Atonement (what is written)

[Aaron]

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).

But if you accepted flowers for her, or on her behalf, that means you received them instead of her.

 

[JonC]

But if you accepted flowers for her, or on her behalf, that means you received them instead of her.

If I accepted them instead of her, like if somebody representing her had to sign for the flowers, then yes - I would be her representative substitute.

But if she was not home and I answered the door and received them for her, then no, that would not be instead of her.

I actually believe Jesus is the Son of Man so I have no issue with representative substitution (even though this is not "instead of").

 

[JonC]

John, your thread title is “what is written,” and that is the standard you set. That is exactly where I intend to remain. When the text uses phrases such as “for him,” “on his behalf,” and “in his place,” I am taking those words in their ordinary meaning. I am not going to follow redefinitions of terms or philosophical explanations that move away from the wording of the passage. My position is simply the text as written, honoring the standard you established.

But you are not remaining with "what is written".


You said that us bearing another's sorrows is not substitution but solidarity. I agree.

Then you say the text demands Jesus bearing another's sins to be substitution and not solidarity.

You come to that conclusion not because the text demands it but because you read it through a philosophical lens.


For most of Christianity believers read the exact same passages and did not come to the conclusion that the Atonement meant a substitution. Instead they viewed under the New Testament word we render as "atonement" (reconciliation).

You noted that you do not believe "reconciliation" means reconciliation when used in the context of the atonement but instead means "life for life". The problem is God chose the Greek word for reconcile.


If I die for my wife, on her behalf, that does not mean I die instead of my wife.

What you ate asduming (your philosophical presupposition) is that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. To prove it correct you use it as a lens for understanding Scripture.

You are presupposing that one judicial philosophy is divine justice, therefore God must have punished somebody else for our sins so we can escape that wrath.


I intended us to stick with the biblical text, make a list of what God's words actually state about the atonement, and then discuss various theories on other threads (different threads for different philosophical aspects).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

But you are not remaining with "what is written".


You said that us bearing another's sorrows is not substitution but solidarity. I agree.

Then you say the text demands Jesus bearing another's sins to be substitution and not solidarity.

You come to that conclusion not because the text demands it but because you read it through a philosophical lens.


For most of Christianity believers read the exact same passages and did not come to the conclusion that the Atonement meant a substitution. Instead they viewed under the New Testament word we render as "atonement" (reconciliation).

You noted that you do not believe "reconciliation" means reconciliation when used in the context of the atonement but instead means "life for life". The problem is God chose the Greek word for reconcile.


If I die for my wife, on her behalf, that does not mean I die instead of my wife.

What you ate asduming (your philosophical presupposition) is that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. To prove it correct you use it as a lens for understanding Scripture.

You are presupposing that one judicial philosophy is divine justice, therefore God must have punished somebody else for our sins so we can escape that wrath.


I intended us to stick with the biblical text, make a list of what God's words actually state about the atonement, and then discuss various theories on other threads (different threads for different philosophical aspects).

John, I hear what you are saying, but I need to stay with the actual words of Scripture. You are saying that I am reading substitution into the text because of a philosophical lens. I am saying the opposite. I am reading the words as they stand.

When Isaiah says that the Servant bears the sins of many, carries their iniquities, is wounded for our transgressions, and that the chastisement that brings us peace was upon Him, I am not importing a theory. I am simply taking the verbs as they are written. The text does not say He stood in solidarity with our sins. It says He bore them, carried them, and that the punishment that brings us peace fell on Him. Those are penal and substitutionary terms in the plain sense of the Hebrew words.

You said that bearing another’s sorrows is solidarity, not substitution. I agree. But Isaiah does not say He bore only sorrows. It says He bore sins, iniquities, transgressions, and that He was pierced and crushed because of them. The text itself makes a distinction between sorrow and sin, and it assigns different verbs to each. I am not adding that distinction. Isaiah makes it.

You also said that the New Testament word for atonement is reconciliation, and therefore substitution cannot be in view. But reconciliation in Scripture is not the opposite of substitution. Paul says in Second Corinthians five that God reconciled us to Himself by not counting our trespasses against us because He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us. That is the apostle’s own explanation of how reconciliation happens. Again, I am not importing a theory. I am reading the sentence as written.

You gave the example of dying for your wife and said that this does not mean dying instead of your wife. But the biblical question is not what might be true in a hypothetical human example. The question is what God says happened in the death of His Son. Scripture says Christ died for the ungodly, the just for the unjust, that He gave His life a ransom for many, and that He bore our sins in His own body on the tree. Those are substitutionary statements in the ordinary meaning of the words.

You have said several times that I am assuming a judicial philosophy. I am not. I am reading the sacrificial language of the Old Testament and the apostolic explanation of the cross in the New Testament. The sacrificial system is not a philosophical construct. It is God’s own revealed pattern. In Leviticus one the worshiper lays his hand on the head of the animal and it is accepted for him to make atonement for him. In Leviticus sixteen the sins of the people are confessed over the head of the goat and the goat bears them away. These are not philosophical categories. They are the words of the text.

I agree with you that we should make a list of what God’s words actually say about the atonement. But when we do that, we have to include the words bear, carry, lay upon, accepted for him, make atonement for him, the just for the unjust, made to be sin for us, and gave His life a ransom for many. Those are not theories. They are the vocabulary of Scripture.

If we start with the text, we will see substitution everywhere because the text uses substitutionary language. If we start with a theory that substitution cannot happen, then we will have to reinterpret the plain words. I am choosing to stay with the words.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

But you are not remaining with "what is written".


You said that us bearing another's sorrows is not substitution but solidarity. I agree.

Then you say the text demands Jesus bearing another's sins to be substitution and not solidarity.

You come to that conclusion not because the text demands it but because you read it through a philosophical lens.


For most of Christianity believers read the exact same passages and did not come to the conclusion that the Atonement meant a substitution. Instead they viewed under the New Testament word we render as "atonement" (reconciliation).

You noted that you do not believe "reconciliation" means reconciliation when used in the context of the atonement but instead means "life for life". The problem is God chose the Greek word for reconcile.


If I die for my wife, on her behalf, that does not mean I die instead of my wife.

What you ate asduming (your philosophical presupposition) is that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. To prove it correct you use it as a lens for understanding Scripture.

You are presupposing that one judicial philosophy is divine justice, therefore God must have punished somebody else for our sins so we can escape that wrath.


I intended us to stick with the biblical text, make a list of what God's words actually state about the atonement, and then discuss various theories on other threads (different threads for different philosophical aspects).

What the Text Says vs What John Claims​

Scripture says the Servant bears sins. John says this means solidarity, not substitution.

Scripture says He carries iniquities. John says this is a philosophical reading.

Scripture says He is wounded for transgressions. John says most Christians never saw substitution there.

Scripture says He is bruised for iniquities. John says this is not penal language.

Scripture says the chastisement that brings us peace was upon Him. John says reconciliation does not involve punishment.

Scripture says the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all. John says that is not substitution but representation.

Scripture says He shall bear their iniquities. John says bearing does not mean bearing instead.

Scripture says He bore the sin of many. John says that is a theory read into the text.

Scripture says the offering is accepted for him to make atonement for him. John says atonement does not involve exchange.

Scripture says the goat bears on itself all their iniquities. John says the sacrificial system is not the pattern for the cross.

Scripture says Christ died for the ungodly. John says dying for someone does not mean dying instead of someone.

Scripture says Christ died for us while we were yet sinners. John says this is not substitution but covenant faithfulness.

Scripture says the just for the unjust. John says that is not a judicial statement.

Scripture says He gave His life a ransom for many. John says ransom does not imply exchange.

Scripture says He bore our sins in His own body on the tree. John says that is metaphorical.

Scripture says God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us. John says reconciliation does not require substitution.

Scripture says He redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. John says curse language is symbolic.

Scripture says He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. John says taking away does not mean bearing away.

Scripture says He is the propitiation for our sins. John says propitiation does not involve wrath.

Scripture says without shedding of blood there is no remission. John says remission does not require substitution.

Scripture says He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. John says sacrifice does not imply penal exchange.

Scripture says by one offering He perfected forever those who are sanctified. John says perfection is covenant inclusion, not substitution.

I am staying with the words God chose.

 

[37818]

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.

Hebrews 9.

 

[JonC]

John, I hear what you are saying, but I need to stay with the actual words of Scripture.

This is my request. Please, for this thread let's stay with the actual words of Scripture.

There will be time to discuss why you believe that dying for, or on one's behalf, also includes "instead of". But please, let's save that for future threads about differing understandings.

Since the biblical text itself does not present the Atonement as a substitution, since the word literally means "reconciliation", and since "substitution" is not implied in any of the words (including "for" and "on one's behalf") let's put a pin in different theories and just work through Scripture here.

For example - I believe Christ died for our sins, that He was made sin on our behalf. I do not believe "instead of" should be added (I believe the words literally).

BUT you "see" "substitution" as the "plain" or "obvious" meaning. That is perfectly fine. But since they are not actually there (since the passage itself - the text - makes no mention of substitution let's table that discussion and read God's words.


There will be time to discuss different philosophies various sects apply to understand Scripture. Just not here.


I get that when Anslem read of the Atonement he saw a restoration of honor as the obvious meaning.

I get that Irenaeus read of the Atonement and saw a reversing of the curse through the perfect experience of every stage of man as the plain reading of the text.

I get that Abelard read of the Atonement and saw the perfect moral example to influence man as the obvious meaning.

And I get that when you read of the Atonemdnt you see substitution as the plain meaning.


But let's discuss these theories and the underlying philosophies at a later date and stick with the biblical text.

 

[JonC]

Hebrews 9.

Thank you. This is one of my favorite passages when explaining the Atonement as it incorporates both covenants and is a stark contrast to the substitution theories.


But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things having come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made by hands, that is, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all time, having obtained eternal redemption.

For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

This is my request. Please, for this thread let's stay with the actual words of Scripture.

There will be time to discuss why you believe that dying for, or on one's behalf, also includes "instead of". But please, let's save that for future threads about differing understandings.

Since the biblical text itself does not present the Atonement as a substitution, since the word literally means "reconciliation", and since "substitution" is not implied in any of the words (including "for" and "on one's behalf") let's put a pin in different theories and just work through Scripture here.

For example - I believe Christ died for our sins, that He was made sin on our behalf. I do not believe "instead of" should be added (I believe the words literally).

BUT you "see" "substitution" as the "plain" or "obvious" meaning. That is perfectly fine. But since they are not actually there (since the passage itself - the text - makes no mention of substitution let's table that discussion and read God's words.


There will be time to discuss different philosophies various sects apply to understand Scripture. Just not here.


I get that when Anslem read of the Atonement he saw a restoration of honor as the obvious meaning.

I get that Irenaeus read of the Atonement and saw a reversing of the curse through the perfect experience of every stage of man as the plain reading of the text.

I get that Abelard read of the Atonement and saw the perfect moral example to influence man as the obvious meaning.

And I get that when you read of the Atonemdnt you see substitution as the plain meaning.


But let's discuss these theories and the underlying philosophies at a later date and stick with the biblical text.

John, I am staying with the actual words of Scripture. You keep saying that the biblical text does not present the atonement as substitution, but the text repeatedly uses verbs and phrases that describe one bearing the sins of another, one carrying the iniquities of another, one suffering the chastisement that brings peace to another, one being wounded for the transgressions of another, and one being made sin for another. These are not theories. They are the words God chose.

You are asking me to set aside the plain meaning of those words because you say that “reconciliation” cannot involve substitution. But Paul himself explains reconciliation by saying that God reconciled us to Himself by not counting our trespasses against us because He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us. That is the apostolic explanation of reconciliation. I am not adding “instead of” to the text. I am reading the sentences as they stand.

You say that dying for someone does not mean dying instead of someone. But the question is not what might be true in a hypothetical human example. The question is what God says happened in the death of His Son. Scripture says Christ died for the ungodly, Christ died for us, the just for the unjust, He gave His life a ransom for many, and He bore our sins in His own body on the tree. These are substitutionary statements in the ordinary meaning of the words.

You say that substitution is not in the text and that I am reading it in through a philosophy. But the verbs bear, carry, lay upon, accepted for him, make atonement for him, bear their iniquities, the just for the unjust, made to be sin for us, and became a curse for us are not philosophical terms. They are the vocabulary of Scripture. I am not importing them. I am quoting them.

You are asking me to discuss the atonement without using the very words God uses to describe it. You are also asking me to accept your definition of reconciliation before we even look at the passages that define it. That would mean beginning with a theory and then fitting the text into it. I am choosing to begin with the text itself.

I am not trying to win a theory. I am staying with the words God has given. If we begin with the text, we will end where the text leads.

 

[JonC]

@Anthony Pritchard

Maybe this will help you understand my belief:

What the Text states vs what I actually claim (the real version):

1. Scripture says the Servant bears sins.

I say this means that Jesus bears our sins, that God laid our iniquity on Jesus.

What I do not say is this means God took our sins off of us and put them on Jesus (either literally or via some divine accounting process).

2. Scripture says He carries iniquities.

I believe this means that Jesus bore our iniquities, He bore oyr sins bodily on the cross.

I do not believe this is a philosophical reading, but a very literal rendering of the text. Jesus literally bore our sins bodily on the cross.

3. Scripture says He is wounded for transgressions.

I believe this means that Jesus suffered and died for our sins. He is sinless and He bore our sins.

Obviously most Christians historically did not view this as penal substitution. They described this as representative substitution (the Son of Man suffering for our sins, sharing the infirmity of the "entire humam family). And most Christians today do not see this as penal substitution (the majority view is satisfactory substitution).

But we are talking about God's words, not about how different sects theorized about His words.

4. Scripture says He is bruised for iniquities.

I say that this is penal language. Christ suffered a penalty for our sins. How else could it be significant that He bore them???

5. Scripture says the chastisement that brings us peace was upon Him.

I say that this means Christ suffered chastisement to bring us peace. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the originator of their salvation through sufferings.


6. Scripture says the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

I say this verse means that God laid on Jesus the iniquity of all man.

7. Scripture says He shall bear their iniquities.

I say this means that Jesus shall bear our iniquities.

8. Scripture says He bore the sin of many.

I say this means that Jesus bore the sins of the many.


9. Scripture says the offering is accepted for him to make atonement for him.

I say that the offering in the Old Covenant was accepted by the priest to make atonement for the person making the offering. The person would kill the animal (shed its blood) and the priest would take the blood into the Tabernacle and "make atonement for the people's sins.

10. Scripture says the goat bears on itself all their iniquities.

I say that the Levitical sacrifice system foreshadowed the cross, to include the animal set aside for Azazel. I view the "scapegoat" as foreshadowing the Lamb who would take away the sins of the world.

11. Scripture says Christ died for the ungodly.

I say this means that Christ died for the ungodly - while we were still sinners He died for us.

12. Scripture says Christ died for us while we were yet sinners.

I say this means that while we were sinners Christ died for us.

13. Scripture says the just for the unjust. John says that is not a judicial statement.

I say this verse means that Christ suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.

14. Scripture says He gave His life a ransom for many.

I say this verse means that Jesus did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.


15. Scripture says He bore our sins in His own body on the tree.

I say that this means that Jesus bore our sins bodily on the cross (the crucifixion). I see this as very literal (Jesus actually bore our sins in His body on the cross).

16. Scripture says God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us.

I say that this means God made Jesus (who was sinless) to be sin for us. I believe this is Christ beating our sins bodily on the cross.

17. Scripture says He redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

I believe this (like the previous verses concerning Jesus bearing our sins) is not symbolic - not metaphoric - but literal. Jesus literally redeemed us from the curse of thd law by becoming a curse for us. Cursed is any man who hangs on a tree.

18. Scripture says He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

I say this means Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Jesus bears our sins, and by His blood we are cleansed from all unrighteousness.

19. Scripture says He is the propitiation for our sins.

I do not know why, but for dome reason "propitiation" seems a difficult word for many. It is a perfectly good word, not really archaic.
Propitiation is something done that has wrath in focus. With the Atonement propitiation is the means by which we escaoe the wrath to come. It is literally a "quenching" of wrath.

20. Scripture says without shedding of blood there is no remission.

I see this as saying that without the shedding of blood (the offering of an animal in the Old Covenant and Christ offering Himself in the New Covenant) there can be no remission of sin. The shedding of blood is necessary (I suppose that obedience by default is also necessary).

In the sacrifice system the one offering the animal had to shed its blood. The priest then took the blood into the Tabernacle and "made atonement for the sins of the people".

21. Scripture says He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

I see this as Jesus put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

22. Scripture says by one offering He perfected forever those who are sanctified.

I see this as by the offering of Jesus giving Himself as a guilt offering and God setting Him forth as a propitiation through His blood Jesus perfected forever those who are sanctified.

 

[JonC]

but the text repeatedly uses verbs and phrases that describe one bearing the sins of another, one carrying the iniquities of another, one suffering the chastisement that brings peace to another, one being wounded for the transgressions of another, and one being made sin for another.

I agree that Christ bore our sins, we bear His righteousness, we bear one another burdens. I agree that Jesus bore our sins bodily on the cross. I agree Christ suffered chadtisement for our peace. I agree He shared our infirmity. I agree He was made to be sin for us. I agree He for our sins, He died on our behalf. I agree He was wounded for our transgressions and by His stripes we are heald.

I disagree with the philosophy behind your theory that causes you to automatically add "substitution" to the biblical text.

We have absolutely no disagreement when it comes to the text.

Christ bore our sins. God will destroy the wicked. God will never abandon the Righteous, never punish the Just, never clear the guilty. God is just and the justifier of the one who believes. He set forth His Son as a propitiation through His blood to be received by faith and His blood cleanses from all unrighteousness.

We agree with "what is written". I disagree with what you believe the Bible really teaches apart from the biblical text (I believe the biblical text IS what the Bible teaches without additional theories).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

@Anthony Pritchard

Maybe this will help you understand my belief:

What the Text states vs what I actually claim (the real version):

1. Scripture says the Servant bears sins.

I say this means that Jesus bears our sins, that God laid our iniquity on Jesus.

What I do not say is this means God took our sins off of us and put them on Jesus (either literally or via some divine accounting process).

2. Scripture says He carries iniquities.

I believe this means that Jesus bore our iniquities, He bore oyr sins bodily on the cross.

I do not believe this is a philosophical reading, but a very literal rendering of the text. Jesus literally bore our sins bodily on the cross.

3. Scripture says He is wounded for transgressions.

I believe this means that Jesus suffered and died for our sins. He is sinless and He bore our sins.

Obviously most Christians historically did not view this as penal substitution. They described this as representative substitution (the Son of Man suffering for our sins, sharing the infirmity of the "entire humam family). And most Christians today do not see this as penal substitution (the majority view is satisfactory substitution).

But we are talking about God's words, not about how different sects theorized about His words.

4. Scripture says He is bruised for iniquities.

I say that this is penal language. Christ suffered a penalty for our sins. How else could it be significant that He bore them???

5. Scripture says the chastisement that brings us peace was upon Him.

I say that this means Christ suffered chastisement to bring us peace. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the originator of their salvation through sufferings.


6. Scripture says the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

I say this verse means that God laid on Jesus the iniquity of all man.

7. Scripture says He shall bear their iniquities.

I say this means that Jesus shall bear our iniquities.

8. Scripture says He bore the sin of many.

I say this means that Jesus bore the sins of the many.


9. Scripture says the offering is accepted for him to make atonement for him.

I say that the offering in the Old Covenant was accepted by the priest to make atonement for the person making the offering. The person would kill the animal (shed its blood) and the priest would take the blood into the Tabernacle and "make atonement for the people's sins.

10. Scripture says the goat bears on itself all their iniquities.

I say that the Levitical sacrifice system foreshadowed the cross, to include the animal set aside for Azazel. I view the "scapegoat" as foreshadowing the Lamb who would take away the sins of the world.

11. Scripture says Christ died for the ungodly.

I say this means that Christ died for the ungodly - while we were still sinners He died for us.

12. Scripture says Christ died for us while we were yet sinners.

I say this means that while we were sinners Christ died for us.

13. Scripture says the just for the unjust. John says that is not a judicial statement.

I say this verse means that Christ suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.

14. Scripture says He gave His life a ransom for many.

I say this verse means that Jesus did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.


15. Scripture says He bore our sins in His own body on the tree.

I say that this means that Jesus bore our sins bodily on the cross (the crucifixion). I see this as very literal (Jesus actually bore our sins in His body on the cross).

16. Scripture says God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us.

I say that this means God made Jesus (who was sinless) to be sin for us. I believe this is Christ beating our sins bodily on the cross.

17. Scripture says He redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

I believe this (like the previous verses concerning Jesus bearing our sins) is not symbolic - not metaphoric - but literal. Jesus literally redeemed us from the curse of thd law by becoming a curse for us. Cursed is any man who hangs on a tree.

18. Scripture says He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

I say this means Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Jesus bears our sins, and by His blood we are cleansed from all unrighteousness.

19. Scripture says He is the propitiation for our sins.

I do not know why, but for dome reason "propitiation" seems a difficult word for many. It is a perfectly good word, not really archaic.
Propitiation is something done that has wrath in focus. With the Atonement propitiation is the means by which we escaoe the wrath to come. It is literally a "quenching" of wrath.

20. Scripture says without shedding of blood there is no remission.

I see this as saying that without the shedding of blood (the offering of an animal in the Old Covenant and Christ offering Himself in the New Covenant) there can be no remission of sin. The shedding of blood is necessary (I suppose that obedience by default is also necessary).

In the sacrifice system the one offering the animal had to shed its blood. The priest then took the blood into the Tabernacle and "made atonement for the sins of the people".

21. Scripture says He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

I see this as Jesus put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

22. Scripture says by one offering He perfected forever those who are sanctified.

I see this as by the offering of Jesus giving Himself as a guilt offering and God setting Him forth as a propitiation through His blood Jesus perfected forever those who are sanctified.

John,

Thank you for laying out your position in detail. I want to respond carefully so that I neither misstate your view nor allow our genuine differences to get buried under wording issues.

First, I do see and acknowledge that you affirm, repeatedly and explicitly, that Christ literally bore our sins in His body on the cross, that He suffered chastisement for our peace, that He was wounded for our transgressions, that He became a curse for us, and that He is the propitiation for our sins. I have never denied that you affirm those statements.

Where our disagreement actually lies is not in the wording of the biblical text, but in what those words mean when taken together.

You say:

• Christ bore our sins.
• Christ carried our iniquities.
• Christ suffered chastisement for our peace.
• Christ was wounded for our transgressions.
• Christ was made sin for us.
• Christ became a curse for us.
• Christ is the propitiation for our sins.
• Christ’s blood is the means by which wrath is quenched.

I affirm all of that as well.

Where we differ is here: You deny that these statements describe substitution in the judicial sense. You say the text teaches the events themselves, but not the meaning that Scripture elsewhere attaches to those events.

So when I say you reject substitution, I am not saying you deny the words of Scripture. I am saying you deny the category Scripture places those words in.

For example:

• You affirm that Christ bore our sins, but you deny that this means He bore the guilt or penalty of those sins.
• You affirm that Christ suffered chastisement for our peace, but you deny that this chastisement was the judicial penalty due to us.
• You affirm that Christ was made sin for us, but you deny that this means He stood in our place under the law’s curse.
• You affirm propitiation, but you deny that the wrath quenched was wrath directed toward us that Christ bore in our stead.

So when I summarized your view earlier, I was not trying to put foreign ideas in your mouth. I was trying to describe the logical shape of your position as you have explained it: You affirm the biblical statements, but you deny the penal-substitutionary meaning that Scripture attaches to those statements in passages like Leviticus 16, Isaiah 53, Romans 3, Galatians 3, and 1 Peter 2.

If I worded that poorly earlier, I am glad to clarify it now.

You and I agree on the text. We disagree on the interpretation of the text, specifically, whether the biblical language of bearing sin, suffering chastisement, being made sin, becoming a curse, and offering Himself as a propitiation is judicial and substitutionary.

That is the real point of divergence.

If you believe I have still misrepresented any specific sentence or claim, point it out and I will correct it. My goal is to represent your view accurately even while disagreeing with it.

Tony

 

[JonC]

John,

Thank you for laying out your position in detail. I want to respond carefully so that I neither misstate your view nor allow our genuine differences to get buried under wording issues.

First, I do see and acknowledge that you affirm, repeatedly and explicitly, that Christ literally bore our sins in His body on the cross, that He suffered chastisement for our peace, that He was wounded for our transgressions, that He became a curse for us, and that He is the propitiation for our sins. I have never denied that you affirm those statements.

Where our disagreement actually lies is not in the wording of the biblical text, but in what those words mean when taken together.

You say:

• Christ bore our sins.
• Christ carried our iniquities.
• Christ suffered chastisement for our peace.
• Christ was wounded for our transgressions.
• Christ was made sin for us.
• Christ became a curse for us.
• Christ is the propitiation for our sins.
• Christ’s blood is the means by which wrath is quenched.

I affirm all of that as well.

Where we differ is here: You deny that these statements describe substitution in the judicial sense. You say the text teaches the events themselves, but not the meaning that Scripture elsewhere attaches to those events.

So when I say you reject substitution, I am not saying you deny the words of Scripture. I am saying you deny the category Scripture places those words in.

For example:

• You affirm that Christ bore our sins, but you deny that this means He bore the guilt or penalty of those sins.
• You affirm that Christ suffered chastisement for our peace, but you deny that this chastisement was the judicial penalty due to us.
• You affirm that Christ was made sin for us, but you deny that this means He stood in our place under the law’s curse.
• You affirm propitiation, but you deny that the wrath quenched was wrath directed toward us that Christ bore in our stead.

So when I summarized your view earlier, I was not trying to put foreign ideas in your mouth. I was trying to describe the logical shape of your position as you have explained it: You affirm the biblical statements, but you deny the penal-substitutionary meaning that Scripture attaches to those statements in passages like Leviticus 16, Isaiah 53, Romans 3, Galatians 3, and 1 Peter 2.

If I worded that poorly earlier, I am glad to clarify it now.

You and I agree on the text. We disagree on the interpretation of the text, specifically, whether the biblical language of bearing sin, suffering chastisement, being made sin, becoming a curse, and offering Himself as a propitiation is judicial and substitutionary.

That is the real point of divergence.

If you believe I have still misrepresented any specific sentence or claim, point it out and I will correct it. My goal is to represent your view accurately even while disagreeing with it.

Tony

I do deny that those statements describe substitution in the penal sence (not necessarily the "judicial" sence as representative substitution is a legal term). I think I mentioned this before. I see penal and substitutionary aspects in the atonement, but not penal substitution.

By representative substitution I mean that Jesus is the Son of Man (literally, the Son of Adam), one of us, made like His brethren, the Word become flesh, the "second" Adam, the Firstborn.

But I do not believe that penal substitution falls within the boundaries of justice, much less divine justice, as revealed in Scripture.

It may be just one sects view I reject, as there often seems to be a vagueness. What I mean is Scripture (the biblical text) goes to great lengths in spelling out what is just compared to what is evil. It is just to punish the wicked. It is evil to punish the Just. It is just to deliver the Righteous from death. It is evil to clear the guilty. It is just to reward the righteous. It is evil to treat the Innocent as a criminal. That is just a few points where some views of penal substitution cross the boundaries set by God in the biblical text and enter error. Whatever we believe, our belief cannot contradict Scripture.

But we were talking about the text (the biblical text).

If I say I bore your burden that itself does not mean as your substitute. If I bore your burden instead of you doing so, then that could mean as your substitute.

The text itself does not mean substitute (like if I take a vehicle to New York that does not mean I took a train to New York as I could have driven).

What we can say biblically is that Jesus bore our sins.

This could be by sharing our infirmity, bearing what was not His.

This could be as our substitute, bearing our sins instead of us.

But we have to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, and when there are no interpretative passages we may theorize but have to know where the text ends and our understanding begins so as not to lean on our own understanding.



A lot of our conclusions will depend on how we view justice itself.

If one believes that justice is creating a righteous state then penal substitution does not make sense.

If one believes the role of the judge is to avenge the law then penal substitution makes sense.


Another way of looking at it is from the starting point (where one starts often dictates where one ends). What is the "problem" the Atonement addresses? Is it punishment for sins or is it our wickedness? Do we need to have our sins punished on a substitute or do we need to be re-created, reborn?

All of these would make for interesting discussions as men have come up with several ways for understanding the Atonement. But I think first we need to collect passages and stick strictly to God's words. Once we have that, then we can see what is lacking and try to fill in the blanks (if there are any).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I do deny that those statements describe substitution in the penal sence (not necessarily the "judicial" sence as representative substitution is a legal term). I think I mentioned this before. I see penal and substitutionary aspects in the atonement, but not penal substitution.

By representative substitution I mean that Jesus is the Son of Man (literally, the Son of Adam), one of us, made like His brethren, the Word become flesh, the "second" Adam, the Firstborn.

But I do not believe that penal substitution falls within the boundaries of justice, much less divine justice, as revealed in Scripture.

It may be just one sects view I reject, as there often seems to be a vagueness. What I mean is Scripture (the biblical text) goes to great lengths in spelling out what is just compared to what is evil. It is just to punish the wicked. It is evil to punish the Just. It is just to deliver the Righteous from death. It is evil to clear the guilty. It is just to reward the righteous. It is evil to treat the Innocent as a criminal. That is just a few points where some views of penal substitution cross the boundaries set by God in the biblical text and enter error. Whatever we believe, our belief cannot contradict Scripture.

But we were talking about the text (the biblical text).

If I say I bore your burden that itself does not mean as your substitute. If I bore your burden instead of you doing so, then that could mean as your substitute.

The text itself does not mean substitute (like if I take a vehicle to New York that does not mean I took a train to New York as I could have driven).

What we can say biblically is that Jesus bore our sins.

This could be by sharing our infirmity, bearing what was not His.

This could be as our substitute, bearing our sins instead of us.

But we have to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, and when there are no interpretative passages we may theorize but have to know where the text ends and our understanding begins so as not to lean on our own understanding.



A lot of our conclusions will depend on how we view justice itself.

If one believes that justice is creating a righteous state then penal substitution does not make sense.

If one believes the role of the judge is to avenge the law then penal substitution makes sense.


Another way of looking at it is from the starting point (where one starts often dictates where one ends). What is the "problem" the Atonement addresses? Is it punishment for sins or is it our wickedness? Do we need to have our sins punished on a substitute or do we need to be re-created, reborn?

All of these would make for interesting discussions as men have come up with several ways for understanding the Atonement. But I think first we need to collect passages and stick strictly to God's words. Once we have that, then we can see what is lacking and try to fill in the blanks (if there are any).

John,

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the clarification.

For my part, throughout this discussion and the earlier one, I have stayed with the passages themselves and have named the verses I am drawing from. My aim from the beginning has been to keep the conversation anchored in the words of Scripture. That has been my consistent approach, and it is the ground I intend to remain on.

You and I agree that Christ bore our sins. Where we differ is in what that bearing involved. You see it as participation and representation. I see it as substitution in the sense that Scripture uses that category in the sacrificial system and in the apostolic writings.

When I read Isaiah 53, Leviticus 16, Romans 3, Galatians 3, and 1 Peter 2, I see that the biblical language of bearing sin, carrying iniquity, suffering chastisement, being made sin, becoming a curse, and offering Himself as a propitiation carries a judicial meaning in those contexts. The terms themselves carry that meaning in the passages where they appear.

You have said that you deny penal substitution, and I understand that. My point is simply that the biblical words themselves, in their own settings, describe a bearing that is judicial in nature. That is why I read them as substitution in the sense that the Scriptures themselves use that category.

I am content to keep the discussion on that level, the meaning of the biblical words in their own contexts. If we stay there, the differences will show themselves plainly.

Tony