Divine Justice

[JonC]

I can tell at this point there is no purpose in further discussion. Your mind is made up and so is mine. I wish you well.

Sorry, I thought I had explained this before.

My purpose in this discussion was never to change your mind. I assume that you are invested. You have at some point in your life been exposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ. You have also been exposed to what a relatively small sect has told you the Bible really teaches. You have made a choice to follow the teachings if men and dismiss God where His words contradict that understanding. Assuming that I have assumed that you chose to lean on your understanding and have already been carried away from the faith by your philosophy.

I told you that for most of my life I was a PSA theorist like you. God convicted me after a sermon I preached to go back to His Word. I did not expect the distinction of PSA to be absent Scripture, but it was. I did not expect God's words to be complete without PSA but it is.

I was led to the same place you were led several years ago. The difference is I chose God. I do believe had I chosen philosophy I would be right beside you today. I believe there cones a point where men have grieved the Spirit and, for them, the "acceptable time" has passed. They will hear "I never knew you".

I post here because I was right there, at that point where I would have to choose between God or man. I chose God. I argued with you not to change your mind but to encourage others to ignore your theory, ignore Owen, ignore my words and get back to the biblical text.

 

[JonC]

Here is Morrison (not a theologian, a Christian writer with a masters in theology) writing on Belousek (a theologian, PhD, theology professor):

...the underlying presupposition of penal substitution, the foundation upon which the entire theory rests, is that God’s justice is retributive, that God’s justice demands payment for an offense, tit for tat.

... God’s justice is not retributive. Jesus Himself argues against any “eye for an eye” sort of justice in the sermon on the mount. (Matthew 5:38-42) But penal substitutionary atonement basis its entire paradigm on this idea. ... this idea comes not from the scriptures but from Greek philosophy. Aristotle and Socrates, who in turn influenced Augustine and thus infiltrated the west with this idea, are the originators of this kind of justice. The scriptures actually have no concept of retributive justice...

...The scriptures present a kind of justice that looks more like “making right what’s wrong” (redemptive justice) instead balancing the legal scales (retributive justice).

Belousek is correct here. PSA is dependent on Greek philosophy. John Calvin was a part of the 16th century humanistic movement. It was a Renaissance movement. It sought to revitalize Greek and Roman judicial philosophy.

Scripture presents justice as "making right what is wrong", not punishment to satisfy justice.

 

[37818]

As the man quotes from the Hebrew,
Matthew 27:46, And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

As the man quotes it in Aramaic,
Mark 15:34, And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

 

[JonC]

As the man quotes from the Hebrew,
Matthew 27:46, And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

As the man quotes it in Aramaic,
Mark 15:34, And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Exactly. Psalms 22 foreshadows the cross. The Servant cries out, asking why God has forsaken Him to suffer just as His forefathers cried out. He then trusts that, although He is forsaken to suffer God will never abandon Him. God has proven Himself faithful to His forefathers when they were forsaken to suffer and God delivered them. The Servant is confident God will not abandin Him but will deliver Him because God is faithful. And then we see by the end on the Psalm that, although forsaken to suffer, God never "hid His face from Him" but delivers Him.

We can have that same assurance (the assurance the forefathers had, and the assurance the Servant had). Although we may be forsaken to suffer in this life, God will deliver us.

 

[JonC]

Here is what Cambell (a theologian and professor) says:

The practice and logic of OT sacrifice has nothing to do with substitution, retribution, or punishment (i.e., negative retribution). Neither is it supplying a universal account of justice. The mechanism, logic, and concerns of OT sacrifice are completely different....Where sacrifice is used in the NT, we now need to reorient our interpretations. What is going on in these texts is not PSA.

the account of the atonement in terms of PSA is damaged beyond all hope of redemption. Its account of sacrifice is incorrect; its reach, presupposing sacrifice, is false; and its account of financial metaphors is false as well. At bottom, it has lost its biblical base almost entirely.

 

[JonC]

Lets look at Dr Rillera (another theologian, professor).

Hebrews has a thick atonement theology, but it is not a substitutionary atonement theology. It is a participatory atonement, or solidarity atonement theology.

Jesus’s death is a participatory phenomenon; it is something all are called to share in experientially. The logic is not: Jesus died so we don’t have to. Rather it is: Jesus died so that we, together, can follow in his steps and die with him and like him, having full fellowship with his sufferings so that we might share in the likeness of his resurrection (e.g., Phil 3:10–11; Gal 2:20; 6:14; Rom 6:3–8; 1 Pet 2:21; Mark 8:34–35 with 10:38–29; 1 John 2:6; 3:16–18; etc.).

In short, while Jesus did die for us, this does not mean that Jesus died instead of us. It means that he died ahead of and with us. This why I find “substitution” to be inadequate, incoherent, and inherently misleading as a summarizing conceptualization of the saving significance of Jesus’s death in the NT.

 

[JonC]

I do not post other writings as an authority. But it is important, as @DaveXR650 points out, that after making sure we are clinging only to the biblical text we see that we do not hold a view in isolation.

I hesitate to post others who share my view because some here have a habit of trying to disqualify then via slander (a logical fallacy, but it happens). Like if you quote Owen some will point out his active persecution of Quakers as if that alone negates his ideas.

 

[JonC]

Rillera: (I'm reading one of his books and collecting references here).

There is no such thing as a “substitutionary death” sacrifice in the Torah.

The hand-laying ritual is not saying “this is me; this is my substitute,” but rather, “this is mine; I own this and I’m giving it to God”.

Sacrificial slaughter is not at all about making the animal “suffer” (let alone suffer as a substitute).

 

[JonC]

Morales:

There is no such thing as a substitutionary death sacrifice in the Torah.

The notion that Levitical sacrifice is a ritual of substitutionary death is an altogether foreign concept.

 

[JonC]

Rillera: One reason some assume sacrifice is a substitutionary death is because certain sacrifices call for the offerer to lay a single hand on the animal. The mistaken idea is that this gesture means the animal is substituting for the offerer who should really be the one to die.24 But the fact that there is no such thing as a substitutionary death sacrifice automatically excludes this as a possibility. Notice that the “well-being” sacrifices (šǝlāmîm) (Lev 3), which have no atoning function (because they have nothing to do with sins), are one of the sacrifices that require a single-hand-laying gesture (3:2, 8, 13). This means the single-hand gesture cannot be understood as substitutionary death or transferring sin or whatever else because “sin” is excluded from view for these non-atoning well-being sacrifices.

 

[JonC]

Rillera

Jesus’s death is unique because it creates a participatory reality. Yes, Peter says Jesus dies “the just for the unjust” (3:18), but that beneficiary “for” (hyper) is not as a substitutionary benefit; rather, it is a means of opening up the possibility for shared participation in Jesus’s death. In other words, Jesus’s death generates the very condition for the possibility of our union and participation in him. Jesus’s death makes it so that we are no longer “unjust,” but rather “just”/“righteous” (dikaosynē, 2:24). And this is how we can now follow the example of Jesus’s death as we, now being made “just,” can suffer or die at the hands of the “unjust” (i.e., “suffer for doing what it right” in 3:17) just like the Suffering Servant in Isaiah, the Maśkîlîm in Daniel, and the paradigmatic righteous one in Wisdom of Solomon.

 

[JonC]

Note - please be aware that I am not quoting scholars who share my view of the Atonement and my observations about PSA to use them as an authority.

@DaveXR650 viewed my position as unique, unaware that it existed. But he had a good point in that if you read the Bible and walk away with a position only you hold, that is a good indication it is wrong.

The only reason I chose Rillera and Campbell here is before today (well.... yesterday...I am on nights this week) I had not read either. I simply entered my belief and chose two scholars who shared my view that I had not previously mentioned or read.


We need to stick with the biblical text, but also make sure we did not invent a new doctrine.

 

[JonC]

Rillera:

...all Christian theologies that attempt to derive a view of justice on the mistaken view that biblical sacrifice is about punishment or substitutionary death must be utterly rejected by any Christians seeking to anchor their views in the biblical texts themselves. There is no biblical warrant to sustain any such views. These interpretations are only possible by imposing alien frameworks and concepts onto “sacrifice” and “atonement.”...

I reject the concept of substitution because it obscures how Jesus’s death is not only ethically paradigmatic, but also, according to the NT, the reality that those united with Jesus literally participate and share in experientially by the Spirit....

The consistent message throughout the entire NT is not that Jesus died instead of us; rather, it repeatedly indicates that Jesus dies ahead of us so that we can unite with him and be conformed the image of his death (Rom 6:5; Phil 3:10).

However, Jesus’s death is soteriologically unique. And part of its uniqueness is because Jesus is our pioneer and forerunner, setting the pattern and paradigm for what covenant faithfulness of loving God and loving neighbor means. Jesus’s death is unique, especially since it generates the singular reality that grounds Christian ethics that all can share in—or rather, will share in (Col 1:27 and 3:10–11).

We are baptized with his same baptism of the cross, we drink from his same cup of the cross (cf. Mark 10:38–45).

The point is union with Christ (participation and solidarity), not separation and distance (substitution).

It is solidarity and participation all the way down. Remember, all disciples are called to share in Jesus’s baptism and cup (Mark 10:38–39; cf. Matt 20:22–23). Jesus was expecting co-crucifixion with his followers (e.g., Mark 8:34; 10:38–39; John 12:24–26; 13:16–17, 36; 15:18, 20; 16:1–4). And, while not happening during Jesus’s actual crucifixion, this—co-crucifixion—remains the ever-present expectation and way of talking about Christian discipleship (John 21:18–22; Gal 2:20; 6:14; Rom 6:3–8; Phil 3:10–11; 2 Cor 4:10–11; Col 1:24; 2:12; 3:1, 3–4; 1 John 2:6, 3:16–18; 1 Pet 2:21). “Substitution,” as defined by Gathercole in the previous chapter, logically and necessarily resists this framing of the Christian life as total union and participation in Christ, specifically and especially in Christ’s death.

 

[JonC]

Leonard Zee (MDiv from Calvin Theological Seminary, retired pastor and editor of Faith Alive Christian Resources, formerly CRC). Faith Alive is the primary publishing resource for the Christian Reformed Church.


In this series on Reformed doctrines I no longer believe, I am starting with what is for many the most fundamental of all, the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)...

The main idea here is that human sin invokes God’s wrath which must then be assuaged by an act of punishment or retribution. God pays back sinners for their folly and guilt. The Father thus appoints his own Son to endure the Father’s wrath against human sin. There seems to be a certain logical sense to this, but when you actually think about it, major cracks appear.

First, it’s telling to realize that this particular way of describing the atonement did not appear in the church until the 11th century with Anselm. But, even then, Anselm did not say that sin invokes the wrath of God so much as it violates the honor of God which demands Christ’s death. In the early church the most common way of accounting for the atonement was that on the cross Christ defeated the powers of darkness who held humanity in the thrall of sin and death. As a commonly quoted text from Paul has it, “He delivered us from the powers of darkness and delivered us into the kingdom of the Son.” Col. 1: 17)

... the main appeal from those who support PSA is the biblical practice of sacrifice, beginning with the animal sacrifices Old Testament, and also to various New Testament texts referring to Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God, and as the atoning sacrifice for our sin. ...

The problem is that these readings of sacrifice are highly questionable. A Great many contemporary biblical scholars have challenged that common reading. They have looked carefully at how biblical sacrifices operate and point out that, in fact, animals were never killed in the tabernacle/temple precinct on the Temple altars. They were killed outside the these holy precincts, and the dead animals were then brought in with its blood. ...

 

[JonC]

Dr. David M. Moffitt is Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St Andrews.

...sacrifice consisted of a process that involved numerous things that happened after an animal is killed. This indicates that, contrary to our common assumptions, sacrifice was not focused on slaughtering animals. The focus was instead on bringing the blood and flesh of the sacrifice to the altar and so into God’s house and presence.

...how does the high priest on earth make atonement for the people on the Day of Atonement? It is not simply by slaughtering animals. If all the high priest did was kill some animals, there would be no atonement because no sacrifices would have been offered/given to God. Rather, after the animals (a bull and a goat) were killed, the high priest took their blood into the holy of holies and offered it to God. Hebrews speaks about this in passages like Hebrews 9:7.

This pattern of entering God’s presence is followed by Jesus. He does not offer himself as a sacrifice to God when he dies. Rather, it is when he passed through the heavens as the great high priest (Heb 4:14) and entered into the heavenly holy of holies to appear before God for us (Heb 9:24) that he offered himself to God as the ultimate atoning sacrifice.

...The Servant’s role, then, is not that of sacrifice but that of healing the covenant relationship so that the people can be restored to the land and sacrifices can again be offered. Notice that text in Isaiah 54-56 presents a prophetic vision of renewal, blessing, and restoration between God and his people that includes those formerly excluded now being invited to worship at the temple (esp. Isa 56).

 

[JonC]

Campbell:

There is no question that the PSA model of salvation has strengths. It is clear. It is simple. ... It follows from its endorsement that the main problem from which Jesus saves us is God’s pending violent retributive action against our sins. ...But closer analysis suggests that these strengths have been purchased for a terrible price.

...This view of the atonement is “external.” It changes God’s attitude toward us—although only conditionally and hence possibly also only temporarily—but it does not change us. It is not an intimate, internal account of the atonement. God’s great act on our behalf through Jesus is not a transformational event. So the church amounts now to a confessional society, that acknowledges this change within God’s attitude, from violence to benevolence, ...

...I—and not a few others—find all this rather horrific and deeply destructive. Something has clearly gone wrong. This is not the gospel, the gospel’s politics, or the correct account of God at all.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In the Bible we do see God punishing the wicked. He will punish the wicked at Judgment. BUT His punishment is always just. His judgment is always righteous. It is NEVER oppression.

I understand that you will pick up any stick to try and beat my with, but I don't think this stick will hurt me much. There are several Hebrew words which the Bible translates as 'oppress,' but the one used in Isaiah 53:7 is nagas. In its passive verbal form ('oppressed') the only other place where the word is so translated in the KJV is Isaiah 3:5. 'I [God] will give children to be their princes, and babes to rule over them. The people will be oppressed, every one by another and every one by his neighbour.' The context is God's judgment on Judah and Jerusalem. Part of God's righteous judgment is giving over sinners to oppression. So the Lord Jesus suffered that oppression as part of his propitiation of God's wrath.

FWIW, the KJV also translates nagas twice as 'distressed' ( 1 Sam. 13:6; 14:24).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is what Cambell (a theologian and professor) says:

Lets look at Dr Rillera (another theologian, professor).

Do you really think that I and others cannot find vast numbers of theologians who write in their support of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution?
What will it prove if I post more 'authorities' than you can? Nothing! I will only say that I would not recommend any aspiring pastor Bible teacher to study theology at a mainline British University like St. Andrews. Anglican churches and Cathedrals are full of unbelieving vicars and bishops who have studied at such places.

 

[JonC]

Do you really think that I and others cannot find vast numbers of theologians who write in their support of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution?

No. I know you can. I was a PSA theorist most of my life.

Until yesterday I had not read anything of those I just quoted. I have quoted others oin the past and did not want to recycle them

I quoted them because @DaveXR650 was unaware that others shared my view of the Atonement. It appears he is unaware that any other view exists, except as private interpretations.

It is a logical fallacy (a formal logical fallacy) to dismiss a belief based on where an adherent studied, works or their denomination. And you are not accurate (you cherry pick what you think will earn you "points"). I mainly referenced Rillera.

Andrew Rillera earned his PhD from Duke and his MA from Fuller. He is the Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Theology at Kings University.

Leonard Zee, earned his degree from Calvin Thological Seminary.

Moffitt earned his PhD from Duke.

Campbell earned His degree from the University of Toronto.

The man who first articulated your faith never earned a degree in Christianity. He studied secular law.

AW Tozier was self taught.

The standard for truth is not where one works, their education, their denomination, their gender, or the color of their skin. God's words ("what is written", the biblical text) is the standard.

 

[DaveXR650]

I quoted them because @DaveXR650 was unaware that others shared my view of the Atonement. It appears he is unaware that any other view exists, except as private interpretations.

I welcome you bringing in other names and wish you had done so more and earlier. I'll read more as I have time of course. I guess because I have not read these guys in any kind of detail I would ask this. We had begun discussing earlier regarding that if Jesus bore our sin in his own body on the cross, granting any interpretation you wish to give that for a moment - is it still possible to have the Father not desiring as part of a plan, that it be his will that Jesus do this. In other words, the choice still seems to be either God wanted Christ to suffer and die like this, or else it was something men did as a horrible sin and as you seem to say, God had nothing to do with it.

If the theologians address this, I will discover it. Otherwise, I wonder if we're not throwing up another deflection like when you said Torrance was against penal substitution then when I looked into it and found out it wasn't so the argument was that after all he was just another Presbyterian minister. So first, I would like to settle this issue regarding the death of Christ - was it by the Father's will or not.