate said:

Hebrews 9:22.

Click to expand...

Nope. Here is that verse -

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

The shedding of blood is necessary (it is a sacrifice, or more precisely a korbanot, which literally means "to draw near"). This was not to appease God's. This was NOT the atonement.

Since the shedding of blood was necessary, but not the actual atonement (not making atonement for sins), what was the actual atonement?

The priest made atonement for the people (and before this for himself) by taking blood to the alter and applying that blood.

See -

He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

and is to splash some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering.


The life is in the blood.

Same with Passover. It was necessary to offer a lamb. That lambs blood had to be shed.

BUT the killing of the lamb, the shedding of blood, was not what delivered them from death. It was the blood applied to their door posts.

You have misunderstood the significance of the OT sacrifices. The life is in the blood.

Martin Marprelate said:

If I go shopping on your behalf, I go shopping, you don't. It would make no sense for me to do your shopping if you do it anyway. I go shopping in your place; I shop instead of you.

Click to expand...

This is a poor illustration (not of your view but of an objective view...you are simply illustrating your understanding).

I could talk to an employer on your behalf, for you, praising your work ethic. This would not be instead of you.

"One one's behalf" could be a substitution. It could be a representative substitute (like a lawyer representing you in a court). Or it could be a direct substitute (like me standing in for you in a ball game). But it also may not be a substitute at all. It could simply be on your behalf, for you.

JonC said:

No, according to Scripture it is impossible that Christ experienced God's wrath.

Psalm 22 foreshadows the Cross. This psalm starts with the Servant crying out "My God, why have you forsaken me". But what directly follows is a percise faith that God will not abandon His righteous although they be forsaken to suffer, even die, at the hands of the enemy.

The Servant even appeals to God's righteousness exhibited to His forefathers. God will deliver Him as God delivered them. God will not punish them but remain faithful to His words. God will not clear the wicked but instead will exercise judgment to His enemies.


"Hades" is the Greek for "sheol". It means the grave. We have to remember that Hell in the sence of the Lake of Fire does not exist at this moment.

Hades is not speaking of a part of Paradise. Paradise was where the saints would go when they went to Hades (Sheol).

Click to expand...

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Why did Jesus say that?
Why did Jesus say that at the ninth hour?
What did Jesus mean by, "forsaken"?

Christ, was put to death to the flesh. 1 Peter 3:18 When?
Christ, was made alive to the spirit. 1 Peter 3:18 When?

percho said:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Why did Jesus say that?
Why did Jesus say that at the ninth hour?
What did Jesus mean by, "forsaken"?

Christ, was put to death to the flesh. 1 Peter 3:18 When?
Christ, was made alive to the spirit. 1 Peter 3:18 When?

Click to expand...

We do not have to wonder why. Psalm 22 foreshadows the Cross.

The Servant in Psalm 22 was forsaken to suffer and die.

At the start of the psalm the Servant cries out "My God, My God, why have you Forsaken Me?".

Then what immediately follows is the Servant recalling others (His forefathers) that were forsaking to suffer but God did not abandon them, He was faithful and delivered them.

Did they suffer? Yes. They were not delivered from suffering but through suffering.

And the Servant places His trust in the faithfulness of God knowing He will not abandon Him because of two things -

1. God did not abandon the prophets although theu were forsaken to suffer.

2. God is faithful and has declared He will not abandon His servants.

And as the Psalm come towards its conclusion God has heard the cry of the Servant and delivers Him, again not from suffering but through suffering.


For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

He was put to death in the flesh. He died on the Crosd.

He was made alive in the Spirit - the Firstborn of what is to be many brethren- "made a life giving Spirit" afterwards.

I do not know if this means upon rising on the third day or when He ascended.

JonC said:

Nope. Here is that verse -

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

The shedding of blood is necessary (it is a sacrifice, or more precisely a korbanot, which literally means "to draw near"). This was not to appease God's. This was NOT the atonement.

Since the shedding of blood was necessary, but not the actual atonement (not making atonement for sins), what was the actual atonement?

Click to expand...

Lev. 17:11. 'For it is the blood that makes atonement for your souls.' You are hopelessly at sea here, tied up in your own faulty philosophy.

JonC said:

The priest made atonement for the people (and before this for himself) by taking blood to the alter and applying that blood.

See -

He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

and is to splash some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering.


The life is in the blood.

Same with Passover. It was necessary to offer a lamb. That lambs blood had to be shed.

BUT the killing of the lamb, the shedding of blood, was not what delivered them from death. It was the blood applied to their door posts.

You have misunderstood the significance of the OT sacrifices. The life is in the blood.

Click to expand...

You fail to understand the meaning of the sacrifices.
We all know that 'it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins' (Heb. 10:4). The blood of the animals was an adumbration (foreshadowing) of the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world.
We all also know that 'the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls' (Lev. 17:11). The first mention of an altar in the Bible is Gen. 8:20, but before that Abel had sacrificed a lamb to the Lord and his offering was accepted because it looked forward by faith to Christ who would shed His blood, though not on an altar. It is not the altar but the blood, and the blood speaks of the life sacrificed. God is propitiated by the blood of Christ (Rom. 3:25; we are justified by His blood (Rom. 5:9); we have redemption through His blood (Eph. 1:7); we are brought near by His blood (Eph. 2:13); we have peace through His blood (Col. 1:20); we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:19); His blood cleanses us from all iniquity (1 John 1:7), and He has washed us from our sins in His own blood (Rev. 1:5)

Martin Marprelate said:

Lev. 17:11. 'For it is the blood that makes atonement for your souls.' You are hopelessly at sea here, tied up in your own faulty philosophy.



You fail to understand the meaning of the sacrifices.
We all know that 'it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins' (Heb. 10:4). The blood of the animals was an adumbration (foreshadowing) of the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world.
We all also know that 'the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls' (Lev. 17:11). The first mention of an altar in the Bible is Gen. 8:20, but before that Abel had sacrificed a lamb to the Lord and his offering was accepted because it looked forward by faith to Christ who would shed His blood, though not on an altar. It is not the altar but the blood, and the blood speaks of the life sacrificed. God is propitiated by the blood of Christ (Rom. 3:25; we are justified by His blood (Rom. 5:9); we have redemption through His blood (Eph. 1:7); we are brought near by His blood (Eph. 2:13); we have peace through His blood (Col. 1:20); we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:19); His blood cleanses us from all iniquity (1 John 1:7), and He has washed us from our sins in His own blood (Rev. 1:5)

Click to expand...

Now you are being foolish.

I already said the OT sacrifices foreshadowed the work of Christ.
My point is in the Hebrew religion and in Christianity it is not the shedding of blood, the killing of the sacrifice, that was viewed as an atonement.

It was the blood applied (as the verses you provide demonstrate).

The blood of Christ cleanses from all unrighteousness.

The priest made atonement for the people by applying blood to the altar.

Death passed over the Isralites because of the blood applied to the door posts.

The priest applied blood to the entrance of the meeting.

Life is in the blood.

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith

PSA mistepresents the sacrifices to indicate the killing of the animal made atondment, or that Christ's death was rhe atonement. BUT if we read the Bible we know that the atonement followed. The shedding of blood is necessary but it is the application that is the atonement.


And yes, I know korbanot is about obedience. In the Hebrew religion the sacrifice never stood as appeasing God. It never even had divine wrath in mind. It means "draw close" and it was viewed as a gift of obedience.

You are not the only one that spent a decade studying this stuff at university. Even if I had no degree I could still read the Bible and conclude PSA was very wrong. The hard part is taking those blinders off.

You probably did not even read the verses you posted. They literally state exactly what I have been saying (probably because I used the same passages).

JonC said:

Since the shedding of blood was necessary, but not the actual atonement (not making atonement for sins), what was the actual atonement?

Click to expand...

Martin Marprelate said:

Lev. 17:11. 'For it is the blood that makes atonement for your souls.'

Click to expand...

'Nuff said.

JonC said:

Yes. There are penal aspects.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you would like to list these so that we know what you think they are.

JonC said:

But that does not make it Christ experiencing God's punishment (you assume that is in the text).

Click to expand...

Well it does. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' If that is not punishment, what is it? 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' You take the two texts together (they are in the same chapter after all), and you can see that 'He was pierced for our transgressions.' 'The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him.' It all fits together wonderfully.

But I want to look for a moment at Christ becoming a curse for us. It will be helpful to look at Gal. 3:10-14. Who is it who cursed lawbreakers? 'For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them"' (Gal. 3:10, quoting Deut. 27:26). Since it is God's law which would be broken, it must be God's curse that was being recited on Mt. Ebal.

But 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.' How can Christ become a curse, since He never broke God's law? Because 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the TREE.' Why does Peter use the word 'tree' [Gk. xulon] instead of 'cross' [Gk. stauron]? Because of Deut. 21:23. 'For He who is hanged [on a tree: vs. 22-23] is accursed of God.' He bore our sins and the curse of them on the wooden cross, and He 'has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. If my iniquity is laid on Christ (which it is), it is no longer on me. If Christ has redeemed me from the curse of the law, then I am no longer cursed by it. He has paid in full the penalty of the law, which is death, and from the curse attached to it by dying on the cursed tree. Penal Substitution. He was condemned; I am no longer condemned (Romans 8:1). He died; I have died to sin. He is risen; I have eternal life in Him. Check out Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 8:18-25; Rev. 22:3-5.

Martin Marprelate said:

'Nuff said.

Click to expand...

Yes, we agree that it is the blood.

The reason this gets convoluted some times is so many PSA theorists argue that it is the death.

I believe that the OT imagery (the details provided in God's instruction) and the details in the NT are intentional.

So of we look to atonement views we see very different ideas.

PSA viewes Christ's death (Christ taking on our punishment) as the method of forgiveness, as atonement. Our sins are removed from us, placed on Christ, and punished there.

Christis Victor views Christ's death as the sacrifice but forgiveness being in the blood cleansing from unrighteous. The atonement is in the blood applied (like the OT sacrifice model, like the Passover model).

Martin Marprelate said:

Perhaps you would like to list these so that we know what you think they are.

Well it does. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' If that is not punishment, what is it? 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' You take the two texts together (they are in the same chapter after all), and you can see that 'He was pierced for our transgressions.' 'The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him.' It all fits together wonderfully.

But I want to look for a moment at Christ becoming a curse for us. It will be helpful to look at Gal. 3:10-14. Who is it who cursed lawbreakers? 'For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them"' (Gal. 3:10, quoting Deut. 27:26). Since it is God's law which would be broken, it must be God's curse that was being recited on Mt. Ebal.

But 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.' How can Christ become a curse, since He never broke God's law? Because 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the TREE.' Why does Peter use the word 'tree' [Gk. xulon] instead of 'cross' [Gk. stauron]? Because of Deut. 21:23. 'For He who is hanged [on a tree: vs. 22-23] is accursed of God.' He bore our sins and the curse of them on the wooden cross, and He 'has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. If my iniquity is laid on Christ (which it is), it is no longer on me. If Christ has redeemed me from the curse of the law, then I am no longer cursed by it. He has paid in full the penalty of the law, which is death, and from the curse attached to it by dying on the cursed tree. Penal Substitution. He was condemned; I am no longer condemned (Romans 8:1). He died; I have died to sin. He is risen; I have eternal life in Him. Check out Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 8:18-25; Rev. 22:3-5.

Click to expand...

Christ became a curse for us. He bore our sin.

The difference is I do not change the verse

Christ bore our sin which made it possible for us to bear His righteousness.

The penal aspects I would include death that sin produces. The wages of sin is death. Sin begats death. Death is satanic here (the power of Satan).

I do not deny that there are penal and substitution aspects. But "penal substitution" is not two unrelated words, or two aspects.

It is a term (in Christian theology the "penal" identifies the type substitution) like satisfactory substitution, simple substitution, representative substitution, ontological substitution.

So it really does not matter that I see penal aspects. What matters is I deny penal substitution.

Mark 10:45, For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Romans 5:8, But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Isaiah 53:6, All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.