Monday 30 November 2009

Is penal substitution Biblical, continued

Nick replied to my post "Is penal substitution Biblical?", as follows. As that post has been buried under a few others, I'm posting it as a new item and am interacting with it here.

Hello,

I was away from the computer during Thanksgiving, but I am thankful that you made a new post on this addressing the issue.

Here are my thoughts:

1) Dying for sin does not entail a penal substitutionary framework. In otherwords, you're quoting 1 Cor 15:3 and such, but you're inserting the notion of 'punished' into it, as if a judge sentenced someone to receive the electric chair but was legally transferred so that Jesus received it in their place. I don't believe Scripture is describing that concept.

I did not simply arbitrarily "insert", but explained why "for sin" in 1 Corinthians 15v3 should be interpreted as penal substitution - you've ignored the explanation. We won't go far if you do that. Let me state again. In 1 Cor 15:3 in the phrase "for sin", "for" can only mean "on account of", "because of". And in Pauline and Scriptural theology, the reason why people die on account of sin is because death is the penalty for sin. This context is fixed from the beginning; Genesis 2:17 - "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Romans 6:23 - "for the wages of sin is death". "The soul that sins, it shall die", Ezekiel 18:20. Please interact with this argument and don't simply say I'm "inserting" things without reason!
2) Regarding 1 Jn 3:16, you said I was making a grammatical error. I would hope "lay down life for" means the same thing when used twice in the same verse. My point was that "on account of" does not necessitate a legal transfer of punishment, because using the parallelism indicates believers will undergo that as well. So, simply turning to a passage indicating Christ died "for" sins, that is not evidence for Psub in particular but only atonement in general.
You've side-stepped my argument here too. The grammatical error I said you made is including that "for" in one verse necessarily must mean the same as in another (such as 1 Cor 15v3). I actually agreed with you that for (Greek "huper") in 1 John 3:16 cannot carry the sense "in the place of"; what I denied was your deduction that therefore it cannot carry that meaning in a different verse. If your theory here that a preposition can only carry only meaning in every usage is correct then every lexicon of the Greek language is wrong.
You said: "the only way that someone dies on account of sin is because death is a punishment"
I'm not sure how what you mean here. Christians still die physically, so Christ didn't take this punishment.
Though Christians still die physically, they no longer die penally. Death is no longer the gateway to eternal misery, but ultimately to glory because of resurrection. Thus in the essential substance of it, Christ has indeed taken this punishment for us. 1 Corinthians 15:26 states that physical death is an enemy which is destroyed through Christ's death and resurrection. Christ has removed the sting from death for us because having paid the price for sins, death is no longer penal.
 Also, your quote from 1 Cor 15:17-18 is about Christ being resurrected, not His death.
You have made an arbitrary separation here. Christ's death and resurrection in Scripture are different nodes of a single event, e.g. Romans 4:25 (and these verses in 1 Corinthians). In those Corinthian verses Paul says that if Christ was not raised then we are still in our sins; this is just after saying that Christ died for our sins. Obviously the death-resurrection is a single sequence because according to Paul in these words it had one great end in view - dealing with our sins.

3) Regarding the scapegoat: I still don't see how keeping the penal substitute alive helps prove Psub.
Well, surely the fault is in your vision if you cannot see! The Bible is full of warnings that we cannot see, not because the glorious light is not shining, but because we are blind to it, e.g. John 9:39-41. It's dead (!) simple: penal substitution takes place when there is a punishment (penalty), endured by a substitute. The scapegoat fulfils these conditions, and is therefore an example of penal substitution.
4) Regarding the punishment of hell: What is the "equivalent" of suffering in Hell?
What a daft question. The acceptable substitute for all of God's people suffering in hell is obviously the death of Christ at Calvary. That's the whole thing we're discussing. The only way to deny this is to a) assert that you, the guilty sinner, are a more competent judge of the fit punishment for sin than God, the righteous judge, is and/or b) to deny the value of the person of Christ as the Son of God and to put a lesser value on his death than God does.
5) I should have been more clear on my comment regarding transfer of punishment in the Mosaic Law. When it comes to 'confessing sins over' with the hands, the scapegoat is the only time such instructions are given.
In a debate, you only need to concede a principle once to allow its validity. Once it is established once that the OT contains an example of penal substitution, then that is all I need to do. If the scapegoat is a shadow to teach us about Christ's death (which it is, Hebrews 13:12-13), and if the symbolism of the scapegoat exemplifies penal substitution, which you've conceded, then that's what was being argued for.
6) You said: "Nobody claimed that every sacrifice in the Bible was penal and substitutionary."
True, but then two issues arise: (1) the example I gave was of the sin offering, and if Psub isn't taking place then, then I don't know what other offering you can look to; (2) other sacrifices, not relating to atonement, entailed the death of an animal, which means a death need not correspond to Psub.
Your logic here in (1) is wonky. You're arguing that:
1) The sin offering could be substituted with grain for the very poor
2) Therefore, the sin offering was not substitutionary as grain cannot endure punishment
3) Therefore, the sin offering was never substitutionary
The fallacy is of failing to consider alternative explanations. The sin offering could exemplify penal substitution in its normal and usual mode, but God could make a provision for the poor Israelite so that they could make an offering. The substitution of the grain here would then simply be a social provision for the circumstance, and not intended to alter the essential meaning of the normal offering. You cannot prove that this is not the case (and I assert it is the case), and thus it cannot be a grounds for an absolute assertion as you've made.

In relationship to (2), you need to substantiate this point. Are you talking about a bloody sacrificial death, offered by a priest on an altar, or some other animal death? Are you making a comparison that is truly valid? I can't know this until you give examples of what you mean.
7) You said: "All such examples are in principal moot. Read Romans 3:25-26"

Rom 3 has not been established as a Psub proof, so I don't think they are moot. Rom 3 mentions 'atonement', the very term I'm demonstrating doesn't require Psub. Further, Rom 3:24 mentions "redemption," which is likewise not a psub term but instead indicates a buying back at a price (Ex 21:28-30 is a good example).
You've missed the argument I was making in citing this Scripture, which is as follows:
  • Christ's death, in Romans 3:25, is said to be an act in which the subject performing the action is God. "Whom God has set forth".
  • Furthermore, the verse tells us the reason why God set him forth as an atonement: it was "to declare his justice for the remission of sins that are past."
  • In other words, the death of Christ was an act in which justice is satisfied on account of sin. Which is as much to say that Christ's death was penal, unless you want to deny that justice in regard of wrong-doing means punishment!
  • Whose sins? Not Christ's, of course. According to the verse, "sins that are past" - in other words, the sins committed by people before the coming of Christ. Which is to say, that his death was substitutionary.
Romans 3:25 says that God satisfied his own justice in respect of certain people's sins, through the death of Christ. Cunning parsing of certain words, such as "atonement" or "redemption" can't get you off this hook - the whole context makes the meaning abundantly clear.
Next, you went on to address my atonement passages, here are my comments:

-"Phinehas slays the sinner."
The sinner wasn't the only guilty party, the Israelites as a whole were engaging in sin and under a plague. Killing the guilty individual is not making atonement. Verse 25:11,13 is clear God's wrath against the whole Israelite camp was propitiated.
I have no problem in accommodating this observation. As explained above, the true and ultimate atonement for sin was at the cross of Christ - Romans 3:25 - when Christ made the true atonement for past sins. All previous atonements were symbolic, shadows and anticipations. Here you're finding fault because you're demanding that every anticipation should be whole and entire - it must shadow every single aspect, perfectly. This is an arbitrary and unreasonable demand. But in any case, you've still missed the point - which was simply that you can't use these verses to establish that death is not a penalty for sin, when in actual fact a sinner died.
-"Exodus 32, the Levites go out to slay the evildoers."
You're not addressing Deut 9:16-21, esp 9:18-19, and Ps 106:23 where God spared them on Moses' intercession. The fact some of the guilty were killed off does not address the fact the nation as a whole was guilty for engaging in sin and had to be atoned for as per Ex 32:30.
Again you've missed the impact of Romans 3:25-26. Why could Moses' intercession be accepted? Why could anyone be accepted under the Old Covenant? Because of the great act of justice at the cross that would actually pay the price. And again I'd assert that you can't use verses to prove that death is not the legal penalty for sin, when in the same incident a sinner endures a penal death.
-"Num 16, lots of people die in a plague - and it is stopped using implements from the tabernacle"
That some of the guilty died is irrelevant to the fact more would have died had not atonement been made. The atonement required no Psub.
Same here.
-"Surely you're not seriously suggesting that Proverbs 16:6 and 14 are intended by the author as statements about the wiping away of a man's sin before God?"
The main purpose was to show "atonement' need not require Psub, and those verses say that.
You're loading an unbearable burden onto these verses. They were never intended to teach a complete theory of atonement, and to make them carry that weight is something someone would only do if they were fishing around for a hook to hang their pet theory on, instead of believing the Bible's own explanations of what Christ's death achieved in the key and primary passages. Using this method we could prove anything. If "The wrath of a king is as messengers of death: but a wise man will pacify it" in verse 14 was intended by the Holy Spirit to teach that God's justice does not require that the wages of sin be death and that Christ's death was not a penal substitution, then "In the light of the king' countenance is life" in verse 15 could equally mean that looking at the face of an earthly king will deliver you eternal life. This is arbitrary exegesis, reading in your own ideas.
The Biblical idea that atonement can be made without Psub has not been overturned by what you've said. Just so people don't misunderstand me: I believe Christ made atonement for our sins, but I don't believe the form of atonement was PSub.
It would be difficult for me to even begin to overturn a Biblical idea which is not in the Bible, so I won't be too sad about my alleged failure! To say that Christ can make atonement for sins without paying the penalty for them is a nonsense statement; it's like saying that you believe that Christmas Day comes in the last month of the year, but not in December. The very core of the Biblical teaching on atonement is that "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins" (Hebrews 9:22) - where there is no just penalty exacted, there is no atonement.

5 comments:

Nick said...

(This response is broken down into 3 posts)

Hello, I almost missed this response because it wasn't in the combox.

David: Let me state again. In 1 Cor 15:3 in the phrase "for sin", "for" can only mean "on account of", "because of".

Nick: Hmm, maybe I misunderstood your point. I have no problem with saying it means "on account of" or something similar, I just don't believe that entails Penal Substitution. For example, when it is said Jesus would "give His life as a ransom" that entails dying "for sin" but a ransom is not a penal substitution by definition.


David: The grammatical error I said you made is including that "for" in one verse necessarily must mean the same as in another (such as 1 Cor 15v3).

Nick: I am sorry if I have misunderstood or even misrepresented anything you've said; thank you for your patience. I would clarify to say that I'm not saying it "necessarily must mean" the same thing in each context, only that "for" doesn't necessarily mean 'in place of' in the Psub sense. In other words, it's just as wrong for me to say "for" must mean X in all contexts as it is for someone to say "for" must entail Psub.


David: Though Christians still die physically, they no longer die penally. ... physical death is an enemy which is destroyed through Christ's death and resurrection.

Nick: But that's just it, if Christians die in a non-penal sense, then why couldn't Christ's death have been in a non-penal sense? Physical death was 'destroyed', indicating Christ 'conqured' it, which to me doesn't point towards Psub at all but rather the so called "Christus Victor" direction. The very verse you reference says: "The last enemy to be destroyed is death." This indicates Christ died as a warrior, not a punishment substitute. This fits with verse 24 saying Christ came and "destroyed all dominion, authority and power."


David: You have made an arbitrary separation here. Christ's death and resurrection in Scripture are different nodes of a single event, e.g. Romans 4:25 (and these verses in 1 Corinthians). In those Corinthian verses Paul says that if Christ was not raised then we are still in our sins; this is just after saying that Christ died for our sins. Obviously the death-resurrection is a single sequence because according to Paul in these words it had one great end in view - dealing with our sins.

Nick: The problem with this argument, as far as Psub goes, is that linking forgiveness of sins to Resurrection makes no sense. Psub only requires the death of something, not its resurrection.


David: The acceptable substitute for all of God's people suffering in hell is obviously the death of Christ at Calvary.

Nick: I can only agree with this in a non-Psub framework. The Reformers were very clear that a physical death alone for Christ was insufficient and that He had to endure hellfire but in a finite amount of time. Calvin's Institutes Bk3:Ch16:Sec10 states as much. Further, Christ's physical death was a murder just as with the prophet martyrs (1 Thes 2:14-15), without any indication God was inflicting the death penalty. Mat 10:28 says a physical death is nothing compared to enduring God's Divine Wrath.


David: Once it is established once that the OT contains an example of penal substitution, then that is all I need to do. If the scapegoat is a shadow to teach us about Christ's death (which it is, Hebrews 13:12-13), and if the symbolism of the scapegoat exemplifies penal substitution, which you've conceded, then that's what was being argued for.

Nick: I don't recall conceding that the scapegoat exemplifies Psub. In fact, I deny it. The scapegoat was not 'punished'. Also, the Heb 13:12-13 quote you gave is not in reference to the scapegoat, but instead the other goat that did end up killed (Lev 16:27).

Nick said...

David: And again I'd assert that you can't use verses to prove that death is not the legal penalty for sin, when in the same incident a sinner endures a penal death.

Nick: I'm not following your logic. In the passages I've given, some - but not all - of the guilty die. So what? The texts are clear God was on the verge of wiping *all* sinners out had not atonement been made via Moses' intercession.


David: You're loading an unbearable burden onto these verses. They were never intended to teach a complete theory of atonement

Nick: You're the one reading more into them than I intended. They show, as with the trend of my prior passages, that atonement doesn't require Psub. And this isn't my 'pet theory' if I've substantiated my thesis, which is in contrast to no concrete evidence of Psub. You yourself said, "In a debate, you only need to concede a principle once to allow its validity." Well, I've met that criteria on numerous accounts.


David: To say that Christ can make atonement for sins without paying the penalty for them is a nonsense statement

Nick: Then you're not letting the Bible define your terms for you. I've shown conclusively situations where atonement is made without Psub, so to call it 'nonsense' is a direct contradiction of the Biblical testimony.


David: The very core of the Biblical teaching on atonement is that "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins" (Hebrews 9:22) - where there is no just penalty exacted, there is no atonement.

Nick: This is a perfect example of what I've been trying to get you to see. You're reading "without the shedding of blood" and assuming that must mean Psub. That's not fair! You have not established "shedding of blood" means Psub, much less that Psub is anywhere else presented, or even demanded. The fact Leviticus mentions various sacrifices involving shedding of blood, without reference to sin/guilt, means to read 'shedding of blood' as Psub is premature at least, flat out wrong at most.

Nick said...

David: The sin offering could exemplify penal substitution in its normal and usual mode, but God could make a provision for the poor Israelite so that they could make an offering.

Nick: My point still stands: atonement for sin was made without Psub. As you yourself said: "In a debate, you only need to concede a principle once to allow its validity."


David: You cannot prove that this is not the case (and I assert it is the case), and thus it cannot be a grounds for an absolute assertion as you've made.

Nick: This is more damaging to your thesis than it is to mine, because all you're doing is assuming Psub must be going on while the anti-Psub bag of flour must be an exception. My thesis states a uniform atonement principle, in which the nature does not change. But that's not all, I have other factors that support my thesis: (a) the sin-offerings were made for sins not requiring the death penalty, meaning a 'life for life' doesn't fit; (b) the priest is the one who makes atonement by following the rituals for application of blood and burning on the altar, after the death has taken place, meaning it's not a matter of simply inflicting the death penalty.


David: In relationship to (2), you need to substantiate this point.

Nick: Take the Fellowship/Peace offerings as an example. They are mentioned in Lev 3:1-3 and are not dealing with sin but rather voluntary thanksgiving to God. Their instructions require placing hands on the head of the animal and slaughtering it, which doesn't make sense if Psub is the framework which those things signify.


David: the death of Christ was an act in which justice is satisfied on account of sin. Which is as much to say that Christ's death was penal, unless you want to deny that justice in regard of wrong-doing means punishment!

Nick: I do deny that, because justice can be satisfied by other means. Note the term "redemption" that is used here; that is not a Psub notion but rather a 'payoff' one.


David: According to the verse, "sins that are past" - in other words, the sins committed by people before the coming of Christ. Which is to say, that his death was substitutionary.

Nick: That's not what that means at all. The Bible actually uses a very anti-Psub term here, "forbearance," which means graciously withholding of punishment so that a reconciliation can be made. In other words, rather than God inflicting punishment on men for sin, He held off so that redemption could be made. The root of it all is mercy.


David: Cunning parsing of certain words, such as "atonement" or "redemption" can't get you off this hook - the whole context makes the meaning abundantly clear.

Nick: I'm not being "cunning," I just refuse to read things into the text. You appear to be brushing off my interpretation off hand, despite the fact I'm striving to form an interpretation based on proper use of those key terms.


David: I have no problem in accommodating this observation [regarding Phinehas]. ... All previous atonements were symbolic, shadows and anticipations.

Nick: Then my thesis is effectively proved: atonement doesn't require Psub. That's the essence of my purpose in mentioning such texts.


David: Again you've missed the impact of Romans 3:25-26. Why could Moses' intercession be accepted? Why could anyone be accepted under the Old Covenant? Because of the great act of justice at the cross that would actually pay the price.

Nick: I must not have made myself clear. I agree any OT atonement is only acceptable in light of Christ's merits. My point is that Christ's merits need not come via Psub, especially when the OT foreshadowings didn't define atonement in terms of Psub.

David Anderson said...

Hi Nick,

Let me suggest that we wrap this up with a single reply each. With your three replies above I'm happy to let my readers judge whether you've tackled the heart of my argument for penal substitution or not - I don't think you've added anything new and thus don't think I need to either; but am happy to let others be the judge of that.

So if that's OK with you, make a 1-part response, and then I'll reply with the last word (being the arbitrary despot and all).

Regards,
David

Nick said...

David,

There is really only one thing that comes to mind when making this final response: Thank you for taking the time to hear me out, give your input, and be such a good host.

I agree, there is not much more we can say; let the readers decide who's case was more Biblical.