For some reason, Catholics reject Penal Substitution. I am not exactly sure why. It was taught by some early Church Fathers (unlike the Satisfaction view) Further, it is the other side of the Satisfaction view. After all, Christ not only satisfied on our behalf God the Father’s need for due honor and righteousness, He also paid the penalty for our sins, which likewise separates us from God.
Not so to Catholics. One Catholic text writes dismissively, “Again, on the theory of substitution, the slaughter of the victim must have been the most important part” to Protestants. However, “[n]othing can be inferred by the laying of hands” because “had the victim been laden with sin, it would have been impure.” This means, the whole Protestant idea of our sins being transferred to the sacrifice would be invalid. “The sin was not transferred to the victim: much less did the latter undergo punishment instead of the sinner.”
This is why Catholics and Protestants differ upon the use of the terms of Expiate and Propitiate. For Catholics, sin is not really ever punished but it is passed over and forgotten, hence the term expiation. The sacrifices of the Old Testament simply prefigure Christ in the way that they are a pledge of a good conscience towards God, something that Christ has done perfectly for believers.
However, this is incorrect in light of what Leviticus says about the sacrificial system. According to Leviticus, the animal sacrifices did bear sin so that sin isn’t merely passed over and forgotten because of the sacrifice, but it is punished in the sacrifice.
There is an episode where Aaron refuses to eat the sin offering in the sanctuary, likely because two of his sons were just killed for offering “strange fire” to the Lord. Moses says, “Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to bear the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord” (Lev 10:17). This directly contradicts the Catholic belief that the sacrifice was not “laden with sin.”
Now that we know a bearing of sin was taking place, what can we gather from the Scripture about the transferring of sin onto the animal? Many Protestants point to the scapegoat in Lev 16:21 because it explicitly speaks of the laying of hands transferring sins onto the scapegoat. Hence, sin is transferred when the believer places his hand on the animal.
Among the early Church Fathers, Justin Martyr recognized that the scapegoat and the other one which was sacrificed in Lev 16 “were similarly declarative of the two appearances of Christ, the first [the scapegoat], in which the elders of your people, and the priests, having laid hands on Him and put Him to death” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 40). The Epistle of Barnabas, in Chapter 7, makes the same claim. We may then infer with some level of confidence, that sins were transferred onto Jesus Christ who “bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Peter 2:24).
However, the Scripture never explicitly makes the same connection with animals that are actually sacrificed. Catholic Nick writes, “Though there is talk of placing hands on the head of sacrifices, there is no mention of this involving the (symbolic) transfer of guilt, nor does this even make sense in regards to sacrifices not involving sin (Lev 3:1-2).”
The problem with Catholic Nick’s argument is two fold:
First, peace offerings make peace with God. In what way are we not at peace with God? Obvious answer: we sin. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the laying of hands on the sacrifice transfers sin. In 2 Sam 24:25 it says that “David built there an altar to the Lord and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. Thus the Lord was moved by prayer for the land, and the plague was held back from Israel.” If we remember the whole episode, because David conducted a census, God gave him a choice pertaining what punishment he would want. After God started smiting the people of Israel because of David’s sin, we have this episode at the future location of the temple where David offers both burnt and peace offerings in conjunction with a prayer. Afterward, God is moved to withdraw His hand. Obviously, the offerings with heartfelt prayer had the effect of turning Gd’s disposition towards the sinful people of Israel.
Second, we have Lev 19:5-8 which states that those who do not partake in the peace offering properly still bear their own iniquity:
Now when you offer a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, you shall offer it so that you may be accepted. It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and the next day; but what remains until the third day shall be burned with fire. So if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an offense; it will not be accepted. Everyone who eats it will bear his iniquity, for he has profaned the holy thing of the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from his people.
From the preceding, we may infer that the peace offering bears iniquity, because the iniquity would have been transferred to the sacrifice such as in Lev 10:17 if the peace offering was conducted properly. Hence, peace offerings literally bear iniquity, even though Catholic Nick would have you believe they have nothing to do with iniquity.
Being that the only time the significance of the laying of hands as it pertains to sacrifices is explained in Lev 16:21, the simplest explanation in light of the preceding is simple. The laying of hands transfers sins. The sacrifices, according to Lev 10:17 bear the iniquity of the people. Those who sacrifice improperly according to Lev 19:8 do not benefit from the sacrifice and bear their own iniquity.
Hence, what we see in the Levitical sacrificial laws are rules that pertain to penal atonement. There is no escaping it and it makes the reading of Leviticus an increasing joy because it helps the book make more sense. It brings the reality of what Christ did for us front and center, and silences critics who wish to rob Christ the our sins in Himself bodily even when we were His enemies.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Here are my thoughts on your post:
You start off saying “for some reason Catholics reject Penal Substituion,” but the reason why is simple: it’s not Biblical, nor is it taught in the Fathers. You gave a link for Church Fathers, but the link goes to your homepage. To show a Church Father taught Penal Subsitution (at least the form Catholics reject), you would have to show the CF clearly stating something along the lines of God the Father poured out his wrath on Jesus, that Jesus suffered the equivalent to damnation, etc. Anything short of this doesn’t clearly prove the CF believed in PSub.
For you to simply say Christ “paid the penalty for our sins” without being more specific, that’s not enough to prove/refute Psub. The penalty for our sins in the Reformed mind is eternal separation from God, which Jesus didn’t endure and there’s not a shred of clear Biblical evidence to suggest anything along those lines.
My article “Atonement according to Scripture” is ultra critical reading for anyone studying the matter, because I do what nobody else does: I define the term “atonement” as the Bible does, I don’t make up my own definition, and I don’t just guess what it means. Nowhere in the Bible does “atonement” involve transferring a punishment, and this is key when Moses, Phinehas, and Aaron are explicitly said to make atonement for sinners without having to be punished in their place.
I discuss your Leviticus 10:17 reference in my article “What does it mean to Bear Sin?” so I wont rehash it all here. All I will say is you’ve misread the verse. The verse says the PRIEST bears the iniquity of the people, not the animal.
Though you link to my “Does the Bible say Jesus was our Scapegoat” article, it doesn’t look like you gave it a fair reading. You completely avoided addressing what the Scapegoat having sin placed upon it even meant, and given that the SG was not actually killed/sacrificed, it means you have a conundrum asserting PSub was taking place.
Your first response to me about Peace Offerings is incorrect. The text of Leviticus 3 does not ever mention guilt/sin as the motivating factor for Peace Offering, while these terms are used for the Burnt and Sin Offerings. There are different types of Sacrifices for a reason. The 2 Sam 24:25 example you quote says David offered BURNT and Peace, so you cannot just assume Peace involved guilt, especially because the Burnt was a distinct sacrifice and did involve addressing guilt.
Your second response to me about Peace Offerings is also incorrect, because you misread Leviticus 19:5-8. The text says you bear guilt for profaning a sacrifice, it doesn’t say you bear the original guilt. The individual bearing guilt here is of defiling the sanctuary AFTER they come to offer sacrifice.
I think it is a very unfair treatment of the whole matter when you don’t look at all the Biblical evidence and instead quote a single verse or two with your own reading while neglecting the fact you’re misreading (usually by not realizing more plausible interpretations exist).
“You start off saying “for some reason Catholics reject Penal Substituion,” but the reason why is simple: it’s not Biblical, nor is it taught in the Fathers.”
Actually, it is explicitly in the Bible and in the Fathers.
“You gave a link for Church Fathers, but the link goes to your homepage.”
Which contains quotations of three different Church Fathers and the relevant Scriptures.
“To show a Church Father taught Penal Subsitution (at least the form Catholics reject), you would have to show the CF clearly stating something along the lines of God the Father poured out his wrath on Jesus…”
I won’t get more into it but point you to the link.
I will also point out the Catholic hypocrisy that they demand that Penal Substituion was taught by any ECFs, which it was, yet they ignore the fact that not a single ECF taught the satisfaction theory of atonement. What’s with the double standard?
“…that Jesus suffered the equivalent to damnation…”
Calvin never taught this. There are people that do, but it is not necessary to defend every interpretation of Penal Substitution in which to defend the simple doctrine that Christ bore in His body the sins of His people, the result being that God’s demand for justice was satisfied.
“For you to simply say Christ “paid the penalty for our sins” without being more specific, that’s not enough to prove/refute Psub”
Again, go to the article. Calvin is quoted instead of some strawman that you prefer taking down.
“Nowhere in the Bible does “atonement” involve transferring a punishment…”
It does in Leviticus in the text you’re responding to!
“…and this is key when Moses, Phinehas, and Aaron are explicitly said to make atonement for sinners without having to be punished in their place. ”
They are not both the priest and the sacrifice like Christ was. The sacrifice bears the sins of the one doing the sacrifice.
“All I will say is you’ve misread the verse. The verse says the PRIEST bears the iniquity of the people, not the animal.”
I disagree. The Hebrew word “Natan” usually refers to inaminate objects, not people. If you want to send a link, that is fine, but I think the grammar is suggestive of the “it” being the sin offering. Even the Vulgate literally translates itself this way (https://translate.google.com/#la/en/cur%20non%20comedistis%20hostiam%20pro%20peccato%20in%20loco%20sancto%20quae%20sancta%20sanctorum%20est%20et%20data%20vobis%20ut%20portetis%20iniquitatem%20multitudinis%20et%20rogetis%20pro%20ea%20in%20conspectu%20Domini)
“Though you link to my “Does the Bible say Jesus was our Scapegoat” article, it doesn’t look like you gave it a fair reading. You completely avoided addressing what the Scapegoat having sin placed upon it even meant…”
I read it, I just did not accept your presuppositions.
“…and given that the SG was not actually killed/sacrificed, it means you have a conundrum asserting PSub was taking place. ”
Not really. I am just trying to prove the significance of laying on hands, not make the definitive statement that in the Law every single sacrifice required the death of something. God says elsewhere that our sins will be forgiven as far as the east is from the west. So, how do we not know that the Scapegoat was a shadow of this part of God’s plan, and not the other part pertaining to the crucifixion?
“Your first response to me about Peace Offerings is incorrect. The text of Leviticus 3 does not ever mention guilt/sin as the motivating factor for Peace Offering…”
It does not have to, as the reference in 2 Samuel tells us what is being accomplished here.
“…you cannot just assume Peace involved guilt, especially because the Burnt was a distinct sacrifice and did involve addressing guilt. ”
According to Nick, maybe. According to God, one, the other, or BOTH sacrifices addressed guilt. To say neither did is literally an impossibility that would void 2 Sam 24:25.
“Your second response to me about Peace Offerings is also incorrect, because you misread Leviticus 19:5-8. The text says you bear guilt for profaning a sacrifice, it doesn’t say you bear the original guilt.”
That’s your interpretation of it. And because of your presupposition, you are forced to reinterpret the clear meaning of the verses so that they could not teach the doctrine of Penal Substitution. But go translate the Vulgate from Latin, or the LXX from Greek. The reading I am giving is legitimate, is consistent with 2 Sam 24:25, and is consistent with the references in the Scripture in Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2 that speak of Christ bearing guilt.
“I think it is a very unfair treatment of the whole matter when you don’t look at all the Biblical evidence…”
It is a perfectly fair presentation of accurate translations of the Scripture. It just doesn’t fit your presuppositions, or the logical contradiction that you posited in your reply, that neither Peace or Burnt offerings deal with sin, when clearly in 2 Sam 24:25 they unequivocally do.
You point, “Go read the whole Bible!” Of course. Whee, in that whole Bible, does it say that the sacrifices do not bear sin, that the peace offering does not deal with sin? I am taking the only explicit verses on the topic and saying what they say. Unless the Bible elsewhere says anything different, we are compelled to accept the only explanation the Scripture gives.
Hi Craig,
I had a large response laid out and lost it after I clicked your link to the Vulgate, since it took me to a new page (rather than to a new tab), and once I left this page I lost everything in the ComBox.
I will try to remember what I had said and I’ll try to keep things brief:
(1) You said PSub is explicit in the Bible. What are your top 3 passages that you believe explicitly teach PSub? A verse which says something along the lines of “Jesus died for us” is not enough, for this doesn’t indicate Jesus endured the Father’s wrath, nor does it even indicate a direct substitution since the word “for” often simply means “on behalf of” (I document this clearly in a short post on my blog April 4, 2013).
(2) I looked at your Early Church Father quotes of Cyril, Athanasius, and Jerome briefly. I saw nothing in them indicating the Father poured out His wrath upon Jesus. The use of “penal language” is insufficient to prove the Reformed notion of Penal Substitution. Catholics never denied suffering and death was a punishment for sin, we simply are saying these don’t automatically include/entail eternal punishment, nor does Christ suffering/dying “in our place” mean that we not longer have to suffer/die.
Cyril goes into this in the same context you quote, how we have to model Christ in taking up our own Cross, which is nonsense if the whole point is Jesus taking upon the Cross so we don’t have to. Athanasius is explicitly talking about the physical sufferings at the hands of the Jews, if you read the first two sentences preceding the quote of his you gave. Jerome didn’t actually say much and instead was quoting Isaiah 53, which itself is a prophecy that has to be interpreted, and so simply quoting Isaiah 53 is not sufficient proof Jerome espoused PSub.
(3) Calvin, Luther, and a host of Reformed theologians explicitly teach that Jesus endured more than physical sufferings, even saying the physical sufferings were nothing compared to the invisible spiritual sufferings inflicted upon Him by the Father, and that this wrath of the Father was the punishment of eternal hellfire and separation from the Father. They say this in different ways and with different emphasis, but it’s there. Book 2, Ch 16, in Calvin’s Institutes says much of this plainly, including that the Apostles Creed line “He descended into hell” is not Hades but the invisible wrath of the Father.
(4) I originally said: “Nowhere in the Bible does “atonement” involve transferring a punishment…” You responded by saying it’s taught in Leviticus 10:17. First, you cannot take a text we are disputing and use that as the definitive proof text. I go through many texts to make my case. Further, there isn’t even enough information in the single verse to make such a grand claim.
Using Bible Hub, none of the standard English translations clearly put the bearing of sin as the animal. Some explicitly put the priests as the ones bearing sin, including the ESV and the Douay Rheims (which follows the Latin). It’s not safe to use Google Translate of the Vulgate as your definitive/primary proof.
(5) Moses, Phinehas, and Aaron don’t have to be sacrifices along with being priests in order to show that they all explicitly were said to turn away God’s wrath and make atonement *without* an innocent substitute being punished.
(6) My Scapegoat article does not have presuppositions, at least not devastating ones. I provide all my reasoning as well as plausible alternatives. I look at all the evidence and use Scripture to interpret Scripture as often as possible. I even showed a direct parallel between the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 and the cleansing ceremony involving two goats with the cleansing ceremonies in Leviticus 14 which involves two birds, including releasing the un-killed bird.
(7) You have not proven the significance of laying on of hands for a few reasons: the Scapegoat wasn’t a sacrifice, and the bearing of iniquity has not been show to be the same as bearing judicial guilt (I give the alternative of bearing filth away the way a garbage truck bears filth away).
(8) Leviticus 3 is dedicated to one type of sacrifice, while the surrounding chapters are dedicated to their own sacrifices. Those other sacrifices outside of Lev 3 explicitly and repeatedly mention guilt, atonement, etc. Leviticus should be treated as the guide book, and the lack of mentioning guilt/atonement in the Peace Offerings is not something trivial. That’s how we take the Bible seriously by not presupposing and letting it speak. Your only alternative to this is to take a single verse from 2 Samuel, which mentions two different sacrifices, and effectively conflate them into one, which isn’t a good argument. Leviticus clearly says Burnt Offerings address guilt/atonement, so it is enough to say the Burnt that David offered accomplished this, without having to assume the Peace Offering David offered accomplished this same thing (especially given that Leviticus tells us it doesn’t directly touch upon guilt/atonement).
(9) To say that it’s simply my interpretation of Leviticus 19:5-8 (i.e. that the one who eats a profaned sacrifice will personally bear the guilt of profaning God’s holy things) doesn’t really refute what I’m saying. At most it means mine is a valid interpretation and that yours is just as much an interpretation, even presupposition. The problem I think is that when a doctrine isn’t clearly taught in Scripture, then desperate means to find the doctrine end up being placed upon a few verses, forcing them to bear a burden they cannot (no pun intended).
If these three verses you’ve given – Leviticus 10:17, 2 Sam 24, and Lev 19:5-8 – are somehow definitive proof of Psub, I’d say you have read way too much into the texts and neglected to give fair hearing to other plausible readings.
(10) I never said the Burnt Offering doesn’t address atonement. I explicitly said the Burnt Offering does, according to Leviticus 2. You are putting way too much presupposition on 2 Sam 24:25,
“David built an altar to the Lord there and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. Then the Lord answered his prayer in behalf of the land, and the plague on Israel was stopped.”
All the text says is that David offered two types of sacrifices and this pleased God and stopped the plague. The text says NOTHING about how either sacrifice functioned. The text says NOTHING about atonement, sin, guilt, etc. These concepts are certainly there under the surface, but not on the surface in the actual text. I’m presupposing nothing because I don’t take anything from the text it doesn’t say.
In conclusion, I again point you to Moses, Aaron, and Phinehas, who all turned away wrath and made atonement without an innocent substitute being punished.
“(1) You said PSub is explicit in the Bible. What are your top 3 passages that you believe explicitly teach PSub?”
“He Himself [x]bore our sins in His body on the [y]cross, so that we might die to [z]sin and live to righteousness; for by His[aa]wounds you were healed” (1 Peter 2:24).
-Situates where our sins went.
“”Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, And against the man, My Associate,” Declares the LORD of hosts. “Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered; And I will turn My hand against the little ones” (Zech 13:7).
-Unambiguously says God is the one is struck Christ.
“But He was [h]pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our [i]well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed” (Is 53:5).
-Unambiguously says that the “chastening” (i.e. punishment) that belonged to those who committed iniquity instead fell upon Him.
So the three verses have an inescapable conclusion: God struck the Shepherd. The Shepherd literally bore sins in His body. His body was chastened in place of those that deserved it. Honorable mention for Is 53:10 of course.
“…this doesn’t indicate Jesus endured the Father’s wrath, nor does it even indicate a direct substitution since the word “for” often simply means “on behalf of” (I document this clearly in a short post on my blog April 4, 2013).”
I think the three verses above adequately show that Christ was chastened in our place, literally having our sins in Him.
“(2) I looked at your Early Church Father quotes of Cyril, Athanasius, and Jerome briefly. I saw nothing in them indicating the Father poured out His wrath upon Jesus.”
I just read the Catholic Catechism and I didn’t see anything Catholic in it 🙂 Sorry, just saying that does not make it not so. I even color coded it. It’s undeniable. I mean, Athanasisus puts it the shortest and the sweetest: “For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression.”
You might say that this is simply “penal language.” Well yeah, it is. It says that Christ bore the penalty of His and suffered God’s wrath. That does not “pretty much settle it,” it does settle it. To say no ECF taught Penal Substitution never is simply intellectually dishonest, just as it would be dishonest to say that most ECFs taught Penal Substitution, because that would not be true either.
“The use of “penal language” is insufficient to prove the Reformed notion of Penal Substitution.”
Now, this is when the strawmanning begins. As I said before, i cannot defend what ever single person ever, ever said. In the article I quoted a definition of Penal Substitution, gave my own definition based on that definition, and showed that it was in line with ECFs. I do not feel obligated to give an even more thorough defense.
“…nor does Christ suffering/dying “in our place” mean that we not longer have to suffer/die.”
Protestants don’t teach that we don’t have to carry our cross. This, again, is a strawman.
“Cyril goes into this in the same context you quote, how we have to model Christ in taking up our own Cross, which is nonsense if the whole point is Jesus taking upon the Cross so we don’t have to.”
Yeah, it wouldn’t make sense, would it? However, Protestants nor do I affirm that Christians do not carry their cross and suffer for His holy name.
“Jerome didn’t actually say much and instead was quoting Isaiah 53, which itself is a prophecy that has to be interpreted, and so simply quoting Isaiah 53 is not sufficient proof Jerome espoused PSub. ”
Jerome was either interpreting, or paraphrasing parts of Isaiah, which gives us an idea what he thought of the matter. And, let’s pretend that he was just quoting Isaiah word-for-word. Well, if Isaiah word-for-word teaches PSub, well wouldn’t that settle it anyway? I am not quite following your argument here.
“(4) I originally said: “Nowhere in the Bible does “atonement” involve transferring a punishment…” You responded by saying it’s taught in Leviticus 10:17. First, you cannot take a text we are disputing and use that as the definitive proof text.”
Sure I can, it is a legitimate translation of the text.
“Some explicitly put the priests as the ones bearing sin, including the ESV and the Douay Rheims (which follows the Latin). It’s not safe to use Google Translate of the Vulgate as your definitive/primary proof. ”
Google simply gives us a totally theologically neutral translation. What it comes down to it is that the word “it” or “he” is inferred. This is why I said in most uses of the word in Hebrew, it does not refer to people. Hence, the word “it” is the more justified inference, especially in like of Lev 16 where the significance of laying on hands is actually explained. We do not have any other explicit explanation in the Scripture, so we have to go with it.
“(6) My Scapegoat article does not have presuppositions, at least not devastating ones.”
I have to disagree.
“…a direct parallel between the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 and the cleansing ceremony involving two goats with the cleansing ceremonies in Leviticus 14 which involves two birds, including releasing the un-killed bird.”
Which as I said in my reply, might be teaching other ramifications of sacrifices and how they forgives sins. A sacrifice is not merely a punishment in the PSub view.
“(7) You have not proven the significance of laying on of hands for a few reasons: the Scapegoat wasn’t a sacrifice, and the bearing of iniquity has not been show to be the same as bearing judicial guilt….”
It is the only explanation of what laying on hands does, which pretty much makes the presumption that all the laying of hands serving the same function to be justified. The Scripture gives us no indication that it changes in any other situation.
” That’s how we take the Bible seriously by not presupposing and letting it speak.”
Which it does. It never says what you presume it says, it is mostly silent about what exactly peace offerings do and what the laying of hands do, so when it ACTUALLY says what they do, we have to pay attention.
“(9) To say that it’s simply my interpretation of Leviticus 19:5-8 (i.e. that the one who eats a profaned sacrifice will personally bear the guilt of profaning God’s holy things) doesn’t really refute what I’m saying. At most it means mine is a valid interpretation and that yours is just as much an interpretation, even presupposition.”
Actually, it requires the presupposition that the laying of hands does not transfer sin, when the only explanation of its function says that it DOES transfer sin, so that when you read it you in addition presume that “bear his iniquity” means that it is a consequence of not doing the sacrifice properly, instead of the result that the iniquity is still there (i.e. it never left, it was never transferred to the animal.)
” The problem I think is that when a doctrine isn’t clearly taught in Scripture,”
It actually is taught in several verses, while Satisfaction is never taught. AND, it requires presuppositions that reject PSub right of the bat in order to reinterpret the PSub verses so that they would in effect not say what they clearly say.
” then desperate means to find the doctrine end up being placed upon a few verses, forcing them to bear a burden they cannot (no pun intended).
If these three verses you’ve given – Leviticus 10:17, 2 Sam 24, and Lev 19:5-8…”
The only thing desperate is the claim you are making here. I used Leviticus to respond to your article on Leviticus. Obviously, Leviticus isn’t the basis for the whole doctrine!
“(10) I never said the Burnt Offering doesn’t address atonement.”
I misunderstood you, my apologies.
“All the text says is that David offered two types of sacrifices and this pleased God and stopped the plague. The text says NOTHING about how either sacrifice functioned. The text says NOTHING about atonement, sin, guilt, etc.”
The sacrifice obviously dealt with guilt, and it requires the presupposition that the peace offering has nothing to do with guilt to undo it. Without the presupposition, you just take at face value that both sacrifices functioned in addressing David’s guilt for conducting the census.
God bless,
Craig
Hello Craig,
I wasn’t near a computer over the weekend. Here are my thoughts to your latest response (I’ll try to make everything brief):
(1) I asked about your top 3 passages that you believe explicitly teach Penal Substitution.
Your first text was 1 Peter 2:24. I see nothing in this saying the Father punished Jesus with divine wrath, and “bore our sins in his body” is not explained by you. The fact is, the term ‘bore’ here is a sacrificial term meaning ‘offer up [a sacrifice]’ and does not refer to carrying in the regular sense. It is used in verse 2:5 when speaking of Christians ‘offering up’ spiritual sacrifices.
Your second text was Zech 13:7. This text must be read in light of how the New Testament shows events unfolding. Striking the shephered in this case is not about punishing the shepherd instead of the sheep, but rather about letting Jesus fall into the hands of the Jews in Gethsemane (where this text is quoted) and the Apostles running off in fear.
Your third text was Isaiah 53:5. The “piercing” Jesus endured was the nails on the Cross by the Romans, not the Father’s wrath. And while it is true Jesus endured a “chastening” for us, this “chastening” is the Hebrew word for fatherly correction that even Christians endure, not divine retribution.
All this is to say that while I understand what you’re trying to get at, I don’t believe it is a fair reading of the Biblical evidence. It’s more of stringing together ideas found in bits of text here and there, which isn’t exegesis properly speaking.
(3) Nothing in your three Early Church Father quotes demands or even uses language along the lines of the Father pouring out His divine wrath upon Jesus in such a way as PSub is taught by respected Reformed teachers. It isn’t enough to have buzz words like ‘penalty’ in the ECF quote if the ECF means something very different than what you mean. Athanasius is explicitly talking about the physical sufferings inflicted by the Jews, nothing more. The penalty in this context is fallen humanity subject to suffering and physical death. This is very different from Calvin and others who say the physical sufferings by the Jews were nothing compared to the invisible sufferings done directly by the Father.
(4) You don’t have to defend what other Reformed teachers have said, but if you are going to make up your own definition of PSub, then just know that’s not what the highest authorities in Reformed theology say and thus you’re basically affirming they were in error by rejecting their definition. YOUR definition very well could be in line with the ECFs, and in that case GREAT. But don’t think you’re somehow defending Reformed theology because you’re not. When Calvin says that “He descended into hell” refers to Christ’s suffering on the Cross, and Luther says Jesus descended into hell “as one eternally damned,” that’s something very different than what the ECFs or Scripture teach.
So there is no Strawman on my end, because I’m being completely consistent with the view of PSub I am opposing, and I have numerous quotes from respected Reformed teachers I am looking to.
(5) You said that “Protestants don’t teach that we don’t have to carry our cross. This, again, is a strawman.” I deny this is a Strawman because I am saying it’s an inconsistency in Protestant theology. If Jesus carried the cross FOR US in some sense of absolute substitution, then it’s a blatant contradiction to have us carry our cross as well. If death is punishment for sin and Jesus took the punishment we deserve in some sense of absolute substitution, then we shouldn’t be liable to die. The moment you start making distinctions to ease out of this is the same moment you must back off any strict “in our place” type argumentation.
As for Isaiah 53 teaching PSub ‘word for word’, I deny this, so Jerome quoting Isaiah 53 would thus not in any way automatically mean Jerome endorses PSub. For example, Isaiah 53:4 says Jesus bore our sufferings, but when this very text is quoted in Matthew 8:16 it refers to Jesus healing illnesses.
(6) Regarding Leviticus 10:17, simply going with your preferred translation isn’t a very convincing case, it just means you can only “prove” in so far as you get to already choose what the words must mean. Google is not a ‘theologically neutral translation’ but rather an computer algorithim that makes the best guess it can. It’s not a translation in any scholarly sense. And the fact you cannot even grant me any slack despite the fact the ESV (one of the most respected Reformed translations) refers to the priests bearing the sin strongly suggests you don’t have much in the way of a robust Biblical case in your favor and instead must special plead.
(7) What are some specific, devastating presuppositions in my Scapegoat article? I gave a fair hearing to every angle I could think of.
(8) You said the Bible “is mostly silent about what exactly peace offerings do and what the laying of hands do, so when it ACTUALLY says what they do, we have to pay attention.” I agree, but I don’t think you are being consistent or fair here. What ‘mostly silent’ would naturally force us to do is to not put too much emphasis on such things when it comes to proving key doctrines. If the Bible is mostly silent on X, then I shouldn’t put too much emphasis on X meaning what I want it to mean for the sake of proving some doctrine Y.
The Scapegoat wasn’t a sacrifice and it was released into the wilderness while the priest had to bathe TWICE after touching and releasing it…and yet you’re saying when the priest does this same transfer of sins upon a sacrifice that the animal is suddenly to be taken into the holiest place in the world?
(9) You said “Satisfaction is never taught” in the Bible, yet you keep dodging my examples of Moses, Aaron, and Phinehas, who all are *explicitly* said to have “made atonement” and “turned away God’s wrath” without an innocent substitute being punished. Even Proverbs 16:6 says “Through love and faithfulness, sin is ATONED for.” That’s Satisfaction at its very essence.
NO problem. I’m trying to be quick, not snippy, so please don;t take offense.
“(1) I asked about your top 3 passages that you believe explicitly teach Penal Substitution.
Your first text was 1 Peter 2:24. I see nothing in this saying the Father punished Jesus with divine wrath, and “bore our sins in his body” is not explained by you. The fact is, the term ‘bore’ here is a sacrificial term meaning ‘offer up [a sacrifice]’ and does not refer to carrying in the regular sense. ”
Actually, it does refer to carrying in the regular sense which is why Peter very specifically said how and where the sin were carried. In fact, Peter would have no other means in the Greek language to convey exactly the point that I am saying he is. It appear desperate on your part to redefine words that are clarified mid-sentence to not mean what they clearly mean given the context.
This is precisely why I used it as a prooftext. It disallows attempts at saying that Christ did not literally internalize human sin and suffering. Of course you have to explain it away because you reject PSA. However, the simplest explanation works with PSA and not SA.
“Your second text was Zech 13:7. This text must be read in light of how the New Testament shows events unfolding. Striking the shephered in this case is not about punishing the shepherd instead of the sheep, but rather about letting Jesus fall into the hands of the Jews in Gethsemane (where this text is quoted) and the Apostles running off in fear.”
It is a prooftext that shows that verses like Is 53:10 show an active participation of the Father in the chastening in the Son.
“Your third text was Isaiah 53:5…. And while it is true Jesus endured a “chastening” for us, this “chastening” is the Hebrew word for fatherly correction that even Christians endure, not divine retribution.”
I honestly do not see how this helps your argument. Jesus did not require “chastening,” “punishment,” or “reproof”–all legitimate translations of the word “מוּסָ֣ר”. He took it in the place of those that did.
In Prov 15:10 it states, “Grievous punishment [“מוּסָ֣ר”] is for him who forsakes the way; He who hates reproof [“תוֹכַ֣חַת”] will die.”
So, Is 53:5 obviously proves the idea of substitution. Further, the fact Christ was “crushed” specifically “for iniquities” shows that the “chastening” contextually, should be understood as “punishment,” the way it is rendered in Prov 15:10.
Further, the chastening (i.e. “punishment”) had the effect of being for “our well being.” Fatherly discipline of a party that does not require discipline does not have any affect on anyone;s well being. But taking the punishment, “the piercing through” specifically “for our transgressions” actually has an effect on our well being–for we avoid being crushed for the iniquity we deserve.
Your explaining away of the term “תוֹכַ֣חַת” has the effect of making the verse incomprehensible. A right and true translation should have the effect of conveying the actual meaning of the text so that it makes sense.
“It’s more of stringing together ideas found in bits of text here and there, which isn’t exegesis properly speaking. ”
Saying that CHrist died so to pay God the Father the due honor owed to Him, the Satisfaction model found nowhere in the Scripture, is bad exegesis. I am merely going with what the Scripture says in the few spots that talks about why Jesus died and details what effect it had. The Catholic model of atonement is simply not found in the Scripture and none of the Church Fathers, which shows how little exegetical grounds it has, none of which are legitimate.
“(3) Nothing in your three Early Church Father quotes demands or even uses language along the lines of the Father pouring out His divine wrath upon Jesus in such a way as PSub is taught by respected Reformed teachers”
Again, in my article I quoted Calvin:
Jesus Christ was “made a substitute and a surety in the place of transgressors and even submitted as a criminal, to sustain and suffer all the punishment which would have been inflicted on them” (Institutes 2:16.10).
My only task is to prove the above short definition of the idea.
Cyril of Alexandria said as much: “He had undergone, for our sakes, though innocent, the sentence of death. For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law.”
So, CHrist did not bear a partial sentence, but the whole sentence as demanded by the Law in place of those that earned it. This fundamentally agrees with Calvin and disagrees with you.
Athanasius said as much: “For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression.”
You write that, “Nothing in your three Early Church Father quotes demands or even uses language along the lines of the Father pouring out His divine wrath upon Jesus.” How can you say such a thing in light of the above? That’s literally what it says, it even says the suffering was the wrath of God, the penalty due to Christians’ transgressions!
Jerome writes, “For that which we owed to us according to our crimes bear it, so He suffered for us, having made peace [with God] through the blood of His cross…”
Being that the word “cross” is not in Isaiah, even if Jerome is paraphrasing the text, it clearly shows how he interpreted it. The cross was a punishment for “our crimes.”
Now, can you find anything, in the least bit, among the Fathers that shows that Christ died to pay to God the due honor due to Him, as the Satisfaction model demands? No. You’re picking an imaginary speck out of my eye while there is a beam in yours!
“(4) You don’t have to defend what other Reformed teachers have said, but if you are going to make up your own definition of PSub…”
I defended what Calvin quoted, but in the end I am more learned in the Fathers than in Reformed doctrine, my interpretation is considered Reformed. I only feel compelled to defend what the Scriptures have been historically interpreted to mean, not every excessive statement a Reformer might have every written.
“(5) You said that “Protestants don’t teach that we don’t have to carry our cross. This, again, is a strawman.” I deny this is a Strawman because I am saying it’s an inconsistency in Protestant theology. If Jesus carried the cross FOR US in some sense of absolute substitution, then it’s a blatant contradiction to have us carry our cross as well.”
No it is most definitely not. Read Romans 8. Those with the Holy SPirit cannot help but live by the Spirit. The Spirit produces fruit that are proof of His indwelling in the believer (Gal 5). I cannot help but carry my cross, the Holy Spirit compels me. The reality of the atonement does not negate the reality of the Spirit’s work.
“For example, Isaiah 53:4 says Jesus bore our sufferings, but when this very text is quoted in Matthew 8:16 it refers to Jesus healing illnesses. ”
COntext. Was Jesus piereced for our transgressions so that we can be healed from physical ailments?
“(6) Regarding Leviticus 10:17, simply going with your preferred translation isn’t a very convincing case, it just means you can only “prove” in so far as you get to already choose what the words must mean.”
Actually, you’re doing that no more than me. The NASB takes my rendering. The ESV takes yours. Being that Jerome did not add the word “he” in the Latin, which he very obviously could have, that lends credibility to the idea that “it” is the better inferred rendering. That’s why the Google algortihm, with no skin in the game, lends credibility and cannot be simply handwaved away.
“(8) You said the Bible “is mostly silent about what exactly peace offerings do and what the laying of hands do, so when it ACTUALLY says what they do, we have to pay attention.” I agree, but I don’t think you are being consistent or fair here. What ‘mostly silent’ would naturally force us to do is to not put too much emphasis on such things when it comes to proving key doctrines.”
It is better to take the few isntances that talk about something and presume it is normative than to take something that you cannot prove and is in your imagination (i.e. the laying of hands meant anything else) and then impose that upon the Scripture.
I do not believe the atonement is a crucial doctrine, simply because the Scripture does not belabor it. Is important? Sure. Should it be taught accurately? Sure. Should we expect the Scripture to be littered with references to the significance of the laying of hands and bearing of sins? Not necessarily, the Scripture simply does not talk that much about it. At the very least, I am giving a consistent explanation based upon accurate translations.
Ultimately, your views are extra-biblical which is why you would ahve to take alternate meanings on words and ignore explicit mentions, though they be few, to prove your point—for the Scripture never makes the argument for your position, not even once.
“(9) You said “Satisfaction is never taught” in the Bible, yet you keep dodging my examples of Moses, Aaron, and Phinehas, who all are *explicitly* said to have “made atonement” and “turned away God’s wrath” without an innocent substitute being punished. Even Proverbs 16:6 says “Through love and faithfulness, sin is ATONED for.” That’s Satisfaction at its very essence.”
No it’s not. Quoting Catholic Encyclopedia:
“No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfaction. Adebt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. The suggestion that some innocent man, or angel, might possibly pay the debt incurred by sinners is rejected, on the ground that in any case this would put the sinner under obligation to his deliverer, and he would thus become the servant of a mere creature. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was by the coming of aRedeemer who is both God and man. His death makes full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, for it is something greater than all the sins of allmankind.”
Find that in the Bible. You won’t.