The Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Notes
Transcript
Introduction
Introduction
Throughout history, there have been multiple views on what we call the atonement which deals with our salvation and why it was necessary.
Five views:
Ransom theory
Christ as substitute
Christ receives your punishment
Christ as example
Christ as victor
All of them hold an element of truth and most of them are really just another angle of the same views; however, a drastic distinct view of the atonement arose with Liberalism. Liberalism denied the deity of Christ and so another explanation had to be created to explain the death of Christ. Liberalism was very man-centered in its theology and salvation became about teaching man how to live. So the model of the atonement held to by Liberal theologians was this idea that Jesus came to be an example for us to follow and nothing more. The atonement showed us God’s hatred of sin in that sin killed this holy man Jesus and God’s love in that love caused Jesus to be willing to die for the lessons he was teaching us. And so if man can just follow the example of Jesus we will be saved.
Back in the 1990’s there was a big fad within Christianity where people would wear bracelts ect that said WWJD. This movement was based on a book written in 1897 by Charles Sheldon a congregationalist pastor and promoter of the social gospel. The book was based on 1 Peter 2:21 “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:” While there was a sense in which In His Steps was good in that it challenged us to live like Christ, the book was the result of a series of sermons preached by Sheldon that promoted Liberal theology. If you remember, the social gospel sought to relieve the social ills of the world without an emphasis on the gospel. Sheldon pushed and ascribed to a version of the atonement that did not align with traditional Christianity and this was the thrust of his book. To Sheldon, true Christianity is merely following the example of Jesus in our daily lives. 1 Peter does say that one of the reason’s Christ suffered and died was to leave us an example to follow, but Liberalism falls short by ignoring the rest of the bible’s teaching on why Jesus had to die on the cross.
Definition of Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Definition of Penal Substitutionary Atonement
The word atonement is actually only found once in our English New Testament though it is found a lot in the OT. The one NT passage it is mentioned in is
Romans 5:11 “And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.”
But what does this word mean. The root idea for our understanding of atonement is that whatever it is, it allows man and God to be made one again. Words like reconciliation, propitiation all are related to this word. In fact most of the time it is translated as reconciliation in the NT.
In the Hebrew- the word carries the idea of smearing pitch on something as a covering. It was used of the ark, but most of the time it takes a theological meaning. When the priest would sacrifice a goat for the sins of the people on the day of atonement, their sins would be covered over.
In Greek- it is the same word meaning to exchange by which it carries the idea of changing the relation of hostile parties to one of peace.
We use the word’s penal and substitutionary to further explain what scripture teaches about this atonement. The word penal is used because Mankind in their sin were enemies of God, righteously deserving God’s wrath and judgment. Substitutionary refers to the fact that Jesus took that penal punishment that I deserved in my place. The end result is reconciliation and the propitiation of God’s wrath so that now man can be justified before God by faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
Biblical Basis for Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Biblical Basis for Penal Substitutionary Atonement
The basis for the penal substitutionary atonement view begins all the way back in Genesis with the sacrifice of a lamb to God and was codified in the Mosaic legal system of sacrifices. In the OT, the high priest on the day of atonement would take a pure spotless goat and sacrifice it sprinkling the blood on the mercy seat. This sacrifice would provide a temporary covering for sin. As in the Exodus, God says when I see the blood I will pass over you. Liberals look at these teachings in the OT as primitive superstitious practices and not ordained by God. They view the NT as presenting a God of love and not a God of wrath; so there is no need for penal substitutionary atonement. But lets take a brief survey through some of the passages in both the Old and the New testament that do point to a penal substitutionary atonement:
Isa 53- the first passage we are going to start with is in Isaiah 53 which prophesies the death of the Messiah. In vs 4, Jesus bore our griefs and our sorrows. He was smitten of God. In vs 5 he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities and by his stripes we are healed. He would be an offering for sin in vs 10. In vs 11 he bears their iniquities. In vs 10, God is pleased to bruise him. What we see here are all the essential earmarks of penal substitutionary atonement. Jesus the suffering servant would die for our sins taking the punishment that we all deserve. Jesus death on the cross would satisfy God’s wrath toward man because of his sin. And the result, is that we are healed, we are justified and he makes intercession on our behalf.
The imagery of this passage is quite clear. This suffering servant would be a lamb (vs 7) brought to the slaughter. And this lamb would be an offering for sin (vs 10). The implications are that the Messiah would be that sacrifice for mankind to bear our punishment for our sins that we all deserved and suffered under the righteous wrath of God, but that we would be made right with God again through this sacrifice. The New Testament continues this theme consistently when it speaks of Jesus Christ. ]
2. Romans 3:21–26 “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”
Romans began with discussion of the wrath of God and how both Jew and Gentile are inexcusable before God and stand condemned. Romans 3:23 concludes that we are all sinners guilty before God. Vs 25, says that God set Jesus to be the propitiation or the satisfaction of God’s wrath. But how was God’s wrath satisfied? Was it merely by the good life of Jesus Christ? No, according to the verse it was through faith in his blood. The death of Jesus Christ accomplished something in relation to God on our behalf in that is appeased God’s wrath toward us. This is what Romans 1-3 have been building toward. Again the end result of the shedding of Christ’s blood is that we can be justified, declared righteous before God.
3. Heb 9-10 THe third large passage of scripture dealing with the atonement makes a contract between the OT sacrifices and the NT sacrifice. Hebrews 9:11–14 “But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”
Hebrews 10:4 “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” says that the OT sacrifices could not take away sin, but in Hebrews 10:12 “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;” Jesus made one sacrifice of his blood shed for sins.
Galatians 3:13 “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:”
2 Corinthians 5:21 “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
1 Peter 2:24 “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”
1 Peter 3:18 “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:”
Liberalism’s objection to Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Liberalism’s objection to Penal Substitutionary Atonement
The foundations for modern day liberalism were laid during the Medieval time by French Philosopher Peter Abelard
Indeed how cruel and wicked it seems that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything,
or that it should in any way please him that an innocent man should be slain —
still less that God should consider the death of his Son so agreeable that by it he should be reconciled to the whole world?- Peter Abelard
Peter Abelard was merely stating what others who lean liberal like Brian McLaren from the emerging church movement who coined the term cosmic child abuse to refer to God demanding Jesus death. Such arguments fail to make sense of how this decision was made and the full weight of the trinity. God wasn’t demanding the blood of some other man.
Imagine for a moment you did something wrong to me and I grabbed (_______) over there and just started beating on him. Meanwhile I tell you I am going to forgive you because I am going to punch (_____) lights out. Let me ask you this does it make any sense. No it does not; so we can understand how liberals stumble over the cross. What if, the man came up to me and offered to let me punch his lights out so you could be forgiven? That would say a lot about that man and his love for you, but not so much about my love for you. It still doesn’t make sense. This is how the liberals view the cross: Jesus loved us and died under the hands of an abusive Father. Now consider a third scenario, what if God the Father and the Son are both God, does that change anything? Doesn’t that make it God who took on flesh to bear the punishment we deserve. You see a human analogy doesn’t fit into this scenario because of the doctrine of the trinity. If you like the liberal believe Jesus was just a man then yes I can see your argument. Those who deny the trinity also face the same conclusion. But if you take the biblical record seriously, it resolves its own problem.
The willingness of Christ- John 10:17–18 “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”
The problem with Liberalism’s version of atonement is that it doesn’t tell us what we need to be rescued from. I read an illustration that I thought was interesting:
Seriousness of sin shows how God has wrath because he has love- llustration abuse as a child
Imagine you were sitting on a dock fishing and all of a sudden a man comes and throws himself off the dock and drowns. Later you found out he did this because he loved you and wanted you to follow his example. This is about as logical as Liberalism’s explanation of why Jesus died on the cross. Now if you were drowning in the ocean and a man came out to save you and drowned in the process that would make more sense.
Conclusion
Conclusion
The Penal substitutionary atonement is at the very heart of the gospel. Honestly without it, you miss out on an essential part of why we needed to be saved and how that salvation was accomplished. Other views outside of liberalism’s view of atonement merely look at different aspects of what also happened, but liberalism side steps the necessity of salvation. It also return the Pelagian heresy that man can save themselves because Jesus purpose was not to rescue us and pay the penalty we owe for sin, but Jesus’ purpose was to show us how to live.
