The Biblical Basis for Penal Substitution

[JonC]

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

Good to hear from you, brother. To answer your question, no, I did not begin with Belousek. I thought you knew me better than that. I haven't even read his book. I do not even own Belousek's book (in truth, I know nothing about the guy). When I was accused of inventing a new idea and falsely presenting it as a theory I googled "Father, Son, Atonement, separation, then I hit "books" and read what come up. I just thought it absurd that the guy had read dozens of books on the topic but had never heard of other theories so I quickly jotted down some references while I was at work.

This is where I began. I preached a sermon and mentioned something Paul Washer had said about Jesus suffering our punishment. Anyway, you'd have been proud of the sermon...PST all the way. Go Calvin!

But a couple of weeks later I was studying and I realized that I could not back up the idea of that wrath being our actual punishment from Scripture. I had read much of the Early Church Fathers when I was in seminary (there are a couple I still read a bit, but for the most part I've stuck with studying the bible book by book), but somehow I just thought, you know, all of those earlier theologians rejected the idea that Jesus took our actual punishment. Aquinas actually stated the notion was heretical. The idea was foreign to the early writings (not necessarily elements of punishment, and certainly not substitution, they were there...but not Jesus being punished by the Father with our actual punishment)

So I wondered how I formed my own views. I came up with the conclusion that my view of the Atonement was tradition, and that this view had clouded my objectivity. When I read "It was the will of the Father to crush him" I automatically thought "punishment" when the second part of the verse explains this is by making him a guilt offering.

So it was for this reason I came back to the BB. The Reformed board was too dogmatic to be objective on this topic. Great people, but when I asked if God simply forgave the thread got locked and moved to a special folder (with Evan's threads before he was banned....in fact, they were all his threads except that one of mine Frown ). I thought that someone here might be able to provide evidence in the form of scripture defending the position. Thus far I've received a lot of commentary - most I've already read. But what I want is to refine my view through scripture and see how much of my thought has been presupposition. Plus I missed you .

Anyway, that's the deal. If you know of any passages that actually state Jesus took our punishment, then please let me know.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC

While I obviously would want evidence from scripture that Christ’s suffering was penal

,

From where I sit Martin has offered it and you are side stepping it. I have said previously I am not sure I can help you here.

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).

I dislike this quote the part bolded...To misunderstand here is to get the basis of the gospel wrong. Your failure here leads to your failure to see that which you say you are seeking for.
How can you say this when Romans 10 specifically says this;
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
This passage does not teach Christ is "the end" of the law.
It teaches Christ is the end of the law ....FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Our righteousness is found in law keeping. Not our law keeping but Jesus law keeping.

The fact that we are law breakers puts us under Gods wrath.
The penalty is second death for any who remain in Adam.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.


mt25;
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

. I suspect that this is why you and I disagree on such strong terms regarding the scope of the penal element in the Atonement. .

I cannot help you as I keep it simple.....those not included in the Covenant death.....
go into conscious eternal punishment.
The reason is their sin has to be punished. That punishment is eternal.

 

[Iconoclast]

[QUOTE="JonC

“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.

NO....

Martin pointed to this....you are side stepping it;
But he was wounded .........for our transgressions,

he was bruised......... for our iniquities:

the chastisement of our peace............ was upon him;

and with his stripes........ we are healed.

Isa 53:5 does not say...he suffered because of the evil men. He suffered the penalty in our stead.
It is there if you want to see it . If you want to explain it away, or listen to NT. Wright...I cannot help you. I do not care for the ECF's.....They were loaded with error which eventually pave the way for Romanism.

On the part of God (which is what we are talking about here), Jesus was not punished with our punishment.

This is completely false. He was a Divine substitute.
Again if Jesus does not substitute.....they have to answer for themselves.
those who go into second death without the substitute are punished.

There are degrees of punishment;
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.[/QUOTE]

 

[JonC]

Hey Icon,

Thank you for replying. I have eagerly awaited your feedback as I respect your opinion, even when we disagree. In this case, I am not looking for references (you’ve helped me much in the past with references) but scripture to substantiate a position. And I know that you have worked through your theology quite well.

I’ll start off with a few comments on the pefial and then look at the subject at hand. First, I am not allowing NT Wright to establish my views here. I don’t know how he views this topic. I am not looking to commentary at this time, but to scripture. In the past I have leaned on commentary, and that is how I ended up accepting the idea that on the cross there was this separation. So I’m sticking to scripture. Maybe I’ll hit commentaries later. Second, and more importantly. I have not explained away anything from scripture. That is my issue. I have yet to find the notion that the Father poured out our punishment on Christ, or that on the cross the Father and Son were separated. In fact, if anything, commentators who have suggested this have reasoned away passages to the contrary. So let’s look at where we’re at.

[Martin pointed to this....you are side stepping it;

But he was wounded .........for our transgressions,

he was bruised......... for our iniquities:

the chastisement of our peace............ was upon him;

and with his stripes........ we are healed.


Isa 53:5 does not say...he suffered because of the evil men. He suffered the penalty in our stead.

I am not side stepping here, brother. The Father lay our iniquities on Jesus and offered him as a guilt offering. Jesus lay down his own life in obedience as an atonement. Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace, and with his stripes we are healed.

And you are right that Isa 53:5 does not say that Jesus suffered because of evil men. Of course, it also does not say that he suffered the penalty in our stead, either. Not in the way penal substitution would imply. It is substitutionary in that Jesus suffered for us, for our transgressions, etc. so that we would not. But we can’t ignore when we read Psalm 22 that this suffering is at the hands of men, by the decree of God, for the purpose of presenting Christ as a guilt offering in order to bear our sins that he may redeem many.

What you have added to the text is the idea that the suffering of Jesus was God pouring out wrath which was our punishment.

The reason is their sin has to be punished. That punishment is eternal.

A couple of observations here, brother. First, Jesus did not experience an eternal punishment. You can say that as God, and as eternal, it far surpassed our eternal punishment and suffering. But then you are almost reverting back to the RCC theory articulated by Aquinas. And again, what of forgiveness? You are saying that Divine Justice requires that God demand and receive payment in full so that he can forgive a debt. I am not certain that the logic holds, but more important I am seeking Scripture and have broken down the argument so that we can look at individual elements through the Word of God.

But I do agree that atonement is substitutionary. Thus far, all Martin has been able to defend via scripture is substitution. I fear that we may be at the same point as it looks like the issue concerning the “penal” aspect comes strictly from our reasoning and theological understanding. If this is the case, then I am apprehensive to build upon that ground. It seems to me that is what has been done.

So, thank you and I do, of course, understand your position here. It is what I held for a long time in regards to penal substitution. I was hoping that there was perhaps a passage I had overlooked. As such, I am moving away from the penal substitution view.

Anyway I do appreciate your help.

 

[Yeshua1]

Since I believe that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution is of primary importance, I think it may be helpful to discuss the Biblical basis for it. I want to introduce one text, discuss it, and then move on.
I believe that P.S. is found in several places in Genesis, but I think it is probably simpler to start in Exodus:

Exodus 12. The Passover. In the first nine plagues, disaster falls only upon the Egyptians, but in the tenth, it will fall also upon the Israelites unless they take certain precautions. A lamb must be slaughtered, and its blood applied to the door frame of every house. The clear implication is that unless this is done, the first-born child will die in every house that is not covered by the blood. V.13. 'When I see the blood, I will pass over you.' Implication: "If I don't see the blood, I won't pass over you." Thus the lamb becomes a substitute for the firstborn son, dying in his place.
This applied to every single house of the Israelites. If one house neglected to perform the rite, the fact that the neighbours had done it wouldn't help. A particular lamb died for a particular child.

The blood was to be applied to the doorposts with a sprig of hyssop (v.22). So when David, in the midst of his sins, cries, "Wash me with hyssop and I shall be clean" (Psalm 51:7), he is pleading that the blood of the Passover lamb be applied to him also. The Holy Spirit also tells us today that 'Indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us' (1 Cor. 5:7). Christ's blood was shed for those hearts are sprinkled with the blood of the Passover Lamb (Heb. 9:19-22; 10:19-22).

It might be asked, what were the sins for which the Israelites needed atonement? Ezek. 20:4-10 tells us that they had shared in worshipping the false Egyptian gods. Thus we are particularly told that the plague on the firstborn is 'Judgement on all the gods of Egypt' (Exod. 12:12).

That's very brief, but I hope it's reasonably clear. Please comment and then we can move on to the next text.

Jesus and all of His Apostles saw him as the suffering servant of Yahweh, and saw him as being the one to bears the sins of his people, so how can that not be a penal substitutionary death/atonement?

Those who advocate otherwise seem to not see that God wrath is a real thing, and someone has to really suffer and pay for the trasgression against the law of God!

 

[agedman]

Folks,
Two items to keep in mind:

First:

The suffering was NOT the blood. It is the blood that was shed that redeems not the suffering.

There was NO redemption other than by the blood. Do not mix suffering into redemption.

Please remember that Isaiah presents Christ, wounded, bruised, chastised, and each of those conditions are blood letting. Isaiah is focused upon the BLOOD, not the suffering.

The Scriptures do not present redemption by any other means than that of the BLOOD! The Apostles affirm that it is by the Blood.


I have read on this thread a lot about how Christ had to suffer, and He did; but that suffering was not any different that any other human suffering. Such thinking would make issue of the suffering as part of the redemption removing or enlarging upon the purpose of the Blood.

Second:

One cannot kill the eternal.

Christ died, no doubt, in a physical sense as humankind consider one dead. However, there is not that same thinking when it comes to Scripture.

Death in Scripture is awakening to another existence - that of being transferred from that which is earthy to that which is eternal. As such, there are two places for one to reside in eternity. There is no in between and no go between.

There seems to be some arguments that boarder on Christ being in some state of existence in which neither hell nor the Father had authority. And such arguments (imo) are not even close to the statements of Scriptures.

One cannot be separated from the Father and not be in Hell, and one in Hell cannot come to the Father. Christ did not bust out of jail taking the keys with Him.

 

[JonC]

Jesus and all of His Apostles saw him as the suffering servant of Yahweh, and saw him as being the one to bears the sins of his people, so how can that not be a penal substitutionary death/atonement?

Those who advocate otherwise seem to not see that God wrath is a real thing, and someone has to really suffer and pay for the trasgression against the law of God!

You are drawing lines that are not there (that I cannot find...not in scripture, anyway). Penal Substitution theory is not unique because it views Jesus as bearing our sins, of dying a substitutionary death, as being the propitiation for our sins, of turning away wrath....this is not what makes Penal Substitution theory stand apart from other historical views.

Cyril of Jerusalem certainly viewed God's wrath as the real thing (as did Origen, Augustine, Justin Martyr, et al). The question is whether or not God punished Jesus with our punishment. There has been far too much smoke on this topic (i.e., "how can people say Jesus did not die for us....that God's wrath is not real...that he didn't bear our sins...etc"). All strawman arguments, and absolutely no evidence in terms of scripture to support their theories.

Anyway, I'm glad you're here to lay some passages on us brother. It's been awhile.

 

[JonC]

Oops....

 

[Rebel]

Good to hear from you, brother. To answer your question, no, I did not begin with Belousek. I thought you knew me better than that. I haven't even read his book. I do not even own Belousek's book (in truth, I know nothing about the guy). When I was accused of inventing a new idea and falsely presenting it as a theory I googled "Father, Son, Atonement, separation, then I hit "books" and read what come up. I just thought it absurd that the guy had read dozens of books on the topic but had never heard of other theories so I quickly jotted down some references while I was at work.

This is where I began. I preached a sermon and mentioned something Paul Washer had said about Jesus suffering our punishment. Anyway, you'd have been proud of the sermon...PST all the way. Go Calvin!

But a couple of weeks later I was studying and I realized that I could not back up the idea of that wrath being our actual punishment from Scripture. I had read much of the Early Church Fathers when I was in seminary (there are a couple I still read a bit, but for the most part I've stuck with studying the bible book by book), but somehow I just thought, you know, all of those earlier theologians rejected the idea that Jesus took our actual punishment. Aquinas actually stated the notion was heretical. The idea was foreign to the early writings (not necessarily elements of punishment, and certainly not substitution, they were there...but not Jesus being punished by the Father with our actual punishment)

So I wondered how I formed my own views. I came up with the conclusion that my view of the Atonement was tradition, and that this view had clouded my objectivity. When I read "It was the will of the Father to crush him" I automatically thought "punishment" when the second part of the verse explains this is by making him a guilt offering.

So it was for this reason I came back to the BB. The Reformed board was too dogmatic to be objective on this topic. Great people, but when I asked if God simply forgave the thread got locked and moved to a special folder (with Evan's threads before he was banned....in fact, they were all his threads except that one of mine Frown ). I thought that someone here might be able to provide evidence in the form of scripture defending the position. Thus far I've received a lot of commentary - most I've already read. But what I want is to refine my view through scripture and see how much of my thought has been presupposition. Plus I missed you .

Anyway, that's the deal. If you know of any passages that actually state Jesus took our punishment, then please let me know.

JonC, I've not been here frequently of late, but it is very refreshing to read your posts in this thread. I'm glad you've come to where you are on this. I thought you might eventually do that.

 

[JonC]

JonC, I've not been here frequently of late, but it is very refreshing to read your posts in this thread. I'm glad you've come to where you are on this. I thought you might eventually do that.

Thank you. I suppose I'm an example that an old dog can learn new tricks. Biggrin