Featured Penal Substitution - Did Jesus Experience Our Punishment?

Brother, sorry I'm so late in replying (I try to be prompt, but my son had short a deer as I was typing so things got busy).

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and determining that you don’t read carefully instead of determining that you are intentionally and dishonestly misleading this thread (or you are just following the ideas of someone else written in a book). As a brother, I don’t mind extending to you that benefit because I have no reason to think you are intentionally misleading. That said, it would serve you well to read what has been posted instead of responding as you have.

I have stated, over and over (and over and over and over) again, to you on this thread, that there is a sense of substitutionary atonement throughout Church history. The quote you provide is a good example. It is from the second century, and by an unknown author. It is written to Diognetus, who was a tutor to Marcus Aurelius. The author is unknown (some ascribe it to Justin Martyr) and it is good evidence of a substitutionary aspect within the early church.

“But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for those who are mortal” (Epistle to Diognetus, Ch. 9).

Do you see where the author speaks of penal substitution? Of course you don’t because it is not there. If it is written by Justin Martyr, his teaching actually deny the possibility of penal substitution. He taught that Christ was punished for us, in our stead. But not that he was punished “instead” of us in terms of receiving our punishment. Again, no one is denying substitutionary atonement. But the notion that Jesus took our actual punishment is absent. Your quote is NOT penal substitution (although it does show substitution).

It is dishonest to say that the pre-Reformation presence of substitutionary aspects of the atonement equates to undeveloped penal substitution theory that was just put together in the sixteenth century. We know that they held a view of exactly what this "wrath" was, and none of them considered it our punishment.

Here are a few questions to ponder:

Do you believe that God forgives sins (that God canceled our debt)? Not if you believe in penal substitution, because if you do then you believe that divine justice demanded the debt be paid. God can't just forgive it. He first demands payment, receives payment, and then "forgives" the debt. This is not forgiveness. We are told to forgive as we are forgiven....is that how you want to be forgiven? Is that how you forgive?

The judgment for sin is the second death. It is appointed men once to die and then the judgment. The second death is a spiritual death. It is a future judgment where death and Hades is cast into Hell. If you believe in penal substitution then is is the punishment that Jesus took upon himself. How do you justify Jesus dying spiritually? How exactly is Jesus cast into Hell, and how long was this everlasting punishment?

Spiritual death is a separation from God, at lest in spirit and nature. When Jesus experienced this spiritual death on the cross as our punishment, for how long was he no longer God? How can Jesus actually be "spiritually dead" when the Bible says that he IS life? How can Scripture not be broken if all of those verses that speak of God's nature somehow don't apply to Jesus?

If penal substitutionary atonement is correct, then why is there not even one verse that affirms Jesus as experiencing our actual punishment? Why does the Bible stick to the sacrifice system (to include substitutionary atonement) that you so strongly deny? Why did the church stick with this same system (even through its disagreements over the atonement) until the sixteenth century? Why should we accept the Reformed judicial system over and above the context that Scripture provides for us in understanding the atonement?

I have a RCC friend who feels the same about his tradition. I am not trying to take anything away from you, but like my conversation with this friend I am only asking you to consider Scripture. I also, BTW, affirm the lyrics of that song. No one is saying that Jesus did not die for us. I know he died for me, and in my place, and he bore my sins.

 

Hey brother! It is good to be back. I needed a break, not necessarily because of anyone here but I had lost a good friend and was losing patience here. I was afraid of becoming antagonistic towards some of my brothers and didn’t want to become the “problem.” But it is good to be back – I missed the insight you often provided when I was airing out my thoughts.

To answer your question, all of the main theories view you and I as “bought and paid for.” The early church believed that we were bought and paid for in terms of Jesus being offered a ransom or guilt offering. Throughout history the Church has affirmed that Jesus bought us with his precious blood, we are not our own for we are bought with a price. They also hold to a substitution view of the atonement in at least some form. But all of the views have Jesus suffering as an atonement for our sins, not in payment of our sins.

What this means is that for fifteen centuries the Church affirmed our future judgment averted in Christ (not that Jesus died spiritually), the literal forgiveness of God (not that God only forgives a debt upon payment in full), etc.

I am only saying that since the Bible does not affirm penal substitution theory in terms of Jesus taking our actual punishment then perhaps we could look at it in a more traditional and literal way. Just see how things turn out. I have come to understand that Doctrines of Grace are in no way dependent on penal substitution, but they are corrupted by that view. Many of those things that we have left to "mystery" are pretty much explained if we take Scripture literally and allow it to form the context of our theology.

Anyway, it is good to dialogue with you again and I hope that all has been well with you.

 

No, he got it. This was his first (a doe). I had stepped out of the blind to reply to this thread when he shot the thing.

I have them processed. Other then field dressing them, I am clueless about butchering. I need to learn. Got a buck the weekend before Thanksgiving and with this one I'm out $165 for processing. I can afford to hunt but I can't afford to get anything :-(.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well.....I still insist the OT sacrificial system foreshadowed the Atonement and speaks to its meaning more than the 16th century concept of justice. In the OT system they sacrificed a lamb. I got a deer. Kinda the same except the animal type, how I got it, what I am going to do with it,,,, and I'm not Jewish. But other than that we're kinda similar. So I see just as much a natural progression in this dialogue as I do in claiming Justin Martyr or an early church father holding a penal substitution view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for the info. I will try this the next time. I don’t have a grinder but I already have a bunch of sausage and ground venison processing.

Can you smoke the ham in a smoker like you would pork for BBQ?

 

I was stressing the fact that you keep on arguing for penal substitution theory with substitution examples. I apologize if my "tone?" led you to believe I’m getting upset. I'm not. We don't even know each other...do we....mom? that you?

You think that Christ died just to forgive our sins? It is one thing to say that God uses Jesus and the cross within the plan of redemption and another to say that God is bound to doing so, in some mechanical, forensic fashion in order to forgive. I do not mean this harshly, I mean it in love, but what you have done here is reduced the gospel to the benefits of Jesus’ death and resurrection for salvation from sin. In substitutionary atonement you have found a lovely tree. But you seem so fixated on that tree that you do not seem to realize you are standing in the most glorious forest beyond anything ever conceived by man. The Atonement is much more than “forgiveness of sin” and much more than “appeasement of God’s wrath.” In fact, if Paul is right then those aspects of atonement are not even primary to the event of the cross.

OK... Dialogue with Trypho. You should have examined the whole.

“For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the Law of Moses, 'Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.' And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practice idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not practise piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed, we have done no wrong. If, indeed, you repent of yo , and recognise Him to be Christ, and observe His commandments, then you may assert this; for, as I have said before, remission of sins shall be yours. But if you curse Him and them that believe and, when you have the power, put them to death, how is it possible that requisition shall not be made of you, as of unrighteous and sinful men, altogether hard-hearted and without understanding, because you laid your hands on Him?

For the statement in the law, 'Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to you, who do not know that this is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God and King, and Christ. And you clearly see that this has come to pass. For you curse in your synagogues all those who are called from Him Christians; and other nations effectively carry out the curse, putting to death those who simply confess themselves to be Christians; to all of whom we say, You are our brethren; rather recognize the truth of God. And while neither they nor you are persuaded by us, but strive earnestly to cause us to deny the name of Christ, we choose rather and submit to death, in the full assurance that all the good which God has promised through Christ He will reward us with. And in addition to all this we pray for you, that Christ may have mercy upon you. For He taught us to pray for our enemies also, saying, 'Love your enemies; be kind and merciful, as your heavenly Father is.' For we see that the Almighty God is kind and merciful, causing His sun to rise on the unthankful and on the righteous, and sending rain on the holy and on the wicked; all of whom He has taught us He will judge.”

This is not penal substitution theory. This is what I am speaking of when I say some will deliberately mislead others to "prove" their point (not you, but the authors of the book).

I look forward to it. If you prove me wrong will be neither first nor last to accomplish such a minor feat.

If you will, please expound on the difference between substitution theory and penal substitution theory. Many of your examples are what I would call substitution theory, not penal substitution. Thanks.

I look forward to walking through this with you. You may very well prove me wrong and I'd be thankful for the correction. Iron sharpens iron.

 

I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. I can offer stuff like this:


"If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment…. If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin." (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica)

And I’m sure someone will say “see, that has penal substitution all over it.”

My point, brother, was not that God did not curse Jesus. My point was that in the entire quote there is ample evidence of substitution (and there is throughout history), but there is absolutely no mention of penal substitution. Do you not see the difference, brother?

 

Thanks Icon.

I will read it when I can (probably tonight). Unlike you I am normally driving around town and can't read as if I were driving down an interstate because of all the red lights. Thumbsup

I do understand the systematic aspect of these theories. The missing link for me is the part where the Father punishes the Son with that wrath being our punishment for our Sin.

 

I mistook your highlighted section suggest actual penal substitution, and I was pointing out that that was entirely out of context of what the author was saying. That's all.

Thank you for offering this definition. That helps me understand why we keep saying and seeing the same thing but coming short of agreement. Substitution is Christ suffering for us, in our place. Penal substitution is Christ taking our punishment. I know we are wondering why on earth each of us can't see the other's position. I do see substitution atonement throughout scripture and throughout history. And Scripture does say that Christ became a curse for us.

My question is where you find support for God actually punishing Jesus with our punishment (which would be the "second death")? This is what I can't find in the church until Calvin, and this is what I can't find in Scripture. Any help would be appreciated.