As nonbelieving sinners, we all deserve to justly be tortured, humiliated, crucified and go to hell from God. The fact that Christ physically was tortured, humiliated, crucified and murdered and we physically are not, means at lease there is some kind of substitution.
BUT: Is Penal Substitution (PS) happening? Where God is seeing to Christ’s torture, humiliation, crucifixion and murder (punishment), instead of God punishing humans (or saved individuals).
No one seems to feel Christ became a “sinner” on the cross, yet there is no place in scripture where God punishes the innocent to allow the guilty to go free, but there is:
God does have wicked people or wicked nations punish the Israelites and there could be some innocent children among those Israelites killed. It is never suggested this punishment was intended for the innocent or any substitution took place, but is there?
We do have the killing of the innocent baby son of David and Bathsheba: Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.”
15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
David’s innocent son’s illness and death should have been David’s illness and death, so is this penal substitution or is it God’s just way of indirectly further punishing/disciplining David for his sins?
If we Love Christ more than David loved the son he caused to become ill, than should we be at least as sorrowful as David?
If I am just one of billions of sinners causing Christ’s time on the cross, then I might be responsible for a few nanoseconds of His time on the cross, but do I play a greater part?
Christ prayed repeatedly His most intense prayer in the Garden which we have only one verse asking: “if there was any other way…”, but what “other way” could there be? If I personally had fulfilled my earthly objective without sinning, Christ would not have had to go to the cross for me, but could I personally have provided “another way”? If I had done it without sinning there would be another way without having Christ go to the cross, so could God have looked down the corridor of time and seen me not needing Christ to go to the cross and stopped Christ going? This puts the whole blame for Christ crucifixion on me (I did not keep from sinning) and not just being responsible for a nanosecond of time on the cross.
We have the first Christian sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2) and similar sermons in Acts that are truly Christ Crucified Sermons, yet say nothing about Christ taking our place on the cross, but say lots about our putting Christ on the cross, so are we to experience a death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37) or have a sigh of relief because we avoid being disciplined/punished?
We can go on to read lots in the NT about us being crucified “with Christ”, so is that the painful experience we should have?
Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all describe Christ’s crucifixion as an actual ransom payment, so there is a payment involve, but to whom?
When we talk to nonbelievers, we are not trying to get them to believe some book, words, doctrine or philosophy, but we want them to accept through faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If that nonbeliever trust (has faith) in Christ and Him crucified a child is released and allowed to enter the kingdom where God the Father is, but if the nonbeliever refuses for lack of faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified, the child is not set free to go to the Father. That nonbeliever is a perfect example of a criminal kidnapper and fully undeserving of Jesus Christ and him Crucified, which is what Christ and others say is the ransom payment.
God is not a criminal undeserving kidnapper holding His own children and satan is not changeable or has the power to hold God’s child back from God, so the unbeliever is the only excellent fit for the kidnapper in the atonement process.
Paul in Ro. 3:25 giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, only a time factor, but Paul seems to say: (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished” (NIV), but that also would mean the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.
From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …
Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).
God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever is himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.
Paul goes on to explain:
Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished
I do not like the word “unpunished” but would use “undisciplined”.
So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.
God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I that need to have that blood outside of Christ flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.
Some might try to put the need for blood on God making Him blood thirsty, but Christ says: John 6: 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
It is not God needing that blood, but I am blood thirsty for eternal life and God/Christ have provided that blood. I personally need to physically feel Christ’s blood in the symbolic wine flow down my throat and over my heart to experience and know cleansing.
A lot is made of the word “for” being used in “Christ died for us” suggesting it must mean “instead of”, but any good word study of all the Greek words translated “for” would yield more likely interpretations of “for”. If the writers wanted to convey the idea of “instead of” they should have used the Greek word “anti” which can mean “instead of”. The Greek word translate “for” including “anti” are translated other places “because of”, so “Christ died for us” would mean “Christ died because of us” and “Christ died for our sins” would translate “Christ died because of our sins”.
There is much more I can say but this is already very long so I will stop and address your comments.
BUT: Is Penal Substitution (PS) happening? Where God is seeing to Christ’s torture, humiliation, crucifixion and murder (punishment), instead of God punishing humans (or saved individuals).
No one seems to feel Christ became a “sinner” on the cross, yet there is no place in scripture where God punishes the innocent to allow the guilty to go free, but there is:
God does have wicked people or wicked nations punish the Israelites and there could be some innocent children among those Israelites killed. It is never suggested this punishment was intended for the innocent or any substitution took place, but is there?
We do have the killing of the innocent baby son of David and Bathsheba: Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.”
15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
David’s innocent son’s illness and death should have been David’s illness and death, so is this penal substitution or is it God’s just way of indirectly further punishing/disciplining David for his sins?
If we Love Christ more than David loved the son he caused to become ill, than should we be at least as sorrowful as David?
If I am just one of billions of sinners causing Christ’s time on the cross, then I might be responsible for a few nanoseconds of His time on the cross, but do I play a greater part?
Christ prayed repeatedly His most intense prayer in the Garden which we have only one verse asking: “if there was any other way…”, but what “other way” could there be? If I personally had fulfilled my earthly objective without sinning, Christ would not have had to go to the cross for me, but could I personally have provided “another way”? If I had done it without sinning there would be another way without having Christ go to the cross, so could God have looked down the corridor of time and seen me not needing Christ to go to the cross and stopped Christ going? This puts the whole blame for Christ crucifixion on me (I did not keep from sinning) and not just being responsible for a nanosecond of time on the cross.
We have the first Christian sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2) and similar sermons in Acts that are truly Christ Crucified Sermons, yet say nothing about Christ taking our place on the cross, but say lots about our putting Christ on the cross, so are we to experience a death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37) or have a sigh of relief because we avoid being disciplined/punished?
We can go on to read lots in the NT about us being crucified “with Christ”, so is that the painful experience we should have?
Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all describe Christ’s crucifixion as an actual ransom payment, so there is a payment involve, but to whom?
When we talk to nonbelievers, we are not trying to get them to believe some book, words, doctrine or philosophy, but we want them to accept through faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If that nonbeliever trust (has faith) in Christ and Him crucified a child is released and allowed to enter the kingdom where God the Father is, but if the nonbeliever refuses for lack of faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified, the child is not set free to go to the Father. That nonbeliever is a perfect example of a criminal kidnapper and fully undeserving of Jesus Christ and him Crucified, which is what Christ and others say is the ransom payment.
God is not a criminal undeserving kidnapper holding His own children and satan is not changeable or has the power to hold God’s child back from God, so the unbeliever is the only excellent fit for the kidnapper in the atonement process.
Paul in Ro. 3:25 giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, only a time factor, but Paul seems to say: (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished” (NIV), but that also would mean the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.
From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …
Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).
God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever is himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.
Paul goes on to explain:
Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished
I do not like the word “unpunished” but would use “undisciplined”.
So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.
God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I that need to have that blood outside of Christ flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.
Some might try to put the need for blood on God making Him blood thirsty, but Christ says: John 6: 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
It is not God needing that blood, but I am blood thirsty for eternal life and God/Christ have provided that blood. I personally need to physically feel Christ’s blood in the symbolic wine flow down my throat and over my heart to experience and know cleansing.
A lot is made of the word “for” being used in “Christ died for us” suggesting it must mean “instead of”, but any good word study of all the Greek words translated “for” would yield more likely interpretations of “for”. If the writers wanted to convey the idea of “instead of” they should have used the Greek word “anti” which can mean “instead of”. The Greek word translate “for” including “anti” are translated other places “because of”, so “Christ died for us” would mean “Christ died because of us” and “Christ died for our sins” would translate “Christ died because of our sins”.
There is much more I can say but this is already very long so I will stop and address your comments.
