Here are Four Primary Theological Reasons Why Jesus Was Crucified.

1)      Jesus as prophet was performing a prophetic act predicting the destruction of Israel by Rome if Israel did not repent its current mode of being the people of God.

2)      God saw Jesus sinless and selfless obedience unto death as a pleasing act of love and devotion. Therefore, endorsing both his message, his means, and his claim to be the Messiah, God raised Jesus from the dead.

3)      In an act of grace, God chose to resurrect all who repent and follow Jesus, declaring that he would identify all such people with the sinless, self-less, obedient live and death of Jesus.

4)      Jesus intended his followers to use his life, message, and obedient death as an example of what true discipleship and true humanity is like.

Sin vs. Sin-Offering: A Note on 2 Corinthians 5:21

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Something worth noting about this verse. In some of your Bibles you might see a footnote attached to the second use of “sin” in this verse. This is because the the traditional interpretation of the second use of “sin” (harmatia) had usually been translated as “sin”, but now is now more frequently translated as “sin-offering”.

The Greek word harmartia (ἁμαρτία) is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) for the Hebrew word chatta'ath (חַטָּאָת) which can be translated as both “sin” and “sin-offering”. The ancient Israelites used chatta'ath for both words. Only context makes the distinction.

A good example of this is found in Leviticus 4:3. “If the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering (chatta'ath) for the sin (chatta'ath) he has committed.”

Again, context is the only way to discern whether the writer is referring to sin or sin-offering.

With regards to 2 Corinthians 5:21, the context suggests that “sin-offering” would be a better translation/interpretation of harmatia.

First, there are a several passages in the Bible that refer to Christ in sacrificial/offering terms

(e.g., Rom. 8:3; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:26; 10:12).

Second, it seems unlikely that anyone, let alone Jesus, could become sin. Sin is something one commits. Even the word “sinful” refers to the amount of sin one commits, not that one has sin abounding in them. One commits adultery; one is not adultery itself. One commits thievery; one is not thievery itself. Jesus never sinned so he is not sinful, let alone sin itself.

It seems more likely that Paul intended his audience to understand Jesus in this verse as a sin-offering. Jesus offered himself to God as a sin-less representative of Man willing to sacrifice himself for others.

Eli, Elijah, and Confusion over the Crucifixion

While on the cross, Jesus was heard to cry out, "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34)

Many of those who hear Jesus say this mistakenly believe that he is crying out for Elijah (Eli – Elijah). This source of linguistic confusion is why the gospels record what Jesus says in the original Aramaic before giving the Greek translation.

The reason that the gospel writers include this anecdote of confusion in the crucifixion narrative is to highlight the real confusion that is taking place. Throughout this whole episode, everyone is completely misunderstanding what is happening to Jesus.

Jesus has been identifying himself as a prophet from God and proclaiming a specific prophecy about the immanence of the Kingdom of God and approaching judgment. Now that he has been arrested and crucified it looks like God has abandoned him and he is being punished. The comments by people in Matthew 27, Mark 15, and Luke 23 indicate that this is the general opinion.

And at first appearance, Jesus’ cry of "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34) seems to indicate. In fact, Jesus is quoting the first line of Psalm 22. This particular psalm is about a man who is under tremendous suffering at it looks like God has completely abandoned him (vv. 1-23). However, in verse 24, the poem takes a dramatic turn:

“For he has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither has he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.”

The whole point of this psalm is that even though it looks like God has abandoned/punished the person afflicted, the truth is actually the complete opposite. God has not forsaken the sufferer.

So when Jesus alludes to Psalm 22, he is indicating that even though it looks as if God is abandoning/punishing Jesus, the truth is that God is there with him in his suffering and will vindicate the afflicted.

“Let his blood be on us and our children.”

In Matthew 27:24-25, when Pilate tells the crowd calling for Jesus’ crucifixion that “this man’s blood … is your responsibility,” the people answer, “Let his blood be on us and our children.”

Some people throughout history have used this verse as an excuse to legitimize their anti-Semitism. Their thinking here is that this verse teaches that this small crowd of Jews in Jerusalem 2000 years ago was accepting responsibility (i.e., blame) for the death of Christ in the name of all Jews everywhere for two millennia and onward.

The idea is nonsense but some people unfamiliar with Christianity and the Bible still believe that’s what these verses are trying to convey. I’m sure the very Jewish gospel writer, Matthew, would be surprised to learn of this interpretation.

I think a better interpretation is that Matthew the irony of the situation. While this small group of Jews who have been persuaded by the chief priests and elders to call for Jesus’ death is taking personal responsibility for that death, they are unwittingly calling for the cleansing, sacrificial blood of Christ to be upon them (1 Cor. 10:16; Eph. 2:13; Heb. 9:14, 10:19; 1 Pet 1:2, 19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5, 7:14, 12:11).

What they intended as a curse, God turned it into a blessing.

A Fuller Expression of the Gospel

I was reading today a few articles on N.T. Wright and his view of narrative theology. I came across one article that took him to task for a less than clear conception of penal substitutionary atonement theology. I sympathize with the articles frustration over the ambiguity of Wright's position, though it is obvious that we come down on separate sides when it comes to the validity of the doctrine. Nevertheless, what really struck me about the article was the author's dissatisfaction with Wright's book "Simply Christian" in that it did not explain the basic Gospel -- "Christ died for our sins."

This is a bit of a bugaboo for me. One of my criticisms of most conception of the Gospel message, particularly the more popular understandings, is that they are extremely narrow formulations, completely devoid of the narrative thrust of the Bible. In effect, to say the basic Gospel is "Christ died for our sins" is like saying that WWII was about liberating Poland from Nazi Germany. The saying captures the part but not the whole.

Granted, a full expression of the Gospel (like the one I humbly suggest below) does not fit on a bumper sticker or key ring. If one was to simply reduce the Gospel to its purest essence it would be the following: "The Gospel is the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God" (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14). This was the Gospel that Jesus proclaimed and would have been readily understood by his Jewish contemporaries.  

However, outside of first century Palestine, we, like the gentiles of the era, depend upon the apostles to flesh out the meaning of this good news and explain it as it related to the story of Israel.

Therefore, the following should be understood: "The Gospel is the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14), that God has broken definitively into history and the world (Luke 4:18) with power (1Th 1:5) and grace (Acts 20:24; Eph 1:13) in the person and work of Jesus the Christ (1Th 3:2; 2Th 1:8; Gal 1:7; 1Cor 9:12; 2Cor 2:12; Rom 1:9; Phl 1:27), who is the first fruits of the resurrection (1Cor 15:20, 23), bringing Justice (Rom 2:16), Peace (Eph 6:15), and Healing (Matt 4:23; 9:35) to the World and the offer of Salvation (Rom 1:16) for Repentance and Faith (Mark 1:14; Acts 15:7) to all peoples, fulfilling the God’s promise to Abraham (Rom 4:13; Acts 7:17; Gal 3:29) and inaugurating New Creation (Gal 6:15) and the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10)."

I think this definition offers a far fuller and more accurate expression of the Gospel and how it was encapsulated by Jesus' original audience.

"Sin" in 2 Corinthians 5:21

I've been doing a study on 2 Corinthians 5:21, specifically about the odd saying that "God made him who had no sin [i.e. Jesus] to be sin for us". This verse has traditionally been interpreted to mean that by some mystical transference God turned Jesus into sin during the crucifixion in order to be substitutionally punished for the sins of humanity. However, I had noticed that several of the better, scholarly translations of the New Testament add a footnote to the second occurrence of "sin" (hamartia) in verse 21, indicating that it can be translated as "sin-offering".

The reason for this is that the Old Testament uses the same word (chatta'ath) for both "sin" and "sin-offering". Only contexts determines the usage.

Therefore, we get a translation of Leviticus 4:3: "If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the Lord a young bull without defect as a 'sin offering' [chatta'ath] for the 'sin' [chatta'ath] he has committed."

Now when the Hebrew Bible was translated into the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the translators rendered chatta'ath as hamartia.

With this in mind, the  atonement context of 2 Corinthians 5:21 suggests that Paul intended the second use of hamartia to be understood as "sin-offering" instead of "sin".

It makes more sense to think of God considering the sin-less Jesus an offering for sin than actually somehow turning him into sin.

Reasons for the Crucifixion of Jesus

For those unfamiliar with Christianity or those only culturally tied to it as a religion, there can be some confusion and uncertainty about the meaning and purpose of Jesus' crucifixion as it pertains to the Christian Faith. I'd like to offer four primary reasons for the death of Jesus, in brief:

Reason 1: Servant - In this, Jesus obeyed God and followed the divine will perfectly throughout his life even to the point of death.  Jesus was the perfect human being as God always intended, representative of both God and Man, selflessly denying himself for the love of his fellow man and God, giving himself in obedience to God, even into death, for the purposes of God's saving work. Here, the grace of God is shown in that for whoever trusts God and follows Jesus, God recognizes in them the same selfless obedience that God sees in Jesus.

Reason 2: Moral-Theological Example - Jesus' obedience and selflessness is the ultimate expectation that God has for humanity, both as individuals and as a community. If Jesus is the ultimate human and a sign-post pointing forwards to God's consummation of creation, disciples of Jesus are called to follow his example in their daily lives, even to the point of self-sacrificial death.

Reason 3: Defeat of Evil - The resurrection that followed Jesus death from crucifixion ultimately shows that evil and all the dark forces that the world can muster can never have the final victory over Jesus and his followers. If killing is the ultimate act that one can do to another, if death is the worse destruction that evil can do, then the fact that Jesus overcame death by crucifixion and was resurrected into a glorified body means that evil can do its worse and not have victory over good. Jesus defeated both evil and death and all those who follow Christ participate in that victory. This is also the reason why there cannot be any justice in the world without a resurrection of the body from death.

Reason 4: Enacted Parable - This is a difficult one. In order to grasp it, we must peal back centuries of established theology (both correct and incorrect) in order to look at the immediate role and self-understanding that Jesus had of himself as a prophet in first century Palestine, warning his contemporaries about the threat of Rome and God's imminent judgment upon the nation of Israel. Jesus was deeply steeped in the Jewish prophetic traditions, both in terms of metaphor and method, particularly in how Old Testament prophets acted out God's message and even upcoming judgment (see Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.). In this way, Jesus, in his crucifixion, was acting out the destruction of Israel by Rome. He was demonstrating through a prophetic act that if the people continued their way of being Israel and did not turn to God's way (the way of Jesus), then Rome would attack and destroy Israel. Rome would treat the people of Israel as enemies of the state and crucify them, which is exactly what happened in AD 70.

ELOI ELOI LAMA SABACHTHANI

One of the more significant misunderstandings people have when reading the Gospels is the belief that God the Father rejected or turned his back on Jesus during the crucifixion.

This confusion is largely derived from Jesus' crying out on the cross “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” which is translated, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?” (Mark 15:34).

At first look the idea that Jesus is p...roclaiming that God has forsaken or rejected him seems fairly straightforward. Certainly, everyone at the time believed that Jesus was in this situation because God was not with him (Mark 15:29-32).

However, Jesus' cry of "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI" is actually an Aramaic translation of Psalm 22:1. If you read the entirety of Psalm 22 a far different picture emerges of what is going on in Jesus' situation.

The Psalm tells of a figure who is crying out to God in desperation. He is in the worst of circumstances. It looks like his enemies have conquered him. They laugh at his affliction. Everyone believes the figure has been deserted by God.

BUT ... in verse 24 we read the following:

"For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard."

The whole purpose of Psalm 22 is to show that even though it seems like God has turned his back on the figure, in fact, God has been with that person the entire time. He has not rejected.

So when Mark includes Jesus crying out the first line of Psalm 22, he is pointing to the entire Psalm and its meaning, arguing that, just like in the Psalm, even though it seems like God has rejected Jesus, the exact opposite is true: God is with Jesus the entire time him.

The people who gathered at the cross to watch Jesus be executed with the brigands were oblivious to this. In fact, Mark highlights their confusion by saying that when they heard Jesus say, " ELOI, ELOI", they thought he was saying "Elijah, Elijah" (Mark 15:35).

Interestingly, so many of us get this wrong, too. The original readers of Mark would have gotten the literary allusion and understood the meaning: God did not reject or turn his back on Jesus during the crucifixion.

Calvinism, Election, the Atonement, and Infant Damnation: Questions Answered

I had someone reply to the True/False Test on Calvinism article I post early last year. Great questions! Really good. I decided to post his questions and comments and my answers for all our general educations.


"Christ is the elect" So Paul is writing to Jesus in Titus? Peter is writing to Jesus as well in 1 Peter? Your use of "election" in 12 is interesting.

Please reread what I wrote:

“I believe that, first and foremost, Jesus Christ is THE ELECT, and that only those who are connected with HIM are ‘elected.”

If I had meant that Jesus was the only elect, I would not have used the words “first” and “foremost”; I would have used the word “only”.

In 1 Peter 1:6, Peter refers to himself as elect.

In 1 Peter 2:4 and 6, the “elect” to which Peter refers to is Christ.

In 1 Peter 2:9, the “elect” refers to believers.

But the point Peter is making here is that believers are elect because Christ is the elect first and foremost. Christ is the choice cornerstone on which God is building a temple of living stones (believers, the elect).

In Matthew 21:42, Jesus applies Psalm 118:22-23 to himself: “Jesus said to them, ‘Have you never read in the Scriptures: “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes”?’” (see also Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11).

Paul refers to believers as a “temple” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19).

Jesus was well-known in his time for saying that if the temple was destroyed, he could rebuild it in three days (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29; John 2:19). But as the Gospel of John notes, Jesus was referring to his own body (John 2:21).

Now, in verse 1 Peter 2:9, Peter quotes from Exodus 19:6: “And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Peter is making a connection here between Israel as God’s chosen people and all believers of the church as God’s chosen people. How can he do so?

The essential concept here is that Christ IS Israel in a very significant sense.

Note Exodus 4:22: “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn.”

Of course, we all know that Jesus Christ is God’s Son, his firstborn.

The idea here is that Christ is “first and foremost” the elect and all who have faith in him are elected because they associated with him whether they are believing Jews of racial “Israel” or Gentiles “grafted” into him.

In the Old Testament, Israel was often referred to as a vine (Isaiah 5:2; Jeremiah 2:21; 6:9; Hosea 10:1; 14:7). In John 15:1-2, Jesus refers to himself as the “true vine”. He notes that "every branch in me that does not bear fruit, He takes away”.

In Romans 11:17, Paul writes, “If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root.” Gentile believers have been “grafted” into Israel and unbelieving Jews have been broken off. This is how Paul can say in Romans 11:26 that “all Israel shall be saved.” Paul is not referring to specifically to Jewish people but to Israel as it is constituted in Christ. Any other interpretation of Romans 11:26 would mean that a Jewish atheist will die and “go to heaven” simply because he is Jewish. That’s obviously nonsense.

So as you can see, 1 Peter actually confirms what I wrote concerning #12:

“I believe that, first and foremost, Jesus Christ is THE ELECT, and that only those who are connected with HIM are ‘elected.”

13 If you don't believe in penal substitution then your answer about propitiation (35) in that it relates to the atonement needs expanded on. The rest of it is not in contrast to Calvinism, you just didn't define who is in him. His death is sufficient for any and all that are in him. One question in regards to 13 is "Christ atones for himself" what about himself needs atonement?

Here are a few of the blog posts I have written upon the subject of the Atonement. These should give you a good idea of my position upon the matter and the Scriptural evidence which supports it.

JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY

The Problem With Penal Substitionary Atonement

The "Suffering Servant" and the Atonement

What I Believe About the Atonement of Christ

A Discussion On The Atonement

In brief, I believe Jesus Christ by his life and death atoned for the sin of man to God. I believe that if Christ had not sacrificed himself and atoned for man’s sins, then every person would be damned. HOWEVER, I do NOT believe that this atoning sacrifice involved PUNISHING Christ for the sins of man. I do not believe that God was punishing Jesus in our place.

What occurred in the life and crucifixion of Christ was the perfect example of love and obedience from Man to God. It was certainly a sacrifice of propitiation in a sense that it was pleasing and acceptable to God and removed his wrath towards man, but that appeasement was not because Christ was punished but because Christ was obedient to God’s will. It was the self-sacrificing, self-denying love towards God and Man that pleased God the Father.

This ties into the subject of “the Elect”. Christ is the “Elect” and believers are “elected” IN him.

Christian believers have answered the call of God to follow Christ. Our choice to attach ourselves to Christ means that God looks at us through the lens of Christ and sees Jesus’ pleasing, perfect, self-sacrificing love in us.

And 1 Peter also speaks to this: “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God THROUGH Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5)

Ultimately, all our sacrifices are only acceptable because we offer them through Christ and God receives them through Christ.

Difficult stuff, to be sure, but the idea that God was punishing Christ for our sins is completely foreign to the Bible. It’s actually a horrid idea! In fact, as you will see in my blog articles on the subject, the Gospel writers go out of their way to establish that God was in no way punishing Jesus. The Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory was not developed until well into the second millennium of the church and is completely antithetical to what the Scriptures teach.


16 No, you need to research that. Total misunderstanding of Calvinist doctrine. Spurgeon for example believed that all babies went to Hell. Most (all that I've met) Calvinist believe that there are elect babies and reprobate babies just the same as grown ups. Particularly Presbyterians that believe in the covenant home.

Are you sure that you have done your research?

Charles Spurgeon (A sermon preached in London, Sept. 29, 1861)

“Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days . . .”

“Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there, too?”

Granted, there are millions of Calvinists in this world and throughout Church history, but, in general, they’ve generally tended to believe that infants do not go to hell.

Now I do know Calvinists who are annihilationists (they believe that the eternal punishment of the “damned” is eternal death and not “eternal conscious torment”) and believe that the infants of unbelieving parents will remain dead and not participate in the resurrection of believers. However, if that parent subsequently becomes a believer, THEN the dead infant will then be able to be resurrected. I believe they get this concept partially from 1 Corinthians 7:14. This is the idea of the “covenant home” that you referenced. I’m incredulous to the idea and the exegesis myself. Yes, I believe in annihilationism but I think the use of 1 Corinthians 7:14 is dubious and unnecessary.

Now the question was whether or not Calvinists believe that babies go to “Hell”.
The author of the question could have meant “Hell” either as hades (the abode of the dead, or, specifically, the state of death in which all those who die – believer and unbeliever alike – until the resurrection) or as gehenna (the state of ultimate punishment for unbelievers, which is permanent death or hades).

Since most people (Christian or not) would assume he was referring to the gehenna-like hell, I myself assume the author was referring to the latter and still assume so.

I imagine that the author would have used a qualified if he was referring to “hell” as hades.

Scripture Interprets Scripture: Annihilationism, Non-Penal Substitutionary Atonement and a Multiple Choice Question To Keep You Up Tonight

Scripture interprets Scripture. But too often we Christians choose to interpret the Old Testament (OT) in light of the New Testament (NT), rather than the reverse. Certainly, there is some justification for this practice. Jesus Christ is the criterion by which we interpret the OT. Which OT laws we honor and how we do so is based upon what Jesus did and taught. He is our example for how to practice the OT laws. However, this particular justification aside, there is always the issue of how to interpret the person, teachings and event which Jesus Christ. Thankfully, both Jesus and the Gospel writers who interpret him for us, give us those tools with which to interpret. Particularly with the original audience, the Gospel writers provided clues or devices from a common information pool by which believers can understand Christ. This pool is the OT.

Now, too often, as is the case, where Jesus or the Gospel writers quote a particular OT passage, say the Psalms, the Christian will forever read that Psalm in light of the person and event of Christ. How interesting! We tend to interpret a 3000 year old passage by another passage written a1000 years later! This is odd and wrong because the original audience of the 3000 year old Psalm would have never had interpreted this Psalm in light of Jesus Christ because there is no way they could have. But those of us who live after Christ’s historical events, we can interpret him in light of the Psalms if the Gospels so direct. Really, why is it that so many Christians never interpret the person and events of Jesus and the NT by the meaning and purpose of the older OT passage? Too many truths are avoided and too many errors go uncorrected by avoiding the meanings of these passages.

The Scriptures, including the Gospels, were written to give believers information, meaning and truth about God, Man and Christ. Therefore, if a Gospel passage is giving us a truth about God, Man and Christ and are alluding to a particular OT passage, perhaps this older passage will help us interpret the Gospel passage.

Isn’t this reasonable? Isn’t it at least worth a look?

I think that if more Christians interpreted the NT in light of the OT passages to which they allude, perhaps we would have less Scriptural and theological illiteracy and error.

Allow me to give two examples many will probably hate:

1) Annihilationism

One of the doctrines which I hold and which is deemed by so many in the evangelical wing of the Church as being incorrect is the doctrine of “annihilationism”. This is the doctrine of the Church which teaches that, unlike the teachings of pagan religions, Man is not immortal. Indeed, Man finds his creation not in eternal ideals but only in God who himself only is immortal. Man was created from dust and returns to dust. Man’s future resurrection is only due to the grace of God and only for those who are in Christ. All those who are in Christ will be resurrected because only Christ is resurrected because only Christ has a right to be resurrected. Thus, those who are not in Christ will not be resurrected but will remain dead for all eternity. They will remain in dust from which they were created. They’re punishment for rejecting God in Christ is to be eternally dead. No life will be given to them. Hence, “annihilationism”.

This is the teaching of the entire Bible without exception. The Bible knows of no eternal life for the damned. Indeed, the Bible refutes the idea of man’s immortality often. Yet, too many Christians (particularly the “Bible-believing” variety, continue to interpret Scripture by way of pagan Greek religion and philosophy. They continue to take the straight teachings of Scripture as figurative and symbolic and the apocalyptic and symbolic passages of Scripture as literal!

One proof text given for those who believe damned men will not be annihilated is Jesus’ teaching on Gehenna, such as that in Mark 9:43-48:

“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

The fire that Jesus is referring to is Gehenna, the garbage dump outside Jerusalem that continued to burn. The Greek word that Jesus is using here is “geenna” and not “hades”. Hell (hades) refers to the grave where the dead reside until the resurrection or hell (geena) which is the place of final punishment for the unredeemed. Gehenna is referred to in the Old Testament as the valley of Hinnom where detestable acts of sin were committed. This is why the Jews eventually turned it into a dump to burn garbage.

2 Chronicles 28:3: “Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.”

2 Chronicles 33:6: “And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.”

No one doubts that this is the case. Even conservative scholars who do not believe in annihilationism believe that Jesus is using Gehenna as a metaphor for hell as “eternal conscious torment.” Annihilationists also see Gehenna as a metaphor, but not as “eternal conscious torment.”

The phrase that non-annihilationists use to prove their view is “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Because this verse describes the fire as not ceasing and the worm as not dieing, it is assumed that the damned individual will not cease being tormented and will not die ... even though he is dead.

This has been the prime interpretation of this verse by so many Christians over the ages who only know of the Greek view of man’s nature and not the Hebrew or Christian. How much error could have been eliminated by simply interpreting Scripture with Scripture!

This phrase, “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched”, is a direct quotation of Isaiah 66:24 which reads: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.”

The very Old Testament verse that Jesus is citing to describe the final state of the wicked is one that states the transgressors are dead carcasses being eaten by worm and being burnt up by fire.

Remember this is a metaphor based on a well-known place in Palestine. The fire burned continually and the worms ate the carcasses of animals like at any town dump. Even those who believe in a non-annihilationist hell do not really believe that it is a place of immortal worms. They see this as a metaphor describing the torment.

But what does a worm do to a dead body? Worms are known for eating a body in the grave. That is why even today we refer to dead bodies as “worm food.”

The imagery of fire does not refer to conscious torment. The main function of fire is not to cause pain but to secure destruction, as in the case of an incinerator. The Bible speaks of a "consuming fire" and of "burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matt. 3:12; cf. Luke 3:17). Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which is to completely consume the dead body.

Southwestern’s own E. Earle Ellis holds to annihilationsim or “conditional immortality”. He sees the eternal punishment as having eternal effect. The fire and the worm are eternal because their effects are eternal, i.e., eternal consumption as eternal annihilation. The body of the unredeemed will always be destroyed and always be dust because it will always be burnt up, worm food never to be resurrected again into consciousness again.

Yet, no one wants to admit that they have misread this passage or (more likely) that they were first told what this passage means by someone who had been told what this passage means on-and-on back in Church theological history to the first Christian holding to Greek philosophy about the immortality of Man’s soul (a philosophy that make’s Man’s soul separate from himself and neither creatable nor destructible) read Mark 9:43-48 but read in his own philosophy.


2) Non-Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Another currently unpopular doctrine to which I hold is that of the non-penal substitutionary atoning work of Jesus Christ. By this doctrine it is meant that while Jesus Christ did die for the sake of the sins of Man and to save Man from the punishment of Man’s sin, this death by Jesus was not about him taking the punishment which Man deserves. I cannot stress this enough: JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is in no way the teaching of the Scriptures. In fact, the Scriptures actually teach against this view. The fact that (admittedly) the overwhelming desire of Christians today hold to a view which the NT completely rebukes is a testimony to how easy and permanently false doctrines enter into the Church. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a relatively recent doctrine of the Church whose earliest formulations stem from Anslem in the 1000s to a further formulation by Aquinas in the 1200s until being ultimately developed by Calvin in the 1500s. But for the 1000 to 1200 years before this, the Christian world was completely ignorant of the idea theory that Jesus was being punished for our sins - and by God of all people! The Father was punishing the Son for ... for ... well, for having on him the sin of Man. Despite the Scriptures’ claims that the Father loves the Son, that the Father is well-pleased with the Son, that the Father and the Son are One, and that God is Just, people hold to the view that the Father turned away from the Son as he was punishing him. Yet, this is what we evangelical inerrantist Christians believe! And they support this odd view by citing Christ’s cry from the cross recorded in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Thus, by this cry from Jesus on the cross, it is assumed that Jesus is proclaiming that God the Father has abandoned Jesus the Son. Why not?

Look at the passage in Matthew.

“And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. ... And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.” (Matt 27:39-43, 46-49)

And Mark’s account says much the same.

Everyone there at the crucifixion believes that God has abandoned Jesus. In fact, Jesus’ death on the cross is evidence that God was never behind Jesus from the first. Everyone believes that what the Pharisees said earlier is correct.

“But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, ‘This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.’” (Matt 12:24)

Evidence of God’s disapproval of Jesus has presented itself in his arrest and crucifixion. Even the Law points to this fact!

“For he that is hanged is accursed of God” (Deut 21:23; cf. Gal 3:13).

The people, the disciples, everyone has abandoned Jesus. And by his admission Jesus is including God the Father among the abandoners, correct?

But let us look at Jesus’ statement: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

This cry is a quote from Psalm 22:1. This is a psalm which depicts the utter anxiety of the psalmist’s situation. He is in a horrible situation which can only mean that God has abandoned him. The psalmist must a worm among men (v. 6) because God never abandoned the father’s of Israel trusted in God and they were delivered from their situation (v. 5). But the psalmist sees his enemies surrounding him and mocking his situation (vv. 12-13, 16-18).

What are the psalmist’s enemies doing to him?

“they pierced my hands and my feet” (v. 16)

“They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture” (v. 18)

So what is the Psalmist to do?

“But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.” (vv. 19-23)

And why should the psalmist do so?

“For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.” (Psalm 22:24)

Yes, the point of Jesus’ quote is in the Psalm itself. God did not turn away from Jesus. The Father did not abandon the Son. The Father has not despised the Son. The Father has not abhorred the Son. The Father has heard the cry of the Son and will act because God loves the Son.

The mockers are wrong. Everyone who interpreted the crucifixion as meaning that God had abandoned Jesus was wrong. Everyone who interpreted Jesus’ death on the cross as evidence that God was never behind Jesus and his ministry from the first was wrong. All who believe that the Father abandoned and punished the Son are wrong. If you believe that such affliction must have been punishment, then read the book of Job.

Let me ask you: was it wrong for the disciples and others to abandon Jesus at his arrest? If you say “yes”, then you are faced with the problem of why God the Father did the same. If God abandoned Jesus, then the disciples were only behaving with godliness, right?

You see the irony here, do you not? Christians today are making the same error that everyone at the time was making. They saw the crucifixion as punishment from God. In fact, the crucifixion was Man punishing Christ for following God. But because Christ followed the will of God instead of Man, God rewarded Christ with resurrection. All who similarly follow God rather than Man will be similarly rewarded from death. This is why Paul can say that we were crucified with Christ, dead in Christ, and will thus be resurrected with Christ (Gal 2:20; 5:24; 6:14). If God was punishing Christ with the crucifixion, then we were also being punished because we were with Christ at the crucifixion. Yet, if we were also being punished, then why was Christ being punished?

[Those of you new to this blog are probably amazed that an evangelical Christian who believes in the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures could think and write this way. So am I!]

Now let’s consider these two ideas together and come up with a reasonable solution to the following problem:

From a contemporary evangelical point of view, what is the punishment that Man deserves for sin and rebellion against God? The answer is typically “death”. “Death” but specifically, “eternal conscious torment” in hell, correct? Now, if each of us as redeemed believers deserve “eternal unconscious torment” in hell, but such a punishment was actually put upon Jesus Christ, then shouldn’t Jesus be currently experiencing “eternal conscious torment” for each of us? Seems reasonable, doesn’t it.

Now you have the choice of three conclusions to reach:

A) Hell is not “eternal unconscious torment” ...

B) Jesus was not punished for our sins ...

C) None of the above.

Your choice. If you need some help, I suggest reading Scripture.

The "Suffering Servant" and the Atonement

Well....I have to ask if you've read Isaiah 49-58. Those chapters are all about the promised Messiah and all matters related to him. Pay special attention to Is.chapter 53, and especially to verse 5. It um...kinda completely debunks your theory. In fact verse 10 says explicitly that it was indeed "the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer...".

Let me also throw in the quote from Psalm 22 in the Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, which is often added with Isaiah 49-58 when discussing penal substitutionary atonement.

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34)

Apparently, Jesus had a few favorite books of Scripture (Deuteronomy, the Psalms, Deutero-Isaiah and Daniel). These are books that he most frequently quotes and which also appear to have had the most important impact on his theology as it was expressed in his message and ministry. I would also suggest that these books were the biggest Scriptural factors in his development of a messianic self-consciousness.

At university, I often enjoyed times of theological discussion with skeptical unbelievers who loved to throw out theological conundrums about as much as I loved to answer them. One such conundrum frequently offered was that Jesus never explicitly declared himself to be God, (i.e., “I am God”). I usually responded with Scripture references such as John 8:58 and 10:38, but I also made the point out that the reason Jesus never explicitly stated that he was God was because he was more than just God. He was God and Man, the God-Man, fully God and fully Man. For him to say “I am God” would be incorrect. However, what he actually did declare was both far more interesting and shocking. Truly, the idea of one declaring himself to be a god was not unknown in the ancient world (think the Egyptian Pharaohs, the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, the Roman Caesars and the Greek legends). Jesus declared himself to be the “Son of Man.” While such a title can simply mean a “man” or “human being,” the way in which Jesus used the term in various contexts, unequivocally states that he was identifying himself with the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13.

This is significant because the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13 is an apocalyptic figure of a corporate nature (Dan 7:18, 22, 25, 27; cf. 7:14). Just like the other beasts in Daniel 7 represent particular kingdoms and groups of people, the “the Son of Man” represented the saints, the people of God, “true Israel.” The author who wrote Daniel 7 probably did not intend the apocalyptic “Son of Man” figure to be understood as an actual “historical” individual person. Thus, when Jesus appears, proclaiming himself to be the “Son of Man” and making further proclamations about his corporate nature ... THAT is radical. Jesus is not simply saying that he is the king of Israel but he is saying that he IS Israel in the truest sense of the word. He is the Holy One of God whose self incorporates ALL the saints of God from Adam to whomever the last believer ends up being. All believers (including both you and I) are in Christ and are a part of the true Israel which is Jesus Christ.

Now let’s turn to the “Suffering Servant” of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 49-53). These passages are quite similar to the “Son of Man” passage in Daniel 7 in that they reference and portray Israel as a corporate figure. Specifically, the “Suffering Servant” in these passages is the nation of Israel which God is restoring after the Babylonian Exile.

“And said unto me, Thou [art] my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” (Isa 49:3)

“And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb [to be] his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.” (Isa 49:5)

“And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” (Isa 49:6)

“Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, [and] his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, [and] the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.” (Isa 49:7)

“Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.” (Isa 52:13)

“He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.” (Isa 53:11)


We see this same idea of corporate Israel as the “Suffering Servant” in the previous chapter of Isaiah 41 and 44:

“But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away” (Isa 41:8-9)

“Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen...Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant.” (Isa 44:1)

“Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.” (Isa 44:21)

Just like the author of Daniel 7, the author of Deutero-Isaiah originally intended the “Suffering Servant” to be a representative of ALL Israel. It was Jesus who radicalized these passages and identified the “Suffering Servant” with himself (cf. Luke’s treatment in Acts 8:29-35).

In both of these OT allusions (Daniel 7 and Isaiah 53), Jesus is not saying something about the figures mentioned in the OT books but about himself as the Christ.

Furthermore, these passages were written 700 years prior to the birth of Christ but the tense these passages identifies the events affliction as having occurred in the past and not in the future. Even with the passages which reflect the future tense, the future events describe the “Suffering Servant” in ways which cannot refer to Christ. Notice that verse 10 states that the “Servant” will live a long life and have many children: “he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days” (Isa 53:10).

The original authorial intention and audience understanding of the “Suffering Servant” passages were not referring Jesus Christ. Again, the purpose of Jesus and the Church for making a connection between these passages and Jesus Christ to is not to interpret the OT figures but to interpret Jesus.

Jesus and the apostles do this throughout the NT. Good examples of this would be the identification of Mechilzedek with Christ. See here and here.


Now with specific reference to Isaiah 53 (particularly to verses 5 and 10) and how the meaning concerns the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

“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.” (Isa 53:5)

“Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.” (Isa 53:10)

At no time is the reader given the idea that God Himself is punishing the “Suffering Servant”. In neither of these verses or in any of these passages do we get any hint that the Christ took the penalty that should have gone to us because of our sins. Now the absence of penalty does not necessitate that Jesus Christ did not die BECAUSE of our sins or FOR our sins. Indeed, if we had not sinned there would have been no need whatsoever for Jesus Christ to have died at all. Truly, the death of Christ was absolutely necessary and essential for the salvation of Man to atone for Man’s sins.

Was Jesus “wounded for our transgressions” and “bruised for our iniquities” (Isa 53:5)? Yes, the Christ had to suffer for our sins because he was showing the perfect love and devotion in the face of suffering unto death expected of God from Man. But such suffering was not due to punishment from God.

“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isa 53:3)

“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.” (Isa 53:5)

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isa 53:6)

Notice the NKJV translation of the Hebrew word paga, (“hath laid upon”). However, the NKJV everywhere else translates paga, as forms of “meet” or “intercessor,” particularly in the Hiphil (Isa 53:6, 12; 59:16; 64:4f.). Isaiah 59:16 is especially important because it speaks about an “intercessor” (paga, Hiphil participle) who is Righteous. Indeed, the idea of intercessor speaks to the heart of the purpose of the Atonement.

I do believe that these translations are more formed by theology than by Hebrew grammar.

Yes, it was God’s will because God desired to save Man from their sins (Matt 26:39, 42; cf. John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38ff.; 7:17; 9:31). The suffering of Christ saves Man. God desired to allow Christ to suffer to save Man. However, this suffering was not punishment from God. We would all agree that the suffering of an individual does not necessarily mean that the one suffering is being punished. The idea of the innocent sufferer is the point of the book of Job.

Jesus taught on this theme himself when referencing, the tower that fell during its construction, killing the workers:

“And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:2-5)

Also, recall the man blind from birth:

“And as [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man which was blind from [his] birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” (John 9:1-5)

Perhaps Jesus is also alluding to his own suffering in this passage.


“thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,” (Isa 53:10)

Also, remember that nowhere in Scripture is offering/sacrifice understood as punishing the offering/sacrifice (Think of it this way: when you tithe at your local church, do you consider the offering a punishment?).

Again, I’ve also thrown in the quote from Psalm 22 in the Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:1; Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34)

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” (Isa 53:4; cf. Isa 49:14)

Notice that this verse states that it is Man that interprets the suffering of the “Servant” that God has abandoned him (note Mark 15:29-32 and Matt 27:39-44, particularly verse 43). But there interpretation is completely wrong.

“For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.” (Psalm 22:24)

“Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.” (Isa 49:15)

Too often when we read an OT quote in the NT we take the actual quote itself divorced from its OT context and then interpret its meaning in isolation. This is quite unwise because many isolated quotes do not reflect the intended meaning of the quote’s passage and the intended purpose of the quote by the NT author, particularly in the narrative books.

These passages are not stating that the “Servant” has been abandoned by God in his suffering. These passages are stating that God has not abandoned the “Servant” in his suffering.

In both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, the eschatological “Servant” is afflicted by Man.
In both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, Man sees the “Servant” suffering and believes that the suffering is the result of God either punishing or rejecting the “Servant.”
Both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 end with the revelation that not only has God not forsaken the “Servant”, but, ironically, he suffers because God is with him and this suffering is the reason why God vindicates him.

Couple the aforementioned passages with Ezekiel 18, the NT passages which identify Jesus’ death as non-penal and the general view of sacrifice as devotional, the idea of penal substitutionary atonement runs completely contrary to the actual meaning of the Atonement. To say that God punished Christ is to assert a view that Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and the NT writers who are alluding to these particular OT passages are, in fact, attempting to refute.




[Also, do not forget that the Satisfaction theory of the atonement was not developed until the 11th century by Anselm with his work, Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). The Ransom theory of the atonement was generally held for a millennium before Anselm. Historically, traditionally, the Ransom theory has been the oldest, most popular and widespread view of the atonement but, today, no one believes it to be correct. The satisfaction theory was adapted, defended and elaborated upon by both Aquinas in the 13th century and Calvin in the 16th century when it became formalized as the penal satisfaction or penal substitutionary theory of the atonement.]

What I Believe About the Atonement of Christ

What do you believe about the atonement of Christ?

and

What did Christ really die for then? It wasn't my sin, it certainly wasn't HIS :-), so why the need to die?

The atoning work of Jesus Christ began at his incarnation and ended with his death, it wasn’t simply an atonement limited to his death. Jesus led the perfect human life. He was one to whom God said, “This is my son of whom I am well pleased.” This satisfaction of God for Jesus never subsided or ended or even paused. What is the ultimate evidence of God’s satisfaction with Jesus? The resurrection.

The perfect human life is one marked by complete love and obedience to the will of God. This is an obedience which must be complete, even unto death. This is a self—denying obedience and love which means the real possibility of that death. The perfect man with perfect obedience to the will of God is willing to die, to lose his life.

Thus, we see much of Jesus’ teachings about denying one’s self, obedience unto death, leaving behind all other things (including family), the Greatest Commandment, “take up your cross and follow daily”, “he who desires to gain his life must lose it”, etc.

That last one is the key: salvation comes from denying one’s self to the will of God even when it means death. Jesus wasn’t receiving any punishment. At least not from God! Men were punishing Jesus. They punished him because he was obedient to God. Thus, God rewarded his obedience.


We already had good examples and the law to live by and be judged by. What DID happen on the cross?

Because we could never ever obey the law (and thus God) to the point that we could achieve our own salvation. There is no way that we can earn salvation by works – thus God said grace by faith in Him through Jesus Christ. By this we can very generally mean that we our identified with Christ in his life and death. Thus, Jesus’ perfect obedience and his due reward is given to us by grace.

What did happen on the cross? Jesus was put to death by men who rejected him and his obedience to God (thus they rejected God!). The death of Jesus in such a manner appeared to seal the idea to all men (both Jew and Greek) that this man was not the messiah, he was not right with God, he was not THE way.

Yet, God raised him up! God raised Jesus up into eternal glory with the Father. This resurrection proved God’s approval of Jesus, his mission and his message. He had been completely and utterly vindicated by God for eternity. And because God has thus vindicated Christ, God has made Jesus Christ the method by which grace is offered to all men who cannot achieve salvation themselves. Those who follow Christ are thus undeservingly saved. Their sins are forgotten. Their sins are not given the due punishment. They are not given their due punishment.


How does it help me if He's not taking my punishment.

It helps you because though he is not taking your punishment, you are receiving his reward. No man can earn a reward for eternal life with God because all men have sinned. Only complete obedience to God earns eternal life. We are hopeless and doomed. However, because God loved man and desired eternal fellowship with Him He offered His son as the means by which man could be saved. Not because he would take our punishment but because we could accept his reward.


How does that go along with verses like Rom. 6:23 etc.

“For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Just as it says: one who sins will die. The punishment for sin is eternal death. We have all sinned and we all deserve death. But we can receive eternal life through Jesus Christ because it is only he who death can not overcome. Why? Because he did not sin.

What is the appropriate penalty of a man’s sin? The answer is eternal damnation. But Jesus was only dead for 3 days. That’s not even a sliver of the eternal punishment of just one man. If Jesus was taking the penalty for our sins he should BE ALWAYS dead. But he’s not. He isn’t eternally damned because he wasn’t receiving an eternal punishment – he wasn’t receiving any punishment. At least not from God! Men were punishing Jesus. They punished him because he was obedient to God. But since he was perfectly obedient to God unto death – God rewarded his obedience with resurrection and a glorified body.


How does this view fit with the lamb being sacrificed to pay the penalty for the sins of a specific person all through the old Testament?

OT sacrifice is not about punishing the sacrifice but about man showing to God that the person is sorry for his or her sins and desires to make reparations. Thus the person takes something of value and offers it up to the Lord. The person takes a prized lamb and sacrifices it – burns it up – completely destroys it to show his sorrow.

Notice that it is not simply about killing the lamb but consuming it. If the idea was simply about death then there would be no need to burn it up.

Notice that not all sacrifices involve death of an animal. There are grain sacrifices and other vegetation sacrifices. Notice that Cain offered a sacrifice from the field to God. Notice, God did not reject his sacrifice because it wasn’t a lamb but because Cain’s heart was not in the right place.

Notice that Noah offered a sacrifice to God following the Flood. Why? He had not sinned. He was simply thanking God and showing his love for God. And to God it was a sweet aroma. Why would God consider punishment a sweet aroma? Really, God says that he takes no joy in the punishment of the wicked. Of course, the sacrifice of Jesus was also called a sweet aroma to God. Would God delight in the punishment of His beloved son? Of course not! God saw how much Jesus was willing to do to show his love for God and obey His will (and show his love for humans). Such a self-sacrifice was extremely pleasing to God.

Look throughout the OT. Sacrifices are often done by people who are not seeking God’s forgiveness of a particular sin but because they want to show their thanks and love to God. OT sacrifice is not about punishment but about showing love to God.

The attempted sacrifice of Isaac was not at all about appeasing the wrath of Yahweh by making Isaac be punished for the sins of Abraham. Rather, this was a test of God to see how much Abraham loved God.

Sacrifices are negated if the one making the sacrifice does not have his heart right. In fact, God hates such sacrifices because they are nothing to him because they mean nothing to us. If the point of such sacrifice was simply penalty then it would not matter if man did not care.


I am convinced that this is the correct interpretation of the atoning work of Christ. It solves so many problems and so perfectly conforms to the OT view, the teachings of Paul and Hebrews, and perfectly conforms to the teachings of Christ.

Remember also how we were crucified with Christ and will be raised with Christ. The corporate nature of Christ in which we are seen by God through his Son necessitates that in some spiritual manner we ourselves were present with Jesus on the cross. Paul is adamant about this point in Galatians, Romans, etc. If Christ was receiving a punishment, then so were we because we were there in a corporate sense. Also, the obedience to God unto death of Christ is also expected of us as believers. We are called to “take up our cross daily,” we are called to be obedient unto death as martyrs if necessary, and we are called to lose our life. Such expected obedience to take up our cross and follow Christ is not so that God can punish us but because it is that perfect obedience to God that is perfectly exemplified in the life and death of Christ.

Other posts on the subject:

The Problem With Penal Substitionary Atonement

A Discussion On The Atonement

JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY

I continue to study the Biblical concept of the atonement, corporate natures and original sin.

All of these issues are interconnected in the Scriptures among the various writers in both the Former and Latter Testaments.

1) The atonement of Christ was not a matter of God punishing Jesus Christ for our sins. Such an idea is nonsense! The idea of the penal substitutionary atonement is complete bollocks. It has absolutely no Scriptural, theological or logical basis in reality. Such an idea runs completely counter to the Scriptural witness and truth and is completely contrary to what actually occurred in the atoning work of Christ. The idea of penal substitutionary atonement runs completely counter to the justice and grace of God as He Himself continually states throughout Scripture. Of all the bosh of Reformed Calvinism (including perseverance of the believer, limited and unlimited atonement theories, irresistible grace, etc.) this is the most nonsensical and is really the basis for most of the bosh that follows.

2) The idea that mankind is punished for the sin of Adam is complete nonsense. Granted, it has more evidential weight than penal substitutionary atonement theories, but it is equally wrong. We as humans are not punished for the sin of Adam. That is a theoretical line of thinking that is rejected by the prophets, by Jesus, and by Paul explicitly. We as humans are punished because we have sinned like Adam. If we had not sinned like Adam God would not have punished us.

Really, why would God punish someone who has not sinned? Do we really think that God punishes those who are innocent? What kind of god is that? What hope do we have in salvation if the innocent are punished? Yahweh is a god of justice, patience and mercy and is not vindictive upon those who are innocent. A god who punishes the innocent is no better than the powerful who prey on the poor and weak. And it is these powerful ones who God frequently denounces and punishes for such actions? Would God then not need punishing if he afflicted the innocent?

Does this go against how many of us view the God of the Bible? Read Ezekiel 18.

Now what does this inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative passage say about our concept of a God who punishes humans for the sin of Adam? Are we out of whack about who God is? What does this passage have to say about US as believers of God in Christ? What does this passage have to say about the theory of penal substitutionary atonement?

3) Yes, this is just one reason why penal substitutionary atonement is an incorrect theory. God is not going to punish a son who does His will. God is not going to punish a son for the sins of his father. God is not going to punish a son who is innocent.

God rewards His Son for his faith and devotion to God in the face of punishment BY MAN. Jesus bore the suffering of being subjected to rejection, beatings, insults and crucifixion unto death BY MAN. Jesus bore the sins that MAN inflicted upon him in the form of rejection, beatings, insults and crucifixion unto death, etc.

“Father forgive THEM for THEY do not know what they are doing.”

Perfect and absolute devotion and obedience unto death. Jesus was perfect and sinless and never wronged but always followed the will of God. He did not inherit ANY “sinful nature” from Adam and was not punished for any “inherited” sin. He had the capacity to sin but ALWAYS withstood its temptation and always followed the will of God … yet he died.

But what was the result of such a blameless and devoted life?

GOD RAISED HIM UP FROM THE DEATH UNTO ETERNAL FELLOWSHIP WITH THE FATHER.

That was his reward.

But what of humans who are ALL sinners and who are guilty of their own sins? What becomes of us? We were created as mortals from dust and never created to be immortal. We have no natural right to live. That we have sinned and rebelled against God completely negates any hope of an idea that we can enjoy eternal fellowship with God.

Yet, God by grace has deemed that His Son Jesus Christ will be the means of grace to humans. All who follow Christ shall be saved despite their sins because they are seen THROUGH Christ. The believer is seen by God through the prism of the perfect Christ and thus we share in the inheritance (the reward) that God has given to Christ. We shall be raised up from death unto eternal fellowship with the Father.

We are not saved because God has punished Christ; we are saved because God has rewarded Christ. God did not punish Christ. God does not punish those in Christ.

What happens to the sins that should be punished? We deserve punishment for our sins. Our sins deserve punishment. What happens to our sins? God FORGIVES them. He does not count them against us. We are declared righteous in Christ.

THOSE SINS GO UNPUNISHED!!!

You Reform-minded Calvinists may have a very tough time with the idea that God allows sins to go unpunished but that is what God says he does. That’s GRACE. Yep, they disappear unto the void. They go completely unpunished. No one in Christ is duly punished for their sins and Christ is also not duly or unduly punished.

What is the point of this article, again?

JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY