Correct, Ransom theory is definitely not PSA theory.Ransom is not PSA and the Ransom theory of the atonement is not penal substitution theory either. You have conflated them.
Correct, Ransom theory is definitely not PSA theory.Ransom is not PSA and the Ransom theory of the atonement is not penal substitution theory either. You have conflated them.
AmenCorrect, Ransom theory is definitely not PSA theory.
The early church Fathers held to ransom, moral influence and recapitulationAmen
Correct nothing penal for many centuries laterThe early church Fathers held to ransom, moral influence and recapitulation
Yep, Anselm's satisfaction theory had to come around 1100 a.d. as a sort of forerunner of PSACorrect nothing penal for many centuries later
DittoYep, Anselm's satisfaction theory had to come around 1100 a.d. as a sort of forerunner of PSA
If God had sent Esther to the world to preach the only way to man’s salvation, and PSA was the only way to be saved, we would expect Esther to have preached PSA.These kinds of objections are really terribly unfair.
It's like saying "Prove from the book of Esther that Jesus had to die for sins."
Yes mercy , grace, forgiveness, love, reconciliation, substitution, ransom , Passover is what we see taught throughout scripture regarding atonement , nothing penal, nothing about “ justice “ being served via atonement. It’s a mid evil model and how they taught justice/ penal law and invented those ideas from their culture and imposed them into scripture.If God had sent Esther to the world to preach the only way to man’s salvation, and PSA was the only way to be saved, we would expect Esther to have preached PSA.
So it is absolutely natural and logical to expect Jesus to make of PSA the center of his preaching, if PSA is essential.
Furthermore, if Jesus gave sermons specifically on the topic of forgiveness and salvation several times, it would be more than logical to expect PSA be taught CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY.
Progressive revelation does not imply that God hides for millennia a thing that is ESSENTIAL for man’s salvation.
It means that God deepens the understanding, changes language, images, metaphors, secondary laws, rituals, social organization, forms, ways, emphasis.
The understanding of King David may have been more limited than the understanding of Paul or your understanding. But King David, Paul and you are saved on the very same grounds: God’s grace, extended to those who reach out to Him with contrite heart, willing to change their ways.
I do think that the Bible resorts to a penal language.Yes mercy , grace, forgiveness, love, reconciliation, substitution, ransom , Passover is what we see taught throughout scripture regarding atonement , nothing penal, nothing about “ justice “ being served via atonement. It’s a mid evil model and how they taught justice/ penal law and invented those ideas from their culture and imposed them into scripture.
PSA only has 2 verses. One in Isaiah 53 that is used and one in psalm 22. Nothing at all that hints at it in the NT.One of the ways to understand Jesus mission, that non-Christians like me feel more connected with, is his mission as a Messenger.
It goes like this
Is the theory of Jesus mission as Messenger supported by the Bible?
- God sent Jesus with a Message about how to be saved (forgiven, reconciled, transformed to a new person).
- Jesus knew that delivering his Message would cost his life.
- Yet, Jesus went ahead and delivered his Message. He sacrificed so that we could get the Message.
- His Message is not only what He said, but how He lived: his own person, his example.
- So, every time we look at the cross, we are inspired to repent and crucify the old man to live a new life.
Of course… it is supported by Jesus Himself!
“For this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” (John 18:37)
There are more verses, as many as those for the PSA and ransom models.
Jesus was not solely deity. Jesus was the God man, both God and man in one body. It was the flesh, the humanity, that bore the sacrifice, as God cannot die. This is the reason why God cried out "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me!" When Jesus, the man, bore all the sin of the world on that cross, God could not look upon Him. The fellowship and communion shared between the human and divine spirit in Jesus was severed by the sin, as God cannot be tainted or touched by sin. When Jesus died, His Spirit was made alive, that is, the fellowship lost was restored.Do you believe in the trinity and if so how would you explain that our loving Father abandon His only Son on the cross when they planned this all along. The Father loves His Son and was not ever angry with Him. Wrath is Gods anger. I have a hard time with a trinitarian believer who thinks that way about God.
The following verses note the difficulty of God forsaking JesusJesus was not solely deity. Jesus was the God man, both God and man in one body. It was the flesh, the humanity, that bore the sacrifice, as God cannot die. This is the reason why God cried out "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me!" When Jesus, the man, bore all the sin of the world on that cross, God could not look upon Him. The fellowship and communion shared between the human and divine spirit in Jesus was severed by the sin, as God cannot be tainted or touched by sin. When Jesus died, His Spirit was made alive, that is, the fellowship lost was restored.
The key thing to understand is that Jesus faced God's wrath (however that appears or is considered) willingly. God didn't throw Jesus on a cross, tie Him down, and beat Him mercilessly. Jesus voluntarily laid aside His position, was made flesh, and faced God's wrath on the cross. (Again, the focus is not God's wrath, but it must not be simply discounted.) God (trinity right?) did this willingly, sacrificing Himself.
Jesus was both God and man, hence the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus asked God to allow the cup of wrath (God's wrath) to pass from Him if the Father willed it, but not His (Jesus) will, but the Father's will be done. Jesus accepted whatever was coming. He was beaten, had a crown of thorns pressed down into his skull (these were not tiny, itty bitty thorns), flogged up to the point of death, a robe placed on His back and torn off, etc. All while the Father watched. If the arguments againsit PSA are true, why did the Father just sit back and watch? As Jesus cries out, why doesn't the Father answer, but instead turn His back? And, something everyone here keeps forgetting. Jesus signed up for it. It isn't a problem if the person involved agrees to it. If you tell someone to rob your house it isn't technically a robbery anymore. You told them to do it.
God's wrath was not aimed at the Son but at the sin the Son bore. As such, He became the object of the wrath, the sacrifice bearing all the sin. However, as soon as Jesus was done, fellowship was restored.
The other thign to understand is while PSA is true, it isn't to be understood as all there is. It is but an aspect of the atonement, and in this case the heart. However, many of the other beliefs of the atonement are true because they are also aspects. Why is God satisfied (satisfaction theory)? PSA. Why Christus Victor? PSA. The only theory that should not be considered due to conotations is ransom theory. Jesus was not doing anything for Satan. Don't give any ground to Satan.
Do note that I believe satisfaction and PSA walk hand in hand, but that PSA brings in the suffering that Jesus went through in paying the price for sin. I do not believe the wrath needs a spot light, just understand that when reading scripture, it was present in some form. It may just stop at what the Romans and Jews did to Him prior to the crucifixion and while He was on the cross. I see the forsaking as the side effect of sin, where the Father cannot have anything to do with sin, so turns His back on His Son (figuratively speaking) while His Son bore the sin. (The humanity, the flesh bore the sin, while the deity sanctified the sacrifice as the Great High Priest.)
Are you a dualist? Perhaps a nestorian? God forsake God? You do understand that Jesus was 100% human right? He was also 100% God. Two natures in one body. It was Jesus the man crying out on the cross. God cannot bear sin, He can have nothing to do with sin. However, the flesh can and did bear the sin. The human nature and divine nature of Christ were in perfect communion.The following verses note the difficulty of God forsaking Jesus
Psalm 22:24 (LEB) — 24 because he has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and has not hid his face from him; but he listened to him when he cried for help.
2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
Hebrews 5:7 (LEB) — 7 who in the days of his flesh offered up both prayers and supplications, with loud crying and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard as a result of his reverence.
It is inconsistent to hold a view of the trinity and believe God could forsake God
Imagine, wrath (rage, fury) inside the Godhead, hard to believe.Exactly !
It contradicts the Tri-Unity of God.
Isaiah 53 and the different translations.Correct nothing penal for many centuries later
ESV Septuagint
Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush | 10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his |
him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an | stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your |
offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he | soul shall see a long-lived seed: |
shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall | |
prosper in his hand. | |
NopeAre you a dualist?
NopePerhaps a nestorian?
You do realize it was the deity of Christ in sacrifice that gives the sacrifice its great valueGod forsake God? You do understand that Jesus was 100% human right? He was also 100% God. Two natures in one body. It was Jesus the man crying out on the cross. God cannot bear sin, He can have nothing to do with sin. However, the flesh can and did bear the sin. The human nature and divine nature of Christ were in perfect communion.
Thats the bottom line.Imagine, wrath (rage, fury) inside the Godhead, hard to believe.
Isaiah 53 and the different translations.
I compiled a text file with 3 translations of Isaiah 53 for easy verse by verse comparison.
1. ESV 2011 - modern translation.
2. Septuagint or LXX, 285–247 BC the version used by the early church.
3. Hebrew Bible, 8th/7th centuries BCE – 2nd/1st centuries BCE.
Unfortunately the forum can't handle a proper display of the text file and so I put it on my website.
As you can see there are major differences between the ESV and the Septuagint, the version used by the early church fathers. While on the other hand the Hebrew Bible is more in sync with the ESV. I still have to check if the translation from Hebrew to English is correct with an old Jewish Orthodox friend, but for the moment this will do.
For now just notice the major difference in translation of verse 10.
Code:ESV Septuagint Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush | 10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his | him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an | stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your | offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he | soul shall see a long-lived seed: | shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall | | prosper in his hand. | |
How can there be such differences ?
It would be contrary to the Christian view of the trinity if wrath was directed toward one member of the trinity by another.Imagine, wrath (rage, fury) inside the Godhead, hard to believe.