Did Jesus Die As Our Substitute?

Transcription

1 Did Jesus Die As Our Substitute? By Allen Dvorak There are several statements (or their equivalents) that are commonly heard as individuals describe the purpose of Jesus death. Some examples include: Jesus suffered the punishment due the sinner. Jesus paid the price for our sins. On the cross, Jesus took our place. Jesus died as our substitute. If these sample statements are examined closely, it will be recognized that they do not all necessarily have the same meaning. Some of these statements are suggesting that the death of Jesus was the remedy for our sins ( paid the price for our sins ; died as our substitute ), but others are affirming that, in Jesus death, He suffered the penalty for the sins of mankind. What do we mean when we say that the death of Jesus was substitutionary? Are we saying that Jesus suffered the punishment that we, as sinners, are due? Or are we saying that Jesus was our substitute in the sense that He did what we could not do? The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus died on our behalf, i.e., for our benefit. For instance, consider these passages: 6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) 1 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9) But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5) 1 All quotations of Scripture are taken from the English Standard Version, unless otherwise indicated. 1

2 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? (Isaiah 53:8) It should be noted that for us or for the ungodly (Romans 5:6b, 8b) does not necessarily mean as a substitute. The preposition huper (ὑπέρ) is the one found in Romans 5:6, 8 ( for us / for the ungodly ). BDAG gives the meaning of this preposition, when used with the genitive, as a marker indicating that an activity or event is in some entity s interest, for, in behalf of, for the sake of someone/something and lists Romans 5:8 under the section with the epsilon heading. 2 Louw-Nida defines the preposition in the same way: ὑπέρ a (with the genitive): a marker of a participant who is benefited by an event or on whose behalf an event takes place for, on behalf of, for the sake of. 3 4 Why Did Jesus Die? It is crucial that the requirement for the forgiveness of sins be understood. The Hebrews author identified the requirement in this passage: Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (Hebrews 9:22) Hebrews 9:22 states a critical principle: forgiveness of sins (atonement) requires the giving of a life, which is the significance of the shedding of blood. The sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law illustrates that principle with its animal sacrifices, particularly as seen in the Day of Atonement ritual. The Mosaic Law, with its shadows, also teaches us about the nature of that sacrificial life. Animal sacrifices in general and particularly sacrifices for sin were to be physically perfect, i.e., without blemish (Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18; 6:16). Note the obvious parallel to Jesus: 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:18-19) For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15) 2 Arndt, p Louw-Nida, Vol. 1, pp The preposition for in Hebrews 2:9 is also translated from the Greek preposition ὑπέρ. 2

3 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Hebrews 9:14) He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. (1 Peter 2:22) Some explanations of the atonement provided by Christ fail to observe this important principle identified in Hebrews 9:22. God doesn t forgive sins without the requirement of shed blood being met. Some views of the atonement portray God as forgiving sin without the satisfying of any requirement. In such views, He becomes like some parents, who promise punishment for disobedience (sin), but then simply set aside the punishment without cause. Propitiation The death of Christ is clearly connected to several ideas in the Scriptures. For instance, the Scriptures teach that God put forward Jesus as a propitiation. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (Romans 3:21-25) The word translated propitiation (ἱλαστήριον) carries the idea of appeasing wrath by an offering to satisfy justice. God s judicial wrath is directed toward those who sin: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Romans 1:18) Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36) God s wrath against sin is appeased by the sacrifice of Jesus, His blood representing His life given on the cross. We are saved by him from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9b). Redemption The word redemption speaks of the paying of a ransom for the purpose of providing liberty. The blood of Jesus is identified as the ransom paid for the freedom of the sinner. 3

4 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, (Ephesians 1:7) 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:18-19) Justification Paul argues in Romans that man will not be justified through his own merit, i.e., by works. We will be justified by his grace as a gift (Romans 3:24a). For the sinner, justification is the consequence of forgiveness. We are justified by his blood (Romans 5:9a). The judicial requirement for forgiveness, the giving of a perfect, sacrificial life, was satisfied in Jesus death on the cross. In light of Jesus sacrifice, God is just to forgive sin and not require of the sinner the penalty for sin (Romans 3:25b-26). Reconciliation We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son (Romans 5:10). However, reconciliation necessitates the removal of that which has separated two parties. Man is separated from God by his sins (Isaiah 59:2). Does God justify men, i.e., declare them free from sin, without any cost, without any requirement? The Scriptures also teach that the application of Jesus sacrificial offering depends upon the response of man (Romans 3:25 to be received by faith ). Penal Substitution The classic theory of penal substitution suggests that Jesus received the punishment due all sinners. According to this theory, he died a substitutionary death in that sense. The classic theory also affirms that the sins of mankind were imputed (transferred) to Jesus. This idea is drawn from such passages as: 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all 11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:6, 11-12) He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:24) 4

5 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21) Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree (Galatians 3:13) Note that the text of Galatians 3:13 does not say explicitly that Jesus took our curse for us; it says that he became a curse for us. The preposition in Galatians 3:13 translated for in the phrase for us is huper. The pronoun translated us is in the genitive case and thus should be defined as noted earlier in this manuscript. The same argument made on Romans 5:8 with regard to died for us can be made regarding Galatians 3:13 and Hebrews 2:9. He Bore Our Sins In discussing the subject of penal substitution, it should be acknowledged that the primary question is not if Jesus bore our sins, but how. Did He literally bear them in the sense of becoming guilty of them or did He bear them in some figurative sense? 5 It would seem that Ezekiel 18:20 would bear (pun intended!) on this question. The principle of that passage not only denies the Calvinistic doctrine of total inherited depravity (at least the guilt aspect of that doctrine), but also the idea of the general transference of mankind s sins to Jesus, a foundational concept of the classic theory of penal substitution. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:20) 6 It is sometimes argued that 2 Corinthians 5:21 also teaches that mankind s sins were transferred to Jesus. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21; ESV) I would observe, first of all, that the text of 2 Corinthians 5:21 does not explicitly say made him sinful, but rather made him to be sin. Just as the expression, the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6b) must be understood figuratively, so the text in 2 Corinthians 5:21 obviously must be understood figuratively. Using sin as a synonym of iniquity, did the Lord lay on Jesus physical back the sins of mankind, like bricks, each weighing so many pounds? Of course not! Sin is not a physical weight or volume. Sin is the violation (commission or omission) of divine law. How could Jesus literally 5 Some would argue that the sins of mankind were imputed to Jesus, but not the guilt of those sins. Personally, I don t understand how this would work. My understanding of the concept of the imputation of sin is that it is essentially the charging of guilt. 6 New King James Version. 5

6 become sin? Likewise, a literal meaning of laid on him the iniquity of us all makes no sense. Consider this illustration. In my youth, I lied to my father. Lying is a sin, an act in which I say something that I know is not true. Did the Lord literally lay on Jesus my lie? How could that possibly be done? Did Jesus literally become a liar? I would argue that He did not. The expression made him to be sin (2 Cor. 5:21) obviously connects Jesus in some way with sin, but it is not an inescapable conclusion that Jesus had the sins of mankind imputed to Him or that He became guilty of the sins of all mankind. I understand Paul to be saying that Jesus was made to be sin in that He became an offering for sin. In that way, He was connected to sin just as a sin offering had a connection with the sin of the one who offered it. That such an understanding is reasonable is seen in the teaching of Scripture elsewhere. For instance, Isaiah described the death of Jesus as an offering for guilt (53:10). The same Hebrew word used to describe guilt offerings in Leviticus ( āšām) is used by Isaiah to describe the death of Jesus If anyone commits a breach of faith and sins unintentionally in any of the holy things of the Lord, he shall bring to the Lord as his compensation, a ram without blemish out of the flock, valued in silver shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt offering. 16 He shall also make restitution for what he has done amiss in the holy thing and shall add a fifth to it and give it to the priest. And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven. (Leviticus 5:15 16; ESV emphasis mine - asd) 10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. 11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:10-11; emphasis mine - asd) If the sins of mankind were not imputed to Jesus, how did He bear them? Note this comparison of Isaiah 53:4 with Isaiah 53: Hutto. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:4) 11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:11-12) 6

7 The Hebrew word translated borne in verse 4 is the same word translated bore in verse 12b. The Hebrew word translated carried in verse 4 is the same word translated bear in verse 11b. The gospel writer Matthew helps us understand the meaning of bearing our griefs and carrying our sorrows in verse 4 by quoting that passage in Matthew 8:17, indicating that Jesus was fulfilling Isaiah 53: That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: He took our illnesses and bore our diseases. (Matthew 8:16 17; ESV) How did Jesus bear their griefs and carry their sorrows? He healed the sick and cast out the evil spirits/demons. Did Jesus bear their sicknesses by becoming sick? Did He carry their sorrows by becoming possessed? No, He provided the means for their healing, their release. He provided the remedy for their problems; He didn t personally become afflicted with their problems. Did Jesus bear our sins in the same way? Remember that the same words are used in verse 4 and verses Did Jesus bear the sins of mankind in the sense of receiving man s punishment or did He provide the means for our spiritual healing, our release? Once again, He clearly gave His life as a sacrifice for our forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22). Additionally, the word translated bear in Leviticus 16:22 is the same as in Isaiah 53:4 ( borne ) and 12b ( bore ). When the scapegoat bore all their iniquities, did it become a sinner? Is that the only possible way to understand the expression? The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:22; ESV) Jesus took our punishment on the cross. The primary emphasis of penal substitution is that, on the cross, Jesus suffered the punishment for mankind s sins. An appeal is sometimes made to Isaiah 53:5 to suggest that Jesus was chastised as punishment for the sins of mankind. 9 And indeed, the English word chastisement carries the idea of punishment. This verse is perhaps one of the most troubling for those who see remedy rather than penalty in the death of Jesus. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5; ESV) 8 The word translated griefs in Isaiah 53:4 literally means sicknesses. 9 For example, Vine writes, Isaiah predicted that God s chastisement on man was carried by the Suffering Servant, bringing peace to those who believe in Him: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed (53:5). (Vol. 1, p. 123.) 7

8 Note that the biblical text (ESV) does not say our chastisement, but rather the chastisement. I have been unable to find any translation that uses the personal pronoun our, although a number of versions use the word punishment to translate the Hebrew word mucar, with some such translations giving the impression that Jesus suffered the punishment that man deserves as a result of his sin (e.g., NRSV, NIV, The Message). There is, of course, no doubt that Jesus was chastised by men, i.e., treated as an evildoer. However, Isaiah 53:10 states that it was also the will of the Lord that Jesus be crushed. Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10; ESV) The key question is: Did Jesus receive the chastisement (punishment) that sinners should have received? There is no doubt that the death of Jesus brought peace to sinners, 10 but was that peace predicated particularly upon the chastisement suffered by Jesus or simply by His death, sacrificial in nature, as the requirement for forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22)? The Punishment for Sin Perhaps we can approach the question of penal substitution from a different direction. If Jesus, on the cross, took the punishment that man deserved, what was that punishment? Spiritual Death? The Scriptures clearly teach that one of the consequences of sin in this life is spiritual death, i.e., separation from God. Note the following passages: 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Romans 6:13, 16; ESV) And you were dead in the trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1; ESV) And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, (Colossians 2:13; ESV) For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:26; ESV) 10 See Romans 5:1 we have peace through justification by faith. 8

9 The punishment for sin, however, is eternal separation from God. Note these passages: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23; ESV) 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10; ESV) Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matthew 25:41; ESV) Physical Death? Is physical death really the punishment for sin? Banished from the tree of life, physical death passed on all men because of Adam s sin, regardless of their individual spiritual condition (Genesis 3:19, 22-24). Certainly the sin of an individual sometimes brings physical death as a consequence of sin, but death is universal, taking even those who are innocent of sin and those whose sins have been forgiven. If Jesus took on Himself mankind s punishment for sin (i.e., physical death) for sin, why do ALL men still die physically? Furthermore, if the punishment for my sins is physical death, why should I worry about that punishment since I will die physically anyway? Forgiven or unforgiven, every man keeps his appointment with physical death. What about the teaching of Ezekiel 18:4, 20? Do these verses teach that physical death is the punishment for sin? Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4; ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:20; ESV) Note the difference between the ESV and the NKJV in verse 20: The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:20; NKJV) It is one thing to suffer because of the sin of another; it is quite another thing to bear the guilt for the sins of another. The common experience of mankind suggests that individuals often suffer temporal consequences as a result of the sins of others. The ESV 9

10 creates a contradiction with other passages with its poor translation of verse 20. Sometimes the son does suffer because of the iniquity of his father, but he doesn t bear the father s guilt. With those thoughts in mind, what death is contemplated in Ezekiel 18? Is it spiritual death or physical death? I pointed out the difference in the ESV and NKJV translations to emphasize the truth that sometimes the righteous do die physically because of the wickedness of their fellow man. This would seem to mitigate against the meaning of physical death. Otherwise, Ezekiel 18:20 would be affirming something that we know to be false. It seems to me that spiritual death is more likely the death indicated in Ezekiel 18:20. Suffering? Crucifixion was not just a method of execution; it was intended to maximize the suffering of the one being punished. Why did Jesus die in such a horrible way? As one brother in Christ observed, There are many other ways in which Jesus could have given His life that wouldn t have involved nearly as much suffering. True. Perhaps that was the point of the cross. As noted earlier in this study, the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament in general and particularly sacrifices for sin were to be physically perfect, i.e., without blemish (Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18; 6:16). I understand those animals to have been accepted by God as a substitute for the sinner. The sinner, in effect, had forfeited the pure and innocent life given him by God and so God required a perfect life in return in order to receive the atonement of his sin. Obviously, the sinner could not offer his own life, already blemished by sin. Jesus Christ is the clear antitype to the animal sacrifices. He lived a morally unblemished life. There was not an exact equivalency between the life of the animal sacrificed and the life forfeited by the sinner under the Levitical system (they were of different moral qualities, i.e., amoral versus moral). In contrast to those animals, Jesus could offer a morally unblemished life on behalf of sinners. I offer these thoughts as a possible explanation for the principle contained in Hebrews 9:22. But this explanation still doesn t answer the question of why Jesus suffered the way that He did in His death. It only explains (hopefully!) why Jesus died. At the very least, however, Jesus great suffering demonstrated His love for mankind (1 John 3:16; Romans 5:7-8). The Scriptures emphasize not just the death of Jesus, but the suffering involved in that death. In Isaiah 53, He is described as stricken (vv. 4, 8), smitten by God (v. 4), afflicted (vv. 4, 7), wounded (v. 5), crushed (vv. 5, 10), suffering chastisement and stripes (v. 5), oppressed (v. 7), put to grief (v. 10), and suffering anguish (v. 11). It is clear that the prophet emphasized the suffering that characterized the death of 10

11 the Lord s Servant. The author of Hebrews also commented on the purpose of Christ s suffering. 9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. (Hebrews 2:9 10; ESV) 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, (Hebrews 5:8 9; ESV) What punishment, then, did Jesus experience? Did He die physically on the cross as the punishment for sin that man deserves? Since all men still die physically, the best that can be said in defense of this idea is that Jesus reverses the penalty of death by causing men to be resurrected in the final day. For the sake of argument, let us grant for the moment the premise that Jesus was temporarily separated from the Father while on the cross. Is the punishment for sin a temporary separation from God? Should we understand a temporary separation on the cross to be the equivalent of eternal separation ( the second death ) because it was Deity separated from Deity? What passage of Scripture would we use to substantiate this equivalency? If eternal separation from God is the punishment for sin, did Jesus experience that on the cross? Even if one accepts the view that Jesus was separated from the Father for some time on the cross, i.e., God turned His back on Jesus, I don t know of anyone who believes that separation to be eternal. Hell, the final destiny of the wicked, is a place of suffering. Was His suffering on the cross (obviously not an exact equivalency with the suffering of hell) accepted in place of man s suffering in hell? An Immoral God? Some argue against penal substitution (Jesus bore the punishment due mankind) on the basis that it would be immoral for God to punish the innocent. Noted author Jim McGuiggan writes: The trouble with believing that God punished Jesus with the punishment that sinners were due to get for their sins is that if God punished Jesus he was punishing a man he knew to be utterly innocent and utterly righteous that s immoral and God himself forbids it (Deuteronomy 24:16) Did God PUNISH Jesus? 11

12 Personally, I would grant the argument that forcing the innocent to suffer punishment for the guilty would be unjust, immoral, and thus the divine prohibition. On the other hand, would it be immoral for God to allow one individual to accept the punishment of another? If the Scriptures teach anything about the death of Jesus, it is that He went to the cross willingly (cf. Philippians 2:8). McGuiggan s argument, in opposition to penal substitution, seems to me to be weak. Others, in arguing that Jesus death was not an example of penal substitution, go as far as to affirm that Jesus death was not even God s plan/idea. Consider these statements by a single individual: 12 God didn t nail Jesus to the cross. Peter told the Jews, you nailed [Him] to a cross (Acts 2:23). God s hands didn t put Jesus up on the cross, but it was the hands of godless men who put Him there (Acts 2:23), and if they were godless, they weren t acting on God s orders. Then in Acts 3:13-14, Peter told the Jews they delivered and disowned Jesus in the presence of Pilate, who decided to release Him. In Acts 4:10, Peter told the priests that they crucified Jesus. In Acts 5:30, Peter told the Sanhedrin members that they put Jesus to death. In Acts 7:51-53, Stephen told the priests that they were betrayers and murderers and lawbreakers. Paul preached it in Acts 12:28. The blame and the guilt for the death of Jesus is always placed on men, never on God. The death of the Christ was not God s idea it was man s idea which God foresaw, and God used it to accomplish His purpose in providing salvation. I would never charge God with guilt for the death of Jesus. But to say that the death of the Christ was not God s idea, is indefensible. Note these Scriptures: Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10; ESV) this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:23; ESV) And he withdrew from them about a stone s throw, and knelt down and prayed, 42 saying, Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done. (Luke 22:41-42; ESV) And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:8; ESV) 12 These two quotations are from private correspondence and are cited merely as examples of the viewpoint under consideration and thus the identity of their author is inconsequential for the purposes of this study. 12

13 Conclusion In His death on the cross, did Jesus only offer the remedy for our sins or did He also pay the penalty for our sins? There is no question about the fact that Jesus death is connected to or necessitated by the sins of mankind in some judicial way. Hebrews 9:22 makes the critical connection between the death of Jesus and our sins. Through that sacrifice, we enjoy the remedy for our sins the gracious forgiveness of God. The focus of this study has been to determine if, in His death on the cross, Jesus also received the penalty for sin deserved by mankind. Should we consider the death of Jesus to be punishment from God or the fulfillment of God s will just in the sense of offering a sacrifice for mankind s sins? There is also no question about the fact that Jesus was treated as a transgressor, a sinner, by both the Jews and the Romans. He was certainly chastised by men as though He was a transgressor, but did He take our punishment? Three possible options have been suggested in this study for the identity of the punishment for sin : 1) physical death, 2) eternal spiritual death and 3) physical suffering intended to represent the suffering of hell. Perhaps there are other possibilities, but each of these possibilities for the identity of the penalty has some weaknesses, in my opinion. In the final analysis, whether one believes that Jesus took our punishment or not, certainly we should agree that His death was necessary for our forgiveness. If the requirement for forgiveness was the shedding of blood, then God is just to forgive our sins upon the meeting of that requirement (Romans 3:26). Is there any sense in which Jesus acted as our substitute in His death? To answer that question, we need to answer this question first: Why were the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law inadequate to forgive sin (Hebrews 10:4)? I believe it was because they were amoral creatures. The life offered for sin was not comparable to the life of the one who sinned. Of course, the sinner could not offer a perfect life for his sins. God permitted a substitute in the animals offered instead. The circumstances of the sinner have not changed. God accepted the shed blood of Jesus, who lived a morally perfect life, as the sacrifice for sins. In that sense, He is certainly a substitute. 13

14 Bibliography Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Hutto, Robert. The Guilt Offering. Biblical Insights 15.4 (2015) 8. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. New York: United Bible Societies, The Holy Bible. The New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, The Holy Bible. The English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Good News Publishers, Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. Vine s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, Internet Articles McGuiggan, Jim. Did God PUNISH Jesus?