The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

[The Biblicist]

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 ¶ Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul to death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

All of this suffering inflicted by God is identified directly with the "offering for sin" TYPE. Thus, this necessarily infers that "afflictions" and "bruise" and "greif" are the PENAL consequences of OUR sin or due to sin (as the text repeats over and over again) and as such, the TYPE(offering for sin) will also convey the same (death, fire, brass = judgement of God's wrath) and necessary to satisfy God's just and lawful wrath against sinners("he shall be satisifed" v 11). Satisfaction is a measured thing and the measurement is provided by the just penalty of the Law.

 

[The Biblicist]

. Just like others here he has failed to prove his theory.

Speaking a little bit early aren't you? You haven't even examined or responded to the evidences presented and yet you have finalized your conclusion?????

 

[The Biblicist]

Just seems to be backing away from the wrath of God aspect, and not really accepting PST, as ou rbroter Jon states one thing, but shies away from it?

His issues are far more reaching than those you listed. His views logically repudiate the whole PST.

 

[Yeshua1]

The essence of death is separation! Spiritual separation, physical separation and eternal separation from God. Jesus did experience separation from the Father on the Cross as in his own words he says "Why hast thou forsaken me." He is quoting from Psalm 22:1 and in the context the answer is given "because thou art holy" and Paul says that on the cross he was "made to be sin." So, yes, Jesus suffered not merely physical death but suffered "separation" from the Father on the cross. Obviously he was not made to be a "sinner" and thus "sinful" but made to be "sin" by substitutionary by position under the law.

The fact that he was "made to be sin" on the cross justifies the wrath of God poured upon him as the substitute for sinners. Isaiah 53 depicts all the suffering on the cross as coming directly from God due to our sins. Nothing could be plainer and therefore so much for the "Christus Victor" theory!

Think that this is othr area where you and I and Jon just disagree, as we would afiirm Jesus really was forsaken by God, and yet Jon seems to believe could not have that happen unless he ceased being God!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't subscribe to his model of the atonement. Just like others here he has failed to prove his theory. I do respect that he acknowledges this while some here are oblivious to the fact in their own ideas.

That said, I am not simply going to dismiss centuries upon centuries a scholarship simply because Wright agrees that the Cross was victory over sin and death.

Wright is not even the main advocate of the historical position. More to the point is that while I see truths conveyed in this predominant view, I also believe that the atonement was both penal and substitutionary. What I have been asking as for the reasons behind the contacts you ascribe to scripture.

Think that we would all agree that Jesus conquered death and Satan at the Coss, broke their power and hold over us, but you seem to refuse to accept that the scriptures themselves, not Calvin, Luther, me, teach PST as THE primary andproper way to view the death of Christ!

 

[JonC]

Speaking a little bit early aren't you? You haven't even examined or responded to the evidences presented and yet you have finalized your conclusion?????

I mean in a general sense, not you literally. I appreciate your explanations. I just got back in and will read your replies.

 

[The Biblicist]

I mean in a general sense, not you literally. I appreciate your explanations. I just got back in and will read your replies.

Ok

 

[JonC]

Think that we would all agree that Jesus conquered death and Satan at the Coss, broke their power and hold over us, but you seem to refuse to accept that the scriptures themselves, not Calvin, Luther, me, teach PST as THE primary andproper way to view the death of Christ!

Brother, you continue to spread accusations against me and I am not sure why. You have said that I based my view on Wright (which was an absurd claim), and the backed off to say that Wright also holds to some sort of Christus Victor theory as at least being somewhat true. And now you are saying that I have rejected Scripture.

Do you know the phrase "put up or shut up"? I don't mean it bad (don't take it wrongly), but put up or shut up. If you are going to accuse me of refusing to accept "Scriptures themselves" then provide a list - NOT YOUR COMMENTARY OR THEORIES BUT A LIST, of the verses you are claiming I have refused to accept.

Like this: John 1:1; Mark 1:1, etc. (No need to provide the text, I have a Bible).

 

[JonC]

His issues are far more reaching than those you listed. His views logically repudiate the whole PST.

You don't know my view ...... and sorry....I'm working backwards to find my place again. We just got out of the ER (wrestling with my son and asthma).

 

[Yeshua1]

Brother, you continue to spread accusations against me and I am not sure why. You have said that I based my view on Wright (which was an absurd claim), and the backed off to say that Wright also holds to some sort of Christus Victor theory as at least being somewhat true. And now you are saying that I have rejected Scripture.

Do you know the phrase "put up or shut up"? I don't mean it bad (don't take it wrongly), but put up or shut up. If you are going to accuse me of refusing to accept "Scriptures themselves" then provide a list - NOT YOUR COMMENTARY OR THEORIES BUT A LIST, of the verses you are claiming I have refused to accept.

Like this: John 1:1; Mark 1:1, etc. (No need to provide the text, I have a Bible).

Please reread that post of mine, NEVER accused you of denyingthe cross/scripture, jusy that you seem to be failing to accept that they teach the PST as the main way to view the Cross!

 

[The Biblicist]

You don't know my view ...... and sorry....I'm working backwards to find my place again. We just got out of the ER (wrestling with my son and asthma).

Sorry about your son. My son also had asthma and I spent many a time in the hospital with him and I know from first hand the difficulties.

 

[JonC]

Ok, I found where we were.

The brazen altar is commonly acknowledged by most typologists to be a type of the JUDGEMENT of God. The "fire" is a type of Gehenna as even Christ used "fire" as a description of Gehenna and punishment.

Most typologists I have read consider the brazen alter to symbolize the Judgment of God in a general sense. Bronze often alludes to God’s judgment. The Laver or Basin is also bronze, as well as the clasps (holding the tent together as a unit). In the Temple, the pillars, basin (sea), stands, vessels used for service, etc. are all bronze. So yes, judgment is certainly in focus (as evidenced by the necessity of atonement).

Hebrew word for burnt-offering denotes that which ascends, or mounts up, as the flame and smoke did on this author when the sacrificial element was consumed. You made the connection between fire (a necessity in burnt-offerings) and the Brazen Altar to symbolize punishment on the altar. That symbolism is as unnecessary as saying the Tabernacle was anchored to the earth, and the earth symbolizes Adam because Adam was made of the dirt. We need to be careful about forcing symbolism.

But except for the fire, I think that you have been observant. The Brazen Altar did indeed have God’s judgment in mind. But this still does not justify the interpretation that the atonement or alter symbolizes God’s punishment laid upon the sacrifice.

The combination of "fire" and "brass" together is obvious types of God's wrath taken out on the animal in the place of the sinner as it is the animal that is suffering death "for sin" instead of the sinner.

This is something that I believe you carried into the text as an addition. Perhaps the reason that you believe this is you read it in a commentary, but it is not in Scripture itself (not even when symbolism in the Tabernacle is dealt with later on in Scripture) - and my question is, if not from extra-biblical influences or a sense of contemporary justice, where did it originate…if elsewhere in Scripture then please provide the passage.

You still don't understand the nature of God's law. It makes no difference what may be the application of the Law of God. The law is MORAL by its nature due to the fact it originates from God's moral faculty of the heart. All of God's laws are determined thoughts that issue from his heart and when spoken or written they become the revealed "will" of God. Violation of any of those laws is rebellion against HIS PERSON who is the source of law and that is what makes all violations MORAL issues.You still have not been able to respond to the fact that both the written law/commandments of God can be summarized into two commandments and those two can be summarized in one word "LOVE" which is a MORAL VALUE that comprehends ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHET. It is' this same moral value that can summarize God "God IS love."What that means is that ALL LAWS issuing from God are derived from his MORAL NATURE (his heart) or else they could not ALL be summarized under a MORAL VALUE (love) and that makes any violation of any of his laws a MORAL issue, a behaviorial issue TOWARD GOD.

Scripture says it is summed up in one. Obey that and you obey the Law. But we have not been talking about my understanding. We’ve been talking about yours and the fact that you believe it is derived straight from Scripture alone without extra-biblical influencers and reasoning.

But, you have not answered the question. You stated that the atonement of Leviticus 4-5 are for moral violations of the Law. My question was (and is still) how a man who falls and accidently touches a corpse is guilty of a moral sin against God? And your answer is _________.

 

[JonC]

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.4 ¶ Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed.

That reads a little different when you consider all of the words.

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 ¶ Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul to death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

All of this suffering inflicted by God is identified directly with the "offering for sin" TYPE. Thus, this necessarily infers that "afflictions" and "bruise" and "greif" are the PENAL consequences of OUR sin or due to sin (as the text repeats over and over again) and as such, the TYPE(offering for sin) will also convey the same (death, fire, brass = judgement of God's wrath) and necessary to satisfy God's just and lawful wrath against sinners("he shall be satisifed" v 11). Satisfaction is a measured thing and the measurement is provided by the just penalty of the Law.

Again, you are bringing in ideas that have thus far been unsubstantiated via Scripture. This passage presents God, the Father, offering his Son, and his Son offering himself as a אָשָׁם‎ (asham) or a “guilt/offense” offering. So yes, this is what the sacrificial system points to. But what you have presumed (either by ideology or commentary) is that the atoning sacrifice became the object upon which divine punishment would be vicariously inflicted.

I am certain that you do not understand the fact to which I point. I am really not arguing against your position. I am, however, saying that nowhere in Scripture is the atoning sacrifice presented as receiving the punishment of the one for whom atonement is accomplished. If you cannot see what you are bringing into the text (even if your conclusions prove true), then there is an issue of discernment.

 

[JonC]

Sorry about your son. My son also had asthma and I spent many a time in the hospital with him and I know from first hand the difficulties.

He's 13 and we're still trying to get a plan together. He just starts coughing and can't breathe. Second time in 2 months an ambulance had to take him from school. Hopefully we'll get this figured out soon.

And thank you.

 

[JonC]

...yet Jon seems to believe could not have that happen unless he ceased being God!

Brother, I have repeatedly warned you about this. You are proving to be a gossip.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok, I found where we were.Most typologists I have read consider the brazen alter to symbolize the Judgment of God in a general sense. Bronze often alludes to God’s judgment. The Laver or Basin is also bronze, as well as the clasps (holding the tent together as a unit). In the Temple, the pillars, basin (sea), stands, vessels used for service, etc. are all bronze. So yes, judgment is certainly in focus (as evidenced by the necessity of atonement).

Hebrew word for burnt-offering denotes that which ascends, or mounts up, as the flame and smoke did on this author when the sacrificial element was consumed. You made the connection between fire (a necessity in burnt-offerings) and the Brazen Altar to symbolize punishment on the altar. That symbolism is as unnecessary as saying the Tabernacle was anchored to the earth, and the earth symbolizes Adam because Adam was made of the dirt. We need to be careful about forcing symbolism.

But except for the fire, I think that you have been observant.

You forget that it could have simply been a blood sacrifice without fire. Fire is not an accident as it came down from heaven and originated with God. However, it is plain how you are going to dismantle all evidence presented. So I bid you so long!

 

[JonC]

You forget that it could have simply been a blood sacrifice without fire. Fire is not an accident as it came down from heaven and originated with God. However, it is plain how you are going to dismantle all evidence presented. So I bid you so long!

Isn't that the point (to dismantle our evidences and look at them closely alongside Scripture)?

This is how I was taught to do theology. Take apart everything and try to recognize what I bring and what is there. Try to get as objective as possible, evaluate what you have, make adjustments as needed, and put that back together (knowing what part is your own reasoning, and the alternate views).

Anyway, this was my goal. For about 4 years (excluding college and seminary) I had the joy of being able to do this with several coworkers. I guess I'm drawn to this site because it's the closest I can get to that type of objectivity, but we never really get close enough. Even then it was not like seminary (where a prof would call us on any fallacies we'd sneak in...either purposely or unaware).

So, I hope at least our conversation has helped you see that there is an element of human reasoning in your theory (I hope you see what it is), because if we end up building on that reasoning what is built can never be stronger than the weakness of man. My theory is to believe, but know where you stand.

Thank you for the thoughts and kind words concerning my son. Thank you also for what has been an interesting (but perhaps short) conversation.

*** And fire/burnt offerings are mentioned in other contexts as well (Genesis 8, for example), not only with the Hebrews but also with ANE religion in general...so probably carries a meaning other than "Hell".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think it would be very helpful if you let us know exactly in what respect you accept the doctrine of Penal Substitution. I have read through your exchanges with Biblicist and if you had not repeatedly said you agreed with the doctrine, I would have come to the conclusion that you hate it like poison and would rather die than accept it.

Prove that the sacrifice depicted the death of the sinner. Prove that God's wrath directed at the sinner was symbolically transfered upon the sacrifice.

This reminds me of discussions I have had with J.W.s about the Trinity. Nothing else but a statement saying "I am a Trinity, Yours sincerely, God" would satisfy them.
I certainly do not agree with Biblicist on everything, but the case he has made for P.S. is entirely compelling, though he has by no means exhausted the Scriptural evidence. Yet you simply stonewall him and deny the force of his arguments without offering anything yourself. As an exercise in dialectics this might be interesting, but as a search for God's truth it falls very far short.

So come on; let us know how and why you agree with Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

I think it would be very helpful if you let us know exactly in what respect you accept the doctrine of Penal Substitution.

I agree. I kept saying to others, "but you don't know what I believe"...I was wondering if anyone would bother to ask.

I only have a moment, but I will answer you as detailed as I can, this evening if possible.

This reminds me of discussions I have had with J.W.s about the Trinity. Nothing else but a statement saying "I am a Trinity, Yours sincerely, God" would satisfy them.

When I moved to Germany I thought that I would at least be away from the J.W.'s. Turns out I moved a block away from a Kingdom Hall.

I was not, however, asking The_Biblicist to explain his view, or even to defend it. I was not disagreeing with his position at all. He had stated that he derived his view directly Scripture without external influences. I asked him to prove it and he stumbled (not on the doctrine he holds, but on how he came about to believe those doctrines). The Reformation has had a profound impact on how we view things. But also the Enlightenment has contributed to a fairly unified sense of justice between Western nations. I did not have to read John Calvin, or be taught Penal Substitution, to automatically gravitate to that position. And I doubt The_Biblicist did either. BUT that does not mean we arrived at those views uninfluenced. That was my point.

I certainly do not agree with Biblicist on everything, but the case he has made for P.S. is entirely compelling, though he has by no means exhausted the Scriptural evidence. Yet you simply stonewall him and deny the force of his arguments without offering anything yourself. As an exercise in dialectics this might be interesting, but as a search for God's truth it falls very far short.

Again, my point was that we not only need to know what we believe but why we believe it. Offering passage after passage cannot get the job done when we are dealing with systematic theology (or theories developed over time). When we are done, we need to know how much depends on our reasoning, understanding, and ideologies (at least as much as possible....I don't believe we can ever rid theology of the human component, but we can at least be aware it exists).

 

[JonC]

So come on; let us know how and why you agree with Penal Substitution.

I believe that the atoning work of Christ properly begins with the Incarnation.

Atonement indicates sacrifice. The worshipper “draws near” the purposed sacrifice, lays his hands on the head of the animal, kills the animal (some miss this point, the animal was killed by the worshipper except when representing Israel…or if the atoning offering was a bird), the priest deals with the blood depending on the sacrifice, and the animal was burned on the altar (some part of the animal was always burnt on the alter as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord”). This foreshadows the Atonement of Christ.

God draws near. Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:5-8

I believe that the Atonement is both penal and substitutionary. Christ died on the cross in our place, as our representative, bearing our iniquities, so that the justice of God is satisfied and the wrath that we rightfully deserve is averted. The Father offered his Son at the Cross (he did not literally leave him, but he forsook him – he gave him over to Judas, to the Jews, to Pilate, and to the Cross and there offered him as an atoning sacrifice, laying upon him our iniquity).

Galatians 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"—

Isaiah 53:5-6 - But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.

Hebrews 10:8-10 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


But I also believe it covenantal. Some here either deny the idea or shove it off to the peripheral - slightly out of focus and barely in view.

Genesis 17 speaks of the “Everlasting Covenant” between God, Abraham and his descendants – man's part was circumcision (those without the sign had broken the covenant).

Deuteronomy describes another covenant - Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Jeremiah looks to a New Covenant - "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, ... "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. .. for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34

New Testament insists that the covenant God made with Abraham is on a different footing than the covenant given at Sinai. Paul links this covenant with the New Covenant as these New Covenant people are the benefactors of the promises made to Abraham (true Israel, true Jews, circumcised hearts). The Atonement ushered in the New Covenant as all covenants involved sacrifice. But the New Covenant is a better covenant, founded on better promises (Hebrews 8:6), and not of the letter but of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Galatians 3:13-14 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” Luke 22:19-20

I also believe that the Atonement should be viewed in terms of Jesus’ death accomplishing victory over sin and death. This is a position that some strongly deny, at least strongly deny it should exist except as a footnote to penal substitution (their “primary” view. I do not believe there can be such a thing as a “primary” view. Scripture is scripture). This view of the Atonement takes on the symbolism of the Passover.

I always found it interesting that the first prophesy of the Atonement was on grounds of Christ’s victory.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

John 12:31-32 "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

Ephesians 4:7-10 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN." (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)

And there are other passages that I accept as well. I hope that this answers your question and perhaps even highlights our disagreement for future discussion.