Death FOR Sin

[Anthony Pritchard]

Death FOR Sin: The Propitiatory and Expiatory Fulfillment of Christ’s Atonement

Preface

Before any theological system is considered, the plain sense of Scripture must be allowed to speak for itself. The following study simply gathers the relevant passages and lets their wording stand without adjustment or reinterpretation. My sole aim is to lay out the textual foundation upon which the doctrine of atonement rests.

Main Article

Scripture speaks with unmistakable clarity when it describes the relationship between sin and death. From the sin offerings of Leviticus to the apostolic witness of Romans, Hebrews, and Peter, the Bible presents a single, unified logic: sin demands death, and Christ dies for sins. This is not a later theological construction but the grammar of revelation itself.

The Old Testament establishes the pattern with precision. In Leviticus 4:3, when the anointed priest sins, Moses writes, “If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.” The bullock is not offered because sin is unfortunate or because purification is aesthetically desirable. It is offered for his sin “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23. The animal dies because the sinner deserves to die. Its life is given in place of the guilty. The blood is applied because the life has been taken. The entire sacrificial system rests on this unyielding logic: sin, guilt, death, blood, atonement.

Leviticus 16 intensifies this pattern by presenting one sin offering made of two goats. Moses writes that Aaron shall take “two kids of the goats for a sin offering” (Lev. 16:5). The chapter will not allow us to emphasize one goat at the expense of the other. The slain goat provides atonement by blood. “Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil” (Lev. 16:15). This is the propitiatory, Godward side of the offering. Its blood addresses both uncleanness and transgressions. “He shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins” (Lev. 16:16). The living goat bears the confessed sins of the people and carries them away. “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” (Lev. 16:21). Moses adds, “And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Lev. 16:22). This is the expiatory, manward side of the offering. Scripture uses the same bearing language here that elsewhere refers to bearing guilt. Both actions are essential, and both are part of the single sin offering Moses describes. If we treat only the living goat as the picture of Christ is to lose half of the atonement God intentionally gave, because atonement in Leviticus 16 includes both the shedding of blood and the removal of sin’s presence.

The New Testament does not soften this pattern. It brings it to its fulfillment. Paul, writing in Romans 8:3, states, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” The wording is exact. Christ is sent for sin. Sin is condemned. And the place where that condemnation falls is in His flesh. This is punitive language. It is judicial language. It is substitutionary language. The condemnation that rightly belongs to the sinner is executed in the flesh of Christ. The logic of Leviticus is carried forward, not discarded.

The writer of Hebrews speaks with the same clarity. “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12). A sacrifice for sins is not a metaphor for moral influence or symbolic cleansing. It is the offering of life in the place of the guilty. The blood that is shed is shed because a life has been taken. The sacrifice is made because sin demands death. Christ is the slain goat whose blood makes atonement.

Peter removes all ambiguity. “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18). Here the substitution is explicit. The just suffers for the unjust. The righteous dies for the unrighteous. The innocent bears what the guilty deserve. Peter does not say Christ suffered because of sins or in the presence of sins. He says Christ suffered for sins. The preposition carries the weight of the gospel. It is the language of exchange, of substitution, of punitive bearing. Christ is the scapegoat who bears our sins and removes them.

Taken together, these passages form a single doctrinal thread. The sin offering of Leviticus is not an isolated ritual. It is the shadow of the cross. The bullock offered “for his sin” anticipates the Son sent “for sin.” The death of the substitute anticipates the condemnation of sin “in the flesh.” The blood applied anticipates the “one sacrifice for sins” offered forever. And the sinner standing forgiven anticipates the great exchange: “the just for the unjust.”

Christ is sent for sin.
Sin is condemned in His flesh.
That is punitive language.

And it is the language of the gospel itself, propitiation by blood and expiation by bearing away, both essential parts of the sin offering, fulfilled perfectly in the one offering of Christ.

• “for his sin” (Lev. 4:3)
• “for a sin offering” (Lev. 16:5)
• “for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3)
• “one sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 10:12)
• “suffered for sins, the just for the unjust” (1 Pet. 3:18)

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” D. L. Cooper


~Tony

© A.K. Pritchard 2026 -

Free to use with proper attribution.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Taken together, these passages form a single doctrinal thread. The sin offering of Leviticus is not an isolated ritual. It is the shadow of the cross. The bullock offered “for his sin” anticipates the Son sent “for sin.” The death of the substitute anticipates the condemnation of sin “in the flesh.” The blood applied anticipates the “one sacrifice for sins” offered forever. And the sinner standing forgiven anticipates the great exchange: “the just for the unjust.”

Christ is sent for sin.
Sin is condemned in His flesh.
That is punitive language.

And it is the language of the gospel itself, propitiation by blood and expiation by bearing away, both essential parts of the sin offering, fulfilled perfectly in the one offering of Christ.

• “for his sin” (Lev. 4:3)
• “for a sin offering” (Lev. 16:5)
• “for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3)
• “one sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 10:12)
• “suffered for sins, the just for the unjust” (1 Pet. 3:18)

To me, what you have described in the entire post is Biblical Christianity.

Every paragraph deserves a heart felt and very loud, "AMEN, HALLELUJAH!!, JESUS SAVES!!!"

 

[JonC]

@Anthony Pritchard

I am reading your post and commenting as I read. You began poorly with "the plain sense of Scripture ". That is a logical fallacy, Argument from incredulity (simetimes called the "plain sense" or "plain meaning" fallacy. esigned to discourage any testing of what follows. It anticipates opposing views and seeks to keep from having to prove the thesis that will be offered.

But that is as far as I have gotten. I paused when I noticed the problem.

You are very articulate and I wanted to simply point that fallacy out so you can shy away from it in the future. It does not belong in writing because it ultimately undermines what follows.

 

[JonC]

The following study simply gathers the relevant passages and lets their wording stand without adjustment or reinterpretation.

I appreciate that method, but have to point out you did not adhere to it. All of the following is adjustment and interpretation. It is not simply the biblical text. It's interpretatiom of the text assumes meanings that may or may not be correct, and there are ideas the interpretation adds to the text.

:sin demands death...
... The animal dies because the sinner deserves to die. Its life is given in place of the guilty. The blood is applied because the life has been taken. ...... The slain goat provides atonement by blood. ... Its blood addresses both uncleanness and transgressions.... ...and both are part of the single sin offering Moses describes. ... This is punitive language. It is judicial language. It is substitutionary language. The condemnation that rightly belongs to the sinner is executed in the flesh of Christ..... It is the offering of life in the place of the guilty.... The sacrifice is made because sin demands death...here the substitution is explicit...The innocent bears what the guilty deserve. ...It is the language of exchange, of substitution, of punitive bearing. ... The death of the substitute anticipates the condemnation of sin “...

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” D. L. Cooper

Cooper is wrong here. He should have said - "just stick to the biblical text and stop telling people what you "see", or what it means to you.

 

[JonC]

Here is a better way -

First, the biblical text is limiting.

Let's set boundaries so that our understanding does not stray into heresy.

Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed (Isaiah 1:7). It is an evil both to clear the guilty and to punish the innocent. It is wrong to punish the Just (Prov 17).

Now, let's look at what the actual biblical text says -

Aaron shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. Aaron shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.

Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it...When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat.

Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

The problem with the OP is its assumptions.
1. The OP assumes that the sacrifice is a substitution. But this is not in the text (it is actually not anywhere in the biblical text).

2. The OP assumes the animal fies because the sinner deserves to die (this is contrary to Leviticus 16 as the animal dies that the blood can be used to purify the tent, altar and people).

3. The OP assumes the blood is applied because the life has been taken rather than the animal has been killed to provide the blood to be applied.

4. The OP assumes the slain goat makes atonement, but Leviticus 16 states it is the priest who makes atonement for the tent, altar, and people by applying the blood of the slain animal.

5. The OP assumes a connection of the blood to both uncleanness and sins. Leviticus limits the blood to cleansing from the defilement of sin. Actual sins are addressed with the scapegoat.

6. The OP assumes this is punitive language, however the language carties no link to punishment. The animal is not being punished. That said, as the atonement "cleanses" it is implied that sin carries with it the consequence of being unclean.

7. The OP assumes this is judicial language. The actual context, however, is medicinal language.

8. The OP asdumes it is the language of substitution, but substitution is omitted from the actual text of Scripture. The OP is reading the text through his assumptions.

9. The OP assumes the condemnation that rightly belongs to the sinner is executed in the flesh of Christ. While Satan is the adversary, the death produced is not condemnation. Condemnation is the judgment of God on the wicked.

But we know God will not condemn the Righteous (that was a guardrail that, if crossed, defines an understanding as heresy).

10. The OP asdumes it is the offering of life in the place of the guilty (changes "for" to "in the place of"). This could actually be biblical if it were recorded to indicate representation (Christ as the Son of Man; the Second Adam).

11. The OP assumes that the sacrifice is made because sin demands death as the OP alters the text of Scripture. The biblical text says that sin produces death as a wage, not that sin demands death.

12. The OP asdumes that substitution is explicit. Another option could be that Christ redeemed man rather than became a substitute for man.

13. The OP assumes that the language of exchange, of bearing, is also the language of substitution. This substitution is absent the biblical text. Rather than the language of substitution this could be instead the language of redemption (which is very different from substitution).

14. The OP assumes substitution rather than redemption.

 

[KenH]

But we know God will not condemn the Righteous

And we know that God does not clear the guilty.

Thus, the reason for imputation of all of the sins of God's elect to Christ and the imputation of Christ's perfect righteous to God's elect.

Christ paid the penalty for God's elect as their Surety, thus eliminating the guilt that was upon them.

God punished Christ even though He never ceased to be God while on the cross; He also was the seed of the woman and took on a sinless human body in which He could pay the sin debt of God's elect. God cannot die, but a human body can die.

Christ bore the sins that were imputed to Him; it was by imputation, as Christ Himself never became a sinner.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Here is a better way -

First, the biblical text is limiting.

Let's set boundaries so that our understanding does not stray into heresy.

Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed (Isaiah 1:7). It is an evil both to clear the guilty and to punish the innocent. It is wrong to punish the Just (Prov 17).

Now, let's look at what the actual biblical text says -

Aaron shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. Aaron shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.

Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it...When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat.

Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

The problem with the OP is its assumptions.
1. The OP assumes that the sacrifice is a substitution. But this is not in the text (it is actually not anywhere in the biblical text).

2. The OP assumes the animal fies because the sinner deserves to die (this is contrary to Leviticus 16 as the animal dies that the blood can be used to purify the tent, altar and people).

3. The OP assumes the blood is applied because the life has been taken rather than the animal has been killed to provide the blood to be applied.

4. The OP assumes the slain goat makes atonement, but Leviticus 16 states it is the priest who makes atonement for the tent, altar, and people by applying the blood of the slain animal.

5. The OP assumes a connection of the blood to both uncleanness and sins. Leviticus limits the blood to cleansing from the defilement of sin. Actual sins are addressed with the scapegoat.

6. The OP assumes this is punitive language, however the language carties no link to punishment. The animal is not being punished. That said, as the atonement "cleanses" it is implied that sin carries with it the consequence of being unclean.

7. The OP assumes this is judicial language. The actual context, however, is medicinal language.

8. The OP asdumes it is the language of substitution, but substitution is omitted from the actual text of Scripture. The OP is reading the text through his assumptions.

9. The OP assumes the condemnation that rightly belongs to the sinner is executed in the flesh of Christ. While Satan is the adversary, the death produced is not condemnation. Condemnation is the judgment of God on the wicked.

But we know God will not condemn the Righteous (that was a guardrail that, if crossed, defines an understanding as heresy).

10. The OP asdumes it is the offering of life in the place of the guilty (changes "for" to "in the place of"). This could actually be biblical if it were recorded to indicate representation (Christ as the Son of Man; the Second Adam).

11. The OP assumes that the sacrifice is made because sin demands death as the OP alters the text of Scripture. The biblical text says that sin produces death as a wage, not that sin demands death.

12. The OP asdumes that substitution is explicit. Another option could be that Christ redeemed man rather than became a substitute for man.

13. The OP assumes that the language of exchange, of bearing, is also the language of substitution. This substitution is absent the biblical text. Rather than the language of substitution this could be instead the language of redemption (which is very different from substitution).

14. The OP assumes substitution rather than redemption.

I will simply stand on the text, calmly, without embellishment, without system language, without scaffolding, and the Word itself accomplishes the will of God.

Not me. Not my tone. Not my argument. The text.

And the text reveals that Non‑PSA cannot be reconciled with Scripture. The sacrificial system, the language of bearing sin, the curse, the chastisement, the “for us,” the “in our place,” the “on behalf of,” the spotless substitute, all of it stands plainly in the written Word.

That is my position. That is my method. That is my confidence.

In another thread you’ve listed four statements as if they were the whole biblical picture, but each one is incomplete when read in isolation. My position is simple: the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text. When all of Scripture is allowed to speak, your four points cannot stand as you present them.

1. “God will not clear the guilty.”

That is true, apart from atonement.

But Scripture also says:

“Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” “Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” “Having forgiven you all trespasses.”

God does not clear the guilty without satisfaction, but He absolutely does clear the guilty through atonement. That is the entire purpose of the sacrificial system.

2. “God will not punish the righteous.”

That is true, unless the righteous One willingly bears the sins of others.

And Scripture explicitly says:

“The just for the unjust.” “He bore our sins in His own body on the tree.” “He was wounded for our transgressions.” “He was made a curse for us.”

The innocent is never declared guilty, but the innocent does bear the penalty of the guilty. That is the pattern God Himself established.

3. “Making atonement is cleansing, not forgiveness.”

Atonement includes cleansing, but it also includes forgiveness.

Leviticus repeatedly says:

“And he shall make atonement… and it shall be forgiven him.”

Cleansing and forgiveness are not opposites; they are linked.

Atonement removes what blocks access, guilt, impurity, uncleanness, and forgiveness is the result.

4. “Forgiveness was linked to sins being carried away.”

Yes, and the sins were carried away by a substitute. The scapegoat bears the sins “on itself.” The sin offering dies “for” the sinner. The guilt offering dies “for” the offender.

The text does not say sins float away. They are borne and removed by another.

The Whole Text

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.

And the plain sense of Scripture is that:

the guilty are cleared through atonement the righteous One bears the penalty for the guilty atonement brings both cleansing and forgiveness sins are carried away by a substitute

Your four statements, taken as absolutes, eliminate the very mechanism God Himself established for salvation. They cannot be maintained without setting aside large portions of the biblical text.

I stand with the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text.

~Tony

I appreciate that method, but have to point out you did not adhere to it. All of the following is adjustment and interpretation. It is not simply the biblical text. It's interpretatiom of the text assumes meanings that may or may not be correct, and there are ideas the interpretation adds to the text.





Cooper is wrong here. He should have said - "just stick to the biblical text and stop telling people what you "see", or what it means to you.

What you have posted is not exegesis. It is philosophical filtering of the text through your two axioms:

• God will not punish the righteous.
• God will not clear the guilty.

Everything you write is simply an attempt to force Leviticus 16, Isaiah 53, Hebrews, and the entire sacrificial system to fit those two philosophical guardrails. You are not interpreting Scripture; you are protecting your system.

Cooper’s principle threatens your system because it requires the text to be taken at its plain sense. And when the text is taken at its plain sense, substitution is unavoidable.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The OP assumes substitution rather than redemption.

Jon, substitution IS redemption.

Redemption in Scripture is never an abstract transaction. It is always accomplished by a substitute bearing what the guilty cannot bear.

There is no biblical redemption without biblical substitution.

Here is the plain, textual pattern:

1. Redemption requires the substitute to bear our sins “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” (1 Peter 2:24)

If Christ does not bear our sins, we are not redeemed.

2. Redemption requires the substitute to bear our curse. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” (Galatians 3:13)

If Christ does not bear the curse, we are not redeemed.

3. Redemption requires the substitute to bear our chastisement. “The chastisement of our peace was upon him.” (Isaiah 53:5)

If Christ does not bear our chastisement, we are not redeemed.

4. Redemption requires the substitute to be smitten for our transgressions. “He was smitten for the transgression of my people.” (Isaiah 53:8)

If Christ is not smitten for our transgressions, we are not redeemed.

5. Redemption requires the substitute to be wounded for our iniquities. “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:5)

If Christ is not wounded for our iniquities, we are not redeemed.

6. Redemption requires the substitute to suffer “the just for the unjust” “For Christ also hath once suffered, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” (1 Peter 3:18)

If Christ does not suffer the just for the unjust, we are not redeemed.

This is the biblical mechanism of redemption. Substitution is not an assumption, it is the text.

Redemption is not God ignoring guilt.
Redemption is not God clearing the guilty without satisfaction.
Redemption is not God bypassing justice.

Redemption is the guilty being cleared because the righteous One bore their penalty.

That is the entire sacrificial system:

the spotless lamb dies for the sinner
the scapegoat bears sins on itself
the sin offering dies for the offender
the guilt offering dies for the transgressor

This is how God remains just and the justifier (Romans 3:26).

Your axioms destroy redemption because they destroy substitution.

If:

God will not punish the righteous
God will not clear the guilty

then:

Christ cannot bear sins
Christ cannot bear the curse
Christ cannot bear chastisement
Christ cannot be smitten
Christ cannot be wounded
Christ cannot suffer the just for the unjust

And therefore:

we cannot be forgiven
we cannot be justified
we cannot be redeemed
we cannot be saved

Jon, your system eliminates the gospel.

Substitution is redemption.
Redemption is substitution.
Scripture makes no separation.

~Tony

 

[JonC]

Jon, substitution IS redemption.

No, those are two different words with different meanings.

Redemption is a price paid for something. A buying back. We were purchased not with silver or gold but with the precious blood of Christ. That is the price Christ paid to redeem us. Substitution is replacing one thing with another.

If the cost of me saving a man from a fire is my own death I have not substituted my life for his, but I have given my life to save him (I did not suffer his death, but I suffered my own to save him).

Perhaps a more common example will better explain the difference. If you purchase a ticket to a movie the ticket is not a substitute for the money or the movie. If you then redeem that ticket the movie is not a substitute for the ticket. You paid a price for the movie.


I did not use axioms.

"Also to punish the just is not good, nor to strike princes for equity." Prov 17:26

"Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." (Exodus 23:7)

"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD" (Prov 17:15)

My position (taking the actual biblical text as what the Bible teaches) does not eliminate the gospel.

But the difference is really how we view sin and God's righteousness.

I do not believe God's righteousness is such that mere punishment would be enough for us to escape His wrath. Sin is much more an evil and God is much holier a God.


What makes you think that Jesus suffered God's punishment as a substitute in the first place (what verses)?

I think that may be the best place to start (we can look at the biblical text and consider what the words mean). I much prefer to discuss "what is written" than talk about what anybody thinks is taught.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Cooper is wrong here. He should have said - "just stick to the biblical text and stop telling people what you "see", or what it means to you.

It is fallacious only to you Jon, because Cooper’s principle threatens your system because it requires the text to be taken at its plain sense. And when the text is taken at its plain sense, substitution is unavoidable.

No, those are two different words with different meanings.

Jon, you are ignoring the plain statements of Scripture in favor of a system that cannot be found anywhere in the biblical text.

I stand with the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text.

Your system eliminates the gospel.

1. Redemption requires a substitute to bear sins​

“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” (1 Peter 2:24)

If redemption is “a price paid,” then this is the price: Christ bearing our sins.

There is no redemption without this bearing.

2. Redemption requires a substitute to bear the curse​

“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” (Galatians 3:13)

Paul explicitly ties redemption to substitution:

• redeemed us
• by being made a curse for us

Redemption is not separate from substitution. Redemption is accomplished by substitution.

3. Redemption requires a substitute to bear chastisement​

“The chastisement of our peace was upon him.” (Isaiah 53:5)

Chastisement is punishment. Our peace comes because He bore it in our place.

That is substitution. And that is redemption.

4. Redemption requires a substitute to be smitten for our transgressions​

“He was smitten for the transgression of my people.” (Isaiah 53:8)

“Smitten for” is substitution. And it is the mechanism of redemption.

5. Redemption requires a substitute to be wounded for our iniquities​

“He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:5)

The righteous One suffers for the guilty. That is substitution. And that is redemption.

6. Redemption requires the just to suffer for the unjust​

“For Christ also hath once suffered, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” (1 Peter 3:18)

Peter gives the purpose clause:

• the just for the unjust → substitution
• that he might bring us to God → redemption

Substitution is the means. Redemption is the result.

Scripture never separates them.

7. Redemption requires blood shed for others​

“This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)

Blood shed for many is substitution. Remission of sins is redemption.

Again, Scripture ties them together.

8. Redemption requires a ransom paid for others​

“The Son of man came… to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)

A ransom is redemption. Given for many is substitution.

Jesus Himself defines redemption as substitution.

9. Redemption requires the substitute to die for the ungodly​

“Christ died for the ungodly.” (Romans 5:6)

“Died for” is substitution. The result (vv. 9–10) is redemption.

10. Redemption requires the substitute to be made sin for us​

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Made sin for us → substitution Made righteous in him → redemption

Paul ties them together explicitly.

Summary​

Redemption is not a separate category from substitution. Redemption is the result of substitution. Substitution is the means of redemption.

Scripture never divides them. Scripture always unites them.

Every verse above shows:

• Christ bears for us
• Christ suffers for us
• Christ is wounded for us
• Christ is smitten for us
• Christ is made a curse for us
• Christ dies for us
• Christ gives His life a ransom for many

That is substitution. And that is redemption.

Jon’s attempt to separate the two is not found anywhere in Scripture.

 

[JonC]

If you don't mind, let's just take the passsges containing the verses you used one by one.

1. Redemption requires the substitute to bear our sins “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” (1 Peter 2:24)

For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls. (1 Peter 2:19–25)


Let's work through the passage.

1. Why are we supposed to suffer unjust sorrow and suffering?

When we do right we find favor with God.
We were called for this purpose
Christ set this example for us to follow.

2. What exame did Christ set for us to follow?

When reviled (abused) Christ did not return the abuse but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously

3. What did Christ do instead?

He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross

4. Did Jesus do this to pay a sin debt so we would not?

Not according to this passage. He did that so we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

5. But was Jesus suffering God's punishment?

Again, not according to this passage. The biblical text says He was "reviled". Like Isaiah saying Jesus' death was "oppression" (suffering the exercise of unjust power or authority), Peter identifies Jesus' death as unjust (as abuse). God is neither an oppressor or abuser. He does not even oppress or abuse the wicked.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

"Also to punish the just is not good, nor to strike princes for equity." Prov 17:26

"Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." (Exodus 23:7)

"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD" (Prov 17:15)

My position (taking the actual biblical text as what the Bible teaches) does not eliminate the gospel.

But the difference is really how we view sin and God's righteousness.

Every verse you cited concerns corrupt human judges, not God’s appointed sacrificial substitute. You are ignoring the context of those passages and replacing the biblical mechanism of atonement with an unscriptural system.

I did not use axioms.

When you take those verses out of their context, strip them of their biblical meaning, and force your own definitions into them, they stop being Scripture and become axioms of your system.

 

[JonC]

It is fallacious only to you Jon, because Cooper’s principle threatens your system because it requires the text to be taken at its plain sense.

You misunderstood.

His statement is wrong because it is a logical fallacy. The logic is wrong.

The Early Church viewed Scripture as plainly teaching that Christ died as a ransom, being punished by Satan which ultimately destroyed Satan's power.

Anselm saw the Bible as plainly teaching that Christ's death was a restoration of honor that man has stolen from God.

Augustine saw the passsges as plainly teaching that Satan's murder of Jesus was a trap he fell for as death could not contain Jesus.

Calvin saw the scriptures as plainly teaching that God punished Jesus to satisfy the requirements of justice.

And there are many more views of the plain meaning.


The problem is Cooper's statement is meaningless without qualification. BUT it could be fixed. Identify and set aside anything you may bring into the text. Read the Bible as teaching ONLY the biblical text.

If no Hebrew ir Greek word in the passage means "substitute" then do not add it to the text. If no Hebrew or Greek word in the passage means "honor" then do not add it to the text.

Then allow the biblical text to interpret itself

We have Peter, Isaiah, and Luke saying that what Jesus experienced was an unjust exercise of power, that what Jesus experienced was unjust judgment, and that what Jesus experienced was abuse.

Then we have Peter, David, and Isaiah saying that Christ trusted somebody to deliver Him from this unjust power, this unjust judgment, this abuse.


Now all we have to do is match the attributes to the one who has those attributes.

1. Exercises unjust power and authority; unjustly judges; abuses.

A. God
B. Satan

My answer is "B".

2. Delivers the Righteous from oppression, from suffering

A. God
B. Satan

My answer is "A".


Go through every passage like this. Be more faithful to the biblical text.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

His statement is wrong because it is a logical fallacy. The logic is wrong.

You falsely claims Cooper’s principle is a “logical fallacy”.

You say:

“His statement is wrong because it is a logical fallacy.”

But Cooper’s principle is not a logical formula, it is a hermeneutical rule:

Take the text at its plain sense unless the text itself requires otherwise.

You are attacking a principle used by:

Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Owen
Turretin
Hodge
Warfield
Machen

and the very principle taught by Scripture and employed by the early churcges.

Calling it a “logical fallacy” is simply false.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Now Jon, you must not take scripture out of context and force your own interpretation, and ignore the scripture the proves your "system" false.

And you have not engaged a single passage I cited. You are ignoring the Scriptures that explicitly say Christ bore sins, bore curse, bore chastisement, was smitten, was wounded, and suffered the just for the unjust. Until you deal with those texts, your system stands in contradiction to the written Word.

That seems to be a pattern with you, isolate scripture, strip it of it's meaning, force your own into it, claim it is gospel, and then totally ignore vast passages that prove Non-PSA is incompatible with the truth, and we end up at a circular circus.