The Biblical Basis for Penal Substitution

[JonC]

Quite; but it does not affect the central point of my post.

Here are some observations that we may consider together, brother.

Guthrie notes that Hebrews 13:10 (quoting Lev. 16:27) forms the backdrop of Hebrews 13:11-14 and reiterates the interpretation of Christ as the Day of Atonement sacrifice. There are two parallels between Jesus’ sacrifice and that of Yom Kippur. First, “Jesus also suffered outside the city gate.” The old covenant sacrifices were taken outside the camp, so also Jesus was taken outside the city. The purpose of Jesus’ sacrifice was “to make the people holy.” The high-priestly offering of Jesus was, however, “through his own blood.” The passage is actually defending the superiority of that offering.

FF Bruce attributes the parallel of Jesus’ death and animals burned outside the gate to signify that Jesus died in order to “sanctify the people – bring them to God as worshippers purified in conscience – by means of his blood, the willing sacrifice of his life.

I think it fair to divorce the imagery of the scapegoat from the goat and bull sacrifice as this is exactly what the author of Hebrews does. The symbolism is not Jesus taking our sins outside of the gate to the tomb (he was actually crucified outside the gate), but that his is a superior sacrifice that sanctifies his people. Bruce has noted that Israel considered what was inside the gate as sacred, but what was outside the gate as profane and unclean. Yet Moses set the tent outside the gate. God was rejected in the camp of Israel and manifested his presence outside. What was formerly sacred was now profane and what was formerly common was now hallowed. Given the author's comments regarding the faith of Moses in Hebrews 11, and Moses considering "the reproach of Christ greater than the riches of Egypt," I think it may be a weak argument to highlight the fact that Jesus suffered outside the city.

So while I do not see a strong foundation based on Hebrew passage, or on the fact that Jesus was crucified outside the gate, I do grant that this is part and parcel of bearing our iniquities, which I also see in the scapegoat symbolism. I think that we may agree on much here.

The purpose of the scapegoat was that it symbolized the fact that both people and land had been purged from their iniquity, since the high priest made the confession of communal sin over the goat before it was driven into the wilderness. What the scapegoat offers a symbol that will find its fullest expression in Christ who takes away human sin by his death. It is vicarious in that the scapegoat, while set free, symbolically takes away the communal sin of Israel. Christ’s death, likewise, is vicarious in that he bears not his own but our sin. He suffered for us, and died that we might live. Jesus died in our place, instead of us.

The problem is that what these passages show is a sacrifice, and even propitiation. It shows Jesus dying, taking our iniquities, satisfying the demands placed upon us by our sin, taking away our sins, etc. But what it does not show is penal substitution. What you need to prove is more along the line of Abraham’s willingness to punish Isaac as an offering to God. I am not certain, brother, that an atoning sacrifice can legitimately be considered “punishment” (although “wrath” may be appropriate, and certainly suffering applies).

Penal substitution deals with imputed guilt, not necessarily a sacrifice for us but a state whereby Jesus is literally considered as guilty as us. Having imputed our sins on Christ, God then views him as guilty (although Jesus never sinned, God sees him as evil and unholy…as sin) and justly punishes him with by inflicting upon Christ our punishment for our sin. This is absent in both of your “proofs” thus far. All atonement theories affirm the “proof” that you attribute to penal substitution atonement.

If, however, you are just walking through a development of your case then I understand. This would be your second foundation towards penal substitution, not your second “proof.” Thus far, I think you could take the argument as developed here towards any theory of atonement as we have yet to leave common ground.



(Commentaries I referenced are: George Guthrie, Hebrews and F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews).

 

[agedman]

Snipped to let the poster know of my thinking of the thread.

Snipped to let the poster know of my thinking of the thread.

I was wanting you both to know how extremely pleased and impressed I am with your communication with each other and the level of edification that the posts are bringing to the readers.

It is certainly refreshing!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think it fair to divorce the imagery of the scapegoat from the goat and bull sacrifice as this is exactly what the author of Hebrews does.

I think it may have been better not to include the quote from Hebrews at this point as it seems to have distracted from the point I was trying to make.

the goat perishes carrying the sins of the people of God so that they should not suffer the penalty for sin. The Lord Jesus Christ died and carried our sins ........... so that His people should not suffer the penalty for sin. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.'

All the typical sacrifices are fulfilled in Christ. He is the Burnt Offering, the Grain Offering, the Peace Offering, the Sin Offering, the Trespass Offering, the Red Heffer, the Two Turtledoves, and of course the Yom Kippur. The latter is all one event and the bull, the ram and the two goats cannot be separated insofar as each of them is an adumbration of Christ and they make up one picture.

To deal with some of your other points, since we have come on to Hebrews and since we have started swapping quotes from commentaries, here's A.W. Pink on 13:11-12:

'But let us dwell for a moment on the spiritual significance of this particular detail of the type. It presents to us that feature in the sufferings of Christ which is the most solemn of all to contemplate, namely, His being made sin for His people and enduring the penal wrath of God. "Outside the camp" was the place where the leper was compelled to dwell (Lev. 13:46); it was the place where criminals were condemned and slain (Lev. 24:14 and cf. Josh. 7:25; 1 Kings 21:13; Acts 7:58); it was the place where the defiled were put (Num. 5:3); it was the place where the filth was deposited (Deut. 23:12-14). And that was the place, dear Christian reader, that the incarnate Son, the Holy One of God, entered for you and for me! O the unspeakable humiliation when He suffered Himself to be "numbered with the transgressors" (Isa. 53:12). O the unutterable mystery of the Blessed One "Being made a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13). O the unspeakable anguish when the sword of Divine Justice smote Him (Zech. 13:7), and God forsook Him (Matt. 27:46).
Yet let it be emphatically insisted upon that Christ remained, personally and essentially, the Untainted One, even when the fearful load of the sins of His people was laid upon Him.......'
[Pink: An Exposition of Hebrews, Baker Book House. Italics and capitalization in the original].

 

[JonC]

I think it may have been better not to include the quote from Hebrews at this point as it seems to have distracted from the point I was trying to make.

All the typical sacrifices are fulfilled in Christ. He is the Burnt Offering, the Grain Offering, the Peace Offering, the Sin Offering, the Trespass Offering, the Red Heffer, the Two Turtledoves, and of course the Yom Kippur. The latter is all one event and the bull, the ram and the two goats cannot be separated insofar as each of them is an adumbration of Christ and they make up one picture.

To deal with some of your other points, since we have come on to Hebrews and since we have started swapping quotes from commentaries, here's A.W. Pink on 13:11-12:

'But let us dwell for a moment on the spiritual significance of this particular detail of the type. It presents to us that feature in the sufferings of Christ which is the most solemn of all to contemplate, namely, His being made sin for His people and enduring the penal wrath of God. "Outside the camp" was the place where the leper was compelled to dwell (Lev. 13:46); it was the place where criminals were condemned and slain (Lev. 24:14 and cf. Josh. 7:25; 1 Kings 21:13; Acts 7:58); it was the place where the defiled were put (Num. 5:3); it was the place where the filth was deposited (Deut. 23:12-14). And that was the place, dear Christian reader, that the incarnate Son, the Holy One of God, entered for you and for me! O the unspeakable humiliation when He suffered Himself to be "numbered with the transgressors" (Isa. 53:12). O the unutterable mystery of the Blessed One "Being made a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13). O the unspeakable anguish when the sword of Divine Justice smote Him (Zech. 13:7), and God forsook Him (Matt. 27:46).
Yet let it be emphatically insisted upon that Christ remained, personally and essentially, the Untainted One, even when the fearful load of the sins of His people was laid upon Him.......'
[Pink: An Exposition of Hebrews, Baker Book House. Italics and capitalization in the original].

Yes, all sacrifices point to Christ, I agree. The entire OT Scripture points to Christ, it is all about him.

While I obviously would want evidence from scripture that Christ’s suffering was penal, I agree with Pink regarding outside of the camp being “unclean.” What I like about his comment is the emphasis on the shame of that status and such implications on us as we are to consider the “reproach of Christ” greater than any riches.

I wonder if another aspect of “outside the camp” and “outside Jerusalem” parallels the New Covenant and the Old. Christ fulfilled the Law, but our righteous is found via faith outside of the Law. In this sense, the Atonement is outside of Jerusalem. (Bruce also suggests an element of Gentile inclusion in the term).

It is an interesting subject, and I suppose that you and I would be content discussing our redemption for years to come (if we don’t stumble and make each other mad). But Pink is right that we should approach the subject solemnly, with respect and awe. I suspect that this is why you and I disagree on such strong terms regarding the scope of the penal element in the Atonement. It is not a subject to take lightly, and we need to treat Scripture with utmost care….we need to everywhere, but perhaps more so here.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Penal substitution deals with imputed guilt, not necessarily a sacrifice for us but a state whereby Jesus is literally considered as guilty as us. Having imputed our sins on Christ, God then views him as guilty (although Jesus never sinned, God sees him as evil and unholy…as sin) and justly punishes him with by inflicting upon Christ our punishment for our sin. This is absent in both of your “proofs” thus far. All atonement theories affirm the “proof” that you attribute to penal substitution atonement.

Penal Substitution deals with Jesus receiving the penalty for sin in our place Penal = penalty. substitution = in our place. When Isaiah writes, 'But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed,' I am sincerely perplexed that you continue to debate the subject. But God does not see Jesus as 'evil and unholy.' God 'has laid on Him the iniquity of us all,' and punished sin in Him.

If, however, you are just walking through a development of your case then I understand. This would be your second foundation towards penal substitution, not your second “proof.” Thus far, I think you could take the argument as developed here towards any theory of atonement as we have yet to leave common ground.

As far as I am concerned each of the texts I am producing is a proof of Penal Substitution and stands perfectly well on its own. I understand that you (and Agedman) do not agree, but I can't help that. My aim is simply to pile up the evidence until it becomes as obvious to everyone reading the thread as it is to me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I wonder if another aspect of “outside the camp” and “outside Jerusalem” parallels the New Covenant and the Old. Christ fulfilled the Law, but our righteous is found via faith outside of the Law. In this sense, the Atonement is outside of Jerusalem. (Bruce also suggests an element of Gentile inclusion in the term).

This is outside the scope of our debate, but the point that the writer to the Hebrews is making is that the Israelites were not permitted to eat any portion of the sin offering, and the carcase was burnt outside the camp (Lev. 4:12; 6:30). Therefore "he solemnly affirms that those who still clung to Judaism cut themselves off from the Christian privileges: they had "no right," no divine title to "eat" or partake of them" (Pink). Therefore the Hebrew Christians must 'Hold fast the confession of our hope' and depart from the Jewish rituals which the death of Christ have made obsolete (8:13). It is the Christian alone who can feed upon the Sin Offering (John 6:53-56).

The application of this principle to us today is obvious. We must depart, not only from all forms of ritual and performance, but also from the world. The 'camp,' outside of which we are to go to Christ is no longer that of Judaism, but the world system which hates our Lord and despises us. 'Do not love the world' 'The whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one' (1 John 2:15; 5:19). The hostility of the world, as it is outside of Christ, is becoming greater every day, yet the Church, in the U.K. at any rate, is desperate for its favour and approval.

 

[JonC]

I do understand that when you read those passages you see penal substitution dripping from the words. It may help to know that scholars for centuries have read those same passages but come up with different conclusions. The ability to understand the legitimacy of various views within their (not your) own system of thought is a valuable asset. If this is allusive, however, you can at least rest assured that penal substitution theory was not articulated for quite some time. It has never held prominence as the major view of atonement (although it is, of course, the major view among Protestants).

I held a penal substitution view for most of life. Actually, I pretty much took it for granted and just started questioning the validity of some aspects of that position a couple of months ago. So I do know the arguments, the commentaries, and the presuppositions. What made me question the accuracy of penal substitution was in reviewing a sermon I had just delivered and becoming aware of certain presuppositions I had carried into the text. The more I studied and read of earlier positions the less confident I became in my own. I asked questions, only to discover that no one I asked could provided scripture in defense of “why.” My question was not why scripture states this or that. My question was why we come to certain conclusions and offer certain explanations that are neither explicitly scripture nor the historical position of the church. I wondered if NT Wright had a point when he suggested that there are areas where we look upon Scripture as if we were sixteenth century reformers rather than first century Christians.

I know the history of the theories of atonement. I know the development and building of these doctrines. I can see reflected in many of the views circumstances of a particular age peeking through the curtains. The persecutions of ransom theorists, the medieval worldview approaching the codification of honor in satisfaction theory, the treasury of merit and penance of substitution theorists, and of course the struggle of the Reformation and the replacement of penance and merit, the notions so engrained in sixteenth century RCC thought, with substitutionary punishment in penal substitution. So my question became why. Why do we accept a context other than a first century context in which to view the Atonement? J.I. Packer says that it is because penal substitution was underdeveloped. The elements were there but it was not put together. My question then would be….but for fifteen centuries, when theories had been developed and refined, accepted and rejected, already for at least twelve centuries?

Here is the issue, brother. You have posted Scripture that we all agree upon. But you throw in statements after these passages stating things like “On the cross He bore the punishment due to us and endured the separation from the Father that we deserve that we might live forever in the presence of God.”

That statement is penal substitution. But you have not provided passages that indicate Jesus bore “the punishment due to us,” or that Jesus “endured the separation from the Father.” The scripture that you quote was interpreted for centuries as Christ dying for humanity and taking on human sin in his flesh. They focused more, granted, on the physical death (actually, I’m not sure they were wrong there) than we seem willing. But why? That’s my question. Why should we accept the explanations you weave throughout the biblical text? If we should, then there should be a reason. I’m not, BTW, questioning your scholarship. I am questioning your worldview. I think that this is where the difference lies – in the lens through which we look.

Perhaps Leon Morris had a point when he wrote “We are small minded sinners and the atonement is great and vast. We should not expect that our theories will ever explain it fully.” But I think that we can refine our views and rid, as best we can, our theologies from secular worldviews and presuppositions.

 

[JonC]

As far as I am concerned each of the texts I am producing is a proof of Penal Substitution and stands perfectly well on its own

Brother, I am highlighting some of the difficulties I am having with your argument. I hope that this will help us work through these things towards at least a better understanding of each other.

When Isaiah writes,'But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed,'I am sincerely perplexed that you continue to debate the subject.... God'has laid on Him the iniquity of us all,'and punished sin in Him.

Here is where I disagree. God “has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” And then you add “and punished sin in Him.” The text does not support “punishment,” much less the “punishment of sin.” You have taken liberties with the text by inferring the meaning of “punishment” rather than “atonement” or “sacrifice.” The quote you offer is from Isaiah 53 – God lays on him our iniquities and offers him as a guilt offering. There is no indication of punishment. As far as theories go, the closes you can get to this is Aquinas – but he was adamant that this cannot be “our punishment” because that would make God unjust (hence penance).

On the cross He bore the punishment due to us.

Again, you speak of scripture but change “He bore our sins” to “He bore the punishment due to us.” I am not sure where this comes from, but it does not come from the text itself. Yes, our punishment is averted. But nowhere does scripture say that Jesus bore our punishment (this is certainly not implied in “atonement”, it is an addition). So why do we automatically make that connection? It is not universally obvious as the early church did not make that conclusion, neither did the Catholics, neither did the Anabaptists. It is a distinctly Protestant view (and not even universally accepted here).

But let’s start here and work through the rest afterwards.

and endured the separation from the Father that we deserve

It may be an easier, if you are willing, discussion to walk through and learn how each of us understands the concept as it is a bit more concise. Is there a passage that states Jesus was separated from the Father? If so, in what context?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is where I disagree. God “has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” And then you add “and punished sin in Him.” The text does not support “punishment,” much less the “punishment of sin.” You have taken liberties with the text by inferring the meaning of “punishment” rather than “atonement” or “sacrifice.” The quote you offer is from Isaiah 53 – God lays on him our iniquities and offers him as a guilt offering. There is no indication of punishment.

I am just amazed! What part of 'wounded, 'bruised,' 'chastisement' and 'stripes' do you not understand? Do these not constitute punishment?

When Isaiah writes, 'But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed,' I am sincerely perplexed that you continue to debate the subject. But God does not see Jesus as 'evil and unholy.' God 'has laid on Him the iniquity of us all,' and punished sin in Him.

Christ took the punishment that our sins deserve. Deal with the whole paragraph and don't isolate the last 5 words in order to dodge the issue.
As far as Aquinas is concerned, I want to keep this thread for Bible texts, please. I will reply with a few more Patristic quotations on the other thread. But if you think Aquinas is so great, why aren't you a Roman Catholic? I am a Protestant and I make no apology for that.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It may be an easier, if you are willing, discussion to walk through and learn how each of us understands the concept as it is a bit more concise. Is there a passage that states Jesus was separated from the Father? If so, in what context?

We need to start with Habakkuk 1:13. 'You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look upon wickedness.' Then we need to observe the fate of the wicked, who 'Shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power' (2 Thes. 1:9): that is, eternal separation from God, the source of all goodness and blessing. "Depart from Me, you cursed...." The wages of sin is truly 'The second death,' not annihilation but separation from the Lord of Life, knowing nothing of Him but His eternal righteous anger against sin.

So when Christ cries out, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me?" He is experiencing separation from God and He hangs in the sinner's place. He is receiving the wages of sin on our behalf.

'The [22nd] Psalm opens with the very words of our Saviour's fourth cross-utterance, and it is followed by further agonizing sobs in the same strain till, at v.3, we find Him saying, "But Thou art holy.' He complains not of injustice, instead He acknowledges God's righteousness- Thou art holy and just in exacting all the debt at My hand for which I am surety for: I have all the sins of My people to answer for, and therefore I justify Thee, O God, in giving Me this stroke from Thine awakened sword. Thou art holy: Thou art clear when Thou judgest.'
A. W. Pink: Seven sayings of the Saviour on the Cross (Christian Heritage Books).

 

[JonC]

Good morning, Martin. Before I address your answer to the question, I’ll quickly speak to the points that you have brought up. If you would like we can then go back and discuss them in more detail.

I am just amazed! What part of 'wounded, 'bruised,' 'chastisement' and 'stripes' do you not understand? Do these not constitute punishment?

I prefer to keep posts brief, but I always fail. In my attempt for brevity I have failed to explain this point. Thank you for bringing it to my attention as I think I can temper your amazement.


“Wounded, bruised, chastisement and stripes” all correspond to Christ’s suffering. In fact, it would be a good idea to pause and read Psalm 22 for emphasis. It deals with what Jesus endured leading up to and on the cross, suffering as an atonement for us. In a sense this is punishment, I grant that. It is punishment on behalf of those men who falsely accused and executed a false judgment upon their Messiah. Peter makes this clear in his first two sermons as found in the Book of Acts. The men killed their Messiah, they falsely accused him and gave him over to the Romans, insisting that he be executed. But they did so out of ignorance. Peter informs them of two things. First, where there is ignorance there is the possibility of forgiveness (this they knew from the Law). Second, even though they did this deed it was the will and plan of God that it occur. The punishment was an act of evil, but it could be forgiven.


God, however, offered his Son as a sacrifice. This was not punishment. Penal Substitution atonement misplaces the intent from men to God. Were this punishment, then God would have either acted out of evil or out of ignorance. Peter leaves us with no other option. Calvin, however, provides one. He divorces “lay our iniquities on him” from “offering him as a guilt offering” and attributes to that phrase imputed sin. Quite literally, Penal Substitution holds that God imputed our sin on Jesus and looked on Jesus as evil. He made him who knew no evil or sin to be evil or sin for us. Therefore God could punish Jesus with the punishment due evil. If you cannot accept that on the cross God viewed Jesus as evil (instead of his “Righteous One,” or his “Obedient one”) then you cannot accept penal substitution theory.


On the part of God (which is what we are talking about here), Jesus was not punished with our punishment. For illustration, when Abraham lay Isaac on the alter to be sacrificed, Abraham was intending to offer his son as a sacrifice in obedience to God. Although Isaac would have suffered (probably did suffer mentally), punishment was not in view.

Christ took the punishment that our sins deserve. Deal with the whole paragraph and don't isolate the last 5 words in order to dodge the issue.

Sure, my apologies. I’ll do even better – I’ll look through the entire chapter.

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions;he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and theLordhas laid on himthe iniquity of us all.

Yetit was the will of theLordto crush him;he has put him to grief;
when his soul makesan offering for guilt,he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of theLordshall prosper in his hand.
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall seeand be satisfied;
by his knowledge shallthe righteous one, my servant,make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.”

My point is that you have added to this beautiful description of our redemption, of God laying on him our sins as a guilt offering, the phrase “and punished sin in him.” Where, brother, did that come from? It came from your own worldview and your own reasoning which you have placed within the text itself. There is no other explanation for so many have gone before us without coming to that conclusion.

As far as Aquinas is concerned, I want to keep this thread for Bible texts, please. I will reply with a few more Patristic quotations on the other thread. But if you think Aquinas is so great, why aren't you a Roman Catholic? I am a Protestant and I make no apology for that.

I am Baptist. I do not hold to Catholic doctrine because I believe it heresy. I don’t think Aquinas is “so great,” my point is that your view is a reformation of Aquinas. I am asking you why you lean so heavily on Roman Catholic doctrine reformed? And I am pointing out that the closest you can get to a historical view of penal substation is Aquinas’ divine penance, not that I believe Aquinas to be correct. He was just as wrong as Calvin, but it is perhaps understandable given their circumstances and the milieu in which they refined their doctrines.

 

[JonC]

We need to start with Habakkuk 1:13. 'You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look upon wickedness.

Habakkuk does say that God has too pure of eyes to look upon evil. Here you are accidentally confirming something that you just denied. You told me that God did not view Jesus as evil, yet you offer this passage in support of that separation between the Father and the Son? Either way, whether mere inconsistence or error, the argument does not pan out.

What you quote is Habakkuk’s second complaint of God, appealing to God’s own nature to act. God cannot condone sin. What you have presented here is a false dichotomy between the Father and the Son. It is an error in understanding the divinity of Christ. Habakkuk applies to the nature of God. It also applies to Jesus. Not only does your argument take the passage out of context, but unless you believe that Jesus ceased being God on the cross this is not an argument you should consider.

Then we need to observe the fate of the wicked, who 'Shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power' (2 Thes. 1:9): that is, eternal separation from God, the source of all goodness and blessing. "Depart from Me, you cursed...." The wages of sin is truly 'The second death,' not annihilation but separation from the Lord of Life, knowing nothing of Him but His eternal righteous anger against sin.

Yes, this is descriptive of the punishment that men deserve. The second death, which is also a future judgment when Death and Hades is cast into Hell. We can’t redefine terms to suit our needs. Jesus is Life, and he is that Life that those who are in Hell are separated from. In him everything lives and has their being. Jesus cannot be separated from God and be God. Now if you are saying that what Jesus suffered was infinitely greater than our eternal separation and torment in Hell, and this suffering is accounted to us based on Jesus’ merit (as God suffering for man), then this is the Roman Catholic view.

So when Christ cries out, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me?" He is experiencing separation from God and He hangs in the sinner's place. He is receiving the wages of sin on our behalf.

Here you, again, are adding to the text. Jesus could have been quoting the scripture that he was fulfilling (Psalm 22). I believe that he is. But nothing there indicates separation. In fact, the passage as a whole denies it.

Matthew 27:45-54 45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying,“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”that is,“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”47 And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.”48 And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink.49 But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.”50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. 51 And behold,the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. Andthe earth shook, and the rocks were split.52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said,“Truly this was the Son of God!”

Notice, brother, that when Jesus cried out some thought he was calling Elijah. Not only that, but they wanted to wait and see if he would come and save him. Why? Is it because they understood Jesus to have been separated from God? No, that doesn’t make sense with the text. Jesus was experiencing a physical death as God’s Righteous One. Consider Psalm 91:12 as used when Satan tempted Christ. Here we have a righteous man who is not being delivered from the cross. This is Psalm 22, not Jesus dying spiritually and experiencing the second death.

You are weaving explanation throughout your interpretation of the text, brother. My suggestion is to try understanding first what the text actually says. Then form a commentary if necessary, but never stand on that reasoning.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Habakkuk does say that God has too pure of eyes to look upon evil. Here you are accidentally confirming something that you just denied. You told me that God did not view Jesus as evil, yet you offer this passage in support of that separation between the Father and the Son? Either way, whether mere inconsistence or error, the argument does not pan out.

Oh please! How could God possibly look upon Christ as evil? The idea is a ridiculous as it is repugnant. What the Scripture tells us is that God laid upon Christ the iniquity of us all. It is our sin that He was bearing upon which God could not look.

The rest will have to wait. I have a life outside this forum somewhere and I need to find it.

 

[JonC]

Oh please! How could God possibly look upon Christ as evil? The idea is a ridiculous as it is repugnant. What the Scripture tells us is that God laid upon Christ the iniquity of us all. It is our sin that He was bearing upon which God could not look.

The rest will have to wait. I have a life outside this forum somewhere and I need to find it.

I agree...how could God look upon his Son as sin, but then again I don't hold a penal substitution view. That separation you hold between sin and the sinner is, BTW, of Gnostic origin. Scripture does not differentiate so much between the sin and the sinner. Sins are manifestations of our sinfulness.

But I also realize that we are not always consistent in our views. You can very well view God as punishing Jesus with the "second death" in our stead while all along viewing him as his Righteous One. Scripture certainly insists that God never looked upon Jesus as sin but as righteous and obedient (Ezekiel 36). I question, however, the extent of your penal substitution theory (you seem to have many objections to the reasons leading to the conclusions you hold). Again, we are not always consistent in our reasoning.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Again, we are not always consistent in our reasoning.

Speak for yourself.

 

[JonC]

Speak for yourself.

Laugh I am. I know that my reasoning is not always consistent, that's why I insist here that we rely on Scripture. Thumbsup

 

[JonC]

I ran across this quote, Martin, that speaks to this issue a bit more generally.

“Paul depicts Jesus’ death ‘for me,’ not as something that has happened ‘in place of’ and so outside of himself (per penal substitution), but as something that has happened to himself personally: ‘I have been crucified with Christ.’ And that the death of Jesus is something that has happened to himself rather than ‘in place of’ himself makes all the difference: ‘it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.’ In Romans, Paul connects this transformative ‘exchange’ between dying ‘with Christ’ and Christ living ‘in me’ to the believer’s dying and rising ‘with Christ’ through baptism. Indeed, Paul speaks of such an intimate relationship between Jesus’ death and the believer’s baptism that some commentators interpret Paul to mean that the believer not only symbolically identifies with Jesus’ death but really participates in death ‘with Christ.’” ( Darrin Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace, pg. 314)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What you quote is Habakkuk’s second complaint of God, appealing to God’s own nature to act. God cannot condone sin. What you have presented here is a false dichotomy between the Father and the Son. It is an error in understanding the divinity of Christ. Habakkuk applies to the nature of God. It also applies to Jesus. Not only does your argument take the passage out of context, but unless you believe that Jesus ceased being God on the cross this is not an argument you should consider.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Christ is described as 'Holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners' (Heb. 7:26). Though He lived among sinners, He was infinitely apart from them, in nature, in character, in motive and conduct. The triune God cannot wink at sin or associate with it. Yet, our precious Lord bore our sins in His own body upon the tree (1 Peter 2:24) and suffered the penalty for them. That is why the doctrine of penal Substitution is so vital and why I spending precious time arguing it. God will not wink at sin. If Christ has not taken my sin upon Himself and suffered the penalty for it on my behalf, I am still in my sins and the punishment for them awaits me.

“Wounded, bruised, chastisement and stripes” all correspond to Christ’s suffering. In fact, it would be a good idea to pause and read Psalm 22 for emphasis. It deals with what Jesus endured leading up to and on the cross, suffering as an atonement for us. In a sense this is punishment, I grant that. It is punishment on behalf of those men who falsely accused and executed a false judgment upon their Messiah. Peter makes this clear in his first two sermons as found in the Book of Acts. The men killed their Messiah, they falsely accused him and gave him over to the Romans, insisting that he be executed. But they did so out of ignorance. Peter informs them of two things. First, where there is ignorance there is the possibility of forgiveness (this they knew from the Law). Second, even though they did this deed it was the will and plan of God that it occur. The punishment was an act of evil, but it could be forgiven.

You don't explain yourself. Why is the cross Penal Substitution for those who falsely accused Christ and not for anybody else? That is ridiculous and I suppose I must be misunderstanding you. Also, you are right that the O.T. sacrifices only dealt with sins committed in ignorance (Num. 15:27-31), but 'By Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses' (Acts 13:39). Christ's atonement is sufficient and more than sufficient for everyone who trusts in Him. You say, "In a sense, this is punishment." In every sense it is punishment! 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' What for, if not to take the punishment that our sins deserve. If that is not the reason then it really was cosmic child abuse.

God, however, offered his Son as a sacrifice. This was not punishment.

You just said that in a sense it was. Make your mind up!

Penal Substitution atonement misplaces the intent from men to God. Were this punishment, then God would have either acted out of evil or out of ignorance. Peter leaves us with no other option.

Acts 4:27. 'For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. The intent was God's. Absolutely.

Calvin, however, provides one. He divorces “lay our iniquities on him” from “offering him as a guilt offering” and attributes to that phrase imputed sin.

What text are you looking at here? Have you jumped from Acts to Isaiah? You know perfectly well that Calvin was a supporter of P.S.

Quite literally, Penal Substitution holds that God imputed our sin on Jesus and looked on Jesus as evil.

You need to get over this ridiculous obsession. You know that the great majority of Reformed evangelicals since Calvin have believed in P.S. I know of none of them who would claim that the father looked upon the Lord Jesus as evil. 'Yet let it be emphatically insisted upon that Christ remained, personally and essentially, the Untainted One, even when the fearful load of the sins of His people was laid upon Him. This very point was carefully guarded by God- ever jealous of the honour of His Son- in the types, yea, in the sin offerings themselves. First, the blood of the sin offering was carried within the sanctuary itself and sprinkled before the Lord (Lev. 4:6), which was not done with any other offering. Second, "the fat that covereth the innards" of the animal was burned upon the altar (Lev. 4:8-10), yea, "for a sweet savour before the Lord," intimating that God still beheld that in His Son withy which He was well pleased even while He was bearing the sin of His people. Third, it was expressly enjoined that the carcass of the bullock should be carried forth "without the camp unto a clean place" (Lev. 4:12), signifying that it was still holy unto the Lord and not a polluted thing.'
In this regard it may be worth remarking that the father arranged for His Son to be laid in a tomb that had never been used rather than thrown out into an unmarked grave. Christ was precious in His eyes.

He made him who knew no evil or sin to be evil or sin for us. Therefore God could punish Jesus with the punishment due evil. If you cannot accept that on the cross God viewed Jesus as evil (instead of his “Righteous One,” or his “Obedient one”) then you cannot accept penal substitution theory.

Absolute nonsense as I have shown. T'he LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' Christ was made sin; He was never made a sinner.

On the part of God (which is what we are talking about here), Jesus was not punished with our punishment. For illustration, when Abraham lay Isaac on the alter to be sacrificed, Abraham was intending to offer his son as a sacrifice in obedience to God. Although Isaac would have suffered (probably did suffer mentally), punishment was not in view.

You really don't get it, do you? Gen. 22:8. "God Himself will provide the Lamb for the burnt offering."

I'm spending far too much time on this discussion. I'm going to back out for a week or two and then come back (DV) with some N.T. texts for discussion. Perhaps the break will encourage some other people to contribute (if anyone's still reading!).

 

[JonC]

You really don't get it, do you? Gen. 22:8. "God Himself will provide the Lamb for the burnt offering."

I'm spending far too much time on this discussion. I'm going to back out for a week or two and then come back (DV) with some N.T. texts for discussion. Perhaps the break will encourage some other people to contribute (if anyone's still reading!).

No, brother, I do get it. What I am saying is that sacrifice is not "punishment." You are taking bits and pieces of scripture and ignoring the whole.
But I'll look over this post more while you are away - I look forward to continuing - hopefully we can find the allusive scripture pointing to the actual "penal" part of the argument so we don't have to considered it implied (that, I believe, is where we disagree the most. It is not actually there, you see it implied but I don't).

 

[Rippon]

I ran across this quote, Martin, that speaks to this issue a bit more generally.
( Darrin Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace, pg. 314)

Could it be that you actually began with Belouseek's ideas from the start?