Just how does the wrath of god be appeased if no penal Substitution?

[Arthur King]

Jesus stated to us that His death by the shedding of his blood will establish a new Covenant between God and man, so there is remission in his shed blood.

I agree, but I am not sure how this responds to the argument. My point is that Hebrews 9:22 does not refer to the necessity of punishment when it refers to the shedding of blood, but the death necessary for the benefits of a will to be transferred.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your statement is redundant. Atonement, or at-one-ment is being united (at one) with Christ. We become united to Christ when the Holy Spirit applies his life, death and resurrection to us, and we therefore die and rise in him. Our death in Christ is where our sin is done away with. Read the below passage from Romans 6:

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.

Substitution is nowhere in here. We need to die, with and in Christ. This happens through repentance when we become Christians, and when we physically die at the end of our lives. If Jesus died in our place for our sins as our substitute, then we should never physically die.

No, for His death paid for our sin debt, and bought for us the glorification resurrection, so that though we might taste physical death, shall never ever really die!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree, but I am not sure how this responds to the argument. My point is that Hebrews 9:22 does not refer to the necessity of punishment when it refers to the shedding of blood, but the death necessary for the benefits of a will to be transferred.

the author of Hebrews states to us that blood of goats and lamps could never remit sins, but the blood of Christ can and did.

 

[Arthur King]

No, for His death paid for our sin debt, and bought for us the glorification resurrection, so that though we might taste physical death, shall never ever really die!

If you are saying that our sin-debt is death, then you are saying the exact opposite of what the Bible says. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. Wages are the exact opposite of debts. Death is therefore something we earn from God, not something we owe God. Sinners have earned these wages of death justly because of our sin, whereas Jesus received the wages of sin unjustly because he was innocent. Justice therefore demands that his wages be returned, that his death be reversed, hence his resurrection. It is exactly as the penitent thief on the cross says:

"we indeed are suffering death justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

The uniqueness of Jesus' death is not that he alone dies, but that he alone dies unjustly, and therefore merits the reversal of death in his resurrection.

 

[Arthur King]

the author of Hebrews states to us that blood of goats and lamps could never remit sins, but the blood of Christ can and did.

Agree. Not sure how this proves anything regarding Hebrews 9:22 being about the necessity of punishment.

 

[Yeshua1]

Agree. Not sure how this proves anything regarding Hebrews 9:22 being about the necessity of punishment.

Jesus was the Messiah portrayed to us in Isaiah 53, one of the clearest sections on His penal sacrifice on behalf of his own people!

 

[Arthur King]

Jesus was the Messiah portrayed to us in Isaiah 53, one of the clearest sections on His penal sacrifice on behalf of his own people!

If Isaiah 53 supported penal substitution, it would say "by his wounds we avoid be wounded" and not "by his wounds we are healed." The logic of the text is "by his death, the dead will be raised to new life" and not "by his death, those deserving death avoid it."

Furthermore, it is clear that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is suffering unjustly, not justly as penal substitution requires. The longest New Testament commentary on Isaiah 53, 1 Peter 2:18-25, makes it clear that Jesus' death was unjust, and it is his unjust suffering that secures grace with God.

 

[Yeshua1]

If Isaiah 53 supported penal substitution, it would say "by his wounds we avoid be wounded" and not "by his wounds we are healed." The logic of the text is "by his death, the dead will be raised to new life" and not "by his death, those deserving death avoid it."

Furthermore, it is clear that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is suffering unjustly, not justly as penal substitution requires. The longest New Testament commentary on Isaiah 53, 1 Peter 2:18-25, makes it clear that Jesus' death was unjust, and it is his unjust suffering that secures grace with God.

While upon that Cross, as our sin bearer, it was indeed just punishment that he received for our sale, for he who knew no sin became the sin bearer, and was treated at that point as some cursed and afflicted of and by God!

 

[JonC]

@Arthur King,

If you have not figured it out yet, @Yeshua1 (like many here) is not going to engage what you are saying. He is just going to say the same things over and over. After awhile you will get "your position does not need Christ to die" type of nonsense.

Having been here almost 20 years (and agreeing with you), this is déjà vu all over again and again and again.

Keep pointing to Scripture. I look forward to reading your post and absolutely agree..... so far


.. And welcome to the BB.

 

[Arthur King]

While upon that Cross, as our sin bearer, it was indeed just punishment that he received for our sale, for he who knew no sin became the sin bearer, and was treated at that point as some cursed and afflicted of and by god!

"Sin bearer" just means that he suffered the consequences of our sins, or suffered our sins. No one is arguing that point. We all, by our sin, put Jesus to death. Jesus unjustly suffered the corruption and death that our sin brought upon the world. To prove penal substitution, you have to prove that Jesus (a) suffered the consequences in our place so we wont have to suffer them, and (b) that he suffered those consequences justly.

Yes, Jesus was treated as one accursed by God, but he was treated this way unjustly. Divine justice therefore demanded the reversal of the curse, hence his resurrection.

 

[Arthur King]

@Arthur King,

If you have not figured it out yet, @Yeshua1 (like many here) is not going to engage what you are saying. He is just going to say the same things over and over. After awhile you will get "your position does not need Christ to die" type of nonsense.

Having been here almost 20 years (and agreeing with you), this is déjà vu all over again and again and again.

Keep pointing to Scripture. I look forward to reading your post and absolutely agree..... so far


.. And welcome to the BB.

Thanks for the Welcome! Happy to contribute.

 

[Yeshua1]

@Arthur King,

If you have not figured it out yet, @Yeshua1 (like many here) is not going to engage what you are saying. He is just going to say the same things over and over. After awhile you will get "your position does not need Christ to die" type of nonsense.

Having been here almost 20 years (and agreeing with you), this is déjà vu all over again and again and again.

Keep pointing to Scripture. I look forward to reading your post and absolutely agree..... so far


.. And welcome to the BB.

Well, would say that the difference is in how we view and interprete the scriptures on this issue!

 

[Yeshua1]

"Sin bearer" just means that he suffered the consequences of our sins, or suffered our sins. No one is arguing that point. We all, by our sin, put Jesus to death. Jesus unjustly suffered the corruption and death that our sin brought upon the world. To prove penal substitution, you have to prove that Jesus (a) suffered the consequences in our place so we wont have to suffer them, and (b) that he suffered those consequences justly.

Yes, Jesus was treated as one accursed by God, but he was treated this way unjustly. Divine justice therefore demanded the reversal of the curse, hence his resurrection.

While he was bearing our sins, to God the Father was forsaken, as he was at that moment to God as he was really guilty of sinning....

 

[Arthur King]

While he was bearing our sins, to God the Father was forsaken, as he was at that moment to God as he was really guilty of sinning....

Psalm 22, which Jesus quotes upon the cross, is about someone who feels forsaken of God because of present suffering, but realizes that in fact, God "has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard. (v.24)"

The Psalm depicts someone who conflicted between his knowledge of God's presence and his faithfulness, and his feelings of forsakenness, but the resolution of this conflict is a resounding affirmation of God's deliverance. No, Jesus was not forsaken by God on the cross, but he certainly was tempted to feel that way as our sin was putting him to death.

 

[Arthur King]

Well, would say that the difference is in how we view and interprete the scriptures on this issue!

This exchange, which I have not heard from you on yet, I think is a key scriptural issue:

If you are saying that our sin-debt is death, then you are saying the exact opposite of what the Bible says. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. Wages are the exact opposite of debts. Death is therefore something we earn from God, not something we owe God. Sinners have earned these wages of death justly because of our sin, whereas Jesus received the wages of sin unjustly because he was innocent. Justice therefore demands that his wages be returned, that his death be reversed, hence his resurrection. It is exactly as the penitent thief on the cross says:

"we indeed are suffering death justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

The uniqueness of Jesus' death is not that he alone dies, but that he alone dies unjustly, and therefore merits the reversal of death in his resurrection.

 

[Yeshua1]

Psalm 22, which Jesus quotes upon the cross, is about someone who feels forsaken of God because of present suffering, but realizes that in fact, God "has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard. (v.24)"

The Psalm depicts someone who conflicted between his knowledge of God's presence and his faithfulness, and his feelings of forsakenness, but the resolution of this conflict is a resounding affirmation of God's deliverance. No, Jesus was not forsaken by God on the cross, but he certainly was tempted to feel that way as our sin was putting him to death.

Jesus really did experience that separation though, as that was the result of taking upon Himself that Cup of Wrath!

 

[Yeshua1]

This exchange, which I have not heard from you on yet, I think is a key scriptural issue:

If you are saying that our sin-debt is death, then you are saying the exact opposite of what the Bible says. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. Wages are the exact opposite of debts. Death is therefore something we earn from God, not something we owe God. Sinners have earned these wages of death justly because of our sin, whereas Jesus received the wages of sin unjustly because he was innocent. Justice therefore demands that his wages be returned, that his death be reversed, hence his resurrection. It is exactly as the penitent thief on the cross says:

"we indeed are suffering death justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

The uniqueness of Jesus' death is not that he alone dies, but that he alone dies unjustly, and therefore merits the reversal of death in his resurrection.

The greatness of the Cross is that the one who was and is sinless Man, who was and is Holy God, chose Himself to take on that Cup of Warth, and taste all that the lost sinner will in their place, so upon that Cross he literally was to His father the One that deserved the wrath and the judgment in our place for our sake!
The Just one became Unjust in the sight of His Father for our sakes!

 

[Van]

The Cross of Christ is the basis for Justification, not our own faith!

Utter nonsense, did anyone say our faith was the basis of our justification? Nope, so just more deflection and misrepresentation. Our faith, if credited as righteousness by God, provides our access to the grace in which we stand. Romans 5:2

 

[Yeshua1]

Utter nonsense, did anyone say our faith was the basis of our justification? Nope, so just more deflection and misrepresentation. Our faith, if credited as righteousness by God, provides our access to the grace in which we stand. Romans 5:2

So our faith is the basis per you!

 

[Arthur King]

Jesus really did experience that separation though, as that was the result of taking upon Himself that Cup of Wrath!

No, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. No separation between Father and Son in the sense of the Father forsaking the Son, or turning His face away from the Son, or withholding love from the Son. The event of the Cross is the love that exists within the Trinity overcoming the sin of humanity.

The cup that Jesus drinks is the cup of exile. Exile to the power of evil forces, which for Israel meant captivity under foreign empires (Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) and for humanity means exile unto death. But that which was a just punishment for Israel and humanity, was unjust persecution for Jesus. Jesus suffers our exile unto death unjustly so that justice will reverse our exile through his resurrection. Also, notice how this does away with the substitutionary argument. The logic of the narrative is not "Jesus drank the cup of exile so his people wouldn't have to" but "Jesus drinks the cup of exile precisely because his people drank the cup of exile." Isaiah 51:17 says that Israel drank the cup of exile down to the dregs. Daniel 9:11 says that Israel suffered the curse, along with the oath, because of their transgressions. There is just no way of arguing that Jesus suffers exile so that his people won't have to.