Atonement (what is written)

[JonC]

@Anthony Pritchard suggested that we should not debate one another’s understanding if we differ because this would be a back and forth, but that we should instead look at what is stated in the biblical text. I agree.

If we simply argue for our understanding, which is subjective, nothing is actually accomplished. So in that spirit let’s go to Scripture and see what the biblical text states (and does not state). Then we can see where Scripture ends and our opinions/ understanding begins.

 

[JonC]

Let’s look at the Levitical sacrifice system, with the sin offering.

“If a persons sins . . . then let him offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. He shall bring the bull to the doorway of the tent of meeting before the Lord, and he shall lay his hand on the head of the bull and slay the bull before the Lord. Then the anointed priest is to take some of the blood of the bull and bring it to the tent of meeting, and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before the Lord …also put some of the blood on the horns of the altar… and all the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering which is at the doorway of the tent of meeting . . .”

What can we know from Scripture?

The person who sins offers a bull as a sin offering. That persons kills the bull outside of the tent of meeting. The priest takes the blood into the tent and applies it on the altar and at the base of the alter of burnt offering which is at the doorway of the tent.

We can accurately state that the sin offering is not presented as a substitution by the biblical text (although many may view it otherwise, it is not in the actual words of God).

Let’s look at the guilt offering (as Christ presented Himself as a guilt offering):

“So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess … he shall also bring his guilt offering to the Lord for his sin which he has committed…so the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin…”

The actual sacrifice is identical to the sin offering. The priest applies the blood (if an animal is offered).

Again, according to the actual text there is no substitution. The priest makes atonement on behalf of the person who sinned.

Conclusion
The biblical text presents people offering a sacrifice, a priest using the blood to make atonement for their sins, and their sins being forgiven.


If we stick to God's Word (to "what is written", to the biblical text) and keep our philosophy out of the mix then we cannot say that the Levitical system was substitutionary.

To view this as substitution requires more than the biblical text. But what if God's words are a complete doctrine?

We need to look at passages describing the blood in terms of an atonement.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

@Anthony Pritchard suggested that we should not debate one another’s understanding if we differ because this would be a back and forth, but that we should instead look at what is stated in the biblical text. I agree.

If we simply argue for our understanding, which is subjective, nothing is actually accomplished. So in that spirit let’s go to Scripture and see what the biblical text states (and does not state). Then we can see where Scripture ends and our opinions/ understanding begins.

John, I want to clarify something you attributed to me. I did not say that we should avoid debating our understanding. What I said was that endless back and forth over philosophical categories and speculative frameworks leads nowhere, and that Scripture itself should be the ground. I have never suggested that we should not examine one another’s understanding. I simply said that the text must govern the discussion, not the categories we bring to it.

My point was not to avoid discussion, but to keep the discussion anchored in the words God actually gave us. If my understanding is wrong, I want it corrected by Scripture. If someone else’s understanding is wrong, Scripture should correct that as well. So I want to make sure my position is not reshaped into something I did not say. I welcome discussion, but I want it to be Scripture first, Scripture last, and Scripture throughout.

 

[JonC]

John, I want to clarify something you attributed to me. I did not say that we should avoid debating our understanding. What I said was that endless back and forth over philosophical categories and speculative frameworks leads nowhere, and that Scripture itself should be the ground. I have never suggested that we should not examine one another’s understanding. I simply said that the text must govern the discussion, not the categories we bring to it.

My point was not to avoid discussion, but to keep the discussion anchored in the words God actually gave us. If my understanding is wrong, I want it corrected by Scripture. If someone else’s understanding is wrong, Scripture should correct that as well. So I want to make sure my position is not reshaped into something I did not say. I welcome discussion, but I want it to be Scripture first, Scripture last, and Scripture throughout.

I apologize if it sounded like I was suggesting you wanted to avoid discussion. That was not my intention.

If you and I argue our understanding, what we think is taught by the Bible, then we would simply go back and forth. This is because your understanding and my understanding are subjective.

But we have God's own words. Scripture, not theories (understandings about what any of us think the Bible teaches) has to be our criteria because God's words are objective - they stand when opinions fall.

We test our views, constantly, against "what is written". That is the only true test (if I test my understanding of what I believe the Bible teaches against what I - or others who agree with me - think is thought by the Bible then I have become my own standard.

We, as believers, know not to lean on our own understanding but on every word that comes forth from God.

That is what I thought you meant, and I agree with that standard.

Again, I apologize if it came off like I was saying otherwise. You were right that you and I going back and forth stating our understanding about what passages teach profits little. The only gain is understanding one another, but it does not come close to exploring truth.



My intention is to have a discussion rooted in God's actual words. I believe that God has revealed all there is to know of the Atonement - that what the Bible teaches is what is recorded within its pages.

I want to stick with Scripture (let Scripture interpret Scripture).

I think we can set aside all of the understandings about what is "really" taught and just rest in His words, believe what God has said.

Scripture first, throughout, and last. No external philosophy, opinions of men about what is really taught (those are a dime a dozen).

Let's stick with God's Word. That is why I started out as I did, exploring what God actually said about sacrifices rather than the various ways they could be understood. I think the New Testament, especially Hebrews, does an excellent job explaining.

 

[JonC]

So we can at least say that the Levitical sacrifices in the biblical text (without philosophy, without theories) does not include substitution. This idea is not anywhere in the actual text, and the meanings of the words used for "atonement" ("cover" in the Old Testament and "reconcile" in the New Testament) do not state a substitution.

So what does the biblical text state about the blood that is shed? Here are a few passages:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood

and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood

So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

1. The life is in the blood, and the blood has been given for atonement.

2. We have been justified (made righteous) by His blood and will also escape the coming wrath.

3. The blood of Christ cleanses, purifies, us from all unrighteousness.

Not only is there no substitution in the biblical text, but what is accomplished by the blood is not a debt paid for our "forgiveness". Instead the blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness. The blood makes us righteous.

 

[JonC]

So, barring any passages that actually state the sacrifice system and the Atonement were substantially (aside from the obvious representative substitution) it seems fair to conclude the idea is a philosophical take on Scripture rather than derived from the biblical text itself and we can categorize the idea along with the many other theories men have come up with to make Scripture fit their own narrative.

We can do the same with viewing the Atonement as paying a debt, as the passages provided state rather than a debt paid what occurred was actual cleansing, making man a new creation.


This is why I love sticking to "what is written". We can test what we come up with against God's words and toss out what is not actually there. Men can reason, and have reasoned, whatever they desire out Scripture (substitution, restoring stolen honor, a paid debt, the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc.) BUT this is merely human conjecture - Not God's words.

People write diverse books, start threads, websites... all advocating what they believe the Bible really teaches while completely dismissing what God actually says. That is the world we live in. Man wants to be God. So they bend Scripture to whatever philosophy suits their understanding and have the audacity to claim it is "God's Word".

But we know better because we have God's Word. Many today see "substitution". Some saw a restoration of honor, others a moral example in the face of suffering, others a reenactment of the human experience. But what matters is God's words.


We cannot have a discussion with the Bible as our standard unless we are willing to submit to the Bible as our standard.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

So, barring any passages that actually state the sacrifice system and the Atonement were substantially (aside from the obvious representative substitution) it seems fair to conclude the idea is a philosophical take on Scripture rather than derived from the biblical text itself and we can categorize the idea along with the many other theories men have come up with to make Scripture fit their own narrative.

We can do the same with viewing the Atonement as paying a debt, as the passages provided state rather than a debt paid what occurred was actual cleansing, making man a new creation.


This is why I love sticking to "what is written". We can test what we come up with against God's words and toss out what is not actually there. Men can reason, and have reasoned, whatever they desire out Scripture (substitution, restoring stolen honor, a paid debt, the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc.) BUT this is merely human conjecture - Not God's words.

People write diverse books, start threads, websites... all advocating what they believe the Bible really teaches while completely dismissing what God actually says. That is the world we live in. Man wants to be God. So they bend Scripture to whatever philosophy suits their understanding and have the audacity to claim it is "God's Word".

But we know better because we have God's Word. Many today see "substitution". Some saw a restoration of honor, others a moral example in the face of suffering, others a reenactment of the human experience. But what matters is God's words.


We cannot have a discussion with the Bible as our standard unless we are willing to submit to the Bible as our standard.

John, if we are going to stay with what is written, then we need to include the passages that interpret the meaning of the sacrifices, not only the passages that describe the actions. Scripture does not leave the meaning of the sacrifices unexplained. It gives the interpretation in the text itself. If we set aside the passages where God explains what the sacrifices accomplished, then the discussion becomes an exercise in futility, because we would no longer be dealing with the whole of what is written.

Leviticus 1:4 says, “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.”

Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

Leviticus 16:21–22 says, “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat… and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities.”

Isaiah 53:6 says, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Isaiah 53:11 says, “For he shall bear their iniquities.”

Isaiah 53:12 says, “He bare the sin of many.”

These verses are also what is written, and they present substitution directly in the language of Scripture. If we are going to stay with the text itself, then these passages must be included in the discussion.

 

[JonC]

John, if we are going to stay with what is written, then we need to include the passages that interpret the meaning of the sacrifices, not only the passages that describe the actions. Scripture does not leave the meaning of the sacrifices unexplained. It gives the interpretation in the text itself. If we set aside the passages where God explains what the sacrifices accomplished, then the discussion becomes an exercise in futility, because we would no longer be dealing with the whole of what is written.

Leviticus 1:4 says, “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.”

Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

Leviticus 16:21–22 says, “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat… and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities.”

Isaiah 53:6 says, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Isaiah 53:11 says, “For he shall bear their iniquities.”

Isaiah 53:12 says, “He bare the sin of many.”

These verses are also what is written, and they present substitution directly in the language of Scripture. If we are going to stay with the text itself, then these passages must be included in the discussion.

Thank you. It was my intention that others provide passages as well.

I guess the issue here is that these verses (the biblical text itself and the language used) do not actually present substitution, although I realize many hold that to be what those passages teach. However it would be necessary for those who see substitution to prove their presuppositions correct.

Lets look at the biblical text:

1. Leviticus 1:4 says, “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.”

We cannot assume that this means "substitution" because that is foreign to the actual text. This practice (laying ones hands on something) was common, and it is mentioned numerous times in the Bible. If it means "substitution" when involving sacrifices then it is the only time it holds that meaning.

Any time we depart from the biblical text we have to explain the philosophy behind the departure. Viewing this as a substitution is obviously a departure (it necessitates applying ones own presuppositions).


2. Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

God gave the blood (the life is in the blood) to make atonement for the soul. The biblical text does not present this as a substitution. God did not say He gives the blood as a substitutiin for those making the sacrifice but that He gives the blood upon the altar to make atonement.

We cannot presuppose that "making atonement" itself is a substitution because that is not what "atonement" meant in the Bible. In the Old Testament Hebrew it was "to cover" and in the New Testament Greek it was "to reconcile". Neither are substitution.

I thought we were in agreement in sticking to the biblical text rather than discussing our own philosophical ideas about the text.

3. Leviticus 16:21–22 says, “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat… and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities.”

Again, you have the same issue. You are assuming substitution, bringing it into the text. The passage speaks of bearing, not substitution. You are reading into the passage some sort of transfer that is foreign to the actual text.

4. Isaiah 53:6 says, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Isaiah 53:11 says, “For he shall bear their iniquities.” Isaiah 53:12 says, “He bare the sin of many.”

Same problem. The idea of substitution is foreign to the actual biblical text.

Israel as a nation bore the sins of the few. We bear Christ's righteousness. We bear one anothers burdens. Christ bore our infirmities. We bear each others sorrow.

ἀνήνεγκεν means to sustain or carry, to bear. If we presuppose it is a substitution then we add "instead of us" to the meaning.

The biblical text itself does not state a substitution in any of those instances.


We cannot view any part of the Atonement as substitution and play it off that we are sticking to God's words (to the biblical text).

The philosophy that reads "substitution" into the biblical text would have to be explored, but it could never be objectively proven correct as it would not pass the text of Scripture.


@Anthony Pritchard , I realize you see "substitution" in those passages, but the fact you see it there does not negate the fact it is not literally in the biblical text. Many others (most Christians historically) do not see it there.

You would need to explain and defend your philosophy, but then it would just become a back and forth.


When I say "substitution" is not in the Atonement I am not talking about various theories about the Atonement. I am speaking of God's actual words ("what is written" ).

I want this thread to be focused on God's Word (on the biblical text) rather than ideas and theories about what the text might teach.

 

[Aaron]

Leviticus 1:4 says, “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.”

JonC
Notice in the sacrifice system there is no substitution. The animal is killed. But this is not the atonement. The animal is not viewed as a substitute. The priest applies the blood to "make atonement", but this is not to make ammends. Instead the blood cleanses.

Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. - Leviticus 1:4 NKJV

You are to lay your hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on your behalf to make atonement for you. - Leviticus 1:4 NIV

And he is to put his hand on the head of the burned offering and it will be taken for him, to take away his sin. - Leviticus 1:4 BBE

Lay your hand on the animal's head, and the LORD will accept its death in your place to purify you, making you right with him. - Leviticus 1:4 NLT

 

[Aaron]

Sin is the transgression. Trespass (or guilt) is the debt of sin.

In the sin offering, the sin is judged. In the guilt offering, the sin debt is paid. Right there under our noses in God's picture book.

 

[JonC]

These verses are also what is written, and they present substitution directly in the language of Scripture.

Tony,

Do you see what I mean?

Those verses DO NOT present substitution directly in the language of Scripture. None of the words imply substitution.

Yes, as Isaiah says, He bore our sorrow. But we bear one another's sorrow. He bore our sins. We bear His righteousness. A nation bears the sins of the people.


There is a place for you to expound on what you see those passages to teach. But I wanted this thread to deal with the Atonement through God's words.

That way we are not merely going back and forth arguing against one another's philosophy.

Lets look at "what is written" first. Then if we find the biblical text itself insufficient we can develop theories and explain the philosophy behind our presippositions.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Thank you. It was my intention that others provide passages as well.

I guess the issue here is that these verses (the biblical text itself and the language used) do not actually present substitution, although I realize many hold that to be what those passages teach. However it would be necessary for those who see substitution to prove their presuppositions correct.

Lets look at the biblical text:

1. Leviticus 1:4 says, “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.”

We cannot assume that this means "substitution" because that is foreign to the actual text. This practice (laying ones hands on something) was common, and it is mentioned numerous times in the Bible. If it means "substitution" when involving sacrifices then it is the only time it holds that meaning.

Any time we depart from the biblical text we have to explain the philosophy behind the departure. Viewing this as a substitution is obviously a departure (it necessitates applying ones own presuppositions).


2. Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

God gave the blood (the life is in the blood) to make atonement for the soul. The biblical text does not present this as a substitution. God did not say He gives the blood as a substitutiin for those making the sacrifice but that He gives the blood upon the altar to make atonement.

We cannot presuppose that "making atonement" itself is a substitution because that is not what "atonement" meant in the Bible. In the Old Testament Hebrew it was "to cover" and in the New Testament Greek it was "to reconcile". Neither are substitution.

I thought we were in agreement in sticking to the biblical text rather than discussing our own philosophical ideas about the text.

3. Leviticus 16:21–22 says, “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat… and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities.”

Again, you have the same issue. You are assuming substitution, bringing it into the text. The passage speaks of bearing, not substitution. You are reading into the passage some sort of transfer that is foreign to the actual text.

4. Isaiah 53:6 says, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Isaiah 53:11 says, “For he shall bear their iniquities.” Isaiah 53:12 says, “He bare the sin of many.”

Same problem. The idea of substitution is foreign to the actual biblical text.

Israel as a nation bore the sins of the few. We bear Christ's righteousness. We bear one anothers burdens. Christ bore our infirmities. We bear each others sorrow.

ἀνήνεγκεν means to sustain or carry, to bear. If we presuppose it is a substitution then we add "instead of us" to the meaning.

The biblical text itself does not state a substitution in any of those instances.


We cannot view any part of the Atonement as substitution and play it off that we are sticking to God's words (to the biblical text).

The philosophy that reads "substitution" into the biblical text would have to be explored, but it could never be objectively proven correct as it would not pass the text of Scripture.


@Anthony Pritchard , I realize you see "substitution" in those passages, but the fact you see it there does not negate the fact it is not literally in the biblical text. Many others (most Christians historically) do not see it there.

You would need to explain and defend your philosophy, but then it would just become a back and forth.


When I say "substitution" is not in the Atonement I am not talking about various theories about the Atonement. I am speaking of God's actual words ("what is written" ).

I want this thread to be focused on God's Word (on the biblical text) rather than ideas and theories about what the text might teach.

John, I am not adding anything to the text. I am simply taking the plain sense of the passages as they stand. When the text says the animal is accepted “for him,” when the sins are placed on the goat, when the goat bears the iniquities, and when the Lord lays our iniquity on the Servant, the ordinary, usual meaning is substitution. That is the face value reading. I am not defending a philosophy. I am reading the words as they are written.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. - Leviticus 1:4 NKJV

You are to lay your hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on your behalf to make atonement for you. - Leviticus 1:4 NIV

And he is to put his hand on the head of the burned offering and it will be taken for him, to take away his sin. - Leviticus 1:4 BBE

Lay your hand on the animal's head, and the LORD will accept its death in your place to purify you, making you right with him. - Leviticus 1:4 NLT

John, you quoted four translations. Every one of them says the sacrifice is accepted “for him,” “on his behalf,” or “in his place.” That is substitution in the plain, ordinary sense of the words. I am not adding anything to the text. I am simply taking the wording as it stands.

 

[JonC]

Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. - Leviticus 1:4 NKJV

You are to lay your hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on your behalf to make atonement for you. - Leviticus 1:4 NIV

And he is to put his hand on the head of the burned offering and it will be taken for him, to take away his sin. - Leviticus 1:4 BBE

Lay your hand on the animal's head, and the LORD will accept its death in your place to purify you, making you right with him. - Leviticus 1:4 NLT

@Aaron

This thread is dealing with the actual text, not various theories.

You are searching various translations you think force your theory. But they do mot.

For example, no words in the Hebrew of Leviticus 1:4 state God will accept the animals death in the person's place.

The atonement itself does not imply substitution. It does imply a covering, a reconciliation, the removal of sins.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Tony,

Do you see what I mean?

Those verses DO NOT present substitution directly in the language of Scripture. None of the words imply substitution.

Yes, as Isaiah says, He bore our sorrow. But we bear one another's sorrow. He bore our sins. We bear His righteousness. A nation bears the sins of the people.


There is a place for you to expound on what you see those passages to teach. But I wanted this thread to deal with the Atonement through God's words.

That way we are not merely going back and forth arguing against one another's philosophy.

Lets look at "what is written" first. Then if we find the biblical text itself insufficient we can develop theories and explain the philosophy behind our presippositions.

John, I am not adding anything to the text. I am taking the words as they stand. When the sacrifice is accepted “for him,” “on his behalf,” or “in his place,” the ordinary, usual meaning is substitution. That is the plain sense. I am not defending a philosophy. I am reading the wording as it is written.

 

[JonC]

John, I am not adding anything to the text. I am simply taking the plain sense of the passages as they stand. When the text says the animal is accepted “for him,” when the sins are placed on the goat, when the goat bears the iniquities, and when the Lord lays our iniquity on the Servant, the ordinary, usual meaning is substitution. That is the face value reading. I am not defending a philosophy. I am reading the words as they are written.

You use "plain sence" (a logical error). What you see as plain sense (your worldview, philosophy, presuppositions) are not what others necessarily see.

I disagree with what you assume is "plain sence". Prior to Anselm all Christian writers disagreed with what you see as "plain sence". The Jews disagreed with what you see as "plain sence".

"Plain sence" is just a short cut to apply one's philosophy without having to defend that philosophy.

IF we let Scripture interpret Scripture rather than trusting in our philosophy (what we see as plain sence) then there is no substitution.

You view the scapegoat as a substitution. I do not believe absent a goat all the people of Israel would be driven into the wilderness. You mean it is symbolic of a substitution you think happens at the atonement. But even this is your philosophy.

 

[JonC]

John, I am not adding anything to the text. I am taking the words as they stand. When the sacrifice is accepted “for him,” “on his behalf,” or “in his place,” the ordinary, usual meaning is substitution. That is the plain sense. I am not defending a philosophy. I am reading the wording as it is written.

On ones behalf, for him, in his place. This os not substitution (except in a representative sence).

On this thread let's stick with the text

If you choose to interpret "on behalf of" as "instead of" then you need to explain the philosophy behind the change.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

On ones behalf, for him, in his place. This os not substitution (except in a representative sence).

On this thread let's stick with the text

If you choose to interpret "on behalf of" as "instead of" then you need to explain the philosophy behind the change.

John, I am not interpreting “plain sense” through a philosophy. I am simply taking the wording as it stands. When Scripture says the sacrifice is accepted “for him,” “on his behalf,” or “in his place,” those phrases carry their ordinary meaning. I am not adding anything to the text. I am reading what is written.

 

[JonC]

John, I am not interpreting “plain sense” through a philosophy. I am simply taking the wording as it stands. When Scripture says the sacrifice is accepted “for him,” “on his behalf,” or “in his place,” those phrases carry their ordinary meaning. I am not adding anything to the text. I am reading what is written.

I understand you believe you are using "plain sense" without philosophy.

But that is not what the words themselves mean. Let's look at the words in plain language.

My 37th wedding anniversary was last week. I bought flowers for my wife (not instead of my wife, she buying her own flowers would negate the purpose).

I have written a reference on a friend's behalf. My friend writing his own reference would nullify the reference.

I have stood in the place of my unit dealing with a battalion commander. This was mot substitution but representation.



If you read pre-Reformation Christian writings you will probably note the same oddity I observed when I viewed my philosophy as the plain meaning of Scripture. They did not view this as a substitution but a representation and solidarity. At the time it did not make sense to me either.

How could Christians miss this plain meaning for over a thousand years of bible study??? The reason is they allowed Scripture to interpret Scripture and did not share our philosophy. Rather than viewing Chrisy sharing our infirmary to mean Je caught the occasional cold they viewed it as Christ sharing our sin, our humanity, what it is to be "us".


This is why I asked on the previous thread that you explain the philosophy behind your reasoning (why you view substitution as the plain meaning when it is not in the actual test or the word meanings).


If we stick to the biblical text, without applying our philosophy and presuppositions, then Christ died for us, for our sins, on our behalf, as our representative (as the Son of Man) - but not as our substitute.


I want this thread to be strictly the Atonement as stated in God's Word, not any one of the many understandings or theories about what it "really means", or the various and competing "plain meanings" Christians see in Scripture.

Let's stick with the actual biblical text in this thread and reserve discussing our theories for another place. It may be an interesting discussion, but it woukd be sn unprofitable back and forth.

My goal is to move my understanding closer and closer to God's words rather than what any particular sect thinks is its "plain meaning".