The Great Irony

[HankD]

One also has to ask whether the OT sacrifice was man acting the role of God (pointing to what God would do on the cross) or the law pointing to human sin (pointing to how God would bring about redemption).

Seems both man and God are involved in the sacrifice of Christ...

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

I'm wondering: Would those of the Penal Substitution Theory be willing to say that the punishment that Christ received was counted by the Father as the punishment we should have received.

 

[JonC]

Seems both man and God are involved in the sacrifice of Christ...

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

I'm wondering: Would those of the Penal Substitution Theory be willing to say that the punishment that Christ received was counted by the Father as the punishment we should have received.

I think some would, but then it's Satisfaction Theory. Aquinas presented the idea that Christ was punished (satisfactory punishment that was counted as punishment for sinners) but that simple punishment was immoral.

 

[HankD]

I think some would, but then it's Satisfaction Theory. Aquinas presented the idea that Christ was punished (satisfactory punishment that was counted as punishment for sinners) but that simple punishment was immoral.

Hmm, I didn't know that about Thomas Aquinas, he surely must have used Isaiah 53 as a proof text.

 

[JonC]

Hmm, I didn't know that about Thomas Aquinas, he surely must have used Isaiah 53 as a proof text.

I think so. But he thought an innocent man could justly be punished for a guilty man if both were willing and a relationship existed. The key, however, was that this couldn't be a punishment as if the innocent were guilty.

If I steal a ring and am sentenced to 5 years in jail, you couldn't bear that same punishment for my crime because that would be unjust. But the judge can let you pay monetary restitution on my behalf for my crime to satisfy the penalty.

(I see this as a penance type thing....e.g., Catholics crawling up stairs to help a loved one out of Purgatory).

 

[Yeshua1]

He became man. Man was under the curse (read Genesis 3).

He was not part of the curse though, as he was Sinless humanity! His Virgin Birth bypassed the effects of the fall towards us....

 

[JonC]

He was not part of the curse though, as he was Sinless humanity! His Virgin Birth bypassed the effects of the fall towards us....

Do you have a verse to support this?

I realize Christ is sinless and we are not. But it seems to me Scripture speaks as if Christ took on our nature and shared our infirmity.

Thanks.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you have a verse to support this?

Thanks.

His Virgin Birth?

 

[JonC]

His Virgin Birth?

He was born of a virgin. But do you have s passage stating He did not share in our "sickness"?

It seems to me the Bible teaches that if Christ did not share our nature (come in the likeness of sinful flesh) that He wouldn't have redeemed us.

 

[HankD]

I think so. But he thought an innocent man could justly be punished for a guilty man if both were willing and a relationship existed. The key, however, was that this couldn't be a punishment as if the innocent were guilty.

If I steal a ring and am sentenced to 5 years in jail, you couldn't bear that same punishment for my crime because that would be unjust. But the judge can let you pay monetary restitution on my behalf for my crime to satisfy the penalty.

(I see this as a penance type thing....e.g., Catholics crawling up stairs to help a loved one out of Purgatory).

Ah ,but this is human reasoning! - no scripture - we must reason with God - "Come let us reason together".

Here is a human rebuttal...

If I rob a bank, spend all the money and someone pays back the cash I must still suffer the punishment of incarceration for the felony.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Christ pays it ALL or not at all.

 

[JonC]

Ah ,but this is human reasoning! - no scripture - we must reason with God - "Come let us reason together".

Here is a human rebuttal...

If I rob a bank, spend all the money and someone pays back the cash I must still suffer the punishment of incarceration for the felony.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Christ pays it ALL or not at all.

His theory of justice was that those conditions being met it was just not to have the guy jailed (the judge sets both types of punishment). The idea you are speaking of was a reformation of Aquinas' position (and I think better suited for today's type).

Personally, I do look at it differently than both you and brother Aquinas.

Suppose you stomp on my foot. I can forgive you or retaliate. It is a personal affront to me. If I forgive you this is a mercy and neither of us suffers loss. If I stomp on your foot you've got what you deserve. I will not forgive you except you change from a foot stomper to a foot washer. I believe God has this power to forgive.

The biggest difference, I think, with your illustration is that you present the offence as being against the law (which demands punishment even if restitution had been paid for the theft). I view the offence as personal and against a person.

In Atonement, your theme seems to view sin as against the Law (therefore divine justice must he satisfied for God to forgive) and Christ satisfied the legal "sin debt" the Law held against us.

I view sin as against God (therefore God is just to punish or forgive, but is faithful to forgive those who turn to Him) and redemption through Christ a manifestation of God's righteousness apart from the law (repentance being a rebirth through faith in Christ).

Please correct me if I misspoke (mistyped) about your view.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The great problem (to be solved) of Penal Substitution Theory is how God can deal with human sin and yet still justify men without making God unjust. Man has disobeyed God, treating God as if He were man’s equal….or worse….by elevating man’s will over God’s. Man has treated God as unholy and this is an eternal offense because God is an eternally holy and just God.

The great solution of Penal Substitution is that God Himself became man in order to take upon Himself the punishment due mankind. This way God fulfills the requirements of divine justice by punishing Christ (essentially by punishing Himself….as Y1 says – God punching Himself) for man’s disobedience. Having expended his wrath God is free to forgive man (men to whom no more wrath is due).

The great reversal of Penal Substitution Theory is that God the Son is obedient to God the Father while God the Father treats God the Son as if He were unholy.

The great irony of Penal Substitution Theory is that in order to save men from their sins the Father effectively becomes the chief of sinners against the Son and unrighteous under His own law

There are two answers to this caricature, both of which I have given before.
The first is that Christ became His people's surety. This is someone who guarantees the debts of a friend or relative and must pay them in full if the friend defaults. There are several warnings in the Book of Proverbs against becoming a surety (Proverbs 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18), since one is making the debts of one’s friend effectively one’s own, yet we read in Hebrews 7:22, ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’

Christ is specifically designated in Scripture as ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45) and we are told that the first Adam was a ‘type [or ‘figure’] of Him who was to come’ (Romans 5:14). ‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22). All those in Adam perish in their sins; all those in Christ are united to Him in His perfect righteousness.

Who are those ‘in Christ’? Those He came to save; those who were given to Him by the Father before time began. “Christ came not to strangers but to ‘brethren’ (Hebrews 2:11-13). He came here not to procure a people for Himself, but to secure a people already His” (A.W. Pink). There are many supporting texts for this, e.g. Matthew 1:21; John 6:39; 10:27-29; 17:2, 6; Ephesians 1:4. This is the second point: Christ is united federally to His people. They are ‘chosen in Christ’ (Ephesians 1:4), ‘Created in Christ’ (Ephesians 2:10); ‘circumcised in Him’ (Colossians 2:11) and ‘made the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Corinthians 5:21). And as Surety, the Lord Jesus must also pay the debt of His people, and if they are to be freed from their debt, He must pay the very last penny (Matthew 5:26). If you becomes a surety, say, for your child's mortgage, if the child defaults, his debt becomes yours, and although you may have been financially sound and trustworthy all your life, the bank will come after you, quite properly and legally, as if you are a debtor.

Christ was substituted for His people because He was and is one with them; identified with us sinners and we with Him; not merely as decreed by the sovereign authority of God , but as covenanted between God the Father and God the Son. God's elect people were given to Christ under the terms of the everlasting covenant (e.g. Hebrews 2:13b), and He redeems them from their sins (e.g. John 6:39). Christ 'bore the sins of many' (Isaiah 53:12) because in His covenant identification with them, and because of His position as surety, their sins became sinlessly His.

 

[JonC]

There are two answers to this caricature, both of which I have given before.
The first is that Christ became His people's surety. This is someone who guarantees the debts of a friend or relative and must pay them in full if the friend defaults. There are several warnings in the Book of Proverbs against becoming a surety (Proverbs 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18), since one is making the debts of one’s friend effectively one’s own, yet we read in Hebrews 7:22, ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’

Christ is specifically designated in Scripture as ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45) and we are told that the first Adam was a ‘type [or ‘figure’] of Him who was to come’ (Romans 5:14). ‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22). All those in Adam perish in their sins; all those in Christ are united to Him in His perfect righteousness.

Who are those ‘in Christ’? Those He came to save; those who were given to Him by the Father before time began. “Christ came not to strangers but to ‘brethren’ (Hebrews 2:11-13). He came here not to procure a people for Himself, but to secure a people already His” (A.W. Pink). There are many supporting texts for this, e.g. Matthew 1:21; John 6:39; 10:27-29; 17:2, 6; Ephesians 1:4. This is the second point: Christ is united federally to His people. They are ‘chosen in Christ’ (Ephesians 1:4), ‘Created in Christ’ (Ephesians 2:10); ‘circumcised in Him’ (Colossians 2:11) and ‘made the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Corinthians 5:21). And as Surety, the Lord Jesus must also pay the debt of His people, and if they are to be freed from their debt, He must pay the very last penny (Matthew 5:26). If you becomes a surety, say, for your child's mortgage, if the child defaults, his debt becomes yours, and although you may have been financially sound and trustworthy all your life, the bank will come after you, quite properly and legally, as if you are a debtor.

Christ was substituted for His people because He was and is one with them; identified with us sinners and we with Him; not merely as decreed by the sovereign authority of God , but as covenanted between God the Father and God the Son. God's elect people were given to Christ under the terms of the everlasting covenant (e.g. Hebrews 2:13b), and He redeems them from their sins (e.g. John 6:39). Christ 'bore the sins of many' (Isaiah 53:12) because in His covenant identification with them, and because of His position as surety, their sins became sinlessly His.

Hey MM.

To clarify, that was not a caricature. The first two paragraphs are how I view the Theory of Penal Substitution. The second two are my conclusions based of the first two.

Reading your explanation I agree with every verse you have provided. I especially like that you have included Hebrews 7:22 (I think I've posted all of this before except for that reference).
Absolutely Christ became our Surety. This is not only stated in Scripture but it is implied in the Incarnation. Christ bore our sins. And Christ is the "last Adam", pointing not only to the Resurrection but to ours in Him.

I would appreciate your feedback specifically on my presentation of the Theory (I borrowed from RC Sproul on the Ligonier Ministries website):

The great problem (to be solved) of Penal Substitution Theory is how God can deal with human sin and yet still justify men without making God unjust. Man has disobeyed God, treating God as if He were man’s equal….or worse….by elevating man’s will over God’s. Man has treated God as unholy and this is an eternal offense because God is an eternally holy and just God.

The great solution of Penal Substitution is that God Himself became man in order to take upon Himself the punishment due mankind. This way God fulfills the requirements of divine justice by punishing Christ (essentially by punishing Himself….as Y1 says – God punching Himself) for man’s disobedience. Having expended his wrath God is free to forgive man (men to whom no more wrath is due).

And thank you in advance for your insight.

John

 

[HankD]

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul (nephesh) that sinneth, it shall die...

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul (nephesh) 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.

 

[JonC]

Ezekiel 18:19-21 NKJV
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. [20] The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. [21] “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.



Isaiah 53:10 NKJV
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You 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.

The question is - if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps God's statutes and does what is lawful and right, will he surely live or die? What is the key - repentance or punishment?

 

[HankD]

This will not come to a conclusion.

 

[JonC]

This will not come to a conclusion.

It's not supposed to come to a conclusion.

Most Christian's hold a theory other than Penal Substitution Theory. BUT among those there are other theories (the majority hold a Christus Victor position). And among all of these diverse views are Christian scholars truly devoted to Scripture.

All we can do is discuss these things - see what we have in common, what we have different, and constantly evaluate our own views against Scripture.

And, of course, have fun doing it.

 

[JonC]

This will not come to a conclusion.

I would, if you don't mind, like to look at the passage to which you pointed.

Ezekiel 18:20-21 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

This is one verse I would use as a proof text that if a sinner repeats and keeps God's statutes then that person will live. Scripture tells us this can only be done through faith in Christ (I believe faith and repentance always go together).

My question is whether or not the verse is accurate as written. Is Life dependent on repentance and belief or is it dependent on punishment? How do you address verse 21?

 

[HankD]

It's not supposed to come to a conclusion.

Most Christian's hold a theory other than Penal Substitution Theory. BUT among those there are other theories (the majority hold a Christus Victor position). And among all of these diverse views are Christian scholars truly devoted to Scripture.

All we can do is discuss these things - see what we have in common, what we have different, and constantly evaluate our own views against Scripture.

And, of course, have fun doing it.

Well there is not much I can add to my thoughts.
These prolonged discussions never end well.

 

[HankD]

I would, if you don't mind, like to look at the passage to which you pointed.

Ezekiel 18:20-21 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

This is one verse I would use as a proof text that if a sinner repeats and keeps God's statutes then that person will live. Scripture tells us this can only be done through faith in Christ (I believe faith and repentance always go together).

My question is whether or not the verse is accurate as written. Is Life dependent on repentance and belief or is it dependent on punishment? How do you address verse 21?

God forgives and restores, only human beings seem to have that privilege.

 

[JonC]

God forgives and restores, only human beings seem to have that privilege.

I don't understand what you mean (it's not you - If you haven't noticed, I'm not the sharpest fool in the shed ).

Do you mind explaining the last part?