Biblical Penal Substitution

[JonShaff]

One thing I know beyond any doubt: if the Lord Jesus has not paid the penalty for my sins in full, I shall have to pay for them myself, and that I could never do though I spend an eternity in hell.

By Grace through Faith in Christ you have been made righteous. Christ paid for your sins on the cross. But to say the Father punished Him with the wrath of God is to go beyond what Scripture says. The Wrath of God is for the unrighteous. Where does it say Christ became unrighteous? Scripture does not say that. Matter of fact, because Christ remained fully righteous, that is Why God raised Him from the dead--a righteous man does not deserve to die.

 

[JonC]

But as I have pointed out, it can also mean instead of. If I pay a bill on your behalf, I pay it, you don't; I pay it instead of you.
If I am due to speak in court, a lawyer can do it on my behalf; he speaks, I don't. And so on and so on.

Perhaps it can also mean "instead of". I would argue that assuming it does is an error and we need to defend our interpretation either way.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for the post. I will take some time to evaluate the difference, if any, between Jesus dying “instead of us” and Jesus dying “for us” as it concerns the punishment for sin
and the wrath of God.

Perhaps you could explain why dying “for us” is distinctly tied to penal substitution Christus Victor and not penal substitution atonement?

peace to you

Thank you, brother.

I have to admit that this is a very difficult topic for me to discuss.

The reason it is hard is that I affirmed PSA for a long time and when I held that position I would then have quickly dismissed anything I would now say.

It is strange because I am under no illusion that I would have changed my former self's view much less anyone else's. But it is impossible for me to return to PSA from where I now stand. God is good.

 

[JonShaff]

I'm sorry; this is wrong. Because of what Christ has done on my behalf, I have eternal life - right now! "Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes My word and believes Him who sent Me has [right now] everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24; c.f. John 8:51-52). I have already died with Christ (Galatians 2:20; Colossians 3:3 etc.), and I have been raised with Him and am seated with Him in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:5-6 etc.). It is true that at some point I shall shuffle off this mortal coil, but I have eternal life right here and now, and I trust that you do also.

I disagree, absolutely. All sorts of people have died to save others, dying instead of them. That is what Christ has done.

This is true so far as it goes, but a soldier can die for his comrades, "in place of" them, and many have. Jesus Christ did not die for any particular country; He suffered and died for sinners - in their place, the place of punishment, instead of them.

One thing I know beyond any doubt: if the Lord Jesus has not paid the penalty for my sins in full, I shall have to pay for them myself, and that I could never do though I spend an eternity in hell.

Brother, I want to clarify. I agree about certain aspects of what you say here. Of course we have eternal life, right now, through the shed blood of Jesus Christ and His subsequent resurrection. And the Lord removed our iniquity and shame and guilt through His death and resurrection. And His imputed righteousness is because He is the just and justifier. There are just certain elements of PSA I do not agree with. Namely, God pouring out His wrath on His Son.

 

[Iconoclast]

I think we need to pause here a minute.
The preposition generally used and translated 'for' in the relevant passages is huper, which means 'on behalf of.' as in Galatians 2:20 and 3:13. for example Now if I buy pay a bill on your behalf (not likely to happen!), I pay it and you don't. If Christ suffers on our behalf, He suffers and we don't. That is substitution and if a penalty is involved, it is penal substitution. Let's look at Galatians 3:13. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for [Gk. huper] us.' He becomes a curse and we don't. That's penal substitution.

There are some places where the preposition anti is used. It tends to mean 'over against' or 'instead of.' Luke 11:11. '...Will he for [Gk. anti. 'instead of''] a fish give him a serpent?' Now look at Mark 10:45 or Matthew 20:28. '.....And give His life a ransom for [Gk. anti] many.' The ransom is paid to God's justice. Christ pays it; we don't. Penal Substitution.

There are several other Greek prepositions translated 'for' but I think these two are the most important.

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

It was a substitutionary Covenant death requiring a surety.

 

[JonShaff]

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

It was a substitutionary Covenant death requiring a surety.

Sort of...

Hebrews 9:15-22
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Substitutionary? Maybe. The covenant of the Father to the Son and also God to Abraham wasn’t based on substitution, but promise. Redemptive, yes!

 

[Iconoclast]

Sort of...

Hebrews 9:15-22
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Substitutionary? Maybe. The covenant of the Father to the Son and also God to Abraham wasn’t based on substitution, but promise. Redemptive, yes!

Surety...mediator, was based on substitution....strict substitution and guarantee
2 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Surety
SURETY

shoor'-ti:

This word is used in three different connections or groups:

(1) As a derivative of the word "sure" it means "of a certainty" or "surely."--In Genesis 15:13 the infinitive absolute of the verb is used to give emphasis to the idea of the verb and is rendered "of a surety." In Genesis 18:13 the Hebrew 'omnam is translated "of a surety." In Genesis 26:9 'akh is similarly rendered, and has the force of our "indeed." In Acts 12:11 alethos, is translated in the King James Version "of a surety," but better in the Revised Version (British and American) "of a truth."

(2) In the sense of security or pledge for a person.--This means that one person may become security for another, that such a one will do a certain thing at a time in the future. Judah was "surety" to his father Jacob that Benjamin would safely return from Egypt (Genesis 43:9). He pledged his life that the younger brother would return safely. He tells Joseph (Genesis 44:32) how he had become surety for Benjamin, and offers to become Joseph's slave for the sake of his brother. Job says (Job 17:3), "Give now a pledge, be surety for me with thyself; who is there that will strike hands with me?" The striking of hands refers to the action or gesture by which the surety or pledge was publicly manifested and thus ratified. Job here beseeches God to become surety for him, to pledge him that some time in the future He will cause Job's innocence to be made known and be acknowledged by God Himself. In Isaiah 38:14 Hezekiah says, "O Lord, I am oppressed, be thou my surety." He wishes God to give him a pledge of some kind, to go security for him in such a way that he will surely be saved out of his sickness and distress. Jesus is called "the surety (egguos) of a better covenant" (Hebrews 7:22). Jesus is the pledge or surety that through Him we may obtain the assurance and certainty that a more excellent covenant has been established by God, and are assured also of the truth of the promises connected with it.

(3) It is used to describe the practice of going security for another by striking hands with that person and becoming responsible for money or any object loaned.--The Book of Proverbs unhesitatingly condemns the practice. No mention is made of it in the Mosaic Law, as if the custom were then practically unknown. The Book of Proverbs makes no distinction between a stranger and a neighbor; the person who does such a thing is likened unto an animal caught in a trap. He is exhorted to sleep no more until he has got out of the trap, or freed himself from this obligation (Proverbs 6:1-5). The wisdom of such advice has been abundantly verified by experience. It does not necessarily preclude certain special cases, where the practice may be justified. The international relationships of the Jews in the period of the monarchy, together with the unsettled condition of the country (Nehemiah 5:3) and people, needed such commercial strictness. Their trade was mostly in the hands of the Phoenicians and other foreigners, and the pressure of taxation for the payment of foreign tribute, etc., was heavy (Nehemiah 5:4). Proverbs 11:15; 17:18 declare one "void of understanding" who thus goes security for another. Proverbs 20:16 seems to contain an exclamation of contemptuous rebuke for the man who goes security. Proverbs 22:26; 27:13 contain like admonitions.


At the White Throne Judgment, what happens to those with no mediator, or surety?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Great post, @Iconoclast
In the Scriptures we have the concept of the mediator, one who might fill up the gap between the outraged holiness of God and rebellious man (Isaiah 59:2). Job complained, “For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us who may lay his hand on us both.” But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party. We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly agrees to provide. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5).

Equally interesting is the concept of a Surety or Guarantor. I don't know whether this happens in the USA, but in Britain house prices are so ludicrously high that many young people cannot get a mortgage. So their parents become guarantors for them, promising that, if their child fails to make the payments, they will guarantee them. So if your son or daughter reneges on the mortgage, the bank will come after you for the money - all that is owing. Never mind if you have led a life of faultless financial rectitude up to that point, you are regarded as if you are the defaulter rather than your offspring, and you must pay what is owing down to the last penny.

So it is with the Lord Jesus; He has become our Surety, and we are utterly bankrupt before God. We have not led the life of perfect righteousness that the law demands (Deuteronomy 27:26; James 2:10), and there is nothing with which we can make restitution (Isaiah 64:6). But the Lord Jesus has done everything necessary to pay our debts and reconcile us to God. He has lived the life of perfect righteousness and obedience that we cannot live, and which qualifies Him as a perfect acceptable sacrifice (Leviticus 1:3 etc., etc.) and He has paid the penalty that we were due to pay in full instead of us. So now:

'When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see His face
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Saviour died,
My sinful soul is counted free;
Foe God the Just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Christus Victor views the Father as offering the Son to the world to suffer and die under the powers of darkness (sharing in our infirmity rather than taking our infirmity instead of us) and freeing us from the bonds of those powers with the Father justifying Christ in the resurrection

May I ask, on what basis the Father frees us from the bonds of those powers? Christ has died; so what?
Also, just so that I know, do you follow Gustav Aulen's views on Christus Victor?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

By Grace through Faith in Christ you have been made righteous. Christ paid for your sins on the cross. But to say the Father punished Him with the wrath of God is to go beyond what Scripture says. The Wrath of God is for the unrighteous. Where does it say Christ became unrighteous? Scripture does not say that. Matter of fact, because Christ remained fully righteous, that is Why God raised Him from the dead--a righteous man does not deserve to die.

May I ask you to read posts #48 and #49? Christ is our Surety. Our debts, our sins, became His. He was 'made sin for us.' He was morally innocent, but judicially guilty.

 

[JonC]

May I ask, on what basis the Father frees us from the bonds of those powers? Christ has died; so what?
Also, just so that I know, do you follow Gustav Aulen's views on Christus Victor?

I believe God frees us on the basis of having become flesh and gaining victory over the bonds of sin and death. I believe this literally the righteousness of God apart from the law.

Christ became flesh and shared in our infirmity under the curse. He was crushed under the powers of sin and death (the powers of this world's). But He was resurrected and rose victorious. We are saved in Him. Not from death but through death. We die to sin and death, and our flesh dies. But we have newness of life.

The cross is absolutely necessary as it is the crux of the powers of darkness, of sin and death, of evil, coming down on Christ as He became a curse for us. Christ had to die the death of a sinner, to share in our iniquities and submit to the evil, the powers of this world. Having not sinned Christ became sin for us. Our hope is in the resurrection, that in Christ we will die (in the flesh) but we are made alive in the Spirit. In a way, you could look at this as a new creation and Christ the Firstborn.

I do not follow Gustav Aulen's position, but at the same time I cannot explain where I would part because I have never studied Gustav Aulén. Coming from a PSA background I just never got around to reading his material. I will put that on my list of things to do.

In terms of Christus Victor (I do not necessarily agree with their theologies as a whole) I would affirm a position akin to Kraybill, Boyd, C.S. Lewis and Wright (probably closer to Wright).

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate ,

Maybe this will help explain my position a little better: Coming from a PSA background I can understand how it would be difficult for those who hold that view to see how Christus Victor is absolutely dependent on Cross and the blood Christ shed for us.

I do not believe that Christ came to undo the wages of sin (I do not believe that this is undone). Instead I see Christ as making a better way. Christ “shared in our infirmity” and suffered “under the curse” not so that we wouldn’t but to free us from its bondage.

The difference is where PSA sees Christ as suffering instead of us so that we will not, Christus Victor sees Christ as suffering the same fate but being freed in that suffering (death no longer has the sting it once had).

A major difference is what we consider “death” here and what we consider “the wrath to come”.

I view death as the wages of sin to be a physical death based on Adam’s transgression. In Adam we have all sinned. I see this as an inditement on mankind.

But I view the “wrath to come” to be the “second death”, and rather than centered on Adam’s transgression I believe this is centered on Christ and His judgment.


I hope this helps.

 

[JonShaff]

May I ask you to read posts #48 and #49? Christ is our Surety. Our debts, our sins, became His. He was 'made sin for us.' He was morally innocent, but judicially guilty.

He didn't become "sin for us", he became a "sin offering" . I'll check those posts out, thanks!

 

[JonShaff]

Also, for the record, there are elements of PSA that are true--i am not denying the parts that are True and Biblical. I'm denying the part that says "God poured out His wrath on His Son."

 

[Iconoclast]

He didn't become "sin for us", he became a "sin offering" . I'll check those posts out, thanks!

Maybe you are forgetting about 2 cor5:21.

 

[Iconoclast]

May I ask you to read posts #48 and #49? Christ is our Surety. Our debts, our sins, became His. He was 'made sin for us.' He was morally innocent, but judicially guilty.

It seems as if some are saying Jesus could have died in a nursing home as a consequence of sin and death. As long as he rose victorious.....

 

[JonShaff]

Maybe you are forgetting about 2 cor5:21.

No, i'm not forgetting it--Paul's talking about Christ becoming a sin OFFERING--the NLT even expresses that. Paul's context (Ch. 3-5) is talking about the better Covenant--and then Paul finishes up with talking about being reconciled to the Father and that is through the Sin offering--Isaiah 53 says that as well--which Paul is probably referencing:

Isaiah 53:10 and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,

I know you guys know better than to take ONE obscure passage and make a doctrine out of it. Christ didn't become sin, that is ludicrous. Christ became a sin offering, to reconcile us to God.

 

[JonShaff]

It seems as if some are saying Jesus could have died in a nursing home as a consequence of sin and death. As long as he rose victorious.....

That's quite the caricature, brother.

 

[JonC]

Maybe you are forgetting about 2 cor5:21.

Not speaking for @JonShaff , but if we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture (which I believe is proper) then 2 Corinthians 5:21 is not the first passage that presents God as sending His Son as a sin offering for us.

One issue here is that no one - not even you - is taking the passage to mean that Christ literally "became sin" (that Christ literally became evil and rebellious towards God).

 

[Iconoclast]

That's quite the caricature, brother.

Why do you think it is a caricature?
The penalty of the broken law and Gods wrath being poured out seems to not enter in to these other suggested ideas.
Men are under the law of God.
There is a penalty for breaking the law.
This idea of sin and death holding some random power over men, as if the fall has not taken place, is not found.
Unsaved people receive Gods wrath without mercy. They are cast into hell,eternally separated from life.