Jesus taking on all of God's wrath & punishment

[MT1926]

Sorry I’m a little slow on responding, I’ll continue trying to catch up….

Thanks for the great response Spider. You pointed out somethings I knew and others I didn’t.

The “substitution of Christ as the suffering servant who makes himself an offering for sin” is the substitution of the offering and not the substitution of the guilt or punishment. Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins not be being punished in our place, but by making a perfect offering in our place and thus reconciling mankind to God.

Jesus did “descend into hell” but “hell” is understood to be the place of the dead (Sheol, Abraham’s bosom) and not the place of the damned for punishment. Jesus did not go to “hell” to be punished, rather he went to “preach to the spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:19) and he did this while being “put to death in the flesh but being alive in the spirit (1 Pet 3:18).

I knew this but didn’t know the verse correlating to it. Thanks.

Being “alive in the spirit” in biblical terms means being filled with Grace and/or the Holy Spirit. Suffering in the hell of the damned and being filled with the love of God through Grace and/or the Holy Spirit is a contradiction in terms. Jesus was not being punished in hell.

That’s a great point, never thought of it that way.

Jesus was the second Adam in representing all of mankind through his humanity. As such, even though he was a Divine Person (God the Son), he was still judged as a man in the same manner that we all will be judged. To say that Jesus was “punished” by physical death and then “punished” by spiritual death (even willingly and temporarily) in hell would be the definition of an injustice to Jesus. God’s judgment is True, but with Penal Substitution in regards to Jesus, his judgment was false and an injustice regardless of whether it was willingly accepted or not.

Pretty deep.

If Jesus has already paid the punishment for our sins, then the fact that we still all die physically is in fact exacting a double penalty for the same offense. If Jesus was the “substitution” of the punishment, then everyone who has repented of those very sins that he paid the penalty for should never die. Even though we will be resurrected (both the just and the unjust will be resurrected Acts 24:15), we still pay the physical punishment for sin which demonstrates that Jesus did not substitute the physical punishment for our sins. The fact that Jesus was/is not punished in hell also demonstrates that he did not substitute the spiritual punishment of sin either.

Exactly, the double penalty is what makes no sense to me.

If our sins were transferred or “imputed” onto Jesus, then Jesus was no longer a pure offering. His offering to the Father would have the same problem that all of mankind since Adam had. It would be an imperfect offering tainted by sin. Jesus’ offering would be tainted not just with one person’s sins, but by all mankind’s sins through the centuries. He would no longer be a sinless, pure, and spotless offering. Tainted by all of mankind’s sins, his offering would be the most blemished of all and would not be able to purify anyone. Our sins were not imputed onto Jesus because Jesus’ offering was a pure offering without any blemish from start to finish.

Wow. That is a great point. But how would you back that up with scripture, so it doesn’t come across as your opinion?

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by MT1926

That is a great point. But how would you back that up with scripture, so it doesn’t come across as your opinion?

Something very important that has been overlooked is that Jesus was not just the sacrificial lamb (1 Cor 5:7) but he was also the high priest offering the sacrifice (Heb 5:10). If our sins were imputed to him, then both his high priesthood and the offering itself became blemished. This would be like the OT high priest who had to offer sacrifice daily for their own sins as quoted below. If that were not bad enough, the sacrifice itself would be blemished which is rejected by God (see Malachi 1:10-14). The following references should help demonstrate that both Christ as high priest and as victim is unblemished.

“Every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. …He himself is beset with weakness [and] because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people” (Hebrews 5:1-3).

”How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God… “(Hebrews 9:14)

“….as Christ… has given himself for us a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5:2 cross reference “fragrant offering” with Exodus 29:18 and Ezekiel 20:41).

“But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish or spot (1 Peter 1:19).

“For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself….the Son who has been made perfect forever” (Hebrews 7:26-28).

With that in mind, to say that God punished Jesus because of our imputed sins upon him, would be saying that God rejected both the high priest and the sacrificial offering. No atonement and no redemption.

.

Scriptural references for Jesus being judged justly by the Father and found worthy.

“Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it and he will be the judge” (John 8:50).

“When he was reviled, he did not revile in return: when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23).

The offering of the Lamb that was slain was found to be worthy (Revelation all of Chapter 5 specifically verses 5-6).

The high priesthood of Jesus was found to be worthy for he “is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven” as high priest (Hebrews 8:1).

His resurrection from the dead is our proof that he was found worthy both as high priest and sacrifice, “if Christ has not been raised then your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor 15:17).

Our sins were not imputed onto Jesus because Jesus’ offering was a pure offering without any blemish from start to finish both as the high priest and as the Lamb of God.

 

[MT1926]

Something very important that has been overlooked is that Jesus was not just the sacrificial lamb (1 Cor 5:7) but he was also the high priest offering the sacrifice (Heb 5:10). If our sins were imputed to him, then both his high priesthood and the offering itself became blemished. This would be like the OT high priest who had to offer sacrifice daily for their own sins as quoted below. If that were not bad enough, the sacrifice itself would be blemished which is rejected by God (see Malachi 1:10-14). The following references should help demonstrate that both Christ as high priest and as victim is unblemished.

“Every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. …He himself is beset with weakness [and] because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people” (Hebrews 5:1-3).

”How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God… “(Hebrews 9:14)

“….as Christ… has given himself for us a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5:2 cross reference “fragrant offering” with Exodus 29:18 and Ezekiel 20:41).

“But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish or spot (1 Peter 1:19).

“For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself….the Son who has been made perfect forever” (Hebrews 7:26-28).

With that in mind, to say that God punished Jesus because of our imputed sins upon him, would be saying that God rejected both the high priest and the sacrificial offering. No atonement and no redemption.

.

Scriptural references for Jesus being judged justly by the Father and found worthy.

“Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it and he will be the judge” (John 8:50).

“When he was reviled, he did not revile in return: when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23).

The offering of the Lamb that was slain was found to be worthy (Revelation all of Chapter 5 specifically verses 5-6).

The high priesthood of Jesus was found to be worthy for he “is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven” as high priest (Hebrews 8:1).

His resurrection from the dead is our proof that he was found worthy both as high priest and sacrifice, “if Christ has not been raised then your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor 15:17).

Our sins were not imputed onto Jesus because Jesus’ offering was a pure offering without any blemish from start to finish both as the high priest and as the Lamb of God.

Thanks spider. I really appreciate the time you put into your posts. This is what I love about the Bible. All of these verses lining up with each other to give you solid ground to stand on. I love that saying “The New is concealed in the Old and the Old is revealed in the New.”

Thanks again, you gave me a lot to study.

 

[alwayswill]

…
See this is the wishy washy part that doesn’t seem to add up. The theory is God poured out all his wrath on Christ on the cross and “both the mercy and the justice of God are satisfied”. However, disclaimer he still held a little back for the unbeliever. Doesn’t this kind of deny the punishment of Christ? If Christ took on all of our punishment then there is no punishment left for anyone, period. Our involvement would not be necessary. Now if Christ made an infinite sacrifice for our sins, the debt has been paid but we are still i.

You absolutely right:
Jesus didn’t pay the punishment for those God knew from all eternity past would never come to a saving faith.

either the sinner will bear the just wrath for his sin ; or Jesus will will :
but not both…

Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 …and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him."

**
What does propitiation mean?**

 

[KjetilK]

Both in the Hebrew Old Testament (The Masoretic Text), and in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) the word for sin (hatta’at, hamartia) is used both for ‘sin’ and ‘sin offering.’ So 2Cor 5:21 could plausibly (and in my opinion probably) be rendered like this: “For our sake he [God] made him [Christ], who knew no sin, to be a sin offering, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

If you wonder from where I got the ‘a’ before ‘sin offering’ I can say that when translating Greek you can often infer an indefinite article when no definite article is found in the text. Of course the meaning wouldn’t change if we removed it, it would just sound like weird english, that God “made him [Christ], who knew no sin, to be sin offering.”

 

[MT1926]

You absolutely right:
Jesus didn’t pay the punishment for those God knew from all eternity past would never come to a saving faith.

Thanks for the response. Not real sure where you are going with this, it is an incomplete confusing sentence? What is the context? You seem to say “Jesus didn’t pay the punishment” at the beginning, but then it gets confusing at the end. Did you mean to say If Jesus didn’t pay?

either the sinner will bear the just wrath for his sin ; or Jesus will will :
but not both…

Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 …and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him."

I have no objections to the saying the “wrath of God”, because as I said in an earlier post, I don’t think us humans, with our tiny minds, have the full understanding what that means. Personally, I don’t equate wrath with anger I believe the “wrath of God” means perfect justice. I remember Tim Staples giving a great answer on CAL many years ago. The caller asked how it could be possible for a parent to be happy in heaven for all eternity, if God’s wrath places one of their children burning in the fires of hell. He said something like, when we come into the beatific vision we will gain an understanding that God’s wrath is really God’s perfect justice. This understanding will replace the pain with peace, knowing that our child is exactly where they chose to be.

**
What does propitiation mean?**

I looked it up on line this is what I came up with:
to make (someone) pleased or less angry by giving or saying something desired

If we analize this definition we see the beginning says “pleased or less angry”. I prefer to choose the first and believe Jesus sacrifice pleased God. I you choose to believe the later that it made him less angry that is fine as well and doesn’t really change anything. If we look at the end of the definition it says “by giving or saying”, which gets to the heart of the matter. Jesus had to freely give himself to the Father. No where in the definition does it even allude to he had to be “punished” by the Father.

Sorry for the late response I just noticed you asked about propitiate in an earlier post that I missed. Let me know your thoughts on my definition.

 

[spiderweb]

Very valid point. In Old Testament used 182 times as “sin” and 116 times as “sin offering” according to the Blue Letter Bible. Also interestingly it is even translated in the KJV twice as “purification for sin”. blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2403&t=KJV

 

[spiderweb]

Both in the Hebrew Old Testament (The Masoretic Text), and in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) the word for sin (hatta’at, hamartia) is used both for ‘sin’ and ‘sin offering.’ So 2Cor 5:21 could plausibly (and in my opinion probably) be rendered like this: “For our sake he [God] made him [Christ], who knew no sin, to be a sin offering, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

If you wonder from where I got the ‘a’ before ‘sin offering’ I can say that when translating Greek you can often infer an indefinite article when no definite article is found in the text. Of course the meaning wouldn’t change if we removed it, it would just sound like weird english, that God “made him [Christ], who knew no sin, to be sin offering.”

Very valid point. “Sin” is used 182 times and “sin offering” is used 116 times. Interestingly it is also translated twice as “purification for sin” (Num 19:9, 17) according to the Blue Letter Bible which uses KJV translation. blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2403&t=KJV

 

[alwayswill]

What does propitiation mean?

.

I looked it up on line this is what I came up with:
to make (someone) pleased or less angry by giving or saying something desired

If we analize this definition we see the beginning says “pleased or less angry”. I prefer to choose the first and believe Jesus sacrifice pleased God. I you choose to believe the later that it made him less angry that is fine as well and doesn’t really change anything. If we look at the end of the definition it says “by giving or saying”, which gets to the heart of the matter. Jesus had to freely give himself to the Father. No where in the definition does it even allude to he had to be “punished” by the Father.

Sorry for the late response I just noticed you asked about propitiate in an earlier post that I missed. Let me know your thoughts on my definition.

I prefer this definition and context
Propitiation (from Latin propitiāre, “to appease;” from propitius, “gracious”)[1] is the act of appeasing or making well-disposed a deity, thus incurring divine favor or avoiding divine retribution.
wiki

"The word propitiation carries the basic idea of appeasement, or satisfaction, specifically towards God. Propitiation is a two-part act that involves appeasing the wrath of an offended person and being reconciled to them
theopedia.com/propitiation

IOW: Propitiation means to appease the wrath of God

Are those that end up in Hell under the wrath of God?
Was God’s wrath appeased against unbelievers?

Was God’s wrath appeased against believers?

How ?

 

[MT1926]

What does propitiation mean?

I prefer this definition and context

Context??? Of what? You didn’t site a Bible verse with the word propitiation in it?

Propitiation (from Latin propitiāre, “to appease;” from propitius, “gracious”)[1] is the act of appeasing or making well-disposed a deity, thus incurring divine favor or avoiding divine retribution.
wiki

"The word propitiation carries the basic idea of appeasement, or satisfaction, specifically towards God. Propitiation is a two-part act that involves appeasing the wrath of an offended person and being reconciled to them
theopedia.com/propitiation

IOW: Propitiation means to appease the wrath of God

Ok Allwayswill, I have no problem having a dialogue with you but you need to first clear up what the heck you are arguing for? As I stated in my previous post:

Thanks for the response. Not real sure where you are going with this, it is an incomplete confusing sentence? What is the context? You seem to say “Jesus didn’t pay the punishment” at the beginning, but then it gets confusing at the end. Did you mean to say If Jesus didn’t pay?

I’m guessing you are arguing for God punishing Jesus? So I am going to make that assumption. If I am wrong please correct me in your next post.

Anyway back to propitiation. I am not sure how this proves an arguement for God punishing Jesus. As I stated earlier I have no problem with God’s wrath because I don’t think we understand the full scope of what that means. But as for punishment, even your definition says “the act of appeasing or making well-disposed a deity”. It does not say by accepting their punishment. I read the entire link and it does not hold proof either. The beginning starts with this quote:

“Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In relation to soteriology, propitiation means placating or satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ.”

I agree with what they say “BY AN OFFERING”. The only time the author actually brings up the word punishment is in 2 quotes:

Christ is “the propitiation,” because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt, covering it by the vicarious punishment which he endured.

If you read carefully you will notice he gives no reasoning, no explaination, no other Bible verses, nada. Why might that be??? If you don’t know why, it is because it is his OPINION. If you would like to expand on how the author can expand the definition of propitiation to include punishment from God, neither your definition or mine uses that word, I am happy to listen. But you can not take one guys opinion and pass it on as fact. Just because it is on the internet deosn’t necessarily mean it is true. I would also like to point out that he only states “by the vicarious punishment which he endured”. He never states the punishment came from God.

In other words, how could God as the utterly Holy One tolerate human sin without inflicting full punishment on human beings immediately? Paul’s answer is that God looked forward to the cross of Christ where the full payment for the guilt of sin would be made, where Christ would die in the place of sinners.

This is his other punishment quote that maybe you could expand on? Where does the author get “God looked forward to the cross”? I prefer Spider’s more Biblical explanation of Sheol:

Jesus did “descend into hell” but “hell” is understood to be the place of the dead (Sheol, Abraham’s bosom) and not the place of the damned for punishment. Jesus did not go to “hell” to be punished, rather he went to “preach to the spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:19) and he did this while being “put to death in the flesh but being alive in the spirit (1 Pet 3:18). Being “alive in the spirit” in biblical terms means being filled with Grace and/or the Holy Spirit. Suffering in the hell of the damned and being filled with the love of God through Grace and/or the Holy Spirit is a contradiction in terms. Jesus was not being punished in hell.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

 

[MT1926]

Are those that end up in Hell under the wrath of God?

I think they ended up suffering the wrath (perfect justice) of God. But I do not think while in Hell they are “under” the wrath of God. I prefer this definition of Hell.

The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).

Makes more sense. If the goal is to be with God then the greatest punishment would be to be eternally separated from that goal.

Was God’s wrath appeased against unbelievers?

I do not believe it was. Which is why punishment doesn’t make sense. You stated “IOW: Propitiation means to appease the wrath of God”. Therfore, if Christ was already punished for the sins of the whole world:

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation (appease the wrath of God) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Well if you are correct that he appeased the wrath of God for the whole world then there must not be any wrath against the unbeliever. WHICH MAKES NO SENSE? Because I am pretty sure we both believe in Hell.

Was God’s wrath appeased against believers?

How ?

Yes, IF, and that is a big if, we follow God’s plan for our salvation:

**The Church teaches in agreement with Scripture that Christians:

“have been saved” through faith and baptism:**

Mark 16:16
16*He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8*For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—9not because of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 6:3-4
3*Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?4We were buried[a]*therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

We are “being saved” through cooperation with grace:

1 Corinthians 1:18
Christ the Power and Wisdom of God
18*For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 15:1-3
The Resurrection of Christ
15Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,2by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain.
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,

2 Corinthians 6:1
6*Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

and that we “shall be saved” if we persevere in the Faith:

Matthew 10:22
22*and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Romans 2:6-7
6*For he will render to every man according to his works:7to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

Galatians 6:7-9
7Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.8For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.9And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

God’s plan for salvation only makes sense if Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins, not by being punished in our place, but by making a perfect offering in our place and thus reconciling mankind to God. If he was a “substitute” for the guilt or punishment of our sins, none of this makes sense. If he was punished, in our place by God, for the sins of the whole world, then the punishment for sin (past, present and future) has been already given by God. Therefor, no punishment remains for our sins, regardless of our belief in Christ. The one poster said he considered Jesus death to be the punishment. Well like spider state, better than I did:

If Jesus has already paid the punishment for our sins, then the fact that we still all die physically is in fact exacting a double penalty for the same offense. If Jesus was the “substitution” of the punishment, then everyone who has repented of those very sins that he paid the penalty for should never die. Even though we will be resurrected (both the just and the unjust will be resurrected Acts 24:15), we still pay the physical punishment for sin which demonstrates that Jesus did not substitute the physical punishment for our sins. The fact that Jesus was/is not punished in hell also demonstrates that he did not substitute the spiritual punishment of sin either.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by Itwin
(Post #35)
The Lord laid on Christ our iniquity. It was the Lord’s will (he willed it) to crush him and cause him grief.

This is the only real biblical support that I see for penal substitution that “it pleased the Lord to bruise him…” (Isaiah 53:10 KJV), which alludes to Jesus being punished.

A very plausible understanding of Isaiah 53:10 can be found by reading Isaiah 53:4, that in the eyes of man, “we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” This also corresponds to the crucifixion when they mocked him saying, “He saved others, himself he cannot save……He trusted in God, let him deliver him now if he will have him” (Matthew 27:42-43). In the eyes of man, Jesus appeared to be punished, but in the eyes of God it was victory over sin and death. Read Psalm 22, a crucifixion prophecy, where in verse 24 alone a strong case can be made against penal substitution; “for he (God) has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him” (Psalm 22:24). Speaking of Israel God says, “In overflowing wrath, for a moment I hid my face from you” (Isaiah 54:8). God “hiding his face” is associated several times with God’s wrath. But according to Psalm 22:24, God did “not hide his face from him” which means his wrath was not poured out on Jesus.

The view of Penal Substitution would be in agreement with Isaiah 53:4, which is depicted as the view in the eyes of man. Scripturally speaking, viewing things through the eyes of man is generally understood as not seeing it as God does. This leads me to believe that although they appear the same, there is a significant difference between verse 4 and verse 10. I do have a thought/opinion on this, hopefully soon to follow.

I admit that Isaiah 53:10 is possibly the most difficult to explain from a non- penal substitution position, but in light of the rest of scriptures, penal substitution creates many more difficulties and contradictions, both logically and biblically.

Originally Posted by alwayswill

Jesus didn’t pay the punishment for those God knew from all eternity past would never come to a saving faith.

Either the sinner will bear the just wrath for his sin; or Jesus will:
But not both…

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that Jesus only took the punishment for those people who have saving faith. For the people who have saving faith in Jesus, he took their punishment. For the people who do not have saving faith in Jesus, their punishment will be upon themselves. In other words, Jesus only offered himself for some people but not for all mankind. But that doesn’t fit very well with the following…

“…God our savior, who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all…” (1 Timothy 2:3-6).

”And he [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

If Jesus is punished for our sins according to the view of Penal Substitution, then he was punished even for the sins of those who would never come to a saving faith according to 1 John 2:2. This is the double punishment idea again with Jesus paying the punishment for all, but for those not having a saving faith also paying the punishment. The view you expressed would also lead to Jesus being the mediator only for some men. If Jesus is only the mediator for some men, then other men are willfully and actively predestined by God to hell for eternity because they were not redeemed, which contradicts the above two quotes.

As for the scriptural verses you quoted (Romans 5:9; 1 Thess 5:9 and 1:10; John 3:36) I agree completely with all of them. We are saved by and through Jesus Christ. However, notice that none of those texts say that we are saved from wrath because Jesus took our punishment or that God poured out his wrath meant for us onto Jesus as a substitution.

 

[MT1926]

This is the only real biblical support that I see for penal substitution that “it pleased the Lord to bruise him…” (Isaiah 53:10 KJV), which alludes to Jesus being punished.

A very plausible understanding of Isaiah 53:10 can be found by reading Isaiah 53:4, that in the eyes of man, “we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” This also corresponds to the crucifixion when they mocked him saying, “He saved others, himself he cannot save……He trusted in God, let him deliver him now if he will have him” (Matthew 27:42-43). In the eyes of man, Jesus appeared to be punished, but in the eyes of God it was victory over sin and death. Read Psalm 22, a crucifixion prophecy, where in verse 24 alone a strong case can be made against penal substitution; “for he (God) has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him” (Psalm 22:24). Speaking of Israel God says, “In overflowing wrath, for a moment I hid my face from you” (Isaiah 54:8). God “hiding his face” is associated several times with God’s wrath. But according to Psalm 22:24, God did “not hide his face from him” which means his wrath was not poured out on Jesus.

The view of Penal Substitution would be in agreement with Isaiah 53:4, which is depicted as the view in the eyes of man. Scripturally speaking, viewing things through the eyes of man is generally understood as not seeing it as God does. This leads me to believe that although they appear the same, there is a significant difference between verse 4 and verse 10. I do have a thought/opinion on this, hopefully soon to follow.

I admit that Isaiah 53:10 is possibly the most difficult to explain from a non- penal substitution position, but in light of the rest of scriptures, penal substitution creates many more difficulties and contradictions, both logically and biblically.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that Jesus only took the punishment for those people who have saving faith. For the people who have saving faith in Jesus, he took their punishment. For the people who do not have saving faith in Jesus, their punishment will be upon themselves. In other words, Jesus only offered himself for some people but not for all mankind. But that doesn’t fit very well with the following…

“…God our savior, who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all…” (1 Timothy 2:3-6).

”And he [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

If Jesus is punished for our sins according to the view of Penal Substitution, then he was punished even for the sins of those who would never come to a saving faith according to 1 John 2:2. This is the double punishment idea again with Jesus paying the punishment for all, but for those not having a saving faith also paying the punishment. The view you expressed would also lead to Jesus being the mediator only for some men. If Jesus is only the mediator for some men, then other men are willfully and actively predestined by God to hell for eternity because they were not redeemed, which contradicts the above two quotes.

As for the scriptural verses you quoted (Romans 5:9; 1 Thess 5:9 and 1:10; John 3:36) I agree completely with all of them. We are saved by and through Jesus Christ. However, notice that none of those texts say that we are saved from wrath because Jesus took our punishment or that God poured out his wrath meant for us onto Jesus as a substitution.

Keep it coming spider. Very insightful, thanks for your time.

 

[Janderich]

Thanks for the response. But I still can’t see where this is coming from. Is there an actual verse in the Bible that says Jesus was punished? I am starting to wonder if we are using 2 different definitions of the word punish. When I read the word punish I define it to mean to make someone suffer for a crime (sin) they committed. That is why the word does not seem to fit. First, off Jesus did not commit the crime so how could he be punished for it or guilty of said crime?

I have pondered over this very question many times in the past. Largely because in the Book of Mormon there is a scripture that posits the same scenario. It says,

Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. (Alma 34:11-12)

Now, take the writing as scripture or not, but consider the issue. To start, forget for a moment all the spiritual teachings you have learned and just consider the point as a rational individual. Can one person commit a crime and another person suffer for it such that the first is absolved? I say “No”. And despite all religious teaching over the last 2,000 years I say Jesus also cannot suffer in the place of another and absolve that one from sin. A person must suffer for the crime he or she commits, no one else can take the punishment, be they man or God. No power in heaven or on earth can change that important fact.

Now, don’t stop reading, I do believe in the atonement. It just has to be understood in a more correct way. Consider a mother, one who loves her child deeply. Suppose this child is suffering through cancer or some other terrible disease. What would that mother not do for her child? She cannot take what the child is feeling away, but she can be there with them. She can bear with her child and feel an empathy that reaches into her own heart and into the child’s heart. May I submit that on a larger and more complete scale this mother’s example is closer to what Jesus has done for us? He does not take our punishment from us, but rather bears it with us. He has decided that infinitely and eternally he will join with us, if we will let him, to feel what we feel, to comfort us when we need comfort, and to rejoice with us when we find joy. As he said, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. (John 15:5). And again, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us…” (John 17:20-21).

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by MT1926

In other words, how could God as the utterly Holy One tolerate human sin without inflicting full punishment on human beings immediately? Paul’s answer is that God looked forward to the cross of Christ where the full payment for the guilt of sin would be made, where Christ would die in the place of sinners.

This is his other punishment quote that maybe you could expand on? Where does the author get “God looked forward to the cross”?

Obviously I disagree with most of the quoted text, however there is a biblical sense that “God looked forward to the cross” which plays into my interpretive opinion of Isaiah 53:10.

Just as any human, Jesus did not want to suffer. He prays to the Father that if it be possible to “let this cup pass from me” (Matt 26:39). Prior to that however, “when the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51). He was determined to enter into his Passion and had even rebuked Peter for trying to change that (Matt 16:21-23). There is even a sense that Jesus was looking forward to it; “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer (Luke 22:15). Even knowing he was about to suffer, he was looking forward to eating that distinctive Passover more than the previous years of Passover meals. He is looking forward to instituting the New Covenant between God and man (Luke 22:20). He is looking forward to being with the Father again; “and now Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made… (John 17:5) I am coming to thee” (John 17:11). He tells the apostles, “If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father” (John 14:28) which implies that Jesus himself is rejoicing. And again, “In the world you have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). “When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee” (John 17:1-2). Jesus’ Passion is his glory and in his glory is the Father glorified. Yes, it can be said that “Jesus/God looked forward to the cross”.

The events of the Passion were completely under Jesus’ control for “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hand, and that he had come from God and was going to God…” (John 13:3). He could have stopped it at any moment (Matt 26:53). Despite knowing the suffering which was soon to follow, Jesus has peace and joy for he says, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you” (John 14:27). And again, “These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you” (John 15:11).

In that context, look back to Isaiah 53:10 which states:

Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin…” (RSV translation)

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin…. (KJV translation)

With the full revelation that Jesus is both the Messiah and God, also that a part of the Doctrine of the Trinity is that Father and Son are two persons with ONE Divine Will, and in the context of all of the above in mind; a legitimate understanding of Isaiah 53:10 would read…

“Yet it was the will of the LORD (God/Jesus) to suffer; he has put himself to grief [by us]; when he offered himself as a sin offering [for us].”

In the eyes of man, the Messiah is punished by God (Isaiah 53:4), but the Messiah is God which radically changes the meaning of Isaiah 53:10 from an act of Divine punishment upon the Messiah from the Father, to an act of Divine love through the Messiah from the Father.

That is my non-penal substitution interpretive opinion which I believe is solidly backed up by scripture and is consistent within the context of the totality of scripture.

No Punishment of Jesus by the Father = No Penal Substitution

 

[spiderweb]

I have pondered over this very question many times in the past. Largely because in the Book of Mormon there is a scripture that posits the same scenario. It says, Now, take the writing as scripture or not, but consider the issue. To start, forget for a moment all the spiritual teachings you have learned and just consider the point as a rational individual. Can one person commit a crime and another person suffer for it such that the first is absolved? I say “No”. And despite all religious teaching over the last 2,000 years I say Jesus also cannot suffer in the place of another and absolve that one from sin. A person must suffer for the crime he or she commits, no one else can take the punishment, be they man or God. No power in heaven or on earth can change that important fact.

Now, don’t stop reading, I do believe in the atonement. It just has to be understood in a more correct way. Consider a mother, one who loves her child deeply. Suppose this child is suffering through cancer or some other terrible disease. What would that mother not do for her child? She cannot take what the child is feeling away, but she can be there with them. She can bear with her child and feel an empathy that reaches into her own heart and into the child’s heart. May I submit that on a larger and more complete scale this mother’s example is closer to what Jesus has done for us? He does not take our punishment from us, but rather bears it with us. He has decided that infinitely and eternally he will join with us, if we will let him, to feel what we feel, to comfort us when we need comfort, and to rejoice with us when we find joy. As he said, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. (John 15:5). And again, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us…” (John 17:20-21).

Knowing a little of the theological differences between the LDS and Catholics…I tentatively say that what you expressed appears to be the Catholic position as far as what you have written. The Catholic Church through 2000 years has never taught that Jesus suffered or was punished as a substitution for us.

 

[SyCarl]

Knowing a little of the theological differences between the LDS and Catholics…I tentatively say that what you expressed appears to be the Catholic position as far as what you have written. The Catholic Church through 2000 years has never taught that Jesus suffered or was punished as a substitution for us.

The teachings of a number in the early church included penal substitution, including those who have been named saints and doctors of the church. This does not mean it was their only view but they did write on it. Unless I missed it, penal substitution was one of the few things taught in the Reformation that was not condemned by the Council of Trent.

Augustine

Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment which follows**.Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment… Exemption from Adam’s curse implies exemption from his death. But as Christ endured** death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offenses, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. **And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment. **And these words “every one” are intended to check the ignorant officiousness which would deny the reference of the curse to Christ, and so, because the curse goes along with death, would lead to the denial of the true death of Christ…The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment, any more than He is praised by the Manichæans when they deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer real death. In the curse of the prophet there is praise of Christ’s humility, while in the pretended regard of the heretics there is a charge of falsehood. If, then, you deny that Christ was cursed, you must deny that He died; and then you have to meet, not Moses, but the apostles. Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment.

(Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 4, 6 & 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

and

For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon Him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt.

(Expositions of the Book of Psalms, Psalm 51)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LI.html

Chrysostom

For he makes a wide distinction between “commandments” and “ordinances.” He either then means “faith,” calling that an “ordinance,” (for by faith alone He saved us,) or he means “precept,” such as Christ gave, when He said, “But I say unto you, that you are not to be angry at all. That is to say, If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.’And again, The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven, or who shall descend into the abyss?’ or, who hath brought. Him again from the dead?’ Instead of a certain manner of life, He brought in faith. For that He might not save us to no purpose, He both Himself underwent the penalty, and also required of men the faith that is by doctrines”

(Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/230105.htm

and

It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others.

(Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 3
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.html

and

And what has He done? “Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you.” For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? “Him that knew no sin,” he says, Him that was righteousness itself, “He made sin,” that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. ….And that you may learn what a thing it is, consider this which I say. If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation

(Homilies on 2 Corinthians, Homily 11, verse 21)
newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

Eusebius of Caesarea

And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us

(Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 10, Chapter 1)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_12_book10.htm

and

He then that was alone of those who ever existed, the Word of God, before all worlds, and High Priest of every creature that has mind and reason, separated One of like passions with us, as a sheep or lamb from the human flock, **branded on Him all our sins, **and fastened on Him as well the curse that was adjudged by Moses’ law, as Moses foretells: “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” This He suffered "being made a curse for us; and making himself sin for our sakes."And then "He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,"and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross. And after all this when He had offered such a wondrous offering and choice victim to the Father, and sacrificed for the salvation of us all, He delivered a memorial to us to offer to God continually instead of a sacrifice. .

(Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 1, Chapter 10)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm

Athanasius

But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression….Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once:** the death of all was consummated in the Lord’s body; yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished. Death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid.**

(On the Incarnation, Chapter 4, Paragraph 20)
ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.v.html

Theodore of Heraclea

**He bore the sum of human evils and every form of transgression, as well as their recompense and punishment. And as if he were our debtor, the only-begotten Word of God, coming into the world alongside us, fulfilled every law and all righteousness and did not stumble over sin but received it willingly so as to change our punishment into peace and harmony. For undergoing temptation he carried our rebukes and punishment, **and by faith we make our own his sufferings, and dying together with him we are saved by grace. He was not delivered by force but as an act of obedience.

(Fragments on Isaiah, Mark W. Elliott ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament XI, Isaiah 40-66, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), p. 164)

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

Gregory the Great

If blessed Job bears the likeness of our Redeemer in His Passion, how is it that the Lord says to Satan, Thou movedst Me against him? Truly the Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, came to bear the scourges of our mortal nature, that He might put away the sins of our disobedience; but forasmuch as He is of one and the self-same nature with the Father, how does the Father declare that He was moved by Satan against Him, when it is acknowledged that no inequality of power, no diversity of will, interrupts the harmony between the Father and the Son? Yet He, that is equal to the Father by the Divine Nature, came for our sakes to be under stripes in a fleshly nature. Which stripes He would never have undergone, if he had not taken the form of accursed man in the work of their redemption. And unless the first man had transgressed, the second would never have come to the ignominies of the Passion. When then the first man was moved by Satan from the Lord, then the Lord was moved against the second Man. And so Satan then moved the Lord to the affliction of this latter, when the sin of disobedience brought down the first man from the height of uprightness. For if he had not drawn the first Adam by wilful sin into the death of the soul, the second Adam, being without sin, would never have come into the voluntary death of the flesh, and therefore it is with justice said to him of our Redeemer too, Thou movedst Me against him to afflict him without cause. As though it were said in plainer words; ‘Whereas this Man dies not on His own account, but on account of that other, thou didst then move Me to the afflicting of This one, when thou didst withdraw that other from Me by thy cunning persuasions.’ And of Him it is rightly added, without cause. For ‘he was destroyed without cause,’ who was at once weighed to the earth by the avenging of sin, and not defiled by the pollution of sin. He ‘was destroyed without cause,’ Who, being made incarnate, had no sins of His own, and yet being without offence took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal. For it is hence that speaking by the Prophet He says, Then I restored that which I took not away. For that other that was created for Paradise would in his pride have usurped the semblance of the Divine power, yet the Mediator, Who was without guilt, discharged the guilt of that pride. It is hence that a Wise Man saith to the Father; Forasmuch then as Thou art righteous Thyself, Thou orderest all things righteously; **Thou condemnest Him too that deserveth not to be punished. **

But we must consider how He is righteous and ordereth all things righteously, if He condemns Him that deserveth not to be punished.* For our Mediator deserved not to be punished for Himself, because He never was guilty of any defilement of sin.* But if He had not Himself undertaken a death not due to Him, He would never have freed us from one that was justly due to us.* And so whereas ‘The Father is righteous,’ in punishing a righteous man, ‘He ordereth all things righteously,’ in that by these means** He justifies all things, viz. that for the sake of sinners He condemns Him Who is without sin; that all the Elect might rise up to the height of righteousness, in proportion as He Who is above all underwent the penalties of our unrighteousness**.* What then is in that place called ‘being condemned without deserving,’ is here spoken of as being ‘afflicted without cause.’ *Yet though in respect of Himself He was ‘afflicted without cause,’ in respect of our deeds it was not ‘without cause.’ ***For the rust of sin could not be cleared away, but by the fire of torment, He then came without sin, Who should submit Himself voluntarily to torment, that the chastisements due to our wickedness might justly loose the parties thereto **obnoxious, in that they had unjustly kept Him, Who was free of them.Thus it was both without cause, and not without cause, that He was afflicted, Who had indeed no crimes in Himself, but Who cleansed with His blood the stain of our guilt.

(An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Part 1, Book 3, Paragraph 27
ecatholic2000.com/job/untitled-10.shtml#_Toc385932124

and

But how incomprehensible and unimaginable that Greatness wherewith He shall come in His Second Manifesting, in some degree we estimate aright, if we consider with heedful reflection the weighty particulars of His first Advent.*** Surely that He might redeem us from death, the Lord came to die, and the impoverishment and punishments of our flesh He underwent in His own Body; Who before He came to the stock of the Cross, suffered Himself to be bound, to be spit on, to be mocked and to be beaten with blows on His cheek.**

(An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Part 4, Book 17, Paragraph 54
ecatholic2000.com/job/untitled-29.shtml#_Toc385932143

I apologize for the length of some of these quotes but I wanted to include as much of the context in which they were made as I could.

 

[KjetilK]

God the Father turned from punishing us to punishing Jesus in our place.

No, he did not, for several reasons.* But most importantly, it must be rejected because it is simply self-contradictory. The punishment meant for us is eternal damnation. If God the Father actually “turned from punishing us to punishing Jesus in our place,” then Jesus should have stayed dead, and he should have stayed in hell, being punished for all eternity. Your theory amounts to Christ being either finitely punished with an infinite punishment, which is an clear and obvious self-contradiction. It makes as much sense as a circular square.

• Since I’m in a hurry I can just say that the theory entails Pelagianism, tri-theism and/or Nestorianism. That might not bother you but it sure bothers me. More on that later, when I’m back.