Does scripture give any indication as to why Christ's physical execution on the cross was seen as a satisfactory substitution for an eternity in hell for all humanity? Even from the sinless and perfect Christ, physical death doesn't seem, to me at least, match up with the severity of eternal damnation.
Huge topic with books written on the popular alternatives but all the popular alternatives have huge issues and scholars do not address the scripture which makes their pet alternative unexplainable.
1. You do good to realize someone is standing in for you at the cross, but is it one of those who yelled “Crucify Him”, maybe one of the thieves, a Roman soldier, a Pharisee, or one of the disciples who ran away, but how bold to you have to be to say: “Christ was taking my place?” Are you so committed as to say: “I would stay on the cross when you could leave”?
2. Is it not interesting that the very best: “Christ Crucified Sermon” we have given by Peter on Pentecost does not have Peter saying: “Christ took your place?” Did the Jews of the Old Testament feel the sacrifice they were offering for their sins was taking their place (like a bag of flour in Lev.5)?
3. A lot of support for substitution is based on the interpretation of one Greek word of “for” having to mean “instead of”, but of the 1000 plus times “for” is used in scripture when other than possibly talking about Christ’s crucifixion does it ever need to be translated “instead of”? Now this is not “proof” that it could not mean “instead of” since small word can change meaning over time, but it would be good to look at the frequent translations of for as an alternative.
Tell me this after rereading the Prodigal Son story (Luke 15: 11-32) if the young son was not chained to the pigsty or under armed guard why did he stay there as long as he did and who kept him from leaving sooner?
Did that rebellious disobedient arrogant young man who virtually told his father “I wish you were dead so I can have my inheritance return to the father or did a humble, repentant, sincere child of the father go to the father? Was he a different person?
If the rebellious disobedient young man was holding the repentant child of the father back from the father than he is a criminal and really a kidnapper of the father’s child.
Jesus (plus Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer) describes Christ’s sacrifice as a
literal (not just like) ransom pay, but could that payment be “for” the kidnapper to accept or reject? You have one payment and many kidnappers and many children being held. Jesus is both the payer of the ransom payment and the ransom payment, so could you be both the kidnapper and the child living as one person?
Answer me these and we can go from there.