For part two of this study, click here: A refutation of the doctrine of “penal substitutionary atonement” (part two)
Isaiah 53
In Isaiah 53:4-6 and 11-12 (LSB) we read the following:
Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our peace fell upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.
As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will divide for Him a portion with the many, and He will divide the spoil with the strong; because He poured out His soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.
The words, “He was pierced through for our transgressions” and “He was crushed for our iniquities” are commonly understood to reveal that Christ was penalized in the place of sinners. However, for Christ to have been wounded for (or “because of”) our transgressions and crushed for (or “because of”) our iniquities doesn’t mean that Christ was being punished by God in our place. It only means that the transgressions and iniquities of those for whom Christ died are what made Christ’s death necessary (such that Christ would not have had to die if there had been no transgressions and iniquities that needed to be forgiven).
The fact that Christ was wounded and crushed for/because of our transgressions/iniquities is perfectly consistent with the understanding that Christ’s death was not a punishment but an act of faith-based obedience to God with which God is more pleased than he is displeased with our transgressions/depravities (and which thus enables God to justly forgive our transgressions and depravities).
In the expression “He Himself bore the sin of many” (v. 12), the Hebrew word translated “bore” literally means “bear, lift, carry” (see Strong's Hebrew: 5375. נָשָׂא). However, sin is not something that one can literally “bear” or “carry” (in the sense that one can carry a log, or bear something heavy on one’s back). Thus, the word “bore” is being used metaphorically here. So what does it mean for someone to “bear” sin, iniquity or depravity?
Answer: it means to take responsibility for it by doing or undergoing that which results in the sin/iniquity/depravity being dealt with. For those who are actually guilty of sin, “bearing” their sin or depravity can mean being punished for it (see, for example, Leviticus 7:18, 20:17-20 and 24:15–16). However, even for those who are guilty, bearing sin/depravity doesn’t necessarily mean being punished for it. For example, in Lev. 5:17-19 (CVOT) we read the following:
When a soul should sin inadvertently and does something departing from any of the instructions of Yahweh of what should not be done even if he does not know it, when he realizes his guilt and bears his depravity, then he will bring a flawless ram from the flock, by your appraisal in silver shekels as a guilt offering to the priest. Thus the priest will make a propitiatory shelter over him for his error in which he has erred, even though he himself did not know it, and it will be pardoned him; it is a guilt offering. He was guilty, yea guilty toward Yahweh.
Notice that it is after a man “realizes his guilt” (after having inadvertently departed from one of “the instructions of Yahweh”) that he then “bears his depravity” – i.e., he becomes responsible for dealing with it. But this doesn’t mean that he’s then punished for his sin (or that he must be punished for it). It only means that he must deal with the sin of which he’s guilty. And the way he’s instructed to deal with his depravity is by bringing a guilt offering to the priest (an act which represents his repentance and desire to be obedient to Yahweh). After the priest makes “a propitiatory shelter over him for his error,” we’re told “it will be pardoned him.” It thus follows that “bearing depravity” doesn’t necessarily mean being punished for it. Instead, the implication is that punishment is only what happens if the sin of the one who “bears his depravity” isn’t subsequently pardoned by God.
There are also a number of examples in which Aaron and the Levitical priests are said to “bear the iniquity” of the people of Israel (and of the “holy things” that are in need of being sanctified). However, the iniquity of the people of Israel wasn’t “reckoned to” the priests by God (and the priests weren’t penalized for the iniquity of others). Rather, by “bearing iniquity,” the priests simply took responsibility for the iniquity of others by doing what they were appointed to do to in order to bring about the cleansing of those for whom they ministered as priests. Consider the following passages:
Lev. 10:16-17 (NET)
Later Moses sought diligently for the sin offering male goat, but it had actually been burnt. So he became angry at Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s remaining sons, saying, “Why did you not eat the sin offering in the sanctuary? For it is most holy and he gave it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement on their behalf before the Lord.
Num 18:1 (NET)
The Lord said to Aaron, “You and your sons and your tribe with you must bear the iniquity of the sanctuary, and you and your sons with you must bear the iniquity of your priesthood.
See also Exodus 28:36-38 and Num 18:21-23. The removal of sin as a source of condemnation is also what’s in view when God is spoken of as “bearing” sins (e.g., Ex. 32:31-32; cf. Psalm 32:5, where God is referred to as “lifting away” the depravity of David’s sin when he ceases to reckon it to David).
Having seen that “bearing iniquity” can mean taking responsibility for the iniquity of others (by doing what one is able to do, or has been appointed to do, to bring about the cleansing of others from their iniquity), we’re now in a better position to understand how Christ “bore” the sin of many when he died on the cross. It wasn’t that Christ was punished in the place of the “many.” Rather, he bore the sins of the many in a way that is similar to how the Levitical priests bore the iniquity of both “the holy things” (by sanctifying them) and the people of Israel on whose behalf they made “atonement.”
This understanding of how Christ bore the sins of those for whom he died is confirmed by what we read in Matthew 8:16-17. In these verses we read the following:
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. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”
Here we’re provided with an inspired commentary on the first part of Isaiah 53:4 (“Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried”). According to what we read in the above verses, Christ bore the diseases and was burdened with the illnesses of Israel by healing people of their illness and diseases (and this involved touching those who were afflicted). This tells us that the way in which Christ “took” people’s illnesses “bore” their diseases was that he took responsibility for the healing of their illness, and thus did what needed to be done in order to bring about their healing. In the same way, when we read that Jesus “bore the sin of many,” it means that, by dying on the cross, Christ took responsibility for the sins of those for whom he died by doing what he needed to do to bring about the forgiveness of their sins.
“Let this cup pass by from me”
In Matthew 26:36-44 we read the following:
Then Jesus is coming with them into the freehold termed Gethsemane, and He is saying to His disciples, “Be seated, till I come away and should be praying there.” And taking along Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, He begins to be sorrowful and depressed. Then He is saying to them, “Sorrow-stricken is My soul to death. Remain here and watch with Me…” And coming forward a little, He falls on His face, praying and saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass by from Me. However, not as I will, but as Thou!” Again, coming away a second time, He prays, saying, “My Father, if this cannot pass by from Me if I should not drink it, let Thy will be done!” And, coming again, He found them drowsing, for their eyes were heavy. And, leaving them, again coming away, He prays a third time, saying the same word.
To what was Christ referring when he asked God to let “this cup pass by from” him? Many Christians believe that Christ was referring to the wrath of God here, and appeal to verses such as Jeremiah 25:15 and Isaiah 51:17 in support of this view. In these verses we read of “the cup of [God’s] wrath” that God caused Jerusalem to “drink,” and which he was going to cause the nations to “drink” as well. However, Christ was not referring to God’s wrath here. He was referring to the undeserved suffering and death that he was about to undergo. This is evident from what we read in Mark 10:37-39 (cf. Matthew 20:21-23):
Now they said to Him, “Grant to us that we should be seated, one at Thy right and one at Thy left, in Thy glory.” Yet Jesus said to them, “Not aware are you what you are requesting. Are you able to drink the cup which I am drinking, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am being baptized?” Yet they say to Him, “We are able.” Yet Jesus said to them, “The cup indeed which I am drinking shall you be drinking, and with the baptism with which I am being baptized shall you be baptized.”
Notice that Jesus told his disciples that they would “drink” from this “cup” as well (and they did). If the cup that Jesus drank was the wrath of God – and Jesus suffered this wrath in the place of/as a substitute for sinners – then Jesus’ disciples wouldn’t have had to drink it (and indeed they couldn’t have drunk it). But since the disciples drank from the same “cup” as Jesus did, we can conclude that the cup that Jesus asked God to let “pass by” from him did not represent God’s wrath.
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
In Matthew 27:46 we read that Jesus exclaimed the following while hanging on the cross:
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
It’s commonly believed by evangelical Christians that, when Christ uttered the words quoted above, it was because God was, at that time, reckoning (or “imputing”) our sins to Christ (such that Christ suffered the penalty of which our sins made us deserving). According to this view, it was Christ’s awareness of being separated from and condemned by his God and Father (and suffering God’s wrath “in our place”) that led him to declare these words. However, the commonly-held view that a separation between God and Christ had occurred when Christ declared these words is contrary to Christ’s own words in John 8:29. In this verse we read that Christ declared the following:
“He Who sends Me is with Me. He does not leave me alone, for what is pleasing to Him am I doing always.”
Because Christ’s death on the cross was an act of perfect obedience to God (and was thus well pleasing to him), we can conclude that God was with his Son when he was dying on the cross. He did not leave him alone. So what, then, did Christ mean when he declared the words we read in Matthew 27:17?
A better understanding of the meaning of Christ’s rhetorical question does not require the conclusion that Christ was being punished by God for sins he didn’t commit or that Christ momentarily despaired on the cross. When Jesus declared the words we find recorded in Matt. 27:46, he was quoting from Psalm 22:1. In this verse, we read that David prayed the following:
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, and from the words of my groaning?”
Jesus was very much aware of the fact that he was quoting these words of David, and also would’ve known the remainder of the words of this Psalm. Notice that the first rhetorical question of David – i.e., the one that was quoted by Christ – is immediately followed by another. And it is this second rhetorical question that I believe should inform our understanding of the meaning of the first question. When Christ’s words are understood in light of the second question found in Psalm 22:1, the idea being expressed is simply that God was not, at the time the words were declared, intervening to save his Son from the situation that had resulted in his suffering and distress. God was “far from saving [him], and from the words of [his] groaning.”
According to this understanding, the sense in which God forsook his Son while he was hanging on the cross is simply that God refrained from intervening and saving his Son from dying on the cross.
This understanding of the words quoted by Christ is confirmed by what we read in another Psalm of David. In Acts 2:27-31, we read that Peter quoted the prophetic words of Psalm 16:8-11 as follows:
For David is saying to Him, “I saw the Lord before me continually, seeing that He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. Therefore gladdened was my heart, and exultant my tongue. Now, still my flesh also shall be tenting in expectation, for Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen [or hades], nor wilt Thou be giving Thy Benign One to be acquainted with decay. Thou makest known to me the paths of life. Thou wilt be filling me with gladness with Thy face.”
Just as it’s true to say that God did forsake his Son on the cross (in the sense that God didn’t intervene and save Christ from dying on the cross), so it’s true to say that God didn’t forsake Christ’s soul in hades (for as we read in Hebrews 5:7, God saved his Son “out of death” when he roused him from among the dead).
But why didn’t God save his Son from dying on the cross? It wasn’t because God believed that Christ was guilty of anything. God didn’t at all believe that his sinless, obedient Son deserved anything that happened to him during the final hours of his mortal life. The exact opposite of this is the case. God knew that his Son was completely undeserving of the shame, suffering and death that he underwent. However, it was only by becoming “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” that Christ secured the future salvation of all.
Thus, when God refrained from intervening and saving his Son from dying on the cross, it was by no means an expression of his displeasure. Rather, it was because of God’s great love for his Son (and for the sinners for whom his Son died) that God did not intervene and rescue his Son. God knew what Christ’s faithful obedience would result in, and what the glorious outcome would be. It was for this reason that God refrained from saving his Son, and instead allowed him to faithfully and obediently endure to the end.
“He condemns sin in the flesh”
In Romans 8:3 we read the following:
For what was impossible to the law, in which it was infirm through the flesh, did God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sin’s flesh and concerning sin, He condemns sin in the flesh, that the just requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who are not walking in accord with flesh, but in accord with spirit.
According to what we read in this passage, it was by sending Christ “in the likeness of sin’s flesh and concerning sin” that God “condemns sin in the flesh.” And this, in turn, makes it possible for “the just requirement of the law” to be “fulfilled in us, who are not walking in accord with flesh, but in accord with spirit.”
The first point that needs to be made here is that it is “sin in the flesh” – and not Christ – that God is said to have condemned. In other words, even if the word “condemns” expresses the idea of divine wrath, the object of God’s wrath wasn’t Jesus but rather “sin in the flesh.” But what, exactly, did Paul mean by the words “[God] condemns sin in the flesh”?
Let’s first consider the meaning of “sin in the flesh.” Earlier, Paul referred to sin as “making its home” in those who sin, and as being that which sinners “obey” when they sin. But how was this condemned by God? Answer: Condemnation is an adverse sentence or judgment of God; for God to condemn someone (or something) is for him to judge adversely, or execute an adverse sentence. For example, in 2 Peter 2:6 we read that God “condemns the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to cinders by an overthrow…” But what is the nature of the adverse judgment being referred to in Rom. 8:3? What did it involve?
As I understand what Paul wrote here, the way in which God condemned (or adversely judged) sin in the flesh is that he did that which will result in its certain destruction. And what did God do? Answer: He sent Christ “in the likeness of sin’s flesh and concerning sin.” The words translated “concerning sin” (peri hamartias) are the same words that are used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture) to translate the Hebrew words, “for a sin offering” (e.g., Lev.5:6, 7, 11; 16:3, 5, 9; Num. 6:16; 7:16; 2 Chron.9:23, 24) and simply “sin offering” (Psalm 40:6 [Psalm 39:7 LXX]; cf. Heb.10:6, 8). So it’s likely that Paul had a sin offering in mind when he used the words “peri hamartias” in Rom. 8:3 (and was expressing the idea that, with regard to our sins, the purpose of Christ’s death was like that of a sin offering).
As already noted, a sin offering was a sacrifice that, once offered, resulted in the sin of the one for whom it was offered being forgiven by God (such that it would cease to be reckoned to them by God). Since Christ died as a sin offering for all, it follows that the sins all mankind will ultimately be forgiven (and that “sin in the flesh” will ultimately be eradicated). Although sin in the flesh still exists (for sin is still “making its home” in people), its doom has been pronounced, and its future eradication is thus guaranteed (having been secured by Christ’s death). By sending his Son “concerning sin,” God devoted “sin in the flesh” to complete destruction. As George L. Rogers put it, “Condemnation is not eradication. Sin is still present in the flesh of the saints, but its doom has been pronounced” (see page 41 of Unsearchable Riches Volume 25).
Because Christ died for our sins, sin in the flesh is certain to be destroyed (and all mankind is thus certain to be saved). And for those who have already been justified by God (i.e., those who have received the spirit of God and have thus been freed from “the law of sin and death”), it is by walking in accord with spirit – which is done by faith – that “the just requirements of the law may be fulfilled in us.”
Christ became a curse for our sakes
In Galatians 3:13-14 we read the following:
Christ reclaims us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for our sakes, for it is written, Accursed is everyone hanging on a pole, that the blessing of Abraham may be coming to the nations in Christ Jesus, that we may be obtaining the promise of the spirit through faith.
According to what we read in Deut. 21:23 (which Paul was quoting in Gal. 3:13), the “curse” that Christ “became” necessarily involved hanging on a pole after being executed. In other words, Christ became a “curse” (in the sense of which Paul wrote) after – and not before – he died on the cross.
Moreover, the accursed state of those hanging on a pole after being executed is not something that’s distinct from the state of hanging on a pole. Rather, the accursed state referred to in Deut. 21:23 and Gal. 3:13 is, itself, the condition of hanging on a pole while dead. That’s why, according to Deut. 21:23, the corpse was to be buried the same day that it was hung on a pole. To leave the corpse hanging on the pole indefinitely would’ve been gratuitous; the deceased individual was already “accursed” by virtue of being hung on a pole.
Based on these considerations, we can conclude that Christ didn’t die on the cross because he was accursed (or that he “became a curse” before he died); rather, Christ’s being on the cross after dying was, in itself, the accursed state. That is, it was by dying on a pole that Christ became a “curse” (and which thus made it true to say that Christ “became a curse for our sakes”).
God made Christ a sin offering for our sakes
In 2 Corinthians 5:21 (CLNT) we read the following:
“For the One not knowing sin, [God] makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God’s righteousness in Him.”
The word translated “a sin offering” in this verse is ἁμαρτίαν (harmartia). This word is simply the standard word that’s most often translated “sin” in the Bible. However, the word “sin” – i.e., that which Paul had in mind when he previously wrote, “For the One not knowing sin” – literally denotes a failure to keep God’s precepts. That is, “sin” literally refers to any violation/transgression of God’s law (whether intentional or unintentional). Hence, we read in 1 John 3:4 that “sin is lawlessness.”
Now, I think it’s clear that Paul was using the word “sin” according to its literal meaning when he wrote “For the One not knowing sin…” That is, the first use of the word “sin” in this verse refers to a failure to keep God’s precepts, or a violation of God’s law. However, if Paul was referring to the same thing when he used the word harmartia again in this verse, then he was saying that God made Christ “a violation of God’s law for our sakes,” or “a failure to keep God’s precepts for our sakes.” But that would make no sense. It’s for this reason that many Christians understand the words commonly translated as “made sin” in this verse to mean something like, “regarded as sinful,” or “made guilty of our sins.”
However, there’s no need to understand what Paul wrote in this way. For we know that, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the word “sin” was sometimes used to refer to a “sin offering” (חַטָּאָה (chatta'ah)). Consider, for example, Leviticus 4:3:
If the anointed priest should sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then he shall bring near for his sin (chatta’ath) with which he has sinned a flawless young bull calf of the herd, to Yahweh as a sin offering (chatta’ath).
In fact, in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., the Septuagint, or LXX), we find the exact word used by Paul in 2 Cor. 5:21 (harmartia) being used to mean “a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:21, 24; 5:12).[1] And Paul was, of course, well aware of the fact that the word “sin” could be used in this way (both in the original Hebrew Scriptures and in the LXX).
“Offered once for the bearing of the sins of many”
In Hebrews 9:28 we read that Christ was “offered once for the bearing of the sins of many.” And in 1 Peter 2:24, we read that Christ “carries up our sins in His body on to the pole, that, coming away from sins, we should be living for righteousness; by Whose welt you were healed.”
Both the author of the letter to the Hebrews and Peter undoubtedly had Isaiah 53 in mind when they wrote what they did in these verses. They were expressing the idea that it was by Christ’s sacrificial death (which occurred on “the pole” to which Peter referred) that Christ did what he needed to do in order to secure/bring about the forgiveness of the sins of the believers among God’s covenant people.
By offering himself flawless to God (Heb 9:14), Christ did what he needed to do to bring about the elimination of the sins of the “many” who are being referred to in Heb. 9:28 (which, from the context, consists of those believing Jews who, after Christ’s return to earth, will be “obtaining the promise of the eonian enjoyment of the allotment” [Heb. 9:11-15]). However, it isn’t because Christ was punished by God that he secured the forgiveness of sins; rather, it’s because Christ’s death was an act of perfect, faith-based obedience to God (and was thus well-pleasing to God) that the sins for which he died can be justly forgiven by God.
[1] Here’s every verse from the Hebrew Scriptures where, in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), the exact word used by Paul in 2 Cor. 5:21 (ἁμαρτίαν, or “hamartia”) was used to refer to a “sin offering”:
Ex 29:14, Ex 29:36; Lev 4:3, Lev 4:8, Lev 4:20, Lev 4:21, Lev 4:24, Lev 4:25, Lev 4:29, Lev 4:32-34; Lev 5:6, Lev 5:7, Lev 5:8, Lev 5:9, Lev 5:11, Lev 5:12; Lev 6:17, Lev 6:25, Lev 6:30; Lev 7:7, Lev 7:37; Lev 8:2, Lev 8:14; Lev 9:2, Lev 9:3, Lev 9:7, Lev 9:8, Lev 9:10, Lev 9:15, Lev 9:22; Lev 10:16, Lev 10:17, Lev 10:19; Lev 12:6, Lev 12:8; Lev 14:13, Lev 14:19, Lev 14:22, Lev 14:31; Lev 15:15, Lev 15:30; Lev 16:3, Lev 16:5, Lev 16:6, Lev 16:9, Lev 16:11, Lev 16:15, Lev 16:25, Lev 16:27; Lev 23:19; Num 6:11, Num 6:14, Num 6:16; Num 7:16, Num 7:22, Num 7:28, Num 7:34, Num 7:40, Num 7:46, Num 7:52, Num 7:58, Num 7:70, Num 7:76, Num 7:82, Num 7:87; Num 8:8, Num 8:12; Num 15:24, Num 15:25, Num 15:27; Num 18:9; Num 28:15, Num 28:22; Num 29:5, Num 29:11, Num 29:16, Num 29:22, Num 29:25, Num 29:28, Num 29:31, Num 29:34, Num 29:38; 2Ch 29:21, 2Ch 29:23, 2Ch 29:24; Ezr 6:17; Ezr 8:35; Neh 10:33; Job 1:5; Eze 43:19, Eze 43:22, Eze 43:25; Eze 44:27, Eze 44:29; Eze 45:17, Eze 45:19, Eze 45:22, Eze 45:23, Eze 45:25.
