Biblical Penal Substitution

[Martin Marprelate]

In Romans Paul says that God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh as an offering for sin.

That is what I believe.

Without agreeing with you, may I ask what you think it means that the Lord Jesus was made a sin offering?

 

[JonC]

Without agreeing with you, may I ask what you think it means that the Lord Jesus was made a sin offering?

I believe this is the same as saying that Christ redeemed us from the curse having become a curse for us, Christ shared in our infirmity. The Father sent the Son, but at the same time the Son set aside His own glory to become as one of us.

The description of "sin offering" is simply looking at the aspect of the Father sending or offering the Son - or the Son laying down His own life - to redeem us from our sins.

I think that this also is related to Christ set forth as a Propitiation (as a "propitiation" is a "sin offering" that turns aside wrath; it is a sin offering with wrath in mind).

If it helps clarify things, @Martin Marprelate , I do not think that using the term "sin offering" is what separates our view. I know that you would agree that God set forth Christ as a Propitiation, and that Christ lay down His life for our sins, etc.

I think the difference does have to do with what was accomplished at the cross (we both agree it was redemption, but how that redemption was accomplished).

 

[JonShaff]

Without agreeing with you, may I ask what you think it means that the Lord Jesus was made a sin offering?

I know this isn't directed to me, but i'd like to offer what Hebrews speaks concerning this, particularly Hebrews 10.

Especially Hebrews 10:8-10

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

[Yeshua1]

I know this isn't directed to me, but i'd like to offer what Hebrews speaks concerning this, particularly Hebrews 10.

Especially Hebrews 10:8-10

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Yes, His sustutionary death in our stead!

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe this is the same as saying that Christ redeemed us from the curse having become a curse for us, Christ shared in our infirmity. The Father sent the Son, but at the same time the Son set aside His own glory to become as one of us.

The description of "sin offering" is simply looking at the aspect of the Father sending or offering the Son - or the Son laying down His own life - to redeem us from our sins.

I think that this also is related to Christ set forth as a Propitiation (as a "propitiation" is a "sin offering" that turns aside wrath; it is a sin offering with wrath in mind).

If it helps clarify things, @Martin Marprelate , I do not think that using the term "sin offering" is what separates our view. I know that you would agree that God set forth Christ as a Propitiation, and that Christ lay down His life for our sins, etc.

I think the difference does have to do with what was accomplished at the cross (we both agree it was redemption, but how that redemption was accomplished).

When Jesus became as one of us, did he have the same nature we have as sinners? And hw is wrath appeased by a Holy God in he has no one to direct that upon in judgement against sins?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe this is the same as saying that Christ redeemed us from the curse having become a curse for us, Christ shared in our infirmity. The Father sent the Son, but at the same time the Son set aside His own glory to become as one of us.

The description of "sin offering" is simply looking at the aspect of the Father sending or offering the Son - or the Son laying down His own life - to redeem us from our sins.

I think that this also is related to Christ set forth as a Propitiation (as a "propitiation" is a "sin offering" that turns aside wrath; it is a sin offering with wrath in mind).

I am spending some of my time looking at the various offerings of Leviticus 1-5. I have by no means finished my studies yet; when I do so I may post a new thread, but I will just draw attention to some of the particularities of the sin offering and the trespass offering.
I take it that we may agree that all five offerings speak of the Lord Jesus Christ and that each one presents a different aspect of His work on the cross. Almost the first thing I have noticed is that the first three offerings are described as 'a sweet aroma to the LORD' (Leviticus 1:17; 2:9; 3:5). But when we come to the sin and trespass offerings, no such description is given. Christ as a sin offering is not a sweet aroma to the LORD.

And where the peace offering could be offered to the Lord as food (Leviticus 3:11), the sin offering was taken outside of the camp and burned (Leviticus 4:12, 21). 'For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate' (Hebrews 13:11-12). God is of purer eyes than to behold evil. Therefore the sin offering was taken outside the camp where God dwelt in the Tabernacle.

More later as I continue my studies.

 

[Salty]

Six hour notice
This thread will close no sooner than 8 pm EDT/ 5 pm PST

 

[JonShaff]

Yes, His sustutionary death in our stead!

We could never be a sin offering--therefore He wasn't a sin offering in our stead, He was a sin offering for our benefit. Let me know if i need to clarify that for you.

 

[Yeshua1]

We could never be a sin offering--therefore He wasn't a sin offering in our stead, He was a sin offering for our benefit. Let me know if i need to clarify that for you.

He died in my place, receiving in and on Him what I was due for being a sinner!

 

[JonC]

I am spending some of my time looking at the various offerings of Leviticus 1-5. I have by no means finished my studies yet; when I do so I may post a new thread, but I will just draw attention to some of the particularities of the sin offering and the trespass offering.
I take it that we may agree that all five offerings speak of the Lord Jesus Christ and that each one presents a different aspect of His work on the cross. Almost the first thing I have noticed is that the first three offerings are described as 'a sweet aroma to the LORD' (Leviticus 1:17; 2:9; 3:5). But when we come to the sin and trespass offerings, no such description is given. Christ as a sin offering is not a sweet aroma to the LORD.

And where the peace offering could be offered to the Lord as food (Leviticus 3:11), the sin offering was taken outside of the camp and burned (Leviticus 4:12, 21). 'For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate' (Hebrews 13:11-12). God is of purer eyes than to behold evil. Therefore the sin offering was taken outside the camp where God dwelt in the Tabernacle.

More later as I continue my studies.

I believe that the sacrificial system points to Christ's work, but it does not define it. The same is true with Passover, where sin was not even addressed. There is so much truth conveyed through these types (to include the Tabernacle itself).

Per the topic of this thread, I do believe that there is biblical penal substitution (these are the things, I think, that we agree on). But I do not believe PSA is biblical penal substitution. The reason is PSA exchanges "the powers of darkness", the "bondage of sin and death", the"principles of this age", etc. with "God" when compared to other views of Atonement. I understand the reasoning but I disagree.

That is one reason I reject the idea that the truth is an amalgamation of all of the views of reconciliation. Some say PSA and Christus Victor just look at the Cross from a different angle. But they are (I think you will agree) at odds with each other because of how they define redemption itself.

This is an interesting discussion. Too bad it's about to end .

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe that the sacrificial system points to Christ's work, but it does not define it.

With respect, you are the one talking about Christ being a sin offering. I don't know where we go to define the term without going to .........the sin offering. Otherwise it seems to me that we're just making it up as we go along.

The same is true with Passover, where sin was not even addressed.

Really?? 'Indeed, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us' (1 Corinthians 5:7)

There is so much truth conveyed through these types (to include the Tabernacle itself)

Indeed.

 

[Arthur King]

I believe that the sacrificial system points to Christ's work, but it does not define it. The same is true with Passover, where sin was not even addressed. There is so much truth conveyed through these types (to include the Tabernacle itself).

Per the topic of this thread, I do believe that there is biblical penal substitution (these are the things, I think, that we agree on). But I do not believe PSA is biblical penal substitution. The reason is PSA exchanges "the powers of darkness", the "bondage of sin and death", the"principles of this age", etc. with "God" when compared to other views of Atonement. I understand the reasoning but I disagree.

That is one reason I reject the idea that the truth is an amalgamation of all of the views of reconciliation. Some say PSA and Christus Victor just look at the Cross from a different angle. But they are (I think you will agree) at odds with each other because of how they define redemption itself.

This is an interesting discussion. Too bad it's about to end .

Bummed that I am just seeing this discussion now. A few things I would point out based on what I am seeing in the discussion:

The Sacrificial system - the Old Testament sacrificial system does not present penal substitution for several reasons. Notice first that it is always the sinner himself, not a representative of the justice system, that slays the sacrifice, just as it is sinners that slay Jesus on the cross. In sacrifices that deal with sin, the shed blood of the innocent sacrifice purifies the sinner from his corruption, thus saving him from suffering wrath in order to eliminate his corruption. In other words, when someone sins, they become a source of corruption and must be eliminated through exile or execution, OR they must be purified from corruption by the shed blood of the unblemished sacrifice. The shed blood of the innocent sacrifice somehow functions as a purifying agent, reversing or cleansing corruption, which is why all the stuff in the temple is sprinkled with blood. So yes, the sacrifice does die in order to avert wrath from the sinner/offerer, but the sacrifice does not suffer the wrath as a substitute. Propitiation just means wrath aversion, it does not mean "wrath displacement" as penal substitution would have it.

Passover - Notice that the function of the Passover lamb is not to suffer the wrath of God, but to avert the wrath of God. If it were penal substitution, then the Israelites should tie up the lamb outside the house for the night so that the angel of death would kill the lamb instead of the firstborn of the household, but that is not what happens. Keep in mind, as Exodus 4:22 says, the reason the firstborn of Egypt were under judgment that night was that God's firstborn son, Israel, was "put to death" by the Egyptians (put in bondage to slavery and had their children killed). The Passover lamb marked the Israelites as those innocents who had suffered bloodshed at the hands of the Egyptians. The angel of death passes over, because those with the blood on their homes are those to be avenged, not those who deserve vengeance. For an Israelite not to put blood on their home was to say that they sided with the oppressor, not with the oppressed.

Romans 3:25 - The righteousness of God demonstrated here is His faithfulness to His promise to bless all nations through Israel (Genesis 12:3). The "propitiation" achieved is that through Jesus' death and resurrection, God is bringing about the end of exile (to sin and death) both for Israel and for all of humanity. God's "forbearance in passing over the sins previously committed" is not His withholding punishment from sin. That is an impossible reading of the text, given Israel's history of being under the foot of foreign empires for 500 years, as well as texts such as Isaiah 51:17 and Daniel 9:11 that say Israel has "drained the cup of God's wrath to the dregs" and "the curse along with the oath have been poured out on us." Rather, God's forbearance refers to His seeming delay in allowing Israel's own wickedness to be an obstacle to His blessing going forth to the nations. This is ended when the perfectly obedient Jesus enters into Israel (and humanity's) exile on the cross, to pull them out of it by His resurrection.

 

[JonC]

Bummed that I am just seeing this discussion now. A few things I would point out based on what I am seeing in the discussion:

The Sacrificial system - the Old Testament sacrificial system does not present penal substitution for several reasons. Notice first that it is always the sinner himself, not a representative of the justice system, that slays the sacrifice, just as it is sinners that slay Jesus on the cross. In sacrifices that deal with sin, the shed blood of the innocent sacrifice purifies the sinner from his corruption, thus saving him from suffering wrath in order to eliminate his corruption. In other words, when someone sins, they become a source of corruption and must be eliminated through exile or execution, OR they must be purified from corruption by the shed blood of the unblemished sacrifice. The shed blood of the innocent sacrifice somehow functions as a purifying agent, reversing or cleansing corruption, which is why all the stuff in the temple is sprinkled with blood. So yes, the sacrifice does die in order to avert wrath from the sinner/offerer, but the sacrifice does not suffer the wrath as a substitute. Propitiation just means wrath aversion, it does not mean "wrath displacement" as penal substitution would have it.

Passover - Notice that the function of the Passover lamb is not to suffer the wrath of God, but to avert the wrath of God. If it were penal substitution, then the Israelites should tie up the lamb outside the house for the night so that the angel of death would kill the lamb instead of the firstborn of the household, but that is not what happens. Keep in mind, as Exodus 4:22 says, the reason the firstborn of Egypt were under judgment that night was that God's firstborn son, Israel, was "put to death" by the Egyptians (put in bondage to slavery and had their children killed). The Passover lamb marked the Israelites as those innocents who had suffered bloodshed at the hands of the Egyptians. The angel of death passes over, because those with the blood on their homes are those to be avenged, not those who deserve vengeance. For an Israelite not to put blood on their home was to say that they sided with the oppressor, not with the oppressed.

Romans 3:25 - The righteousness of God demonstrated here is His faithfulness to His promise to bless all nations through Israel (Genesis 12:3). The "propitiation" achieved is that through Jesus' death and resurrection, God is bringing about the end of exile (to sin and death) both for Israel and for all of humanity. God's "forbearance in passing over the sins previously committed" is not His withholding punishment from sin. That is an impossible reading of the text, given Israel's history of being under the foot of foreign empires for 500 years, as well as texts such as Isaiah 51:17 and Daniel 9:11 that say Israel has "drained the cup of God's wrath to the dregs" and "the curse along with the oath have been poured out on us." Rather, God's forbearance refers to His seeming delay in allowing Israel's own wickedness to be an obstacle to His blessing going forth to the nations. This is ended when the perfectly obedient Jesus enters into Israel (and humanity's) exile on the cross, to pull them out of it by His resurrection.

Outstanding observations.

There is so much to explore and we have not really even gotten off the ground. I'm sure another opportunity will arise.

 

[JonC]

Bummed that I am just seeing this discussion now. A few things I would point out based on what I am seeing in the discussion:

The Sacrificial system - the Old Testament sacrificial system does not present penal substitution for several reasons. Notice first that it is always the sinner himself, not a representative of the justice system, that slays the sacrifice, just as it is sinners that slay Jesus on the cross. In sacrifices that deal with sin, the shed blood of the innocent sacrifice purifies the sinner from his corruption, thus saving him from suffering wrath in order to eliminate his corruption. In other words, when someone sins, they become a source of corruption and must be eliminated through exile or execution, OR they must be purified from corruption by the shed blood of the unblemished sacrifice. The shed blood of the innocent sacrifice somehow functions as a purifying agent, reversing or cleansing corruption, which is why all the stuff in the temple is sprinkled with blood. So yes, the sacrifice does die in order to avert wrath from the sinner/offerer, but the sacrifice does not suffer the wrath as a substitute. Propitiation just means wrath aversion, it does not mean "wrath displacement" as penal substitution would have it.

Passover - Notice that the function of the Passover lamb is not to suffer the wrath of God, but to avert the wrath of God. If it were penal substitution, then the Israelites should tie up the lamb outside the house for the night so that the angel of death would kill the lamb instead of the firstborn of the household, but that is not what happens. Keep in mind, as Exodus 4:22 says, the reason the firstborn of Egypt were under judgment that night was that God's firstborn son, Israel, was "put to death" by the Egyptians (put in bondage to slavery and had their children killed). The Passover lamb marked the Israelites as those innocents who had suffered bloodshed at the hands of the Egyptians. The angel of death passes over, because those with the blood on their homes are those to be avenged, not those who deserve vengeance. For an Israelite not to put blood on their home was to say that they sided with the oppressor, not with the oppressed.

Romans 3:25 - The righteousness of God demonstrated here is His faithfulness to His promise to bless all nations through Israel (Genesis 12:3). The "propitiation" achieved is that through Jesus' death and resurrection, God is bringing about the end of exile (to sin and death) both for Israel and for all of humanity. God's "forbearance in passing over the sins previously committed" is not His withholding punishment from sin. That is an impossible reading of the text, given Israel's history of being under the foot of foreign empires for 500 years, as well as texts such as Isaiah 51:17 and Daniel 9:11 that say Israel has "drained the cup of God's wrath to the dregs" and "the curse along with the oath have been poured out on us." Rather, God's forbearance refers to His seeming delay in allowing Israel's own wickedness to be an obstacle to His blessing going forth to the nations. This is ended when the perfectly obedient Jesus enters into Israel (and humanity's) exile on the cross, to pull them out of it by His resurrection.

Outstanding observations.

There is so much to explore and we have not really even gotten off the ground. I'm sure another opportunity will arise.

 

[JonC]

With respect, you are the one talking about Christ being a sin offering. I don't know where we go to define the term without going to .........the sin offering. Otherwise it seems to me that we're just making it up as we go along.

Really?? 'Indeed, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us' (1 Corinthians 5:7)

Indeed.

Really. Describe for me the Passover.

 

[Particular]

Pretty sure if it takes multiple threads for JonC to try explain his theory...the issue here is one of straining gnats.
John, it's highly doubtful that God's atonement for sinners is not nearly as complicated and strained as these threads have become.
Suffice it for us to state that Jesus has made us holy by His atoning sacrifice for our sins.

 

[JonC]

Pretty sure if it takes multiple threads for JonC to try explain his theory...the issue here is one of straining gnats.
John, it's highly doubtful that God's atonement for sinners is not nearly as complicated and strained as these threads have become.
Suffice it for us to state that Jesus has made us holy by His atoning sacrifice for our sins.

If it is straining gnats then as far as you can tell we hold the exact same view, or close enough.

Why did you think that this thread was an explanation of my view?

I certainly hope (and pray) that both of our views would encompass more than one thread if discussion.

Maybe I will start one. Maybe not.

 

[Yeshua1]

Pretty sure if it takes multiple threads for JonC to try explain his theory...the issue here is one of straining gnats.
John, it's highly doubtful that God's atonement for sinners is not nearly as complicated and strained as these threads have become.
Suffice it for us to state that Jesus has made us holy by His atoning sacrifice for our sins.

I still do not understand how non PST atonement views deal with the wrath of God?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Really. Describe for me the Passover.

God comes in judgement; the Israelites sacrifice a lamb and daub its blood on the doorposts, and the judgement passes over them. The clue is in the name really. See Micah 7:18. The lamb, of course, only served for one Israelite household. Jesus is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

In the face of the iniquity of Israel, God later declares, 'I will not pass by [or 'over'] them anymore' (Amos 7:8).

 

[JonC]

God comes in judgement; the Israelites sacrifice a lamb and daub its blood on the doorposts, and the judgement passes over them. The clue is in the name really. See Micah 7:18. The lamb, of course, only served for one Israelite household. Jesus is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

In the face of the iniquity of Israel, God later declares, 'I will not pass by [or 'over'] them anymore' (Amos 7:8).

Jesus is the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.

But the Passover was not an atonement for sins. The lamb died to free Israel from bondage in Egypt. Likewise we see this image when it comes to the bondage of sin and death. The Passover was not about Israel's sin. It was not about Egypt's sin. It was about God's glory in freeing Israel from its bonds.