2 Corinthians 5:21 doesn't support penal substitution (reposted)

[37818]

PREACH.

Payment and punishment are two separate priorities of justice. Restitution and retribution - two different things.

My strict understanding of penal substitution, Christ received payment of death per Romans 6:23, prior per John 19:28 in full, prior to His phyisical death. Re: Ezekiel 18:4, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 53:10, Isaiah 53:12, by means of Christ's soul.

 

[Revmitchell]

You say, "The failure in your point is that Jesus unjustly suffers death."

The Bible explicitly states that Jesus' death is unjust. See 1 Peter 2:18-25, the longest NT commentary on Isaiah 53. In fact, it says that Jesus' unjust suffering "finds grace with God." If Christ did not unjustly suffer, there is no grace for us.

Just because death was voluntarily chosen by Jesus does not make it just. If I voluntarily choose to suffer the electric chair instead of a murderer, that is still unjust.

"Since Jesus chose to pay the wage for our sin..."

Chose to EARN the wages for our sin. See my other comments on this. Wages are EARNED. Jesus cannot pay wages. Jesus can pay our DEBT, which is the opposite of a wage.

Again, it is this insistence on the part of penal substitution advocates to flip the economic metaphors of Scripture exactly in reverse.

Sticking to your guns and just repeating the same error does not an argument make.

 

[JonC]

Jon, you are avoiding the definition of propitiation which shows you substitution. Second, when the Passover Lamb was slain and it's blood smeared on the door frames was it not a substitutionary death for the lives of the firstborn? The Bible tells us that we who are Christians are the firstborn of God. It tells us that Jesus is the Lamb of God. Jesus, at the Last Supper, tells us that he is the Lamb who substitutes for us, the firstborn. We eat the Lord's Supper in remembrance of this.

It's all right before your eyes.

Now, you never tell us what your tradition is, which you refer to as "traditional Christianity." Jon, what is your tradition that you have been steeped in?

No. You are making up a definition.

Propitiation is a real word. It has meaning. It refers to a sacrifice through which one (or, typically a group) avoids wrath.

We see this in the OT sacrificial system. We see this in ANE sacrifices. We see this secularly as one may propitiate a boss to keep his or her job.

Why are you inventing a meaning for the word?


What is the tradition I am steeped in?

Evangelical Baptist tradition. I am steeped in a Calvinistic understanding of redemption, to include the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. I am also steeped in a biblicist understanding of Scripture (a contradiction, I know).

Why?

 

[Arthur King]

In our own criminal justice system, when someone gets handed a sentence, and it may be severe, but we say "he earned it". That's wages. Yet you can refer to him as he serves his sentence as him "paying his debt to society". This shouldn't be that difficult. Stott makes perfect sense to me. Two of you guys on here are floundering in this and you have to revert to word games to divert attention from that fact. Referring to the wages of sin and then saying we owe a debt we cannot pay is perfectly correct and should be obvious to anyone.

What are those little statements you put in supposed to mean? And then Jon thinks it's a winner? You put up three verses indicating death, punishment and sin properly put on men by God. One, this trashes your own idea that somehow all the problems that come on sinners are because of some kind of natural process rather than God's direct punishment. Two, to the extent it does not happen to us it must be because it has been displaced, removed, washed away, forgiven while upholding God's righteousness and so on. In other word, some type of substitution, or the "debt" was paid by someone else. And you are clearly dealing with an element of wrath, therefore you can use the term penal. Penal substitutionary atonement.

In our own criminal justice system, when someone gets handed a sentence, and it may be severe, but we say "he earned it". That's wages.

Correct!

Yet you can refer to him as he serves his sentence as him "paying his debt to society".

We need to build our theology off Scripture, not Western legal jargon, which may or may not make any sense. We should not build our understanding of the heart of the gospel off of modern colloquialisms.

If an arsonist burns my house down, no amount of jail time for him is going to repay to repair my house. His punishment does not pay his debt. It does not make restitution for what he owes.

Stott makes perfect sense to me.

Objectively, he does not make sense. Are you admitting that penal substitution relies on equating wages and debts?

Referring to the wages of sin and then saying we owe a debt we cannot pay is perfectly correct and should be obvious to anyone.

If I say to you "You have earned $1000 as wages from your employer, therefore you owe your employer $1000" you would absolutely tell me that I was not making any sense.

What are those little statements you put in supposed to mean?

Those "little statements" are verse from the Word of God. All of them show punishment/death being paid from God to humanity, not from humanity to God.

One, this trashes your own idea that somehow all the problems that come on sinners are because of some kind of natural process rather than God's direct punishment.

I have never claimed this. I have said that sin is self-destructive AND that it deserves punishment from God. I have refuted the idea that sin ONLY produces destruction because God punishes it.

Two, to the extent it does not happen to us it must be because it has been displaced, removed, washed away, forgiven while upholding God's righteousness and so on.

First of all, we are punished for our sins. We are exiled from Paradise and God's presence, consigned to physical death, children of wrath, etc. The wrath of God has been revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness (Romans 1). Secondly, the priority of justice is that we are punished, not that God needs to punish something. When a murderer commits murder, the priority is the murderer is punished, not that the state punish someone. If someone gouges out your eye, they do not burden you with the obligation to gouge out someone's eye.

to the extent it does not happen to us it must be because it has been displaced, removed, washed away, forgiven while upholding God's righteousness and so on. In other word, some type of substitution, or the "debt" was paid by someone else.

You are being very vague about mechanics, but then demanding that those mechanics be referred to by a very specific theory of atonement called penal substitution, which has very defined requirements.

 

[Arthur King]

In your version, Jesus could have taken out his debit card and paid off the worlds debt without ever dying. The Bible never expresses the payment for sin in that fashion, yet that is precisely what you are attempting to do.

Describing Jesus' death as making payment (the word "redemption" literally means the payment of a price to free someone from bondage) is the most popular metaphor in the New Testament.

 

[Arthur King]

Ask yourself "Why did Jesus have to pay the wage for our sin by dying on the cross? Why not use a debit card? Why is Jesus repeatedly referred to as "the Lamb of God?" Is a sacrifice a substitute for the one for whom it is sacrificed?

There is no doubt in scripture that Jesus sacrifice is substitutionary to pay off the unreconcilable debt that we owe for our sins and therefore reconcile us with God through Christ Jesus our Lord.

If you cannot see this in scripture then I pray your eyes would be opened. I can do no more than point out scripture to you.

"Why did Jesus have to pay the wage for our sin by dying on the cross?"

Do you mean:

-Why did Jesus PAY THE DEBT for our sin by dying on the cross?

-Why did Jesus RECEIVE THE WAGES of our sin by dying on the cross?

One of these questions makes sense. The question as you have asked it makes zero sense.

I can address the sacrificial system in another post.

Jesus' death is not substitutionary. See the attached chart.

 

[taisto]

Jesus had to pay the wage we earn for our sin?

Scripture states that the wages of sin is death. We earn death. Jesus suffered this wage for us.

Who are you saying Jesus killed?

Jon how is it that you don't see substitution in your very comment here?

 

[taisto]

Describing Jesus' death as making payment (the word "redemption" literally means the payment of a price to free someone from bondage) is the most popular metaphor in the New Testament.

And it is entirely substitutionary. How can you not see it?

 

[taisto]

"Why did Jesus have to pay the wage for our sin by dying on the cross?"

Do you mean:

-Why did Jesus PAY THE DEBT for our sin by dying on the cross?

-Why did Jesus RECEIVE THE WAGES of our sin by dying on the cross?

One of these questions makes sense. The question as you have asked it makes zero sense.

I can address the sacrificial system in another post.

Jesus' death is not substitutionary. See the attached chart.

I'm sorry that the question makes no sense to you. It's not a bad question, but you certainly are struggling with it.

 

[Arthur King]

I'm sorry that the question makes no sense to you. It's not a bad question, but you certainly are struggling with it.

If you receive $1,000 as wages, does that mean you are paid $1,000, or that you need to pay $1,000?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is the whole point. "Wages" in Romans 6:23 and "2 Peter 2:13" means punishment/death is something that is paid from God to humanity.

That is correct. What you said was

Wages are not paid. Wages are received.

You have just conceded that you were (are) talking nonsense.

Punishment/death is not owed to God as a debt that humanity pays Him. What humanity owes God is not death, but obedience.

That is also correct.

So when John Stott says in The Cross of Christ, to defend penal substitution, that Jesus “paid sin’s wage” on our behalf, that is the exact opposite meaning of the biblical text. It's nonsense. It reverses the whole economic metaphor - and this is important for good atonement theology.

I don't have Stott's book in front of me. If he wrote that, he was wrong. The Lord Jesus received sin's wages on our behalf. 'We all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one of us into his own way, and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' Penal substitution.

Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Death paid from God to man, not from man to God.

2 Peter 2:13
"But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong.

Punishment paid from God to man, not from man to God.

Romans 12:19
"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord"

Vengeance paid from God to man, not from man to God.

Yes. Contrary to what you wrote earlier, wages are paid as well as being received. What this has to do with 2 Corinthians 5:21 is not clear to me, but let that pass.[/QUOTE]

 

[taisto]

If you receive $1,000 as wages, does that mean you are paid $1,000, or that you need to pay $1,000?

@Martin Marprelate has explained it well in post #111 just above this post. I think he nailed it.

 

[Arthur King]

That is correct. What you said was
You have just conceded that you were (are) talking nonsense.
That is also correct.
I don't have Stott's book in front of me. If he wrote that, he was wrong. The Lord Jesus received sin's wages on our behalf. 'We all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one of us into his own way, and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' Penal substitution.

Yes. Contrary to what you wrote earlier, wages are paid as well as being received. What this has to do with 2 Corinthians 5:21 is not clear to me, but let that pass.

[/QUOTE]

When I say "Wages are not paid. They are received," I mean (and I think this is quite clear, but sorry if not) that my wages do not refer to money that I pay. It refers to money that I receive. Obviously, my employer paid the wages to me - but that is the whole point. God pays the wages of death/punishment to humanity - not the other way around.

I could have written "my wages are not something I pay. My wages are something I receive."

The Lord Jesus received sin's wages on our behalf.

Amen. The difference between Biblical atonement and penal substitution, though, is that "on our behalf" in the Bible is not substitutionary. It is not in our place so we don't suffer it. His death is with us and for our sake.

I am drowning in the river of death. Jesus jumps into the river, grabs me, and pulls me out. He was in the river of death with me and for my sake.

Only Jesus receives the wages of sin unjustly as an innocent party, and so justice requires those wages be returned - that death be reversed - hence the resurrection. The resurrection is divine justice reversing his unjust death. Jesus' death is not unique in that he dies. We all die and are in fact called to die with Christ. Jesus' death is unique in that he alone dies truly unjustly as an innocent and divine party, thereby his death merits the reversal of death, hence the resurrection.

See the following list of strong statements about Jesus' death that contradict penal substitution.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes! Earned. Not owed. So when Jesus suffers death, he is unjustly suffering something he has not earned, for he is sinless. Justice therefore demands that his wages be taken back, that death be reversed, hence the resurrection. Boom. You are getting it.

The resurrection is the divine reversal of the unjust human verdict. He was killed by the unjust judgment of humans, and raised by the just judgment of God. Justice satisfied in the resurrection as the reversal of his unjust death.

What you fail to understand is that it is God who killed the Lord Jesus. Mark 14:27, quoting Zechariah 13:7. 'For it is written, "I will strike the Shepherd."' Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him. He has put Him to grief.' I hope we can agree that whatever God does is just, and therefore the Lord Jesus was not unjustly killed. Wicked men killed Him without a cause, but they were doing exactly what God had decided should be done (Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28). The explanation for this is probably best expressed in Genesis 50:20. 'You [i.e. Jewish leaders, Herod, Pilate, Roman soldiers] meant evil against Me, but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.' I can conceive of nothing more wonderful than this: that God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, should willingly suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty for sin so that God might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus (Romans 3:26).

 

[Arthur King]

What you fail to understand is that it is God who killed the Lord Jesus. Mark 14:27, quoting Zechariah 13:7. 'For it is written, "I will strike the Shepherd."' Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him. He has put Him to grief.' I hope we can agree that whatever God does is just, and therefore the Lord Jesus was not unjustly killed. Wicked men killed Him without a cause, but they were doing exactly what God had decided should be done (Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28). The explanation for this is probably best expressed in Genesis 50:20. 'You [i.e. Jewish leaders, Herod, Pilate, Roman soldiers] meant evil against Me, but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.' I can conceive of nothing more wonderful than this: that God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, should willingly suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty for sin so that God might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus (Romans 3:26).

God ordains events in which injustices and sins take place without Himself being unjust or authoring sin.

Statements of God "striking" and "bruising" Jesus are not sufficient to show that God is justly punishing him. See places like Psalm 44.

We have not dealt falsely with Your covenant.
Our heart has not turned back,
And our steps have not deviated from Your way,
Yet You have crushed us in a place of jackals
And covered us with the shadow of death.

The language of God "crushing" and "covering with the shadow of death" is used of those who are innocent and unjustly suffering.

God "crushed" and "struck" Jesus in the same way he struck Abel, Stephen the Martyr, Joseph (your own example), Naboth, etc.
He "struck" them by ordaining that they would be unjustly killed. The writer of Hebrews says that we have been brought near to "Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. (Hebrews 12)" The blood of the covenant which has been shed is the blood of an innocent person who has been unjustly murdered, like Abel except better than Abel. Peter says that we were purchased with "with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ(1 Peter 1)" not guilty blood shed by just punishment or vengeance. All the emphasis is on the innocence and purity of the blood.

Only innocent deaths merit the reversal of death, and only Jesus can be the truly innocent party.

I can conceive of nothing more wonderful than this: that God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, should willingly suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty for sin so that God might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus (Romans 3:26)

I can conceive of something far more wonderful than that: the atonement that is actually in the Bible. The one that includes Jesus rising from the dead, which is nowhere in your post. That I was dead in my transgressions and sins, already a child of wrath (Eph 2). But Jesus was crucified so that I could be co-crucified with him (Gal 2). Though we were under the same sentence of condemnation and mine was just, his was unjust (Luke 23). Justice demanded the reversal of his unjust death, "The justice due to him was with God" (Isaiah 49:4) and he rose from death so that I could be raised with him, for he was "raised for our justification" (Romans 4).

 

[JonC]

This argument will not be resolved here.

People sometimes look at Christian history as the RCC with the Reformers leaving. But there were churches apart from the RCC.

These congregations supported the Reformation but then complained that the Reformers did not go far enough, that they did not go completely to Scripture but maintained a reformed RCC faith in several important areas.

For over Four centuries, ever since the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was articulated, these voices stood in opposition urging churches to abandon what they called "romish" doctrines and seek out God's Word.

Yet Penal Substitution Theory persists in a large minority of Christian churches. Tradition is difficult to sever, and I don't see it happening on this forum.

The best we can do is present our arguments and understand the opposing views.

This is not occurring here either. People are too quick to defend and too slow to listen and understand.

Take the time to understand how the Classic View handles sin. Take the time to understand how it necessitates the Cross. Read what pre-Reformation Christians wrote.

Grasp the view and then evaluate it. If you disagree with it argue knowing what you are arguing against.

 

[taisto]

This argument will not be resolved here.

People sometimes look at Christian history as the RCC with the Reformers leaving. But there were churches apart from the RCC.

These congregations supported the Reformation but then complained that the Reformers did not go far enough, that they did not go completely to Scripture but maintained a reformed RCC faith in several important areas.

For over Four centuries, ever since the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was articulated, these voices stood in opposition urging churches to abandon what they called "romish" doctrines and seek out God's Word.

Yet Penal Substitution Theory persists in a large minority of Christian churches. Tradition is difficult to sever, and I don't see it happening on this forum.

The best we can do is present our arguments and understand the opposing views.

This is not occurring here either. People are too quick to defend and too slow to listen and understand.

Take the time to understand how the Classic View handles sin. Take the time to understand how it necessitates the Cross. Read what pre-Reformation Christians wrote.

Grasp the view and then evaluate it. If you disagree with it argue knowing what you are arguing against.

Please stop with this. Everyone who has argued with you has stayed within scripture. You are the only one attempting to use history as your argument and in that realm you cannot define "traditional Christianity" even though you are the only one to use that term. Moreso you cannot tell us what your personal Christian tradition is. So, yes there is no resolution because you are flitting all over and providing nothing substantial in your commentaries.
Just stop, since you have nothing to say on the subject.

 

[JonC]

Please stop with this. Everyone who has argued with you has stayed within scripture. You are the only one attempting to use history as your argument and in that realm you cannot define "traditional Christianity" even though you are the only one to use that term. Moreso you cannot tell us what your personal Christian tradition is. So, yes there is no resolution because you are flitting all over and providing nothing substantial in your commentaries.
Just stop, since you have nothing to say on the subject.

Everyone has used Scripture. Not stayed with Scripture.

You asked what Christian traditions I was steeped in. I answered plainly.

Evangelical Baptist.
Calvinist.
Penal Substitution theorist.

Which of those do you not understand. Let me know and I will explain them to you.

I am steeped in the writings of John Calvin, John Owen, Charles Spurgeon, John Macarthur, John Piper, David Wells, and J.I. Packer.

I am a "biblicist" in that I believe essential doctrines, doctrines upon which we build other teachings, must be in the Word of God (in "what is written", the text).

I grew up attending a small Southern Baptist church in Marietta GA, moved to Nashville TN where I attended a Southern Baptist church, and recently to SC where I am a member of a Southern Baptist church.

I attended a Baptist college earning my Bachelor degree in Religion (Christianity) and attended a Baptist seminary earning my Master degrees in Theology.

I preached at churches within the Southern Baptist association and taught in Southern Baptist churches.

I celebrate Christmas with my family as a tradition, but my favorite is Resurrection Sunday (and the week leading up to it).

That is the tradition I am steeped in. That is where I come from.


What on earth do you not grasp about that?????

 

[taisto]

Everyone has used Scripture. Not stayed with Scripture.

You asked what Christian traditions I was steeped in. I answered plainly.

Evangelical Baptist.
Calvinist.
Penal Substitution theorist.

Which of those do you not understand. Let me know and I will explain them to you.

I am steeped in the writings of John Calvin, John Owen, Charles Spurgeon, John Macarthur, John Piper, David Wells, and J.I. Packer.

I am a "biblicist" in that I believe essential doctrines, doctrines upon which we build other teachings, must be in the Word of God (in "what is written", the text).

I grew up attending a small Southern Baptist church in Marietta GA, moved to Nashville TN where I attended a Southern Baptist church, and recently to SC where I am a member of a Southern Baptist church.

I attended a Baptist college earning my Bachelor degree in Religion (Christianity) and attended a Baptist seminary earning my Master degrees in Theology.

I preached at churches within the Southern Baptist association and taught in Southern Baptist churches.

I celebrate Christmas with my family as a tradition, but my favorite is Resurrection Sunday (and the week leading up to it).

That is the tradition I am steeped in. That is where I come from.


What on earth do you not grasp about that?????

So, that's your "traditional Christianity?"
Jon, everyone on the board is a biblicist or claims to be one.
So, in all the writing you have provided it ends up that you have nothing to support your claims against Christ as our substitute.

 

[JonC]

So, that's your "traditional Christianity?"
Jon, everyone on the board is a biblicist or claims to be one.
So, in all the writing you have provided it ends up that you have nothing to support your claims against Christ as our substitute.

Everyone claims to be a biblicist? Not really. You are not a biblicist. Your definition of "propitiation" proves that as it's an interpretation exceeding the definition of the word.

You did not ask about traditional Christianity. You asked what Christian traditions I was steeped in.

What I mean by "traditional Christianity" is the general view of Christians in the first centuries after the Resurrection.

Many things people believe don't fit into that category. The scope of the Atonement was not considered, for example, until Beza (after Calvin). The placement of salvation under the category of divine sovereignty was post Calvin. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was not articulated until the 16th Century. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism was not developed until late in Christian history. Catholic Theology did not begin until the late 4th Century and was not substantially formed until the 5th Century.

By traditional Christianiy, in the context of the Atonement, I am speaking of the "Classic View" which has Christ submitting Himself to suffer and die under the powers of darkness.

This was the Atonement motif until the late 11th Century - even in the Catholic Church. Anselm developed a view (Satisfaction Theory) which replaced the traditional view within Catholicism. In the mid-13th Century Aquinas revised the theory to Substitution and, of course, it was reformed to Penal Substitution Theory in the 16th Century.

But to answer your question, I am speaking of the "Classic View" - the Father was pleased to crush him, to give His own Son, Christ was made sin for us, Christ became a curse for us, Christ became like us in all points, Christ was obedient even to death in a cross, Christ submitted Himself to suffer and die under the powers of darkness authored by Satan as a direct result of human sin for us, and it is by His stripes we are healed, freed from the bondage of sin and death. This was Christ's solidarity with man so that we could share solidarity with Him.
That is what I mean by "traditional Christianity".