Isaiah 53 doesn't support penal substitution

[Piper]

I haven't heard any. If you've got it, bring it. I gave my arguments. Give your substantial rebuttal. Don't just say "I disagree." Show me where my analysis is wrong by responding to my arguments.

All people are in need of a substitute since all are guilty of sinning against the holy God. All sin deserves punishment because all sin is personal rebellion against God himself. While animal sacrifices took on the guilt of God’s people in the OT, these sacrifices could never fully atone for the sins of man. For that, Jesus Christ came and died in the place of his people (substitution), taking upon himself the full punishment that they deserved (penal). While there are other theories of the atonement, which point to other valid aspects of what happened in Christ’s death, the penal-substitutionary element of the crucifixion secures all other benefits that come to God’s people through the death of their representative.

 

[Arthur King]

​

Maybe your page numbers are different.... But these quotes do not appear as quoted in my copy of Pierced for our Transgressions. There are parts of your quote(s) that come close, but they are not the same.

The Archangel

And then p. 242, in footnote 6. I think I missed that page number in my reply. Apologies.

"God acted justly in punishing him, for he saw him as guilty by virtue of his union with those whose sins he bore"

 

[DaveXR650]

Ephesians 2:1-10 says we were already dead in trespasses and sins. Not deserving of punishment in the future, as penal substitution would have it, but already dead. Jesus can't die in place of people who are already dead.

"Not deserving of punishment in the future" because they were already dead in trespasses and sins? Are you reading this somewhere or is this something else you have come up with by yourself? Is there truly anyone, anywhere who actually teaches this?

From birth, we are exiled from Paradise and God's presence, consigned to physical death, under the Genesis 3 curses. Again, if Jesus died in your place, why do you still physically die? Physical death is a punishment for sin. Why do you still toil? Toil is a punishment for sin. Did Jesus not suffer those punishments in your place as your substitute? It seems that Jesus was very selective in the punishments he suffered in your place, no?

You have a different worldview than I do on this. I view our lives on this earth as being under the curse from Genesis 3 but unlike you, I see a lot of God's provision and mercy there also. We live on a beautiful planet with many blessings and have a chance to learn of God throughout our lives and live by faith in his providence. We also have the privilege of being part of His plan to get the gospel message out to everyone who is to be saved still. Your problem is that you seem ungrateful for the common blessings we do have and in addition you have no idea what kind of wrath God can and will finally reveal to those who continue unrepentant. Didn't Jesus say not to fear men but fear the one who can kill and then send to hell?

 

[Arthur King]

"Not deserving of punishment in the future" because they were already dead in trespasses and sins? Are you reading this somewhere or is this something else you have come up with by yourself? Is there truly anyone, anywhere who actually teaches this?

You have a different worldview than I do on this. I view our lives on this earth as being under the curse from Genesis 3 but unlike you, I see a lot of God's provision and mercy there also. We live on a beautiful planet with many blessings and have a chance to learn of God throughout our lives and live by faith in his providence. We also have the privilege of being part of His plan to get the gospel message out to everyone who is to be saved still. Your problem is that you seem ungrateful for the common blessings we do have and in addition you have no idea what kind of wrath God can and will finally reveal to those who continue unrepentant. Didn't Jesus say not to fear men but fear the one who can kill and then send to hell?

But see how on both these points, you are drifting away from analysis of the Scripture at hand to ask (1) "who else teaches this?" and (2) "But my experience in life is this...". Neither of these things are Scriptural exegesis. They are tactics to avoid the passage at hand.

Yes, future punishment does exist, but that is not our central problem. Our problem is that we are already dead in trespasses and sins. We are already children of wrath. Future punishment is a continuation and confirmation and final execution of wrath that has already been pouring out.

-Prior to being saved, were we dead in our transgressions and sins? Yes or no?
-Prior to being saved, were we children of wrath? Yes or no?
-Has the wrath of God been revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness? Yes or no? (see Romans 1)
-Has our world been subjected to futility, yes or no? (see Romans 8)
-Are we consigned to physical death? Yes or no?
-Is physical death a punishment for sin? Yes or no?

How does Jesus die in place of people who are already dead?
Why do you still physically die if Jesus died in your place?
I Jesus was punished in your place, why do you suffer any Genesis 3 curses?

Your opinion that the world is a pretty groovy place is not what Paul lays out in Ephesians 2:1-3.

The problem is we were dead in sin.
The solution is we were raised in Christ.

 

[Arthur King]

All people are in need of a substitute since all are guilty of sinning against the holy God. All sin deserves punishment because all sin is personal rebellion against God himself. While animal sacrifices took on the guilt of God’s people in the OT, these sacrifices could never fully atone for the sins of man. For that, Jesus Christ came and died in the place of his people (substitution), taking upon himself the full punishment that they deserved (penal). While there are other theories of the atonement, which point to other valid aspects of what happened in Christ’s death, the penal-substitutionary element of the crucifixion secures all other benefits that come to God’s people through the death of their representative.

Yes, we are all guilty of sinning against a holy God. But this has greater problems than the punishment it deserves. If God never lifted a finger to punish sin, sin itself would still plunge sinners into destruction and misery. To not believe this is to be moral relativistic about God's created order, to have a low view of God, and a low view of sin.

God already has been pouring out punishment on sin. God exiled from humanity from paradise and His presence, subjected creation to futility, cursed us with toil, consigned us to physical death. The wrath of God has been revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. Prior to being saved, we were children of wrath.

Animal sacrifices - when a person sinned, they became corrupt, and threatened to pollute the community with corruption. They needed to be exiled or executed to get rid of the corruption. Or, an animal without blemish could shed its innocent blood to purify the sinner from corruption, thus averting (propitiating) the need for the sinner to be exiled or executed.

No, Jesus died with us (we have been crucified WITH Christ) and Jesus died unjustly, for he alone was innocent. His unjust death alone merits the reversal of death via his resurrection. Thus, we who are dead in sin, if we participate in his death, will participate in his resurrection, and receive the reversal of death we so desperately need.

Again, notice how your attempt at a salvation narrative has zero reference to the resurrection. Yours is a resurrectionless gospel foreign to the New Testament.

 

[JonC]

Christ's payment for sins is just. There is nothing in God's word to treach otherwise.

The Bible calls Jesus' suffering "evil", wrought by "evil doers", inflicted by "the wicked", committed by God's "enemies", and an act of "violent hatred".

You and I have very different ideas about what "just" means.

I have to believe what Scripture says is true. So we will never agree on this point.

 

[Piper]

Yes, we are all guilty of sinning against a holy God. But this has greater problems than the punishment it deserves. If God never lifted a finger to punish sin, sin itself would still plunge sinners into destruction and misery. To not believe this is to be moral relativistic about God's created order, to have a low view of God, and a low view of sin.

God already has been pouring out punishment on sin. God exiled from humanity from paradise and His presence, subjected creation to futility, cursed us with toil, consigned us to physical death. The wrath of God has been revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. Prior to being saved, we were children of wrath.

Animal sacrifices - when a person sinned, they became corrupt, and threatened to pollute the community with corruption. They needed to be exiled or executed to get rid of the corruption. Or, an animal without blemish could shed its innocent blood to purify the sinner from corruption, thus averting (propitiating) the need for the sinner to be exiled or executed.

No, Jesus died with us (we have been crucified WITH Christ) and Jesus died unjustly, for he alone was innocent. His unjust death alone merits the reversal of death via his resurrection. Thus, we who are dead in sin, if we participate in his death, will participate in his resurrection, and receive the reversal of death we so desperately need.

Again, notice how your attempt at a salvation narrative has zero reference to the resurrection. Yours is a resurrectionless gospel foreign to the New Testament.

Go read my other thread.

 

[DaveXR650]

But see how on both these points, you are drifting away from analysis of the Scripture at hand to ask (1) "who else teaches this?" and (2) "But my experience in life is this...". Neither of these things are Scriptural exegesis. They are tactics to avoid the passage at hand.

Arthur, that's the whole point. There is none of that in the passage you are quoting. The scripture explains that the people who are spiritually dead are the one who show this by walking after the course of this world. It is bringing out the moral as opposed to just the cosmic aspects of Christ's work in our salvation.

 

[Arthur King]

Arthur, that's the whole point. There is none of that in the passage you are quoting. The scripture explains that the people who are spiritually dead are the one who show this by walking after the course of this world. It is bringing out the moral as opposed to just the cosmic aspects of Christ's work in our salvation.

Biblical morality is that which violates God's created order. In Genesis 1, God looks at the creation and "SAW that it was good."

Creation has an intrinsic moral structure. Sin is to violate that moral structure, fundamentally by idolatry, replacing the Creator with created things (see Romans 1). No law of God can be broken without disorder in Creation.

And you have lots of other questions to answer.

What do you see as the distinction between "moral" and "cosmic"?

 

[DaveXR650]

-Prior to being saved, were we dead in our transgressions and sins? Yes or no?
-Prior to being saved, were we children of wrath? Yes or no?
-Has the wrath of God been revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness? Yes or no? (see Romans 1)
-Has our world been subjected to futility, yes or no? (see Romans 8)
-Are we consigned to physical death? Yes or no?
-Is physical death a punishment for sin? Yes or no?

Yes, Yes, Yes,Yes,Yes,Yes.

How does Jesus die in place of people who are already dead?

Once again, is there someone who is interpreting this in this way besides you that you could cite?

I Jesus was punished in your place, why do you suffer any Genesis 3 curses?

Because we are still in our flesh which is not redeemed but you could make that charge against any aspect of the atonement since you are describing where we still are basically.

 

[DaveXR650]

Your opinion that the world is a pretty groovy place is not what Paul lays out in Ephesians 2:1-3.

Now you're being silly. Have you not read the 23'rd Psalm? How about Song of Solomon? Where was Jesus first miracle done?

 

[37818]

I have to believe what Scripture says is true. So we will never agree on this point.

Well, you are correct in that we may not agree on some understandings. But I would presume we would agree a said Scripture to be true. Mark 9:48 etc.

 

[Arthur King]

Now you're being silly. Have you not read the 23'rd Psalm? How about Song of Solomon? Where was Jesus first miracle done?

I am not following this response at all. What is your point in bringing up Psalm 23 and Song of Solomon and the Miracle at Cana?

Overall, I am just not getting any defense that Jesus dies instead of us rather than with us, or that Jesus' death is just rather than unjust.

I've heard "sin deserves punishment," which is not a point that is at all disputed by any side of this debate.

When someone sins against me, they do not burden me with the obligation to punish something. If someone gouges out my eye, I am not burdened with the obligation to gouge out someone's eye. They deserve punishment, but that punishment can be averted in many cases by an apology, that is, their death and resurrection through confession and repentance.

Similarly, the wrath that is upon us and still to come can be averted by dying and rising with Christ through confession and repentance.

Just as the wrath due to a sinner in the OT sacrificial system could be averted by their purification from the sacrificial offering. Their corruption was purified, and so exile or execution was no longer necessary to purge their corruption from the camp.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am not following this response at all. What is your point in bringing up Psalm 23 and Song of Solomon and the Miracle at Cana?

That's obvious. I was just giving examples of the common grace and joys we all share in this life and how your premise that the normal human life we live on this planet is all there is to God's wrath. Those not saved are indeed under the threat of God's wrath and we are indeed able to look around and see the effects of sin but you have been influenced by some bizarre school of thought that has totally warped you in all areas of thought. You really need to reevaluate.

When someone sins against me, they do not burden me with the obligation to punish something.

That is because you are not God and don't have any obligation to rule the universe with justice. You simply live out your role. It is much simpler for us. Why do you think we are under obligation to forgive those who wrong us if there is not in God's mind a sense of overall justice that is important to maintain? According to your same logic how can someone demand that I forgive a wrong done to me?

They deserve punishment, but that punishment can be averted in many cases by an apology, that is, their death and resurrection through confession and repentance.

You give away your basic belief when you say "They deserve punishment". You are right but why did you say that? It's because you have that same God given sense of justice that God wants done in the universe. You know that sin should be punished and the scripture clearly teaches that it was put on Christ and that God has done the reconciliation that was needed. So it's because of that we are able to be forgiven by simply repenting and confessing.

Similarly, the wrath that is upon us and still to come can be averted by dying and rising with Christ through confession and repentance.

Dying and rising with Christ has meaning because of what was happening when Christ did this. The judgement for sin was upon him, not us. Penal substitutionary atonement.

 

[Arthur King]

That's obvious. I was just giving examples of the common grace and joys we all share in this life and how your premise that the normal human life we live on this planet is all there is to God's wrath. Those not saved are indeed under the threat of God's wrath and we are indeed able to look around and see the effects of sin but you have been influenced by some bizarre school of thought that has totally warped you in all areas of thought. You really need to reevaluate.

That is because you are not God and don't have any obligation to rule the universe with justice. You simply live out your role. It is much simpler for us. Why do you think we are under obligation to forgive those who wrong us if there is not in God's mind a sense of overall justice that is important to maintain? According to your same logic how can someone demand that I forgive a wrong done to me?

You give away your basic belief when you say "They deserve punishment". You are right but why did you say that? It's because you have that same God given sense of justice that God wants done in the universe. You know that sin should be punished and the scripture clearly teaches that it was put on Christ and that God has done the reconciliation that was needed. So it's because of that we are able to be forgiven by simply repenting and confessing.

Dying and rising with Christ has meaning because of what was happening when Christ did this. The judgement for sin was upon him, not us. Penal substitutionary atonement.

"I was just giving examples of the common grace and joys we all share..."

Penal substitution claims that Jesus suffers the wrath of God in our place for our sins as our substitute, so we don't have to suffer that wrath. This does not fit with the biblical description of the condition of humanity: Since Adam, we are exiled from Paradise and the Presence of God, consigned to physical death, under the Genesis 3 curses, in a world subjected by God to futility, filling the earth with corruption, we are dead in our trespasses and sins, indeed we are born children of wrath. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness.

These are all biblical descriptions of the condition of humanity - that the wrath of God has ALREADY been pouring out. You going to the country club does not change what the Bible says. Since the the very beginning with Adam. The hope of humanity is not avoiding God's wrath - it is too late for that. We are in a world that is already under His judgments. The hope is not avoiding death. We are already dead. The hope is resurrection from death. The New Testament has no interest in the resurrection-less gospel of penal substitution.

Sure there is common grace. There were violins playing while the Titanic was sinking. And there is a sense in which you could say that our eternal life begins now. But our life at this point is taking up our cross and following Christ. It is the cruciform life. We seek fellowship with the sufferings of Christ and conformity to his death (Philippians 3). Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. Whom the Lord loves, he scourges.

"That is because you are not God and don't have any obligation to rule the universe with justice."

No, the priority of justice is that the sinner is punished, not that the justice system punish something. When we sin against God, we do deserve punishment, but we do not burden God with an obligation to punish that he must purge himself of.

God could just let us rot in our sin forever. That would be perfectly just - to do absolutely nothing while we destroy ourselves in sin.

God needs absolutely nothing from humanity. He needs nothing from us prior to the Fall, and he needs nothing from us after the Fall. To say "God needs to punish me" is just as arrogant as to say "God needs to save me" because in both instances you are saying God needs something from you. He does not.

We forgive because God forgave us. Meaning - he raised us from death. So we can offer our offenders that God raise them from their deadness in sin. Forgiveness is the offer and provision of restoration from a state of brokenness or deficiency.

You give away your basic belief when you say "They deserve punishment". You are right but why did you say that?

Punishment does not exist for punishment's own sake. The purpose of punishment is to stop sin. I punish a murderer to stop him from murdering, to deter others from murder, and to return the sinner's sin upon the sinner's own head (retribution) in a way that will bring him to remorse and repentance. Retribution also has a limiting principle, in which the punishment cannot exceed the damage of the crime committed.

The purpose of punishment is not to restore or repair damage done in an offense. Restitution does that, which is a separate biblical priority of justice.

Dying and rising with Christ has meaning because of what was happening when Christ did this. The judgement for sin was upon him, not us.

You are making absolutely zero sense. Seriously, read back the sentences that you write. If the judgment was upon him, and not you, then you would not die and rise WITH Christ. You would not die - he died so you wouldn't have to. Death is a judgment for sin. You are saying "I went to the grocery store with my wife because my wife went to the grocery store instead of me." No, you can't go to the grocery store with your wife and instead of your wife. You have to choose. You cannot be a married bachelor, nor draw a square circle. Did Jesus die with you or instead of you. Read Galatians 2 and Romans 6 and then make your decision, whether you are with the Bible or not.

 

[37818]

Penal substitution claims that Jesus suffers the wrath of God in our place for our sins as our substitute, so we don't have to suffer that wrath.

Where did Jesus suffer the fire in being the penal substitute? Matthew 25:41?

What Christ did not do in His Penal Substitution.

 

[DaveXR650]

You going to the country club does not change what the Bible says.

Try to at least disguise your cynical animosity. My description was from the Psalms, Song of Solomon and from Jesus at the wedding. Not a country club, of which I have never belonged. I'm done with you at this point. You need to be aware that you are in opposition to virtually all of Baptist theology while calling yourself a Baptist.

If you want to say that penal substitution should not be pulled away from all other aspects of the work of Christ then OK but you are going off into rank heresy by doing what you are doing. T.F. Torrance, who spends much time explaining the full extent of the work of Christ in our total salvation and who complains that the Reformers tended to isolate certain aspects of the atonement said this:
" 'For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God' - that describes the expiatory content of reconciliation, which is substitutionary atonement. That is the wondrous exchange at the very heart of the new relation with God".

You are making absolutely zero sense. Seriously, read back the sentences that you write. If the judgment was upon him, and not you, then you would not die and rise WITH Christ. You would not die - he died so you wouldn't have to. Death is a judgment for sin. You are saying "I went to the grocery store with my wife because my wife went to the grocery store instead of me." No, you can't go to the grocery store with your wife and instead of your wife. You have to choose. You cannot be a married bachelor, nor draw a square circle. Did Jesus die with you or instead of you. Read Galatians 2 and Romans 6 and then make your decision, whether you are with the Bible or not.

Lastly. This playing around with meanings as to whether Christ can die for you and does it mean with you or instead of you and all this baloney. The fact is, it is biblical. Torrance once again:
"Besides, no one can be a really responsible substitute for another because no one else can really represent another from within their guilt. That is why the theology that deals only in forensic terms and speaks only of a purely in that sense brings upon itself the suspicion of make-belief, and yet the biblical revelation speaks in the most astonishing terms of this substitutionary act of Christ ".
So here's Torrance, student of Barth, way out there compared to most Baptists saying that it is indeed scriptural. We are repeating the same things over and over. There is no sense going on. You and JonC have not laid a glove on penal substitution. I still doubt that you are a Baptist since you can point to no one else who teaches like you believe in a real Baptist church. And you don't seem to be able to bring any valid references to your random theories, except that monk, which was enjoyable. JonC got me reading Torrance and I am grateful to him for that although I am beginning to doubt how much of him he has truly read. In all fairness, Torrance says everything about everything and you need to be careful zeroing in on a specific quote.
I am benefiting from an expanded knowledge of the total work of the Atonement, especially the cosmic aspects, which are neglected, at least by me since I have been running in Calvinist circles. I'm not sure we didn't do better in that back when I was a dispensationalist Baptist with an interest in prophesy though. Still, there is a level at which you as an individual have a sin problem - and your problem is between you and God. For that, if you want to understand what has happened, you need to have an understanding of penal substitution. We were passive in that, and therefore if you come to Christ confessing your sins and repenting I think we will all be OK but if you ask why - it's penal substitution.

 

[The Archangel]

Just as the wrath due to a sinner in the OT sacrificial system could be averted by their purification from the sacrificial offering. Their corruption was purified, and so exile or execution was no longer necessary to purge their corruption from the camp.

There is a contradiction in this statement. On the one hand, you're arguing that the OT sacrificial offering dealt with sin and offered "purification." But, on the other hand you say that "exile or execution was no longer necessary to purge their corruption from the camp." The problem is that the very thing you mention at first (the "purification") is accomplished by the "exile or execution" that was inflicted upon an animal. So, exile or execution no longer being necessary to purge corruption from the camp is precisely because that exile or execution had been administered to a substitute animal. In other words, the "purification" you mention was purchased for the sinful person by the sacrifice having been substituted for the sinful person.

The Archangel

 

[Arthur King]

Try to at least disguise your cynical animosity. My description was from the Psalms, Song of Solomon and from Jesus at the wedding. Not a country club, of which I have never belonged. I'm done with you at this point. You need to be aware that you are in opposition to virtually all of Baptist theology while calling yourself a Baptist.

If you want to say that penal substitution should not be pulled away from all other aspects of the work of Christ then OK but you are going off into rank heresy by doing what you are doing. T.F. Torrance, who spends much time explaining the full extent of the work of Christ in our total salvation and who complains that the Reformers tended to isolate certain aspects of the atonement said this:
" 'For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God' - that describes the expiatory content of reconciliation, which is substitutionary atonement. That is the wondrous exchange at the very heart of the new relation with God".

Lastly. This playing around with meanings as to whether Christ can die for you and does it mean with you or instead of you and all this baloney. The fact is, it is biblical. Torrance once again:
"Besides, no one can be a really responsible substitute for another because no one else can really represent another from within their guilt. That is why the theology that deals only in forensic terms and speaks only of a purely in that sense brings upon itself the suspicion of make-belief, and yet the biblical revelation speaks in the most astonishing terms of this substitutionary act of Christ ".
So here's Torrance, student of Barth, way out there compared to most Baptists saying that it is indeed scriptural. We are repeating the same things over and over. There is no sense going on. You and JonC have not laid a glove on penal substitution. I still doubt that you are a Baptist since you can point to no one else who teaches like you believe in a real Baptist church. And you don't seem to be able to bring any valid references to your random theories, except that monk, which was enjoyable. JonC got me reading Torrance and I am grateful to him for that although I am beginning to doubt how much of him he has truly read. In all fairness, Torrance says everything about everything and you need to be careful zeroing in on a specific quote.
I am benefiting from an expanded knowledge of the total work of the Atonement, especially the cosmic aspects, which are neglected, at least by me since I have been running in Calvinist circles. I'm not sure we didn't do better in that back when I was a dispensationalist Baptist with an interest in prophesy though. Still, there is a level at which you as an individual have a sin problem - and your problem is between you and God. For that, if you want to understand what has happened, you need to have an understanding of penal substitution. We were passive in that, and therefore if you come to Christ confessing your sins and repenting I think we will all be OK but if you ask why - it's penal substitution.

Why do I care what Torrance says? He is wrong on penal substitution, just like any other penal substitution advocate.

And Karl Barth may be my least favorite theologian. Highly overrated.

I think the problem is that you keep thinking in a circle regarding penal substitution, and asserting that penal substitution is true without really responding to arguments against it, or defending its central claims. You just keep saying "a majority of Baptists believe it."

And I still don't know what your distinction between "cosmic" and "moral" is. You seem to think of morality purely in terms of that which deserves reward or punishment, when a major part of Genesis one is that God as Creator has imbued the Created Order with a moral structure, "and God saw that it was good" and to be in sin is to violate that moral order within creation.

A person cannot break God's laws without disordering themselves, without trying to satisfy their desire for God with something that is not God. This is an inherently destructive act. To not acknowledge this is to fail to have a high view of God as Creator, and to fail to take sin seriously.

Zeus can reward and punish behaviors he does not like. Only the Creator of the universe can say "This is the way I have designed the universe and you in it. To violate that order is to destroy yourself within the very act itself." You are simply not acknowledging God as creator, and sin as a self-destructive, suicidal violation of his created order. You are not acknowledging that when you sin, you are dead already. Notice how Jesus calls the prodigal son, while he is in rebellion "dead." He is not merely deserving of death at some point in the future - he is dead already.

 

[Arthur King]

There is a contradiction in this statement. On the one hand, you're arguing that the OT sacrificial offering dealt with sin and offered "purification." But, on the other hand you say that "exile or execution was no longer necessary to purge their corruption from the camp." The problem is that the very thing you mention at first (the "purification") is accomplished by the "exile or execution" that was inflicted upon an animal. So, exile or execution no longer being necessary to purge corruption from the camp is precisely because that exile or execution had been administered to a substitute animal. In other words, the "purification" you mention was purchased for the sinful person by the sacrifice having been substituted for the sinful person.

The Archangel

No, the animal does not die under the priest or a representative of the justice system. It is always the sinner that slays the sacrifice. The animal does not suffer a divine judicial execution. Take a look at the list:

In a Burnt Offering (Lev 1:5, 1:11) the sinner slays the sacrifice.

In a Peace Offering (Lev 3:2, 3:4, 3:13) the sinner slays the sacrifice.

In a Sin Offering (Lev 4:4, 4:14, 4:24, 4:29, 4:33) the sinner slays the sacrifice.

In a Guilt Offering (Lev 7:2) the sinners slays the sacrifice.

On the Day of Atonement, the sinners (represented in the priest) slay the sacrifice.

In the Ordinance of the Red Heifer (Num 19:3) the sinners slay the sacrifice.

In the Passover (Ex 12:6), the sinners slay the sacrifice.

In the Declaration of Innocence (Deut 21:4) the elders who could be charged with sin slay the sacrifice.

That is 15 examples - a lot of data, representing nearly every sacrifice. There is a clear pattern here. The priest only slays the animal if it is a corporate sacrifice, in which he sums up the congregation in himself; he is the community of sinners. And he only does this after slaying a sacrifice for his own sins. The priest slays the animal as a representative of sinners in need of redemption, not as a representative of the one offended by sin or of the justice system.

When a person sins, they are already dead - this is a key point that penal substitution advocates don't get. They are already dead in trespasses and sins. And so the purification offered by the blood brings them from a state of death to life, from corruption to purification.