Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?
It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.
Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.
Introduction
When we consider the various Scriptures related to the work of the Cross and cross-reference them with the doctrines we commonly have been taught, a stark contrast too often becomes apparent. It is our desire, then, to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, in an attempt to separate tradition, bad teaching, and bad doctrine from the testimony of Scripture.
We believe that the issues surrounding the sacrificial death of Jesus may be some of the most misunderstood doctrines promulgated by Reformed/Calvinistic theology. Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is the set of doctrines that come to bear on this, and they are the ones we wish to examine. PSA teaches that the Father punished Jesus in our place so that we would be spared His wrath.
We believe that the issues surrounding the sacrificial death of Jesus may be some of the most misunderstood doctrines promulgated by Reformed/Calvinistic theology. Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is the set of doctrines that come to bear on this, and they are the ones we wish to examine. PSA teaches that the Father punished Jesus in our place so that we would be spared His wrath.
Calvin presents the doctrine this way:
Accordingly, our Lord came forth as true man and took the person and the name of Adam in order to take Adam’s place in obeying the Father, to present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to God’s righteous judgment, and, in the same flesh, to pay the penalty that we had deserved. (Institutes, II.xvi.3)Our thesis is that this is a misrepresentation of Scripture and thus dishonors Jesus' work on the cross and diminishes the glory of God. We need to be clear, it isn't a matter of being repelled by the idea of the Father punishing His Son, as some Calvinists might think. Nor do we think that God excuses judgment for sin. Rather, sin is an affront to God and must be dealt with. We therefore believe that Jesus spilled His blood on the cross as a totally effectual cleansing from sin, completely satisfying the Father. Therefore, nothing else is needed, especially the substitutionary punishment of Jesus.
The blood is enough.
Pursuant to our thesis, this post is divided into three sections:
Many Christians believe that God poured out His wrath upon and punished Jesus, which is the “penal” part of PSA. We most certainly agree that God’s holy wrath regarding sin burns against the unrighteous and they deserve their fate. But does the Bible support the punishment of Jesus by the Father? After careful consideration, we would say no. In fact, there is no verse anywhere that tells us God poured out His wrath upon and punished Jesus.
- Penal
- Substitutionary
- Atonement
Many Christians believe that God poured out His wrath upon and punished Jesus, which is the “penal” part of PSA. We most certainly agree that God’s holy wrath regarding sin burns against the unrighteous and they deserve their fate. But does the Bible support the punishment of Jesus by the Father? After careful consideration, we would say no. In fact, there is no verse anywhere that tells us God poured out His wrath upon and punished Jesus.
This is important. There are a lot of verses that refer to God's wrath, but all of them are directed at the unrighteous. We repeat. There is no verse that tells us the Father's wrath was perpetrated on Jesus.
This may be an astounding claim to some, so we will lay out our reasons for doubting this doctrine. In order to do so, we must first consider the typology of the OT sacrifices.
The Sacrificial Animals
God instituted a system of animal sacrifice in the OT, which is a type of Jesus’ death on the cross. The atoning blood of sheep and bulls is actually a picture foreshadowing Jesus’ better sacrifice. So in order to understand Jesus’ death, we need to take a look at the sacrificial animals. This is critical. The typology points us to Jesus, so we need to view Jesus’ sacrificial death through the lens of the OT sacrifices.
We first note that the sacrificial animals weren’t ever described in the OT as assuming or receiving guilt, and nowhere are they described as being punished. God’s wrath was never directed at the sacrificial animals. They were simply slain on the altar as the method of spilling the atoning blood:
The Scapegoat Bore Sins
We read:
Notice the scapegoat carried the sin away: The goat will carry on itself all their sins… (vs. 22) "Carry" is the Hebrew word nasa or nasah, which means to lift, carry, take. The scapegoat had the sins of Israel placed upon itself and it took them outside the camp. The scapegoat was therefore the vehicle by which sin was transported out of the midst of the people, not the victim of Israel's sin.
The very same word, nasa, is used in Ge. 21:18:
This may be an astounding claim to some, so we will lay out our reasons for doubting this doctrine. In order to do so, we must first consider the typology of the OT sacrifices.
The Sacrificial Animals
God instituted a system of animal sacrifice in the OT, which is a type of Jesus’ death on the cross. The atoning blood of sheep and bulls is actually a picture foreshadowing Jesus’ better sacrifice. So in order to understand Jesus’ death, we need to take a look at the sacrificial animals. This is critical. The typology points us to Jesus, so we need to view Jesus’ sacrificial death through the lens of the OT sacrifices.
We first note that the sacrificial animals weren’t ever described in the OT as assuming or receiving guilt, and nowhere are they described as being punished. God’s wrath was never directed at the sacrificial animals. They were simply slain on the altar as the method of spilling the atoning blood:
He. 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.It is specifically the spilled blood that atoned for sin, not the death of the animal, per se. This blood sacrifice is effective agent to remedy sin. We discuss the blood in greater depth here.
The Scapegoat Bore Sins
We read:
Le. 16:8-10, 22 He is to cast lots for the two goats — one lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat. 9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the Lord and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat… 22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert."Scapegoat" is the Hebrew word azazel, which means entire removal of sin and guilt from sacred places into desert on back of goat, symbol of entire forgiveness.
Notice the scapegoat carried the sin away: The goat will carry on itself all their sins… (vs. 22) "Carry" is the Hebrew word nasa or nasah, which means to lift, carry, take. The scapegoat had the sins of Israel placed upon itself and it took them outside the camp. The scapegoat was therefore the vehicle by which sin was transported out of the midst of the people, not the victim of Israel's sin.
The very same word, nasa, is used in Ge. 21:18:
Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.Hagar carried the boy, but that did not mean she received some sort of characteristic from the boy. She did not take the place of the boy or partake in anything about the boy. She was simply the mode of transportation. Likewise, the sin carried by the scapegoat does not connect the goat to the sin in any way. The sin is simply a burden, transported away into the desert. The scapegoat carries "on itself all their sins." The scapegoat is not punished.
Thus we need to clearly distinguish between "bear sin" and "receive punishment."
We find the same themes in the NT, as we would expect.
Hebrews 13:12-13
And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.Here we discover that the scapegoat is a type of Christ, who transports our sin outside the camp, entirely removing it from us. This is a critical understanding. Jesus wasn’t punished for our sin, he was the bearer (carrier) of our sin to the cross.
Similar in meaning to the Hebrew word azazel, the Greek word for "bore" (...the disgrace he bore) is pheró, which is I carry, bear, bring... Just like the scapegoat, Jesus carried the disgrace of our sin outside the camp as if it were a cargo. He died on a cross outside the city; He bore our sin there as a burden; He carried (pheró) the sin; He shed His blood there.
And, the Father did not punish Him, just as the OT animals were not punished.
1Pe. 2:24:
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.This is a similar Greek word to pheró - anapheró, I carry up, lead up… Again we see that Jesus bore our sin to the cross as one might take out a bag of trash.
He. 9:28:
...so Christ was sacrificed once to take away (anapheró) the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.Col. 2:13-14:
He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."Took it away" is the Greek word airó, which is I raise, lift up, take away, remove. Jesus literally carried away the condemnation of the Law like a bundle on His shoulders and nailed it to the cross.
1Jn. 3:5:
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.
This verse also uses the Greek word airó, as we we cited above The carrying away of sins is juxtaposed against the next sentence: in him is no sin. He transports (carries, lifts, bears) our sin away without ever once being polluted by it or partaking in it.
The theme is surely becoming familiar to the reader: Jesus as the burden-bearer rather than the wrath-bearer. He anapheró the burden of our sin like someone would carry a load upon his shoulders. He pheró away our punishment. He airó our sin as far as the east is from the west.
He is the vehicle by which our sins are transported away, by the spilled blood. This clearly suggests that just like the OT sacrificial animals, Jesus was never an object of God’s wrath in any way. The Father never did punish Jesus.
Forsaken?
It's a very popular understanding that as Jesus hung on the cross there came a moment when the Father could not bear to look at Him because of the sins of the world were upon him.
Here's the verse, Mt. 27:46:
Here's the verse, Mt. 27:46:
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” — which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”Jesus was quoting Ps. 22:1:
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?We've always taken this to mean that Jesus was indeed forsaken by the Father. But contrary to this we must assert that Jesus is and has always been in perfect fellowship with the other two persons of the Trinity. There has never been a time when the Godhead has been disconnected. It does not square with verses like Jn. 8:29:
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.And Jn. 11:42:
I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”So where does this view that Jesus was forsaken come from? We suspect it comes from the idea that God cannot look upon sin:
Habk. 1:13 Your eyes are too pure to look on evil...
It is an intricate web of beliefs laid on the foundation of a misunderstanding. If Jesus was viewed by the Father as sinful as PSA teaches, it only makes sense that the pure Father could not look upon the Son who carried the sins of the world upon Him.
But God looks upon evil all the time. He's not the fragile being this suggests. The whole idea is ridiculous. God most certainly can look upon evil, because in His sovereignty he also tolerates the treacherous until the time of His judgment. Habakkuk was clearly writing about something else besides an immutable characteristic of God. This is quite clear when we actually read the passage.
The idea that Jesus was forsaken is also connected to the idea that Jesus was punished for our sins, which of course is what we are discussing. Indeed, if Jesus was punished by the Father, then we certainly could understand the Father subsequently forsaking Him. But if the Father did not punish Jesus, then the Father did not abandon Him either.
Aside from the quote from Ps. 22:1, where do we find anywhere in the NT that Jesus was discouraged, perplexed, unclear in His purpose, or discouraged? Where else do we read about Jesus being frustrated, abandoned, or without hope?
Rather, we see a Man unlike any other. Jesus perfectly pleased the Father, perfectly carried out His purpose, and never lost sight of the Father's love, why would we think the Father abandoned Him? Why would we think it makes sense in this one instance?
Why have you forsaken me? Why did Jesus to say this?
We would like to suggest that when Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1, He was not identifying Himself with the abandonment of that verse. He was not describing His plight. Rather, He was pointing to the contents of the entire psalm, which contains many fulfilled prophecies about Jesus.
There were no chapters and verses in those days. The way a passage was identified was by quoting its first verse. Jesus was not describing His plight, He was pointing to the whole Psalm.
The whole Psalm.
All the prophecies in that Psalm were coming true right at the moment as He hung there on the cross:
- 6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people.
- 7 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
- 8 “He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.”
- 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me.
- 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.
- 16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
- 17 I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.
- 18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
No less than eight messianic prophecies were fulfilled at that very moment.
This is why Jesus pointed to the psalm, not for some imagined forsakenness, but because prophecies were being fulfilled.
Further, Psalm 22 itself contradicts the idea that Jesus was forsaken:
Ps. 22:24 For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.David, writing in the messianic voice, cried out in despair to God, but then stated the unvarnished fact that the Father never did hide His face! He did not hide His face. David was never abandoned. Therefore, Jesus was never abandoned. We assert that this messianic psalm reassures us that the Father listened to Jesus' cry for help and did help Him, for He rose again 3 days later, victorious and glorious.
We must conclude that Jesus was not abandoned and did not feel abandoned, the Father never turned His face away, and in fact Jesus enjoyed unbroken fellowship with the Father, even through the crucifixion. And, the traditional teaching we have been taught by perhaps well-meaning pastors is wrong and unbiblical.
But What About These?
If the Father didn't punish Jesus for our sins, what about these verses?
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.Many have undertaken the task of explaining this verse, that somehow Jesus could be sin, especially in light of the first phrase in the sentence that Jesus had no sin. This is a doctrinal debate going back centuries, with honest interlocutors on each side. It remains a point of debate to this day, so we shall not be so arrogant as to suggest that we have the answer. But perhaps we might have some insight.
Part of the difficulty is the errant premise by which some try to understand the verse, that Jesus was imputed with our sin (We discuss imputation below, and in more detail here). If He was imputed with our sin, then His punishment by the Father makes some sort of sense.
The idea is that Jesus was viewed by the Father as being the embodiment of sin/ imputed with sin/ clothed with sin/ regarded as sin (although there is quite a bit of hairsplitting about the accuracy of these descriptors), and as a result the Father punished Him. But actually, 2Co. 5:21 does not tell us anything about God's wrath or Jesus being punished. Judgment is not mentioned. Substitution (discussed later) is not found. None of these concepts appear in this verse.
Ironically, Calvinists/Reformists impute imputation into this verse.
So what does it really mean?
Well, we have a theory. We are not Bible scholars, so we simply offer what we hope is valuable.
Let's look at some of the words. The verse says God made Him to be sin. He did not "become" sin. The word "made" (God made him) is the Greek word poieó: make, manufacture, construct...
We also find the word poieó here:
Ac. 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
If it is true that Jesus was imputed with our sin, then he was also imputed with being Lord and Christ. But that of course is ridiculous.
The word is also found here:
He. 3:1-2 Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess. 2 He was faithful to the one who appointed him...
If it is true that Jesus was imputed with our sin, then he was also imputed with being the apostle and high priest. That of course is also ridiculous. Therefore, Jesus was not imputed with being Lord and Christ, He was not imputed with being the apostle and high priest, and He was not imputed with our sin.
The man Jesus was constructed, made for a purpose:
Philippians 2:6-8 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!
The word "made" here is a different Greek word ginomai, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another... Jesus was specifically made in such a way as to emerge or transition from glory to servanthood. He was not made into sin, He was was not imputed with sin, He was not made into a sinner. Rather, He was made, transitioned, into the very physical nature of sinful man.
It's a position, not an imputation. Even found as a man, nothing changed about His holy nature. The Father basically said, "Go, here's your position." Therefore, His position on earth was as sinful flesh, but His position is now is as Lord and Christ, apostle and high priest.
Jesus, the Word who became flesh, the Word of God, found Himself in the very nature of human form:
He. 2:17-18 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Positionally, Jesus became a sin offering like a spotless lamb but was never sinful. He had no union with sin. ...him who had no sin... So his total innocence of sin means His sacrifice carried away our sin completely.
Galatians 3:13
Therefore, Jesus didn't become accursed, He wasn't God's object of wrath at all, He bore for us the burden of condemnation that comes from the law. That too was carried to the cross and nailed there (Col. 2:14).
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”This verse certainly doesn't say anything about God's wrath, but it does seem to suggest that Jesus became odious to God by becoming a curse. But we should consider the verse in the context of the entire passage:
Ga. 3:10-14 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no-one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.”
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.So the curse of the law is the condemnation that comes from it (Romans 7:9). Jesus' death frees us from the curse of the law (Romans 8:1), that is, death and condemnation (Ro. 5:17), and gives us the blessing given to Abraham. Under the law, a sacrifice must be offered to atone for sin. So God became man under the law, and died as one offered in sacrifice under the curse to set men free from it.
Therefore, Jesus didn't become accursed, He wasn't God's object of wrath at all, He bore for us the burden of condemnation that comes from the law. That too was carried to the cross and nailed there (Col. 2:14).
Isaiah 53
Isaiah 53 is a stark and profound messianic prophecy, describing in detail the suffering Lamb of God. But because of PSA, we believe this passage has been misinterpreted. We humbly undertake to correct this mistake. Let's look a little closer at some of the verses:
Is. 53:4
But take careful note: Isaiah then uses the word "yet." He took up our infirmities, "yet." Isaiah contradicts something: yet we considered him stricken by God... We have a mistaken perception, we think He was stricken, smitten, and afflicted by God. Isaiah immediately contradicts that. He sets the record straight about this in the very next verse, verse 5, inserting the word "but:"
Isaiah 53 is a stark and profound messianic prophecy, describing in detail the suffering Lamb of God. But because of PSA, we believe this passage has been misinterpreted. We humbly undertake to correct this mistake. Let's look a little closer at some of the verses:
Is. 53:4
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.Isaiah embarks on his narrative by stating a truth, that He "took up" (Hebrew, nasa or nasah, to lift, carry, take, and "carried" (sabal, to bear [a heavy load]), that being our infirmities and sorrows.
But take careful note: Isaiah then uses the word "yet." He took up our infirmities, "yet." Isaiah contradicts something: yet we considered him stricken by God... We have a mistaken perception, we think He was stricken, smitten, and afflicted by God. Isaiah immediately contradicts that. He sets the record straight about this in the very next verse, verse 5, inserting the word "but:"
Is. 53:5
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.The features of the crucifixion are being detailed for us, hundreds of years before the actual event. Here’s Isaiah's train of thought:
- Truth Statement: He took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows
- False Perception: We considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted
- False Perception Corrected: "But..."
- Truth Statement: He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities
Also notice that this punishment was upon him. The word translated “upon” is the Hebrew word al, which means upon, above, over. We have seen this concept over and over, haven't we? The punishment was upon, above, over Jesus.
Let’s paraphrase the verse: "He carried our problems. Yet for some reason we thought He was punished by God. But He wasn't. The horrible things He suffered were for our benefit."
He carried our sin, and the Father didn't punish Him.
Is. 53:6
Is. 53:10
Is. 53:12
Is. 53:6
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all."Has laid" is the Hebrew word paga, to meet, encounter, reach. Our iniquity has reached him. Isaiah is amplifying his point. This Man bore a heavy burden, laid upon him for our benefit.
Is. 53:10
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.The literal translation is
His soul an offering for sin, you make, when he has put [him] to grief to bruise him, it pleased…The literal translation adds words, which we think colors the translation. Without the added words it would read:
The man (nephesh), a guilt offering (asham) appointed, (sum or sim) when (im) he is made weak (chalah) and broken in pieces or crushed (daka), it pleased him (chaphets).Unfortunately we are not Hebrew scholars. Yet we wonder if sometimes our Bible translations contain added elements derived from the already-existent doctrinal preconceptions. We say this because a word-for-word rendering without the inserted "clarifying" language seems to yield a different result. Here’s our attempt at a less ornamented rendering:
The man was appointed a guilt offering, and was made weak, broken and crushed, and it pleased God.Is. 53:11
After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.To "bear" is sabal, to bear (a heavy load). We are certainly getting used to this concept of Jesus being the burden-bearer. Once you see the truth of the matter you can't unsee it.
Is. 53:12
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."Bore" once again is nasa or nasah, to lift, carry, take.
Part 1 Conclusion
There is absolutely no hint in the Bible that the Father punished Jesus in any way. In fact, as the incarnate God was found as a man of flesh, Jesus carried out His work and perfectly pleased the Father. We would therefore assert that Jesus did not bear the wrath of God, period. Rather, He bore the weight of sin to the cross. Therefore, God did not punish Him.
2) Substitutionary
Now we turn to the "substitutionary" part of PSA. This portion of PSA means that Jesus substituted His life for punishment in our place. So not only did the Father punish Jesus, He did it so that we would not be punished. That is, PSA teaches that He received our sin in Himself, took our death sentence for us, and died so that we would not have to. But we would assert that Jesus did not do any of this. He died as the sacrificial Lamb of God, and in fact beckons us to come and die with Him (Ro. 6:8). Since we also must die, this cannot mean Jesus died in our place.
This is a critical understanding.
Imputation
PSA teaches that our sin was imputed to Jesus. "Imputed" is a really unfortunate word choice. It misleads us into thinking that Jesus engaged in some sort of legal transaction or exchange. In the legal world, "impute" means to attach to a person responsibility (and therefore financial liability) for acts or injuries to another… So the legal meaning is to make someone other than the perpetrator legally responsible for a debt or crime.
This idea of Jesus being a legal substitute likely comes from Calvin, which we think was based on his training as a lawyer. This legal training likely colored his approach to Jesus' work on the cross:
This idea of Jesus being a legal substitute likely comes from Calvin, which we think was based on his training as a lawyer. This legal training likely colored his approach to Jesus' work on the cross:
Of course, Calvin clearly taught a legal theme in Christ’s work of atonement. In ourselves, we stand condemned before the bar of God’s justice, under the curse, and liable to God’s just wrath. Christ, though, obeyed and fulfilled the law, stood under no curse himself, but on our behalf suffered judgment that we might go free. Commenting on Romans 8:34 he writes:
"As no one by accusing can prevail, when the judge absolves; so there remains no condemnation, when satisfaction is given to the laws, and the penalty is already paid. Now Christ is he, who, having once for all suffered the punishment due to us, thereby declared that he undertook our cause, in order to deliver us…"Our assertion is that Jesus was not a substitute, He was a sacrifice. We think this concept of Jesus being a legal substitute imputed with our sin is not found in Scripture. The Greek and Hebrew words do not contain this definition.
***Jesus’ death was not a legal transaction, it was a sacrifice.***
The idea of imputation derives from Ps. 32:2:
The idea of imputation derives from Ps. 32:2:
Blessed [is] the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit [there is] no guile (KJV).
Paul quotes this verse in Ro. 4:8:
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin (KJV).
The KJV is the only translation we could find that uses the word "impute."
The Greek word for “impute” is logizomai, which means I reckon, count, charge with; reason, decide, conclude; think, suppose. Chashab is the Hebrew word for imputeth, which means "considered."
We found above that the legal idea of "impute" is to assign to someone other than the responsible party the blame for a debt or a crime. But the neither the Greek or Hebrew carry this connotation. The words mean to reckon with or consider. This is an important distinction. To impute is a transfer of something, particularly a penalty, where the Greek and Hebrew both deal with how a matter is perceived.
We found above that the legal idea of "impute" is to assign to someone other than the responsible party the blame for a debt or a crime. But the neither the Greek or Hebrew carry this connotation. The words mean to reckon with or consider. This is an important distinction. To impute is a transfer of something, particularly a penalty, where the Greek and Hebrew both deal with how a matter is perceived.
So, a better translation might be, “Blessed is the man whom the Lord does not consider or regard as sinful.
The difference in meaning is perhaps subtle. Jesus was not imputed with our sin in a legal sense, and the Bible never uses the word regarding Him. He did not have guilt assigned to him and thus get punished by the Father. Rather, as we mentioned in the previous section, the Father made Jesus the carrier of our sin as a burden bearer, as the sacrificial lamb.
Further, there’s no sense, either in the Hebrew or the Greek, or even in contemporary jurisprudence, that an innocent party can be held legally liable for another’s punishment. It isn’t possible to enter a courtroom and offer to take a guilty party’s place. The popular courtroom analogy, where we are pronounced guilty but Jesus comes into the court room and substitutes Himself, is completely errant.
But What About These?
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. – 1 Peter 3:18
Ro. 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
1Cor. 15:3 Further, For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures…All of these verses use the Greek word huper, which means for the benefit of. It does not mean "in the place of." Jesus’ sacrificial death was for our benefit. He died for our sins; that is, He died for our benefit which took the form of washing our sins away.
Part 2 Conclusion
In order to find substitution in the Bible, one must come to the equation with it as a preconception. Years of conditioning trains the Calvinist/Reformed person to interpret verses in ways that conform with their doctrines.
This error founded on a transactional view of Jesus' sacrifice, that someone has to pay for sin, and if it's not us then it's Jesus. The very nature of the sacrifice was forgiveness, not the transfer of wrath from one party to another. But that negates the blood as effectual. If Jesus was our substitute, then the blood did not cleanse. God only transferred His punishment and the blood did absolutely nothing. This is the equation Calvinists/Reformists are reduced to.
We discuss this false idea of transferred wrath here.
We go into some detail about the total efficacy of the blood here.
3) Atonement
The third and final leg of PSA is atonement. Our belief is that atonement is uniquely OT, and the work of Jesus on the Cross is not atonement; rather, it is propitiation. This will be explained later. First we shall examine the OT atonement, and especially how it plays out in the context of Israel's history.
The OT - Atonement
As God began to reveal Himself as holy and the deliverer of His people, the concept of the atonement, in connection to revelation of the Law, began to be expressed. This began at the burning bush (Ex. 3:2-5), where God showed Himself.
Ex. 3:5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.”The details of the Law began to emerge in Ex. chapter 12 with the Passover, where precise instructions were given regarding the killing of a lamb. The blood was to be smeared on the door frame of the homes of the Israelites and a meal was to be eaten according to a specific order.
It is here we get the first hint of sacrificial Law. It is by a sacrifice of shed blood the Israelites were saved from the angel of death. What we are observing here is that God intended to set apart Israel as a holy people. His Law was reflective of that, including the idea that sin is an affront to God and must be dealt with. God was unveiling blood sacrifice as a type for the Lamb of God and His perfect sacrifice.
God's intent is to supply a remedy. This is where the concept of atonement arrives.
Covering Over
The word “atone” is the Hebrew word kaphar. Kaphar means to cover over, pacify, make propitiation. The first appearance of this word is in Ge. 6:14, translated "coat it:"
Ge. 6:14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it [kaphar] with pitch inside and out.So Noah "covered over" (atoned) the cypress wood with pitch, obscuring the wood underneath. The covering hid what was beneath.
So we need to understand that to atone is to cover over, to obscure from view.
Atonement By Blood Sacrifice
The first mention of sacrificial atonement is
The NT - Propitiation
Although propitiation is an obsolete word, we prefer it for its accuracy, and for distinguishing what the blood of Jesus did as opposed to what the blood of the sacrificial animals did. In biblical typology, atonement is merely a picture of something that would be fully realized in Christ. It serves to make the important distinction between the animal sacrifices and the all-sufficient, perfectly cleansing blood of Jesus.
Atonement By Blood Sacrifice
The first mention of sacrificial atonement is
Ex. 29:36 Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement. Purify the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it to consecrate it.Sacrifice is connected to sin, and sin was atoned for (kaphar) by being "covered over." Therefore, to atone for sin is to cover it over. The obvious conclusion is that atonement did not wipe Israel clean of sin, it simply made sin to be not seen. Therefore, the animal sacrifices did not eliminate sin. The writer of Hebrews confirms this:
He. 10:4 ...it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.In this verse, the Greek word for "take away" is aphaireó, which means to take from, take away… Interestingly, it’s the same word used in Mt. 26:51:
With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.Covering over sin wasn't sufficient. Sin needed to be wacked off. It needed to be completely taken away, chopped off, not just covered over. This brings us to propitiation.
The NT - Propitiation
Although propitiation is an obsolete word, we prefer it for its accuracy, and for distinguishing what the blood of Jesus did as opposed to what the blood of the sacrificial animals did. In biblical typology, atonement is merely a picture of something that would be fully realized in Christ. It serves to make the important distinction between the animal sacrifices and the all-sufficient, perfectly cleansing blood of Jesus.
As we have just seen, atonement simply covers over sin. However, propitiation is not "covering over." It actually describes the complete forgiveness of sin. Propitiation is the better thing than atonement. Sinful humanity needs something more than atonement, and Christ's death on the cross is that greater work. Propitiation COMPLETELY satisfies God and turns away His wrath.
The Greek word for propitiation is unfortunately translated "atonement" in the NIV in each instance, although some translations (like the KJV) do render it "propitiation." There are two related Greek words in the NT for propitiation. The first is hilaskomai, which means, appeasement/satisfaction of divine wrath on sin, I have mercy on, show favor to... I forgive, pardon. This word is found in two places:
Lk. 18:13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, `God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
He. 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.Propitiation is a purposeful act to have mercy on a party that deserves punishment. And as we mentioned in the previous section, there is no sense that a substitution or transfer occurred.
The other word is similar, hilastérion, the place of propitiation; the lid of the golden ark (the mercy-seat) where the blood of a vicarious lamb appeased God's wrath on sin.
This word also has two appearances:
Ro. 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.
He. 9:5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.This word describes an intervention into something in progress: ...the middle of an act. That is, propitiation causes the Father to be satisfied, and therefore he ceases in the middle of executing punishment for sin. Jesus stopped God's in-process action from being carried out, in that His blood was spilled on the cross.
Further, the blood is the actual place of forgiveness is clearly suggested here. That is, Jesus Himself is the mercy seat, the very place where sin is forgiven.
Our opinion, therefore, is that the term "atonement" insufficiently describes Jesus' sacrificial death. Atonement covers over sin, propitiation turns away judgment completely. Therefore, using the word "atonement" is incorrect, and it is inadequate to describe Jesus' sacrifice.
Our opinion, therefore, is that the term "atonement" insufficiently describes Jesus' sacrificial death. Atonement covers over sin, propitiation turns away judgment completely. Therefore, using the word "atonement" is incorrect, and it is inadequate to describe Jesus' sacrifice.
Conclusion
We must assert again that Jesus' ministry was to bear the weight of sin, carrying it outside the camp to be fixed to the cross. He never had a part in sin, so the Father never punished him or poured out His wrath on Him. Jesus did exactly what the Father wanted.
The Father knew that men would torture the Messiah, He knew they would crush Him and beat Him. It pleased the Father that Jesus was completely obedient through this torture, and approved of Him.
The Father knew that men would torture the Messiah, He knew they would crush Him and beat Him. It pleased the Father that Jesus was completely obedient through this torture, and approved of Him.
Jn. 8:29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.When we divorce ourselves of preconceptions, another story emerges. It's not a story of a legal process of punishment, it's a story of sacrifice and perfect obedience.
Jn. 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.
Lk. 3:22 You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.We believe PSA is a wholly inaccurate description of Jesus’ work on the cross. The Father did not punish Jesus, Jesus did not substitute Himself legally, and His work was greater than atonement. This is to the Glory of God that in His great mercy He supplies a perfect, sufficient, sacrifice.
No comments:
Post a Comment