Punishment in the Atonement

I intended the post following to clarify. I agree with the Bock that the verse is stressing the error of the Jewish understanding - not that he was not "stricken" as this would be obvious to the onlookers, but that he was stricken for their sins and not his.

What I mean is that this is not a proof text for Jesus being punished with our punishments. That isn't the point of the passage.

 

I have chronic tongue tripping syndrome, so I know how it feels :(. I'm sure you did well.

I got half way through an illustration once and forgot what I was illustrating.

 

Wow, me too....if we find another we could start a church. You can preach and I'll take up the offering. :Laugh

Except that I do not believe Jesus experienced the punishments for my individual sinful acts and not the punishments for the sinful acts of those who are not saved. I don't think that atonement works that way.

I find it a bit odd, but I don't think anyone else sees the difference between Jesus dying on the cross for our sin, suffering the consequences of sin and Jesus being punished by God for our sin. At least that explains the hostility to some when PST is questioned (the difference is not discernible to them). That fact alone, considering the people who have participated here, is something I simply find amazing.

Since no one here seems to see a difference between the positions, we can just go on agreeing because I do believe that the atonement deals with both the consequences of sin and Christ bearing our sins. As the distinction of the OP seems elusive here, and it is being productively engaged elsewhere, I believe it time to close this thread.

 

I have no problem saying that Jesus suffered and died for my sins. Propitiation has punishment in mind in terms of appeasing the wrath of God – not punishing the atoning sacrifice with the punishment due the acts of other people. I affirm that Jesus suffered and died for our sins, that he appeased the wrath that was due me, and that the chastisement for our wellbeing fell upon him. But this does not mean that the Father looked upon his Son as a vile sinner and punished him in our stead.

Where did we go from the image of an atonement – the Father laying our iniquities on him and offering him as a guilt offering for us; Jesus becoming obedient unto death, even the death of a cross; God purchasing us with the precious blood of Christ; Jesus bearing our iniquities; the chastisement for our wellbeing falling on him – to an image of the Father transferring our sins to Jesus, looking on Jesus as a vile sinner, and inflicting the punishment of the elect on his Son to clear the sin debt owed him so that he can forgive us?

But Jesus was not wicked and punishment under the Law is not transferable. Sin is not transferable.

So my question, the one I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around, is where exactly did Christian doctrine move from God offering His Son as a guilt offering in terms of a sacrifice to an accounting system of sin debts to be collected? Historically we can pinpoint the development of PST from penal and substitution elements in both doctrine and Scripture. We can see how logic was built upon logic and understand why it was put together as it was. But how did we come to accept that God’s justice demands not repentance but a collection of what is owed God regardless of who pays the price? How did we come to accept that justice can include the actual punishment of one man for the crimes of another? When did Christ’s death as an atonement and propitiation become too complicated that we had to move to a simple ledger system of committed sins?

None of those things are inherently found in Scripture. None of those things are common to the historical views of atonement (unless, as some suppose, it was but all records are gone).

 

Yes, the Father offered the Son as a guilt offering, an atonement, a propitiation, for our sins. He borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. He was seen as stricken and smitten of God (i.e., stricken for his transgressions against God) when instead he was stricken and smitten for our transgressions. He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, and the chastisement of our wellbeing was on him, and with his stripes we are healed (parallels stating the same thing - it was God's will to sacrifice His Son as an atonement for us, as a propitiation for our sins....when we think of him setting aside his glory and becoming man, being born as a baby in Bethlehem, growing and learning, teaching and discipling, being mocked, being betrayed and arrested, suffering, being beaten, carrying his own cross, hanging and dying...all of this....we need to remember that it is for our transgressions that he became obedient even unto the death of a cross, and our our iniquities that he suffered and died. And for our redemption that he arose from the grave as the firstborn.

I am not sure of your point here. But yes, by his stripes we are healed. I did not know that this was even in question.

 

Yes, God made him a sin offering He was offered, our sins laid on him. The transfer was Jesus becoming man and accepting the consequences of human sinfulness.

You do realize when we sin we still are in need of repentance and forgiveness, and Christ mediates as our High Priest...And although Christ died as our representative we will still die....Right?

More to the point, if Jesus was punished with your punishment of death then you would not die. Jesus tasted death for every man. And all are resurrected through him, some to life and some to death. But the "second death" is when hades and death are cast into Hell. The ultimate criteria? Christ and the cross. This is why Paul says our hope is in Christ, and focused on a physical resurrection. Christ redeemed us from sin and death, he did not take that punishment - or consequence - from us. But the sting of death is the Law, which Christ has fulfilled.

 

I was born dead, but made alive in Christ. And I am going to die a physical death as the consequence of sin. But my hope is in Christ, who conquered sin and death, as I look to the resurrection.

God laid my sins on Jesus, and he died as propitiation for my sins - as an atonement for me. He became a man like me and became obedient even to the cross. He bore that punishment, that penalty, of sin for mankind. Not in such a way that he was punished with our punishment, but with the consequence of sin (his own punishment in becoming man, in bearing our sins, in taking on flesh and paying that penalty due mankind because of sin). I will still face the consequences of sin. I was stillborn, spiritually. And I will die a physical death (unless Christ comes before that time). But my hope is in Christ because therein is life and my life..

 

I believe it does work. Jesus, who had no sin, was made a sin offering for us. Paul's use of hamartia can mean both "sin" in the first use and "sin offering" in the second. Jesus used penuma much the same way in his dialogue with Nicodemus. We know it cannot be taken literally (that God was made evil). Regardless, I think that we end up at the same place - Jesus was looked upon as a transgressor, as sinful man.

Jesus became man, but without sin. There is a dichotomy here. To be man is to be sin. And God made him who knew no sin to be made sin for us. Although he uses both, I believe in this passage Paul is leaning on the imagery of atonement rather than law-court. I am not really sure that the difference is enough of a hill to merit taking a stand.

One point that I will make, as it is often brought up concerning the nature of Christ, is that I am not sure we can separate God's justice and love so easily. I often hear that Jesus suffered in his humanity but not his divinity. And, as you say here, that God lovingly disciplines us for our sins, but as Judge sees no sins at all. Peter wrote that since we call on Him as Father who judges according to each one's deeds we should conduct ourselves with fear during our life here on earth.

Sometimes we separate these things to handle them, to make them simple. In one of his works, Leon Morris accused Käsemann of oversimplifying, of making a case that is crystal clear, uncomplicated, and straight forward regarding the divinity and humanity of Christ within Johannine theology. What Käsemann had done was develop a concise doctrine that failed to encapsulate the whole truth of Scripture, and because of that failing the truth that was presented became distorted and twisted. My concern with the atonement is that we not do the same. That we have is evident in statements about penal substitution being the primary view of Scripture, as if other aspects were of less significance.

 

I agree.

Physical death is separation, from life. The spiritually dead are those who are perishing, those without understanding, those who will not believe. The "second death" is a separation from God (death and Hades cast into Hell, into the "outter darkness"). I don't think we can base a doctrine on two separate verses in Psa 22, but it does certainly show that Christ sufferings were more significant than a physical death. He was bearing our sins, being offered an atonement, representing mankind on the cross.

Agreed.

 

You do realize that the atoning sacrifices offered in the Old Testament are done so under the Law...right? My argument is that God is not bound by the Law, but instead became man and fulfilled the Law.

You say that Jesus was punished with your punishment. You say that this is both a physical death and a separation from God. Yet you were born spiritually dead and you will die a physical death. You will not experience the "second death", but neither did Christ (this judgment is Christ-centered). What you seem not to grasp is because of the cross all will be resurrected, some to life and some to judgment. At the center of judgment is Christ, not the Law because the Law is fulfilled in Christ.

 

I see how I can be inching towards that doctrine, and I suppose depending on how it is defined I may already be there. I believe that death entered the world through Adam's sin. And I believe that our sin (as mankind, not individuals) is linked to Adam's disobedience as representative of the flesh, just as our obedience can be said to be Christ in us.

We are playing a bit with the idea of death, (I do not think that you disagree we will experience a physical death, and I don't think that you will disagree with the verse I am posting here).

I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. ... You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies;.... 1 Corinthians 15:31-41