AND NOW: " Substitutionary Atonement "
Substitution = e.g. "hyper" / ...Jesus died FOR you...in your place
“For” rarely means “instead of” in scripture and I would say: “for” never means “instead of”.
There are many “theories” to atonement and each one has books written supporting their alternative and putting the other alternatives down. You have chosen “Penal Substitution” (PS) as your alternative explanation and give a few of the atonement scriptures with a single explanation to support your conclusion, this is like all these other alternative explanations do, but there are lots of other atonement scripture you do not address and the one explanation you give to the scripture are not the most likely alternative interpretation given these other atonement scriptures.
I will take the time to go through your verses and give alternatives, but the real issue with (PS) is found in what it does not address with other scripture (the scripture that does not support (PS)).
2 Corinthians 5:21,
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin "on our behalf",
that we might become the righteousness of God IN Him." (Imputed Righteousness!)
That does not say: “We have taken on Christ’s righteousness”, but does say Christ’s suffering sacrifice because of our sins, allows us (we might) become righteous (this is like those in the OT were righteous because of their faith and not because of Christ’s righteousness).
Where your translation says: “to be sin” other Bible translations provide you with this alternative “to be a sin offering”. The Greek word translated “sin” carries the mean of something about sin, since we do not know from the context in this verse what this means we cannot be sure, but we do know in the Greek OT, it is translated “sin offering” some times in the English.
If it is not “sin offering” then did Jesus become the intangible “sin” or become “sinful” or sinner or what? It certainly does not say: “Jesus took the place of the sinful person”.
Romans 6:10
For the death that He died, He died to sin once FOR all;
but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
This is talking about Christ’s death and not what happened before He said “it is finished”. Sin is the reason we all physically die, but Christ brings life (eternal life starting with your new birth) through His death, burial and resurrection.
The following verse helps explain verse 10, Ro. 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
So are we to die to sin like Christ died to sin?
1 Peter 3:18 -
"For Christ also died FOR sins once FOR all,
the righteous (Jesus) FOR the unrighteous (Man),
that he might bring us to God" (reconciliation)
This passage shows it is us who need the crucifixion so we can be brought (reconciled) with God and not God needing anything.
Again Christ is our sin sacrifice (because we have sinned just like a lamb in the OT could be a sin sacrifice), but this is not saying Christ took our place just like the lamb, doves, or bag of flour was not replacing the sinner in the OT. There is nothing to suggest in the OT and in ancient Jewish commentaries where the Jews ever felt the sacrifice was replacing them (could a bag of flour replace anyone).
This is a good verse to consider on this subject: Heb. 9: 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God,
purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Here it shows what Christ sacrifice does and it is not “helping to solve a problem God is having”, but it is to
purify our conscience. We need to be changed internally and it is not God needing to change.
1 Peter 2 (NASB)
21 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,
22 (Jesus
who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth;
23 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;
24 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.
25 For you were continually straying like sheep,
but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
First look at 1 Peter 2: 21, it is not Christ taking our place, but us following in His place on the cross. We like Paul said are to be crucified
with Christ and not Christ taking our place.
1 Peter 2:24, which states that Christ "himself bore [or "carried up"] our sins in his body on the tree" (NIV). This verse appears in a passage which quotes from Isaiah 53, virtually the only Scriptural passage which may clearly support Substitution. Yet Matthew did not interpret Isaiah in that way.
According to Matthew, "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases" (Isa. 53:4, NIV) meant not that infirmities were vicariously imputed to Christ at his crucifixion, but rather that Christ healed the sick, thus "carrying" or "bearing" their diseases away from them (Matt. 8:16,17).
Similarly, it is possible that Jesus "bore" or "carried away" our sins from us not by becoming our substitute, but by becoming our sin offering.
Atonement = basic meaning of RECONCILIATION....work of redemption on behalf of ...
"Atonement" = at-ONE-ment = spiritual reconciliation and other benefits of salvation...
...some spiritual act that "pays for" / redeems Man from his sin nature / sin / sin(s)
...the penalty due to Man's sins are avoided
...action decreed by God for the re-establishment of a positive relationship
between Man (the sinner) and Himself (the holy God).
The OT is replete with a myriad of ritual laws to cover the sins of Israel.
The word Atonement is used only ONCE in the KJV of the NT.
Romans 5:11 KJV
And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom we have now received the atonement.
the atonement. ...Greek 2643....katallage....adjustment of a difference, RECONCILIATION, restoration to favour
Other translations use reconciliation instead of atonement.
To really “define” atonement we need to go back to the Old Testament and see how the Jews would have understood atonement really starting with Lev. 5. The first century Jew would have had personal experience with going through the atonement process for unintentional sins (these are minor sins) since sin sacrifices were daily being made at the temple. This was just a poor shadow of the atonement sacrifice Christ provided, but the Jews of the first century could have applied his personal experience to what might be needed and experienced to atone for all sins at the same time (rebellious disobedience).
God is not the one we need to bring close to man. But man is the one who needs to feel and be comfortable in God’s presence (allowing God to live within him) reconciliation.
Romans 5: 6-11 (NASB)
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died FOR the ungodly.
For one will hardly die for a righteous man;
though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died FOR us.Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved (sanctified) by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
All that is being done is “for” the ungodly, so even though the sacrifice itself goes to God it is not done “for” God sake, but for the sake of the ungodly. Now, everything Christ did was in obedience to God’s desire (will), but it was being done to help God’s children and potential children. This “gift” of Christ being tortured, humiliation and murdered is to go to the ungodly or would God like the blood outside of Christ’s veins?
Leviticus 16:34
Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, (Mosaic Law)
to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.”
And just as the Lord had commanded Moses, so he did.
Hebrews 7:27
who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices,
first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people,
because this He did once FOR all when He offered up Himself.
Hebrews 9:12
and not through the blood of goats and calves, but THROUGH His own blood,
He entered the holy place once FOR all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 10:10
By this will we have been sanctified
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once FOR all.
When you say: “Once for all” you are usually referring to the fact it is done one time and are not using “all” to refer to all people, but all times, but it really does not matter.
Like I said it is not the verses you and others chose to support (PS) or any other theory of atonement, but it is how you get around the verses which contradict the theory that matters.
(PS) has the following issues and in my judgment, Satisfaction/Penal Substitution runs contrary to Scripture at many points:
•Penal Substitution goes against
all the scriptures on justice and fairness which shows it would be unjust and unfair to torture, humiliate and murder the innocent to allow the guilty to go free, even if the innocent was willing. Jesus did not show this to be “just” and God/Christ is our example.
•Penal Substitution declares that "God must visit sin with punishment";6 the Scriptures declare that God "does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities" (Psa. 103:10, NIV).
•Penal Substitution declares that in the Atonement, God is reconciled to humankind;7 the Scriptures declare rather that humankind is reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18,19; Col. 1:20).
•Penal Substitution declares that Christ dies instead of the sinner; the Scriptures declare that sinners must die with Christ (Rom. 6:1-14).
- PS would suggest universal salvation since atonement was completed for everyone. It just does not explain why some are atoned for and others are not atoned for.
- PS has God having the problem with forgiving people and needing blood (being blood thirsty).
- PS has God actual seeing to the crucifixion of the innocent (God’s hands are bloody).
There is another dimension to the Atonement that is neglected in the Penal Substitution theory. That is the element of participation: We participate in the sacrifice of Jesus' death (cf. Heb. 13:11-16).
Substitution implies an "either/or"; participation implies a "both/and." Substitution would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I don't have to"; participation would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I must also." Which is more Scriptural? Consider Romans 6:1-14.
This is not to say that Satisfaction/Penal Substitution has no positive features. Indeed, it emphasizes the cross and the uniqueness of Christ's death. However, I fear it "proves too much" by negating God's forgiveness and excluding other aspects of the Atonement. Other theories of the Atonement have been articulated to take these other elements more seriously, but they too have problems.
(PS) avoids addressing the fact Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder is described as a ransom payment (not even like a ransom payment, but is an actual ransom payment):
Matthew 20:28 even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:45 For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
1 Peter 1:18 You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,
Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
Revelation 5:9 and they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
I am not talking about the “Ransom theory of Atonement” since that has God paying satan which God does not need to do and would be wrong for him to do, so who is the undeserving kidnapper of God’s child?