Substitutionary Atonement

[Frontline]

I have heard it said that substitutionary atonement [or penal substitution] is “A Protestant heresy” - and that this doctrine has no support in Scripture whatsoever. I have also heard it said that since this doctrine was “invented” by John Calvin, it therefore has no support in Historical Christian thought either.

I for one, believe that both of these are fallacious claims, and would like to begin to discuss this doctrine with our Catholic friends here at CAF. I would like to examine some of the biblical support for the doctrine first - and then once we have all had our fair share of exposition, we can move on to the writings of the ECFs.

My intention here is to lay down some theological propositions to be considered by all who will read the thread - and also to engage respectfully with many (not all, for I am only one man) of the propositions that are set forth by Catholics concerning the atonement of Christ.

First off - I understand that there are many aspects of the atonement that are valid - and I fully admit that penal substitution is not the only thing that the Bible reveals concerning the crucifixion of Christ. We find also, for example, that the cross was the means by which Jesus triumphed over evil powers - (Col. 2:15), that it offers an inspiring example to those who suffer unjustly - (1 Pet. 2:21-23), and that it brings about a decisive end to our old life of sin - (Rom 6:6). All of these are valid.

Therefore although it is true that the biblical portrayal of the atonement has many facets, the design of this particular thread is to simply discuss whether or not penal substitution is one of them, and whether it has such prominence that it cannot be sidelined.

Please - to all my Catholic friends - let us proceed with respect - “having our speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt” (Col. 4:6) so as to demonstrate to all who read this thread, what it is to walk in the fear of God, the love of Christ, and the peace and patience of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Ok go ahead. What is the Scriptural position for subsitutionary atonment. Please keep it brief if you can.

 

[ckempston]

Ok go ahead. What is the Scriptural position for subsitutionary atonment. Please keep it brief if you can.

I think he did, in his signature.

Isaiah 53:5 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.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I have heard it said that substitutionary atonement [or penal substitution] is “A Protestant heresy” - and that this doctrine has no support in Scripture whatsoever. I have also heard it said that since this doctrine was “invented” by John Calvin, it therefore has no support in Historical Christian thought either.

I for one, believe that both of these are fallacious claims, and would like to begin to discuss this doctrine with our Catholic friends here at CAF. I would like to examine some of the biblical support for the doctrine first - and then once we have all had our fair share of exposition, we can move on to the writings of the ECFs.

My intention here is to lay down some theological propositions to be considered by all who will read the thread - and also to engage respectfully with many (not all, for I am only one man) of the propositions that are set forth by Catholics concerning the atonement of Christ.

First off - I understand that there are many aspects of the atonement that are valid - and I fully admit that penal substitution is not the only thing that the Bible reveals concerning the crucifixion of Christ. We find also, for example, that the cross was the means by which Jesus triumphed over evil powers - (Col. 2:15), that it offers an inspiring example to those who suffer unjustly - (1 Pet. 2:21-23), and that it brings about a decisive end to our old life of sin - (Rom 6:6). All of these are valid.

Therefore although it is true that the biblical portrayal of the atonement has many facets, the design of this particular thread is to simply discuss whether or not penal substitution is one of them, and whether it has such prominence that it cannot be sidelined.

Please - to all my Catholic friends - let us proceed with respect - “having our speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt” (Col. 4:6) so as to demonstrate to all who read this thread, what it is to walk in the fear of God, the love of Christ, and the peace and patience of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The error is in perceiving the nature of the atonement to be simply a form of vicarious punishment. His atoning sacrifice took the place of our punishment. It is not the same thing to simply say the atonement was merely vacarious punishment. The correct understanding of the atonement is that it was sacrificial in nature:

It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, “making peace through the blood of His Cross”. (New Advent, Atonement.)

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Frontline]

The error is in perceiving the nature of the atonement to be simply a form of vicarious punishment. His atoning sacrifice took the place of our punishment. It is not the same thing to simply say the atonement was merely vacarious punishment. The correct understanding of the atonement is that it was sacrificial in nature:

Hi Robert -

Well I did admit that the atonement was not “simply” or “merely” or “exclusively” a penal substitution, as I affirm the various other aspects of the cross work of Christ. My position however is that penal substitution is the central aspect of the atonement.

This is what I will seek to establish from Scripture as we begin to deal with particular terms and passages. Be patient with me please, as I am only a student of the Scriptures myself - and continue to learn biblical truth on a daily basis.

Also - please remember that if I make a statement that is proven to be false - I will gladly recant from that statement - but that a single statement that is not true does not invalidate the position that I am attempting to establish. I will treat you likewise. Thanks.

 

[Frontline]

Ok go ahead. What is the Scriptural position for subsitutionary atonment. Please keep it brief if you can.

Hi Marco,

Thanks for the opportunity.

Well I guess I could start anywhere, but I think it might be best to first deal with the meaning of atonement.

Please understand that this particular post is only a foundation for understanding substitutionary atonement - and does not in and of itself prove the doctrine. So please, after reading this post - be patient, and allow me further opportunities to develop a more comprehensive doctrinal frame from other terms, concepts, and passages. It will only be after we marshal all these truths together that we will begin to have any meaningful dialog about penal substitution. As I said - though - I will begin here with establishing an understanding of the meaning of atonement.

The Hebrew verb kipper, translated ‘to make atonement’, has about four possible meanings in Scripture - none of which necessarily excludes the others - and yet the central meaning or intended usage of the term must be determined by it’s context.

So I figure we might want to take a look at these four possible meanings (four is all that I am aware of - you may find more).

First, where God is the subject, kipper can mean to forgive. However, this cannot exhaust the meaning, for in some texts kipper is distinct from forgiveness, as a prerequisite to it - (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31; Num.15:25).

Secondly, kipper can have to do with cleansing; for example in Lev. 16:30, where the Lord says to Moses, ‘on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.’

The third possible meaning for kipper is ransom, suggested by it’s possible relationship with the noun koper, which certainly carries the meaning. The connection is plausible as we examine Exodus 30:11-16, where kipper and koper occur together (cf. Num. 35:29-34). Sometimes this ransom is financial - or even the life of an animal - (Lev. 17:11).

Finally, kipper can refer to the averting of God’s wrath. This meaning is apparent in several Old Testament texts. For example, Numbers 25 describes an occasion where because of the Israelites disobedience to God by sexual immorality, God’s fierce anger “burned against them” - (vv. 4, 5). This shameless display of godlessness so enraged Phinehas, the priest, that he “rose and left the congregation and took a spear in his hand and went after the man of Israel into the chamber and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly.” (vv. 7, 8) According to the text, it was this act, and not Moses’ attempts to restore order that turned aside the wrath of God from the Israelites: ‘Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped.’ (v 8).

This truth is expounded in more explicit terms, when we read - "And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement kipper] for the people of Israel’” (vv. 10-13).

So - in summary, I believe that I have established that the term kipper can relate to forgiveness, cleansing, ransom, and the averting of God’s wrath. In my next post, I will examine Leviticus 16 - where the term appears 16 times - in order that we might properly assess the central thrust of the term in relation to the instructions for the Day of Atonement.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hi Robert -

Well I did admit that the atonement was not “simply” or “merely” or “exclusively” a penal substitution, as I affirm the various other aspects of the cross work of Christ. My position however is that penal substitution is the central aspect of the atonement.

This is what I will seek to establish from Scripture as we begin to deal with particular terms and passages. Be patient with me please, as I am only a student of the Scriptures myself - and continue to learn biblical truth on a daily basis.

Also - please remember that if I make a statement that is proven to be false - I will gladly recant from that statement - but that a single statement that is not true does not invalidate the position that I am attempting to establish. I will treat you likewise. Thanks.

Very well. Please proceed. But I encourage you to read the full text of the New Advent page as well. It may give you a better understanding of where Catholic theology is coming from on the issue.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hi Marco,

Thanks for the opportunity.

Well I guess I could start anywhere, but I think it might be best to first deal with the meaning of atonement.

Please understand that this particular post is only a foundation for understanding substitutionary atonement - and does not in and of itself prove the doctrine. So please, after reading this post - be patient, and allow me further opportunities to develop a more comprehensive doctrinal frame from other terms, concepts, and passages. It will only be after we marshal all these truths together that we will begin to have any meaningful dialog about penal substitution. As I said - though - I will begin here with establishing an understanding of the meaning of atonement.

The Hebrew verb kipper, translated ‘to make atonement’, has about four possible meanings in Scripture - none of which necessarily excludes the others - and yet the central meaning or intended usage of the term must be determined by it’s context.

So I figure we might want to take a look at these four possible meanings (four is all that I am aware of - you may find more).

First, where God is the subject, kipper can mean to forgive. However, this cannot exhaust the meaning, for in some texts kipper is distinct from forgiveness, as a prerequisite to it - (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31; Num.15:25).

Secondly, kipper can have to do with cleansing; for example in Lev. 16:30, where the Lord says to Moses, ‘on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.’

The third possible meaning for kipper is ransom, suggested by it’s possible relationship with the noun koper, which certainly carries the meaning. The connection is plausible as we examine Exodus 30:11-16, where kipper and koper occur together (cf. Num. 35:29-34). Sometimes this ransom is financial - or even the life of an animal - (Lev. 17:11).

Finally, kipper can refer to the averting of God’s wrath. This meaning is apparent in several Old Testament texts. For example, Numbers 25 describes an occasion where because of the Israelites disobedience to God by sexual immorality, God’s fierce anger “burned against them” - (vv. 4, 5). This shameless display of godlessness so enraged Phinehas, the priest, that he “rose and left the congregation and took a spear in his hand and went after the man of Israel into the chamber and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly.” (vv. 7, 8) According to the text, it was this act, and not Moses’ attempts to restore order that turned aside the wrath of God from the Israelites: ‘Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped.’ (v 8).

This truth is expounded in more explicit terms, when we read - "And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement kipper] for the people of Israel’” (vv. 10-13).

So - in summary, I believe that I have established that the term kipper can relate to forgiveness, cleansing, ransom, and the averting of God’s wrath. In my next post, I will examine Leviticus 16 - where the term appears 16 times - in order that we might properly assess the central thrust of the term in relation to the instructions for the Day of Atonement.

OK. this is interesting but where does it support the notion that Jesus’s work on the cross was a form of substitutional punishment as opposed to sacrificial offering.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Frontline]

Very well. Please proceed. But I encourage you to read the full text of the New Advent page as well. It may give you a better understanding of where Catholic theology is coming from on the issue.

Thanks Robert!

But what I have found is that when I send someone to an article, the conversation often becomes disrupted, and rabbit trails into some other topic - or - the person begins to dialog with the article, and since I cannot speak for the author of the article, I am sooner or later unable to elaborate on certain propositions that are questioned and brought into dispute.

I cannot defend another persons propositions until I study them out, confirm them by personal study, and so learn them, that they become my own by a conscious adoption. And once this happens - I no longer need to send people to articles, but can engage with them directly, a few paragraphs at a time.

No disrespect to you Robert - but based on these facts - I also prefer to dialog with individuals on a personal level, rather than be directed to articles. Therefore, I will probably not read that article - but please feel free to present it’s propositions to me for consideration as we go along.

I am more interested in engaging in healthy dialog with the Catholics on this forum - so as to both learn and share what I have learned. I trust that I will have my position respectfully challenged and my questions respectfully answered here at Catholic Answers.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I’ve heard that this idea was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in his work Cur Deus homo (Why did God become man)?

 

[Frontline]

OK. this is interesting but where does it support the notion that Jesus’ work on the cross was a form of substitutional punishment as opposed to sacrificial offering.

I have not yet gotten there Robert, as I stated clearly that I was only laying a foundation. But now that I have established the fourfold meaning of Atonement, I will proceed to develop the doctrine of Penal Substitution. Let us turn then, to the heart of Leviticus 16 and consider the rituals of the Day of Atonement:

The ceremonies of the Day of Atonement centered around two goats, one of which was sacrificed to the Lord, the other being sent into the desert as a ‘scapegoat’ or more literally, a ‘goat for Azazel.’ No respectable interpreter of the Scriptures would deny the fact that both of these goats are types and shadows of the Lord Jesus, and therefore each teaches us some important aspect of the atonement of Christ. Here, in attempting to establish a foundation for penal substitution – I will focus on the details of the scapegoat.

The instructions for the ritual involving the scapegoat are found in Leviticus 16:20-22:

“And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness” (vv. 20-22).

By laying his hands on the head of the goat and confessing the sins of the people, Aaron, as the representative of all the Israelites, identified with the goat and symbolically transferred the people’s sin to it. Some have denied that this act of identification implies substitution, but such an interpretation is inescapable. For when a person lives who otherwise would have died, and an animal dies who otherwise would have lived – substitution is necessarily entailed.

The goat is sent away to ‘a solitary place’ (literally, ‘a land of cutting off’ v. 22), where without doubt it would be expected to die. But the goats fate has a greater significance: for throughout the book of Leviticus we find that to be excluded, or ‘cut off’, from the camp of Israel was to experience God’s punishment for sin – (Lev. 7:20-27; 4:9-14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3, 5-6, 17-18; 22:3; 23:29).

As the goat is sent away from the people, it is said to ‘bear all their iniquities on itself’ (v 22). Now the meaning of the underlying Hebrew phrase nasa avon depends in part on the subject of the verb. For example, where God is the subject it means ‘to forgive’ (Num. 14:18). Where a sinful person is the subject, it usually means that he bears his own guilt (Lev. 7:18).

However – Leviticus 16:22 is a rather different case, for an animal is the subject of the verb, and the judicial fate of the Israelites is transferred to the animal in such a way that they do not bear it themselves. Therefore – any unbiased reading of this passage will admit that the animal bears the sin and the guilt of the people *in their place, *and they are thereby released from this burden.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

npatrol:

 

[Steadfast]

I was also under the impression that the theory was first approached, post-scripturally, by Anselm.

This is not to say that Anselm even thoroughly formulated it, but that in Anselm we see the articulation of an idea clearly of a piece with the standard Substitutionary or Vicarious Atonement theory.

I tend to agree with the writer of the OP. The doctrine of the Atonement can admit of a number of nuances but the dominant idea is that Christ satisfied God’s just wrath and bore the penalty for our sin.

One of the reasons I think it dominates is because it, of all the various theories (or nuances) most clearly completes the import of the sacrificial system laid out in the ceremonial law and therefore most clearly shows a recap of the whole Jewish experience wrt atonement, sacrifice, etc.

 

[John7]

I tend to agree with the writer of the OP. The doctrine of the Atonement can admit of a number of nuances but the dominant idea is that Christ satisfied God’s just wrath and bore the penalty for our sin.

I disagree with OP because

Bible says
“For the wages of sin is death” Ro 6:23
Bible does not say
“The wages of sin is punishment and wrath from God”
Bible nowhere says Jesus bore the punitive wrath of God on cross. On the other hand Bible does say in 1 Pet 2:24,
Who his own self bare **our sins **in his own body on the tree.

John 1:29 does not say
“Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the punishment of the world.”
But does say
“Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”

2 Cor 5:21 does not say
"For he made him who knew no sin to be our punishment bearer"but it does say
"For he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us…"In the Lev 16 the Shekinah glory didn’t erupt on the goat for azazel with punishing destructive wrath like it did with Nadab and Abihu (Nu 3). The sacrifice was merely shelach-ed into the wilderness to a land of separation/gezerah after imputation of sin. Neither the goat for azazel nor the goat for the LORD bore the ‘aph’ of the LORD

 

[Frontline]

I disagree with OP because Bible says
“For the wages of sin is death” Ro 6:23

Yes - and Christ could not have died - unless he took upon himself our sin. I think you will agree with this, as you alluded to 1 Pet. 2:24 below. But might I ask, who executes judgment on sin? Is it not God Himself?

Bible does not say
“The wages of sin is punishment and wrath from God”

I believe that it can safely be deduced from a host of Scriptures: for example - “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” (Romans 1:18) “Because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” (Romans 2:5).

Also - Isaiah 13:9-11, “Behold, the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light. I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant, and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.”

Bible nowhere says Jesus bore the punitive wrath of God on cross. On the other hand Bible does say in 1 Pet 2:24,
Who his own self bare **our sins **in his own body on the tree.

I believe you are mistaken - as I will demonstrate in my next post on Isaiah 53.

In the Lev 16 . . . the sacrifice was merely shelach-ed into the wilderness to a land of separation/gezerah after imputation of sin.

The literal rendering is ‘the land of cutting off’ which is a separation from the camp of Israel. As I noted, this certainly denotes a death, as is implied by ‘separation’ and is the equivilent to experiencing God’s punishment for sin - (Lev. 7:20-27; 4:9-14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3, 5-6, 17-18; 22:3; 23:29).

 

[Frontline]

Penal Substitution is so obviously at the heart of Isaiah 53 that I will now begin to develop the doctrine from this glorious portion of Scripture. I will not be exhaustive, but will simply make a number of fundamental observations.

First of all – as is clear from even a cursory reading of the chapter – the Servant (Jesus Christ) is explicitly said to suffer ‘for’ others. The substitutionary character of his suffering is highlighted in the repeated contrast between he, his, and him on the one hand, and we, us, we all, and us all on the other – (53:4-6).

Secondly – Isaiah emphasizes that the Servant suffered willingly and deliberately, not as a passive victim of the actions of others. This is made clear by the change to the active voice in verse 4a from the passive language in the surrounding context. In verses 4-5 this Servant makes it clear that taking sins upon him self is his act. The same emphasis on the Servant’s active participation is clear from verse 12, where the Lord promises to exalt the Servant because of his own initiative in giving himself up to die:

“Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; for he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

Thirdly – and most importantly – it is God Himself who acts to lay the people’s sins upon the Servant and to punish him. This is clear from Isaiah 53:6, the same passage that I quote in my signature! This is an indisputable point, by virtue of the emphatic placement of ‘the LORD’ in the Hebrew word order:

“The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

A similar grammatical construction is used in verse 10, which contains an even more explicit statement about the Lord’s role in the Servant’s suffering:

“Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.”

Please note (John7) that the text says - “It was the will of the LORD to crush him” - NOT - “to have him crushed.”

It is also important to understand that these two points – the Servant’s willingness and the Lord’s intention – fit together. It would be easy to emphasize one to such a degree that the other is undermined, but Isaiah will not allow this, as he carefully guards against the notion that God inflicted punishment *against *the Servant’s will.

Lastly – the suffering Servant is himself sinless and righteous. Thus Isaiah 53:9 reads, ‘He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit found in his mouth.’ In a similar way in verse 11, the Lord describes him as ‘my righteous servant.’

But immediately then this raises the question:

‘If he is innocent, then why should he suffer in this way?’

One possible answer is that Isaiah wants to hold the Servant up as a victim of injustice. In terms of the way he was treated by sinful humanity, he certainly was a victim, but this cannot be the whole story. For as I already mentioned – ‘it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief’ – and we dare not charge God with injustice! Thus the juxtaposition of the Servant’s innocence and God’s determination that he should suffer, focuses our question: ‘For what sins might God justly visit this judicial sentence upon him?’ Clearly not his own!

The answer is found in the following verses, and confirms my first point – the Servant suffered not for his own sin, but for the sins of others: ‘he will bear their iniquities’ (v 11), ‘he bore the sins of many’ (v 12)! Therefore God acted justly in condemning the Servant for the sins of others – the sins the Servant willingly bore.

This is penal substitution.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Penal Substitution is so obviously at the heart of Isaiah 53 that I will now begin to develop the doctrine from this glorious portion of Scripture. I will not be exhaustive, but will simply make a number of fundamental observations.

First of all – as is clear from even a cursory reading of the chapter – the Servant (Jesus Christ) is explicitly said to suffer ‘for’ others. The substitutionary character of his suffering is highlighted in the repeated contrast between he, his, and him on the one hand, and we, us, we all, and us all on the other – (53:4-6).

Secondly – Isaiah emphasizes that the Servant suffered willingly and deliberately, not as a passive victim of the actions of others. This is made clear by the change to the active voice in verse 4a from the passive language in the surrounding context. In verses 4-5 this Servant makes it clear that taking sins upon him self is his act. The same emphasis on the Servant’s active participation is clear from verse 12, where the Lord promises to exalt the Servant because of his own initiative in giving himself up to die:

“Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; for he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

Thirdly – and most importantly – it is God Himself who acts to lay the people’s sins upon the Servant and to punish him. This is clear from Isaiah 53:6, the same passage that I quote in my signature! This is an indisputable point, by virtue of the emphatic placement of ‘the LORD’ in the Hebrew word order:

“The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

A similar grammatical construction is used in verse 10, which contains an even more explicit statement about the Lord’s role in the Servant’s suffering:

“Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.”

Please note (John7) that the text says - “It was the will of the LORD to crush him” - NOT - “to have him crushed.”

It is also important to understand that these two points – the Servant’s willingness and the Lord’s intention – fit together. It would be easy to emphasize one to such a degree that the other is undermined, but Isaiah will not allow this, as he carefully guards against the notion that God inflicted punishment *against *the Servant’s will.

Lastly – the suffering Servant is himself sinless and righteous. Thus Isaiah 53:9 reads, ‘He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit found in his mouth.’ In a similar way in verse 11, the Lord describes him as ‘my righteous servant.’

But immediately then this raises the question:

‘If he is innocent, then why should he suffer in this way?’

One possible answer is that Isaiah wants to hold the Servant up as a victim of injustice. In terms of the way he was treated by sinful humanity, he certainly was a victim, but this cannot be the whole story. For as I already mentioned – ‘it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief’ – and we dare not charge God with injustice! Thus the juxtaposition of the Servant’s innocence and God’s determination that he should suffer, focuses our question: ‘For what sins might God justly visit this judicial sentence upon him?’ Clearly not his own!

The answer is found in the following verses, and confirms my first point – the Servant suffered not for his own sin, but for the sins of others: ‘he will bear their iniquities’ (v 11), ‘he bore the sins of many’ (v 12)! Therefore God acted justly in condemning the Servant for the sins of others – the sins the Servant willingly bore.

This is penal substitution.

I prefer the words of Jesus.

They are much more clear and explicit:

Matt 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

Mark 8

34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.

John 15

5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

9"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.

 

[Frontline]

Hi Chesterton; I am sorry but I am not so sure what you mean.

All Scripture is God-breathed, so the entire written revelation carries equal authority. And as for clarity - I don’t see how the passages that I was dealing with were not explicit enough for you - they were about as explicit as it gets. As for the passages that you cited - do these even pertain to the doctrine of penal substitution?

I hope I am not misunderstanding you - but perhaps you can elaborate as to the point you are making. Thanks!

 

[ckempston]

Hi Chesterton; I am sorry but I am not so sure what you mean.

All Scripture is God-breathed, so the entire written revelation carries equal authority. And as for clarity - I don’t see how the passages that I was dealing with were not explicit enough for you - they were about as explicit as it gets. As for the passages that you cited - do these even pertain to the doctrine of penal substitution?

I hope I am not misunderstanding you - but perhaps you can elaborate as to the point you are making. Thanks!

I kind of missed the point there as well.

 

[Steadfast]

Catholics will often express preference for the Gospels over the rest of Scripture. As well, the New Testament is often almost disconnected from the Old and seen as the Newer, abrogating revelation rather than the completion or fulfillment of the existing revelation.