Featured The Biblical Basis for Penal Substitution

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

Oops....

 

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