When Jesus took our sins on the cross, did he become a sinner?

Vicky gould said:

Hi, yes when the Lord went to the cross was made sin by the Father 2 co. 5: 21, hope that’s right, this is why the Lord had to come as a man. The sin could not go on the on God. The only one who could become sin was the only one who could and did pay the price we could not. L

Click to expand...

WOW, there is a lot to be addressed with the interpretation of this verse:

What does Christ becoming “sin” mean to you? Did Christ become a sinner? Did Christ become an intangible object of “sin”?

If you go to the NIV there is an alternative translation for at the bottom where “sin offering” is given as an alternative to “being made sin” and we all know Christ was a “sin offering”, so what support is there for that translation?

Paul being a scholar of the Torah, used a Hebraism. In this case, the Hebrew word for "sin" was also used to mean "sin offering" (see the Hebrew word: chatta'ath), and thus to be "made sin" was a Hebrew way of saying "made a sin offering". the NASB cross-references to Romans 8:3 which uses "sin offering" in a similar text as 2 Corinthians 5:21

There is the analogy in 2 Corinthians 8:9; the cross-reference to the clearer statement in Romans 8:3 that Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to deal with sin; and the allusion to Sacrifice in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where it says Christ "knew no sin" in corresponding to the sacrificial animal being free of blemish (otherwise Paul saying "knew no sin" would be irrelevant here).

The Greek word for "sin" that Paul uses is used in the Greek Old Testament both to mean "sin" and "sin offering," with both usages even in the same verse such as in Leviticus 4:3.

You can certainly do a deeper study of 2 Cor 5: 21 and we can go into Ro.3-4.

twin.spin said:

When Jesus took our sins on the cross, did he become a sinner?
A: Yes
2 Corinthians 5:21
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Click to expand...

WOW, there is a lot to be addressed with the interpretation of this verse:

What does Christ becoming “sin” mean to you? Did Christ become a sinner? Did Christ become an intangible object of “sin”?

If you go to the NIV there is an alternative translation for at the bottom where “sin offering” is given as an alternative to “being made sin” and we all know Christ was a “sin offering”, so what support is there for that translation?

Paul being a scholar of the Torah, used a Hebraism. In this case, the Hebrew word for "sin" was also used to mean "sin offering" (see the Hebrew word: chatta'ath), and thus to be "made sin" was a Hebrew way of saying "made a sin offering". the NASB cross-references to Romans 8:3 which uses "sin offering" in a similar text as 2 Corinthians 5:21

There is the analogy in 2 Corinthians 8:9; the cross-reference to the clearer statement in Romans 8:3 that Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to deal with sin; and the allusion to Sacrifice in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where it says Christ "knew no sin" in corresponding to the sacrificial animal being free of blemish (otherwise Paul saying "knew no sin" would be irrelevant here).

The Greek word for "sin" that Paul uses is used in the Greek Old Testament both to mean "sin" and "sin offering," with both usages even in the same verse such as in Leviticus 4:3.

You can certainly do a deeper study of 2 Cor 5: 21 and we can go into Ro.3-4.

PrettyboyAndy said:

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

“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” (1 Peter 2:24).

In these two verses, it says he bore our sins, and he had no sins but he have sin for us?

The issue I have with propitiation and substitutionary atonement is we are the sinner, for Christ to pay for our sins he must bear them or our sin must be transferred to him in order for him to pay them for us. So what happens to the Holiness of Christ in that exchange/transfer?

Click to expand...

What does Christ becoming “sin” mean to you? Did Christ become a sinner? Did Christ become an intangible object of “sin”?



If you go to the NIV there is an alternative translation for at the bottom where “sin offering” is given as an alternative to “being made sin” and we all know Christ was a “sin offering”, so what support is there for that translation?



Paul being a scholar of the Torah, used a Hebraism. In this case, the Hebrew word for "sin" was also used to mean "sin offering" (see the Hebrew word: chatta'ath), and thus to be "made sin" was a Hebrew way of saying "made a sin offering". the NASB cross-references to Romans 8:3 which uses "sin offering" in a similar text as 2 Corinthians 5:21



There is the analogy in 2 Corinthians 8:9; the cross-reference to the clearer statement in Romans 8:3 that Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to deal with sin; and the allusion to Sacrifice in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where it says Christ "knew no sin" in corresponding to the sacrificial animal being free of blemish (otherwise Paul saying "knew no sin" would be irrelevant here).



The Greek word for "sin" that Paul uses is used in the Greek Old Testament both to mean "sin" and "sin offering," with both usages even in the same verse such as in Leviticus 4:3.



You can certainly do a deeper study of 2 Cor 5: 21 and we can go into Ro.3-4.

“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” (1 Peter 2:24).

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.

PrettyboyAndy said:

Jesus is perfect and Holy, without sin, but the wrath of God was taken out on Jesus when He died and paid for our sins, so when our sins went to Jesus, was Jesus a sinner at that time? How can one explain this

Click to expand...

This has to do with atonement which is a huge topic.

If Jesus paid for our sins 100%, what is there for God to forgive? It is not just to forgive a debt and also have to pay the debt.

There are two things a Loving parent needs to do with a rebellious disobedient child and that is Lovingly forgive them and lovingly discipline them if at all possible.

Where in scripture (other than the way you are interpreting Christ atonement sacrifice) is “for” translated “in place of”?

The Penal Substitution theory is read into the frequent Scriptural statements that Christ died "for" us. Many Christians read the words "for us" and mentally add "as our substitute" or “instead of”. Though that is one of the possible meanings of the preposition "for," however, we must remember that the preposition can be used in more than one way and “instead of” = for never has to be translated that way.



So it is with the Greek prepositions. There are many Greek words in this context which we translate with the English word "for." They include peri (which means "about" or "concerning"), dia ("because of" or "on account of"), and by far the most common, huper ("for," "on behalf of," or "for the sake of").



None of these prepositions necessarily invokes the meaning "in the place of." Hence the exact relationship between Christ's death and our salvation is not so clearly conveyed in any of these verses. That Jesus died "on account of" us and our sins is clear, but the Greek words translated "for" do not of themselves spell out a doctrine of Atonement.



Prepositions in any language tend to be fluid. Like the English word "for," the Greek words translated "for" can bear more than one meaning and could have changed over time. Hence they could imply substitution. My point is that the prepositions neither make nor break the case for Satisfaction/Penal Substitution. Would you agree it is unwise to build any doctrine solely on the meaning of a preposition?



That having been said, there is a fourth preposition translated "for" in these verses which does usually imply substitution. That word is anti and it normally means "in place of," though it can take on the meaning of huper also. The term is used solely in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, verses. There Jesus' death is described as being an actual ransom payment (and not like a ransom payment), so a word normally implying (in exchange) would be natural. However, it is telling that every other verse teaching that Jesus died "for" us leans toward more ambiguous terms.

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 waste 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.



If God is Love, how could God have a problem forgiving people? The reason given for “penal substitution” is God cannot forgive us without Jesus being our substitute, but that makes God out to having a problem, lacking in Love someway, and being almost blood thirsty.

What is the relationship between “forgiveness” and punishment of the individual for a transgression? (most theories of atonement like to talk about “sin” needing punishment yet sin cannot be “punished”, only people can be punished.)

Would the perfect parent (the one you would like to be and be like God) see to the punishment or discipline of his/her children in order to have the Love to forgive those children?

The best parent does not “punish” (discipline) their children in order for the parent to have the love to forgive, they punish (discipline with time out or something) their children for the benefit that discipline provides?

God does not have a “problem” forgiving us, but we need to be disciplined somehow in order to obtain the benefits from being disciplined. So God somehow need to see to our discipline for our transgressions without killing us and yet be fair, just and show us His concern/Love.

What are the “benefits” to being fairly (disciplined) for our transgressions?

Answers:

Deterrent for the person being disciplined and others aware of the discipline which keeps them from repeating the action.

It places the value on the transgression (the greater severity to the disciplining the greater the transgression), sometimes we do not know how much pain it has caused until we know the how we will be disciplined for the transgression.

It shows fairness and justice, the parent/judge needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent/judge.

It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime.

It also should strength and improves the relationship between the parent and the child it is a teaching moment.

We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love if at all possible, so if our parents do not discipline us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.



Just as the father wanted his sons to be like himself in the prodigal son story, God wants us to choose to humbly accept His Love and become like He is. The only initial way for humans to obtain Godly type Love is as a free gift automatically “...He that is forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt will automatically have an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love)”. That Love can later grow with use, but cannot be developed independently or instinctively possessed by the individual. Thus the need for sin and likely alternatives on earth (the perceived pleasures of sin).





In one since there is “limited” atonement since not everyone’s’ sins are atoned for and in another since the atonement sacrifice was made for every sinner so the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for all.

The way to reconcile these two truths is in the understanding (definition) of “atonement”.

The Jews, especially the men, Jesus and lots of the New Testament was directly addressing, had direct individual experience with atonement through going through the atonement process for unintentional (minor) sins. God provided that wonderful education which we can only read about in Lev. 5 and try to imagine the experience for ourselves. We would also realize if we have to go through all this for “minor” (unintentional sins) than rebellious disobedience sins would require something unbelievably greater.

First off: the atonement sacrifice itself (Christ going to the cross) does not complete the atonement process since there is a part the sinner plays (again this would be understood best by those Jews who had experienced the atonement process for unintentional sins). Jesus and God have both done their part in the atonement process, but the individual sinner has to complete their part or atonement is not completed and if atonement is not completed the forgiveness is not assured. (God’s forgiveness for minor (unintentional sins) came after the correct completion of the atonement process (Lev. 5)).

Secondly: The part the sinner plays are nothing: worthy of anything, righteous, deserving of anything, or honorable. It is more like criminal, horrible and disgraceful, but necessary.

Christ Crucified is described by Paul, Peter, Jesus, John and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment (it is not even said to be like a ransom payment, but it was a ransom payment).

I find the ransom description more than just an analogy and an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”

(The “Ransom Theory of Atonement” has God paying satan the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ but: Does God owe Satan anything? Is there some cosmic “law” saying you have to pay the kidnapper? Would it not be wrong for God to pay satan, if God could just as easily and safely take back His children without paying satan?)



Would a ransom as those in the first century might understand it (it was well known Caesura at 21 had been kidnapped and a ransom paid for him) included the following elements:



1. Someone other than the captive paying the ransom.

2. The payment is a huge sacrificial payment for the payer, who would personally prefer not to pay.

3. Since those that come to God must come as children, it is the children of God that go to the Father.

4. The payer cannot safely or for some other reason get his children any other way than making the payment.

5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.

6. The kidnapper can accept or reject the payment.

We can agree on most of the parts with the atonement process being just like a ransom experience: The children of God be held out of the kingdom; Deity making the huge sacrificial payment; Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder on the cross being the payment; and the freedom given the child to enter the kingdom after the ransom is paid. But who is this unworthy kidnapper God will pay to release His child.

We can only come to our Father as children, so who is keeping the nonbeliever in the unbelieving state (who is this kidnapper)?



There is the one ransom, but could there be many unworthy kidnappers holding the children of God back?

Does not the nonbeliever himself hold the potential child of God (within them) back from the kingdom?

If the kidnapper does accept the payment has he/she done something worthy or virtually criminal?

You do have a substitute at the cross, standing in for you, but is it those that cried crucify him, the religious leaders, the Roman soldiers, one of the thieves, or maybe one of the disciples who ran away. To say: “Christ took my place” is extremely bold on your part, although you can be crucified “with” Christ like a deserving thief and join Christ in paradise.

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 do 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”?



Look at a real “Christ crucified” sermon of Peter Acts 2 and he says nothing about Christ taking our place on the cross.

That is just an introduction to think about.

PrettyboyAndy said:

Jesus is perfect and Holy, without sin, but the wrath of God was taken out on Jesus when He died and paid for our sins, so when our sins went to Jesus, was Jesus a sinner at that time? How can one explain this

Click to expand...

No, Jesus did not become a sinner on the cross.

-CryptoLutheran

redleghunter said:

Romans 5: NASB

6For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10For 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 by His life. 11And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

Click to expand...

Note that "of God" here is in italics, that's because it's not found in the Greek but is added in translation. The phrase "wrath of God" is not found in the Greek text.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Note that "of God" here is in italics, that's because it's not found in the Greek but is added in translation. The phrase "wrath of God" is not found in the Greek text.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

So it’s a “general wrath” not attributed to God in any way?

bling said:

This has to do with atonement which is a huge topic.

If Jesus paid for our sins 100%, what is there for God to forgive? It is not just to forgive a debt and also have to pay the debt.

There are two things a Loving parent needs to do with a rebellious disobedient child and that is Lovingly forgive them and lovingly discipline them if at all possible.

Where in scripture (other than the way you are interpreting Christ atonement sacrifice) is “for” translated “in place of”?

The Penal Substitution theory is read into the frequent Scriptural statements that Christ died "for" us. Many Christians read the words "for us" and mentally add "as our substitute" or “instead of”. Though that is one of the possible meanings of the preposition "for," however, we must remember that the preposition can be used in more than one way and “instead of” = for never has to be translated that way.



So it is with the Greek prepositions. There are many Greek words in this context which we translate with the English word "for." They include peri (which means "about" or "concerning"), dia ("because of" or "on account of"), and by far the most common, huper ("for," "on behalf of," or "for the sake of").



None of these prepositions necessarily invokes the meaning "in the place of." Hence the exact relationship between Christ's death and our salvation is not so clearly conveyed in any of these verses. That Jesus died "on account of" us and our sins is clear, but the Greek words translated "for" do not of themselves spell out a doctrine of Atonement.



Prepositions in any language tend to be fluid. Like the English word "for," the Greek words translated "for" can bear more than one meaning and could have changed over time. Hence they could imply substitution. My point is that the prepositions neither make nor break the case for Satisfaction/Penal Substitution. Would you agree it is unwise to build any doctrine solely on the meaning of a preposition?



That having been said, there is a fourth preposition translated "for" in these verses which does usually imply substitution. That word is anti and it normally means "in place of," though it can take on the meaning of huper also. The term is used solely in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, verses. There Jesus' death is described as being an actual ransom payment (and not like a ransom payment), so a word normally implying (in exchange) would be natural. However, it is telling that every other verse teaching that Jesus died "for" us leans toward more ambiguous terms.

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 waste 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.



If God is Love, how could God have a problem forgiving people? The reason given for “penal substitution” is God cannot forgive us without Jesus being our substitute, but that makes God out to having a problem, lacking in Love someway, and being almost blood thirsty.

What is the relationship between “forgiveness” and punishment of the individual for a transgression? (most theories of atonement like to talk about “sin” needing punishment yet sin cannot be “punished”, only people can be punished.)

Would the perfect parent (the one you would like to be and be like God) see to the punishment or discipline of his/her children in order to have the Love to forgive those children?

The best parent does not “punish” (discipline) their children in order for the parent to have the love to forgive, they punish (discipline with time out or something) their children for the benefit that discipline provides?

God does not have a “problem” forgiving us, but we need to be disciplined somehow in order to obtain the benefits from being disciplined. So God somehow need to see to our discipline for our transgressions without killing us and yet be fair, just and show us His concern/Love.

What are the “benefits” to being fairly (disciplined) for our transgressions?

Answers:

Deterrent for the person being disciplined and others aware of the discipline which keeps them from repeating the action.

It places the value on the transgression (the greater severity to the disciplining the greater the transgression), sometimes we do not know how much pain it has caused until we know the how we will be disciplined for the transgression.

It shows fairness and justice, the parent/judge needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent/judge.

It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime.

It also should strength and improves the relationship between the parent and the child it is a teaching moment.

We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love if at all possible, so if our parents do not discipline us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.



Just as the father wanted his sons to be like himself in the prodigal son story, God wants us to choose to humbly accept His Love and become like He is. The only initial way for humans to obtain Godly type Love is as a free gift automatically “...He that is forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt will automatically have an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love)”. That Love can later grow with use, but cannot be developed independently or instinctively possessed by the individual. Thus the need for sin and likely alternatives on earth (the perceived pleasures of sin).





In one since there is “limited” atonement since not everyone’s’ sins are atoned for and in another since the atonement sacrifice was made for every sinner so the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for all.

The way to reconcile these two truths is in the understanding (definition) of “atonement”.

The Jews, especially the men, Jesus and lots of the New Testament was directly addressing, had direct individual experience with atonement through going through the atonement process for unintentional (minor) sins. God provided that wonderful education which we can only read about in Lev. 5 and try to imagine the experience for ourselves. We would also realize if we have to go through all this for “minor” (unintentional sins) than rebellious disobedience sins would require something unbelievably greater.

First off: the atonement sacrifice itself (Christ going to the cross) does not complete the atonement process since there is a part the sinner plays (again this would be understood best by those Jews who had experienced the atonement process for unintentional sins). Jesus and God have both done their part in the atonement process, but the individual sinner has to complete their part or atonement is not completed and if atonement is not completed the forgiveness is not assured. (God’s forgiveness for minor (unintentional sins) came after the correct completion of the atonement process (Lev. 5)).

Secondly: The part the sinner plays are nothing: worthy of anything, righteous, deserving of anything, or honorable. It is more like criminal, horrible and disgraceful, but necessary.

Christ Crucified is described by Paul, Peter, Jesus, John and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment (it is not even said to be like a ransom payment, but it was a ransom payment).

I find the ransom description more than just an analogy and an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”

(The “Ransom Theory of Atonement” has God paying satan the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ but: Does God owe Satan anything? Is there some cosmic “law” saying you have to pay the kidnapper? Would it not be wrong for God to pay satan, if God could just as easily and safely take back His children without paying satan?)



Would a ransom as those in the first century might understand it (it was well known Caesura at 21 had been kidnapped and a ransom paid for him) included the following elements:



1. Someone other than the captive paying the ransom.

2. The payment is a huge sacrificial payment for the payer, who would personally prefer not to pay.

3. Since those that come to God must come as children, it is the children of God that go to the Father.

4. The payer cannot safely or for some other reason get his children any other way than making the payment.

5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.

6. The kidnapper can accept or reject the payment.

We can agree on most of the parts with the atonement process being just like a ransom experience: The children of God be held out of the kingdom; Deity making the huge sacrificial payment; Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder on the cross being the payment; and the freedom given the child to enter the kingdom after the ransom is paid. But who is this unworthy kidnapper God will pay to release His child.

We can only come to our Father as children, so who is keeping the nonbeliever in the unbelieving state (who is this kidnapper)?



There is the one ransom, but could there be many unworthy kidnappers holding the children of God back?

Does not the nonbeliever himself hold the potential child of God (within them) back from the kingdom?

If the kidnapper does accept the payment has he/she done something worthy or virtually criminal?

You do have a substitute at the cross, standing in for you, but is it those that cried crucify him, the religious leaders, the Roman soldiers, one of the thieves, or maybe one of the disciples who ran away. To say: “Christ took my place” is extremely bold on your part, although you can be crucified “with” Christ like a deserving thief and join Christ in paradise.

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 do 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”?



Look at a real “Christ crucified” sermon of Peter Acts 2 and he says nothing about Christ taking our place on the cross.

That is just an introduction to think about.

Click to expand...

Your first error is your false conclusion that the doctrine of penal substitution is based on the word "for". It isn't. It is founded by many things in the Scriptures such as the sacrifices from right after the Fall when God killed an animal and clothed our first parents onward. It is derived from the many ways our Lord is typified and pictured throughout the Scriptures. It comes from the several ways He is spoken of, such as: Surety, propitiation, Lamb of God and so on. Also penal substitution is derived from many other things to numerous to list that are found in the Scriptures. Penal substitution fits clearly with the whole of Scriptures not just a few verses.

Your second error is your presupposition that God loves all men. It just can't be found in the Scriptures. He, as it is continually declared in the Scriptures, loves His people.

And last a comment. It is normally understood that those who don't really know what they are talking about use a lot of words to try to explain it. Truth isn't an intellectual exercise but a simple grasp of what is.

Sorry, double post.

redleghunter said:

So it’s a “general wrath” not attributed to God in any way?

Click to expand...

The world of man with it's survival of the fittest mentality, gain at the expense of others, creates wrath. Wrath is a product of our traditional ways. That wrath even killed Jesus for teaching a counter-culture as God knew it would.

redleghunter said:

So it’s a “general wrath” not attributed to God in any way?

Click to expand...

I think St. John Chrysostom's commentary is interesting in this regard,

"And what he has said looks indeed like tautology, but it is not to any one who accurately attends to it. Consider then. He wishes to give them reasons for confidence respecting things to come. And first he gives them a sense of shame from the righteous man's decision, when he says, that he also "was fully persuaded that what God had promised He was able also to perform;" and next from the grace that was given; then from the tribulation, as sufficing to lead us into hopes; and again from the Spirit, whom we have received. Next from death, and from our former viciousness, he makes this good. And it seems indeed, as I said, that what he had mentioned was one thing, but it is discovered to be two, three, and even many more. First, that "He died:" second, that it was "for the ungodly;" third, that He "reconciled, saved, justified" us, made us immortal, made us sons and heirs. It is not from His Death then only, he says, that we draw strong assertions, but from the gift which was given unto us through His Death. And indeed if He had died only for such creatures as we be, a proof of the greatest love would what He had done be! But when He is seen at once dying, and yielding us a gift, and that such a gift, and to such creatures, what was done casts into shade our highest conceptions, and leads the very dullest on to faith. For there is no one else that will save us, except He Who so loved us when we were sinners, as even to give Himself up for us. Do you see what a ground this topic affords for hope? For before this there were two difficulties in the way of our being saved; our being sinners, and our salvation requiring the Lord's Death, a thing which was quite incredible before it took place, and required exceeding love for it to take place. But now since this has come about, the other requisites are easier. For we have become friends, and there is no further need of Death. Shall then He who has so spared his enemies as not to spare His Son, fail to defend them now they have become friends, when He has no longer any need to give up his Son? For it is either because a person does not wish it, or because though he may wish it perhaps, yet he is unable to do it, that he does not save. Now none of these things can be said of God. For that He is willing is plain from His having given up His Son. But that He is able also is the very thing He proved likewise, from the very fact of His having justified men who were sinners. What is there then to prevent us any more from obtaining the things to come? Nothing! Then again, lest upon hearing of sinners, and enemies, and strengthless ones, and ungodly, you should be inclined to feel abashed and blush; hear what he says." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 9 on Romans

In brief, Chrysostom here understands wrath as part of several things here, namely that we were sinners, our ungodliness, our viciousness, our enmity toward God (etc). Such that "wrath" here, as understood by the ancient preacher, is our wrath. We were God's enemies, we were hostile toward God, we opposed God, in our sin and ungodliness--and it is precisely in this condition that God found us, and so loved us, and demonstrated His great love for us in that, here, when we were all these terrible things, Christ died for us. And having rescued us, we have been rescued from these things, and reconciled to God.

It is not from God that we have been saved, but from the place of hostility and estrangement from Him, in which we dwelt as sinners; having therefore been redeemed, rescued, saved we have been brought from that place of estrangement and hostility toward peace, communion, and friendship.

-CryptoLutheran

twin1954 said:

Your first error is your false conclusion that the doctrine of penal substitution is based on the word "for". It isn't. It is founded by many things in the Scriptures such as the sacrifices from right after the Fall when God killed an animal and clothed our first parents onward. It is derived from the many ways our Lord is typified and pictured throughout the Scriptures. It comes from the several ways He is spoken of, such as: Surety, propitiation, Lamb of God and so on. Also penal substitution is derived from many other things to numerous to list that are found in the Scriptures. Penal substitution fits clearly with the whole of Scriptures not just a few verses.

Your second error is your presupposition that God loves all men. It just can't be found in the Scriptures. He, as it is continually declared in the Scriptures, loves His people.

And last a comment. It is normally understood that those who don't really know what they are talking about use a lot of words to try to explain it. Truth isn't an intellectual exercise but a simple grasp of what is.

Click to expand...

I’m glad you realize Christ going to the cross “for” us does not support Penal Substitution.

I have been through the apparent support and the huge amount of problems with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Here is a list I have worked up:

Penal Substitution (PS) Issues:

1. Unjust and unfair

2. Has God seeing to the torture humiliation and murder of Christ (punishes Christ).

3. Makes God out to be blood thirsty

4. There is no logical part for man to play

5. It is not participative but passive “Christ was crucified so I do not have to be” v.s. “Christ was crucified so I must be crucified”.

6. If Christ is paying it all than there is nothing to forgive.

7. All the benefits from being lovingly fairly justly disciplined are not there with PS.

8. PS mean’s universal atonement was completed for everyone (all were atoned for so all should be saved).

9. Peter does not mention it in his wonderful Christ Crucified sermon on Pentecost, nor any time before the stoning of Steve and afterwards it is questionable.

10. The sin sacrifices of the OT seem not to be substituted like a bag of flour being a human substitute.

11. There are others at the cross which can be seen as a much better substitute for us.

12. The idea is we are crucified “with” Christ and not instead of.

13. The Greek words translate “for” do not support the interpretation of ‘instead of”.

14. It does not explain how atonement is a ransom scenario.

15. The emphasis is on a problem God is having and not man’s problem being solved.

16. It does not fit lots of scripture especially Ro. 3:25

17. PS emphasizes God’s wrath as the problem and not man’s need for discipline.



Can you provide scripture to show Christ not Loving someone?

God can both Love and hate someone just like we are to both Love and hate our family.

God is not wanting any to perish, but to help some children still willing to accept His help, He will cause or allow some who have refused His help and will never accept His help to be hurt, killed and go to hell.

I am sorry I use lots of words, but books have been written on every major theory of atonement, so it really takes lots of words to explain.

Simply (like we find in Lev. 5 with the atonement process being a penalty for the sinner), Christ going to the cross is the only way for us to be fairly, Lovingly disciplined by allowing ourselves to be crucified with Christ.

ViaCrucis said:

I think St. John Chrysostom's commentary is interesting in this regard,

"And what he has said looks indeed like tautology, but it is not to any one who accurately attends to it. Consider then. He wishes to give them reasons for confidence respecting things to come. And first he gives them a sense of shame from the righteous man's decision, when he says, that he also "was fully persuaded that what God had promised He was able also to perform;" and next from the grace that was given; then from the tribulation, as sufficing to lead us into hopes; and again from the Spirit, whom we have received. Next from death, and from our former viciousness, he makes this good. And it seems indeed, as I said, that what he had mentioned was one thing, but it is discovered to be two, three, and even many more. First, that "He died:" second, that it was "for the ungodly;" third, that He "reconciled, saved, justified" us, made us immortal, made us sons and heirs. It is not from His Death then only, he says, that we draw strong assertions, but from the gift which was given unto us through His Death. And indeed if He had died only for such creatures as we be, a proof of the greatest love would what He had done be! But when He is seen at once dying, and yielding us a gift, and that such a gift, and to such creatures, what was done casts into shade our highest conceptions, and leads the very dullest on to faith. For there is no one else that will save us, except He Who so loved us when we were sinners, as even to give Himself up for us. Do you see what a ground this topic affords for hope? For before this there were two difficulties in the way of our being saved; our being sinners, and our salvation requiring the Lord's Death, a thing which was quite incredible before it took place, and required exceeding love for it to take place. But now since this has come about, the other requisites are easier. For we have become friends, and there is no further need of Death. Shall then He who has so spared his enemies as not to spare His Son, fail to defend them now they have become friends, when He has no longer any need to give up his Son? For it is either because a person does not wish it, or because though he may wish it perhaps, yet he is unable to do it, that he does not save. Now none of these things can be said of God. For that He is willing is plain from His having given up His Son. But that He is able also is the very thing He proved likewise, from the very fact of His having justified men who were sinners. What is there then to prevent us any more from obtaining the things to come? Nothing! Then again, lest upon hearing of sinners, and enemies, and strengthless ones, and ungodly, you should be inclined to feel abashed and blush; hear what he says." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 9 on Romans

In brief, Chrysostom here understands wrath as part of several things here, namely that we were sinners, our ungodliness, our viciousness, our enmity toward God (etc). Such that "wrath" here, as understood by the ancient preacher, is our wrath. We were God's enemies, we were hostile toward God, we opposed God, in our sin and ungodliness--and it is precisely in this condition that God found us, and so loved us, and demonstrated His great love for us in that, here, when we were all these terrible things, Christ died for us. And having rescued us, we have been rescued from these things, and reconciled to God.

It is not from God that we have been saved, but from the place of hostility and estrangement from Him, in which we dwelt as sinners; having therefore been redeemed, rescued, saved we have been brought from that place of estrangement and hostility toward peace, communion, and friendship.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Thanks for this. I love his homilies.

It’s an interesting interpretation applying the wrath to mankind and our fallen state and being redeemed and restored. It’s logical and consistent in how he presents it.

I know of no other area of Scriptures where “wrath” is attributed to man. Will have to look that up.

I know when speaking with one of the translators for the 1995 NASB years ago, he stated the committee added “of God” based on Romans 1:18. Dr Gary also pointed to the following verse use of “enemies” in Romans 5:10 was an indicator.