Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ? 2

[The Archangel]

This depends. Generally punishment is defined as "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense." In the military we had non-punitive discipline. It sure felt like punishment, but it wasn't (or so the government says).

When it comes to "punishment" or "chastisement" we could be using the same word for different things. For example, punishment for sin (i.e., you steal a candy bar you get a whoppin) is simple punishment (in fact, it is simple retributive punishment). But punishment can also be "satisfaction punishment". Here the punishment is not for the crime committed (neither retributive nor simple punishment) but satisfies the demands against the guilty party (typically when what was rendered outweighs the value of what would have been demanded).

So we have to distinguish three things -

1. Is the sacrifice of the animal actually a punishment inflicted upon the animal? Do we punish a cow when we slaughter it? Are hunters punishing the animals they hunt?

2. If it is punishment then is it simple punishment (the animal suffers the punishment the people would have received, i.e., had they not offered the sacrifice then their throats would have been slit?

3. Or is it satisfaction punishment, i.e., the punishment is not the punishment the people would have received but in some way it has satisfied the demands against the people.

OK... Good questions!

1. The sacrificial animal is punished. A cow or a deer (being shot by a hunter) is not. But the cow and the deer are not being brought for the express purpose of sacrifice. In the same way, a lamb being eaten by an Israelite family for food on some random Wednesday evening is not a sacrifice and is not punished.

So, the event--the sacrifice--is the definer (if you will) of punishment. When a lamb is brought for the purpose of sacrifice (ie. a sin offering), it is understood the lamb is a substitute.

2. Yes. But, the means of punishment (death) may be different. The sacrificial system deals, ultimately, with the sin(s) of the people of Israel. The idea presented in Scripture is that the life is in the blood and the blood is spilled in substitution for a person or persons: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." (Leviticus 17:11 ESV) It is interesting that blood is spilled to make atonement for the souls of Israelites.

3. We are told in Hebrews that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin; but we are also told that the blood of bulls and goats does make atonement. The apparent contradiction is solved by Romans 3 when Paul tells us God passed over sins and Christ was therefore necessary as a Propitiation.

Now, the idea was simply satisfaction punishment, it could be argued that Christ's sacrifice was not needed. But Paul makes it clear that it was needed precisely because the justice of God had not been satisfied in the sins He had passed over.

It is almost as if God had a "credit card" and the sins "atoned for" by the sacrificial system (and Abraham's sins, etc.) were placed on that credit card and the bill was paid in Christ on the cross. This is precisely why Paul's use of the word "Propitiation" is so important. To Paul in Romans 3 the righteousness of God is called into question by passing over those sins. So, for God to be "Just" sin must be punished. Paul's use of Propitiation carries that weight--punishment, wrath being poured out, etc. so that God's wrath is averted.

See... If God can simply avert the sins of man without wrath being poured out against that sin(s), He isn't righteous or just. Paul's use of Propitiation seeks to show that wrath is poured out (and satisfied) on Christ. Without that happening, the justice and righteousness of God is still in question.

The Archangel

 

[Squire Robertsson]

In consideration of the heat, this thread is generating, I am posting this early:
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 7 PM Pacific.

 

[JonC]

We arrive at the same disagreement when applied to the OT sacrifices as we hold towards the Cross.

1. The sacrificial animal is punished. A cow or a deer (being shot by a hunter) is not. But the cow and the deer are not being brought for the express purpose of sacrifice. In the same way, a lamb being eaten by an Israelite family for food on some random Wednesday evening is not a sacrifice and is not punished.

So, the event--the sacrifice--is the definer (if you will) of punishment. When a lamb is brought for the purpose of sacrifice (ie. a sin offering), it is understood the lamb is a substitute

Here I believe that the event is the actual offering (not the killing of the animal itself, which depending on the offering may be the individual Israelite or the priest). So I focus on the giving being the offering – the putting forth of the slain animal

2. Yes. But, the means of punishment (death) may be different. The sacrificial system deals, ultimately, with the sin(s) of the people of Israel. The idea presented in Scripture is that the life is in the blood and the blood is spilled in substitution for a person or persons: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." (Leviticus 17:11 ESV) It is interesting that blood is spilled to make atonement for the souls of Israelites.

I agree that the blood is a vital aspect of the atonement, for without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

3. We are told in Hebrews that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin; but we are also told that the blood of bulls and goats does make atonement. The apparent contradiction is solved by Romans 3 when Paul tells us God passed over sins and Christ was therefore necessary as a Propitiation.

I believe that the difference is that the OT sacrifices were a temporary system that looked to the fuller realization of the Cross, and even in the OT it was less the act than it was faithful obedience to God. The sins were passed over until the New Covenant.

Now, the idea was simply satisfaction punishment, it could be argued that Christ's sacrifice was not needed

On the surface some have indeed tried to make that argument, but it is a failed one. The argument for a satisfaction punishment is that Christ laying down His life and God putting His Son forth as a propitiation in and of itself more than satisfies the demands against man. The reason death is necessary is that Christ came as man, under the curse, to redeem mankind from the curse and free us from the bondage of sin and death. Consider Luther’s argument that Christ’s death was necessary to outweigh the sin and wrath that stood against us.

Christ’s death was necessary so that we could be forgiven. Jesus is God, and therefore He has the right to forgive sins as He is the most offended. He, however, had to become one of us completely – to suffer death – in order to be our Mediator, our High Priest (Hebrews 5).

See... If God can simply avert the sins of man without wrath being poured out against that sin(s), He isn't righteous or just. Paul's use of Propitiation seeks to show that wrath is poured out (and satisfied) on Christ. Without that happening, the justice and righteousness of God is still in question.

There are a few assumptions here with which I find objection. First is the presupposition that this is how God’s justice works. I do not believe that my sin created a debt that had to be paid regardless as to who paid it. Sin simply does not work that way. By this I mean the focus of God’s wrath is against unrighteousness – the context being unrighteous men, not unrighteous actions. Second, if God were to accept as payment for mankind a sum of eternally more worth than all men ever created, then we can’t say God acted unjustly. If, for example, I owe you $10 and TCassidy gives you a gold bar worth 10K on my behalf it would be unjust for you to still demand of me or TCassidy the $10.

More importantly, however, is that I believe that the wages of sin is physical death. I do not believe that Jesus had to suffer God's wrath in order for God's wrath to be satisfied. Instead He had to suffer death so that He could give us life.

That said, I stood where you once stand. I don't know if you were around before, but I taught the Theory of Penal Substitution fairly strongly in the past. So I understand your arguments very well. Even if you don't see it, my position does necessitate the Cross - only for different reasons.

Jon

 

[JonC]

Please guys...

This thread is about to close...

The very last thing we need to is to start another Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement thread.

We can just move to this one:

The Curse of Galatians 3:10-14 and Penal Substitution

 

[The Archangel]

We arrive at the same disagreement when applied to the OT sacrifices as we hold towards the Cross.

Neither of us is surprised by this, right?

Here I believe that the event is the actual offering (not the killing of the animal itself, which depending on the offering may be the individual Israelite or the priest). So I focus on the giving being the offering – the putting forth of the slain animalI agree that the blood is a vital aspect of the atonement, for without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

I'm just dealing with this now because I'm short on time.

If this is the case, then why do we see God's absolute insistence on blood? Of course it is as you say "without shedding... no forgiveness." However, the shedding of blood is described in a life-for-life kind of way and, as such, substitution is unmistakable.

But, please, explain your above quote further so I can try to understand what exactly you're arguing.

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

He was no more forsaken than David was.

John 16:32
King James Version (KJV)

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.


Now, what Scripture would you present to teach that Christ was forsaken?


God bless.

"My God, My god, why have you forsaken me?"

 

[JonC]

Neither of us is surprised by this, right?



I'm just dealing with this now because I'm short on time.

If this is the case, then why do we see God's absolute insistence on blood? Of course it is as you say "without shedding... no forgiveness." However, the shedding of blood is described in a life-for-life kind of way and, as such, substitution is unmistakable.

But, please, explain your above quote further so I can try to understand what exactly you're arguing.

The Archangel

Yes, I don't expect us to agree - only to understand each other better.

I believe the absolute necessity of blood stems from "the flesh". Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and the life is in the blood.

Christ had to die in the flesh and be resurrected as the First Born of many brothers.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nor did David have his hands and feet pierced and his clothes divided up by lot.
The Psalm is not about David; it is about Christ. Just because David wrote it doesn't mean that he is the subject. Have a read of 1 Peter 1:10-12 which explains this.

The Lord Jesus cries out, "My God, My God! Why have You forsaken Me?" I think I'll believe Him rather than doubt His word. But note that these words were spoken at the ninth hour ( Mark 15:33-34). God heard His cry (Psalm 22:21-24) and the darkness was lifted, and communion between father and Son restored. that is why our Lord declared, "It is finished!" It was. And He could commend His spirit to the Father and dismiss it (Luke 23:46; John 19:30).

David was writting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in giving vivid description to the Cross and death of Jesus Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

In point of fact, the "hypostatic union" refers to Christ as the God-Man, not to the members of the Trinity and how they might be "joined" to one another.
Jesus experience a real feeling of being alone and apart from the father, when he undertook being the Sin Bearer before God!
The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

The point I was making is that azab means 'forsake,' not 'withdraw support.'


Yes, but you might try.
Isaiah 54:7
'For a mere moment I have forsaken you, but with great mercies I will gather you. With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you.'
Psalm 30:5.
'For His anger is but for a moment, His favour is for life; weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning.

These texts speak of God's people, but they speak of a temporary forsaking and a brief period of anger (presumably against sin). They could both speak of the Christ, who was forsaken by the father on the cross, but afterwards 'exalted....to the highest place;' who bore the righteous anger of God against sin, 'for the joy set out before Him.'

He suffered anguish that we might know the joy of sins forgiven.

He was cast out that we might be brought in.

He was treated as an enemy that we might be welcomed as friends.

He surrendered to hell’s worst that we might attain heaven’s best.

He was stripped that we might be clothed with righteousness.

He was wounded that we might be healed.

He was made a shameful spectacle that we might inherit glory.

He endured darkness that we might experience eternal light.

He wept that all tears might be wiped from our eyes.

He groaned that we might sing songs of praise.

He endured all pain that we might know endless health.

He wore a crown of thorns that we might wear a crown of victory.

He bowed His head that we might lift up ours in heaven.

He died that we might live forever
[Taken from a Puritan prayer in The Valley of Vision, ed. Arthur Bennet (Banner of Truth, 1975)]

He endured the Cross, as he saw the end result would be many sinners brought to glory in Him to God!

 

[agedman]

Neither of us is surprised by this, right?



I'm just dealing with this now because I'm short on time.

If this is the case, then why do we see God's absolute insistence on blood? Of course it is as you say "without shedding... no forgiveness." However, the shedding of blood is described in a life-for-life kind of way and, as such, substitution is unmistakable.

But, please, explain your above quote further so I can try to understand what exactly you're arguing.

The Archangel

I realize that it is you and JonC discussing this aspect, and I only desire to remind those reading that the blood of the Cross was designed by the Romans to be extremely limited.

The Romans did not desire one to die from lack of blood, but to die from trauma, that is because the body was no longer able to sustain the brutality the muscles would begin to become unresponsive and the ability to fight off such things as the birds and other insects that feast on the dead would cause the person to expire.

Also be aware that the blood was shed from the garden to the grave. The torture of the interrogation was not bloodless, and more often such interrogations were meant to present the prisoner agreeing to any accusation (as often torturous ordeals reveal not the truth but what is intended).

Here is a very good Journal of American Medicine article that examined the crucifixion.

Those of you who would desire to be able to get a greater picture of what took place as typical of crucifixions, and more particularly that of the Christ, will no doubt want to investigate this review.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf

The focus upon the cross as the high point is as one climbing to a perceived mountaintop to only see that it is a false peak of a greater height yet in need to ascend.

For, if we do not worship a risen Lord, as Paul said, our preaching is vain.

 

[Yeshua1]

Some have misunderstood what I am saying. I am insisting that we have to be faithful to God's Word, to the text of Scripture.

We all have theologies or interpretations derived from Scripture, but it is wrong to read that back into the text.

Martin, Archangel and I are ALL support from and by the scriptures Pst, but you keep redefining that term redefine how it applies, redefine what wrath and propitiation really means in regards to the Cross!

 

[agedman]

He endured the Cross, as he saw the end result would be many sinners brought to glory in Him to God!

It would be accurate, had the use of Scriptures such as Isaiah 54 were actually about the Lord Jesus Christ.

But they are NOT.

That such yanking out of context is becoming a problem as folks are desperate to cling to what cannot be supported by the Scriptures taken accurately.

Look for yourself, Yeshua.

Do you not recognize the "city" mentioned further in that song?

The chapter starts as an address to Israel. It moves to the work of the messiah.

It (as was the previous section (53) given to the exiles in Babylon that they not wander to deeply into despair, but realize that from desolation God will draw permanent glory.

 

[Yeshua1]

OK... Good questions!

1. The sacrificial animal is punished. A cow or a deer (being shot by a hunter) is not. But the cow and the deer are not being brought for the express purpose of sacrifice. In the same way, a lamb being eaten by an Israelite family for food on some random Wednesday evening is not a sacrifice and is not punished.

So, the event--the sacrifice--is the definer (if you will) of punishment. When a lamb is brought for the purpose of sacrifice (ie. a sin offering), it is understood the lamb is a substitute.

2. Yes. But, the means of punishment (death) may be different. The sacrificial system deals, ultimately, with the sin(s) of the people of Israel. The idea presented in Scripture is that the life is in the blood and the blood is spilled in substitution for a person or persons: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." (Leviticus 17:11 ESV) It is interesting that blood is spilled to make atonement for the souls of Israelites.

3. We are told in Hebrews that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin; but we are also told that the blood of bulls and goats does make atonement. The apparent contradiction is solved by Romans 3 when Paul tells us God passed over sins and Christ was therefore necessary as a Propitiation.

Now, the idea was simply satisfaction punishment, it could be argued that Christ's sacrifice was not needed. But Paul makes it clear that it was needed precisely because the justice of God had not been satisfied in the sins He had passed over.

It is almost as if God had a "credit card" and the sins "atoned for" by the sacrificial system (and Abraham's sins, etc.) were placed on that credit card and the bill was paid in Christ on the cross. This is precisely why Paul's use of the word "Propitiation" is so important. To Paul in Romans 3 the righteousness of God is called into question by passing over those sins. So, for God to be "Just" sin must be punished. Paul's use of Propitiation carries that weight--punishment, wrath being poured out, etc. so that God's wrath is averted.

See... If God can simply avert the sins of man without wrath being poured out against that sin(s), He isn't righteous or just. Paul's use of Propitiation seeks to show that wrath is poured out (and satisfied) on Christ. Without that happening, the justice and righteousness of God is still in question.

The Archangel

God wrath towards willful sin violations MUST be appeased /satisfied, and the death of Jesus accomplished just that fact! The Ftaher treated the Son as the Sin bearer, pouring out His wrath in full upon Jesus!

 

[JonC]

Martin, Archangel and I are ALL support from and by the scriptures Pst, but you keep redefining that term redefine how it applies, redefine what wrath and propitiation really means in regards to the Cross!

You have misunderstood my post. Read it again and if you do not see it differently we can discuss it via PM if you like.

 

[Yeshua1]

It would be accurate, had the use of Scriptures such as Isaiah 54 were actually about the Lord Jesus Christ.

But they are NOT.

That such yanking out of context is becoming a problem as folks are desperate to cling to what cannot be supported by the Scriptures taken accurately.

Look for yourself, Yeshua.

Do you not recognize the "city" mentioned further in that song?

The chapter starts as an address to Israel. It moves to the work of the messiah.

It (as was the previous section (53) given to the exiles in Babylon that they not wander to deeply into despair, but realize that from desolation God will draw permanent glory.

Was Isaiah 53 concerning Jesus?

 

[agedman]

Martin, Archangel and I are ALL support from and by the scriptures Pst, but you keep redefining that term redefine how it applies, redefine what wrath and propitiation really means in regards to the Cross!

You are not supporting Scripture appropriately with Scripture.

That is seen again and again in the threads.

Although, I have personally as I did to you above, shown that what was sighted in Isaiah as proof was actually not proof, there is a obstinance that remains.

This is not uncharacteristic.

Typically the human mind does not accept change, especially that view in which they have long agreed and supported.

At best, the work of laying out the teaching of the texts (as I showed in Isaiah 54) to show the appropriate use will eventually sink into the reasoning.

But, maybe not.

It took me decades to come to terms with how very wrong the aspect of the wrath of God being poured out upon the Son thinking of PSA was just not supported by the clearest teaching of Scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have misunderstood my post.

I just wonder why youaare so against the concepts of God forsaking Jesus, or of suffering wrath in our stead?

 

[Yeshua1]

You are not supporting Scripture appropriately with Scripture.

That is seen again and again in the threads.

Although, I have personally as I did to you above, shown that what was sighted in Isaiah as proof was actually not proof, there is a obstinance that remains.

This is not uncharacteristic.

Typically the human mind does not accept change, especially that view in which they have long agreed and supported.

At best, the work of laying out the teaching of the texts (as I showed in Isaiah 54) to show the appropriate use will eventually sink into the reasoning.

But, maybe not.

It took me decades to come to terms with how very wrong the aspect of the wrath of God being poured out upon the Son thinking of PSA was just not supported by the clearest teaching of Scriptures.

Jesus was the sin bearer, the sacrifice to the father, who took on the punishment due to sin. God judged Him as if he was the summation of all sins by humanity, he experienced the Judgement on all of those sins that were ever done, was it jt physical death that he wanted to avoid the Cross if at all possible? Jesus knew that he would be required to drink of/from the Cup of Wrath stored up by the father in order to save his own!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Some have misunderstood what I am saying. I am insisting that we have to be faithful to God's Word, to the text of Scripture.

Gosh! You really think so? It's the pope and the bears in the woods again, folks! [/QUOTE]

We all have theologies or interpretations derived from Scripture, but it is wrong to read that back into the text.

What is mistaken is to take one text, bounce up and down on it like a trampoline and not compare Scripture with Scripture. I think Proverbs 11:14b comes into this: 'In the multitude of counsellors there is safety.'