“Becoming a curse” did not entail “imputation” of sin.

According to one of the favorite scriptures of Penal Substitution doctrine, Galatians 3:10-14, those who are “of works of Law” are “under a curse” because Deuteronomy 27:26 declares, “Accursed is everyone who is not remaining in all that has gotten written in the scroll of the Law [of Moses] to do them” (Galatians 3:10). Therefore, by the logic of their theory, we should expect that the Lord Jesus was cursed because those lawlessnesses were all “imputed to him.” This teaching is pervasive among those who hold the position. BUT THAT’S NOT HOW IT HAPPENED! Galatians goes on to say that “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 Jesus Christ, that we may be obtaining the promise of the Spirit through the faithfulness [of Christ]” (Galatians 3:13-14). So there is no need of “our sins/transgressions/lawlessnesses” being imputed to Christ at all in order for him to “become a curse for our sake.” Rather, he became a curse by a completely separate provision than either sinning himself or getting “our sins imputed.” Is anyone paying attention here? Jesus was cursed WRONGFULLY, not “rightfully on account of imputed sins so that God could exhaust His holy wrath against the sins.” So because he suffered WRONGFULLY, God was justified in REVERSING THE CURSE (which obviously entailed death) by RAISING JESUS FROM THE DEAD AND SUPERCOMPENSATING HIM WITH “THE BLESSING OF ABRAHAM” SO THAT WE COULD OBTAIN “THE PROMISE OF THE SPIRIT THROUGH THE FAITHFULNESS [OF CHRIST].” There is a whole new WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between these “two ways of getting cursed” and their results!

Furthermore, Scripture does not speak of “bearing the curse” as our theologians and hymn writers are wont to do. That strikes of the popular false interpretation of “bearing guilt/penalty” instead of bearing (i.e., enduring) inflicted sins. Moreover, Christ did not “bear our curse”; he suffered under his own, albeit deviously invoked. Still, all these curses derived from the Law of Moses, so when his curse was FLIPPED INTO A BLESSING BY RESURRECTIONAL JUSTICE, the rumble was felt throughout that old decrepit covenant and shattered its temporary authority over the children of Israel. [9/24/08]

“Those who are by nature finite, and have fallen captive to decay because of having turned away from God, are presented, through the calling back of the One into eternal life, with the hope, indeed, the certainty, of following after him (I Cor. 15:21-22).” —Hans Urs von Balthasar, CREDO: Meditations on the Apostles’ Creed (San Francisco: 1990 [Verlag Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1989]), p. 59. [9/24/08]

Jesus died “for” (huper) our sins so as to benefit us thereby precisely by getting subjected to or “surrendered to” (Isaiah 53:6) those sins of wrongful abuse and crucifixion, for it was these that evoked God’s righteousness to raise him from the dead with manifold recompense and glory/proof. THE ONLY BENEFIT TO US WAS IN THE SUPERCOMPENSATING AWARD TO HIM WHICH HE GRACIOUSLY SHARES WITH ALL WHO BELIEVE IN HIM…PERSEVERINGLY. [9/27/08]

“With what shall a man repay God?”

The prima facie superiority of the early church “ransom to Satan” angle on the Atonement vis a vis the much later “vicarious satisfaction” and “penal substitution” theories is that it seemed fair and just, whereas they have always evoked stiff, highly rational and sensible objections on this score. To be sure, it was often attacked (at least in its increasingly elaborated forms) as “grotesque,” or “intolerable, monstrous and profane,” in the overly derogatory adjectives of R. W. Dale.  [10/25/07]

Anselm writes, “God upholds nothing more justly than he doth the honour of his own dignity” (Cur Deus Homo, i.xiii). (Quoted in John Stott, The Cross of Christ (InterVarsity, 1986), p. 119.) This would explain why God raised His dishonored Son from the dead and gave him honor. Why, then, doesn’t Anselm ever draw this obvious conclusion? [10/25/07; 8/27/08]

Scripture never teaches that if a person could repay God what his sins took away from Him, then he could be saved. It never so much as hints at such logic. Scripture never leads us to explain the problem of sin and the solution of salvation in such terms at all. Anselm hereby set up a misleading problematic. Only if a person gets caught in this strange web does s/he find Anselm’s answer in any way appealing or cogent. But in the absence of such legalese, his solution vanishes without a trace. [10/25/07]

John Stott writes, “To be sure, neither ‘satisfaction’ nor ‘substitution’ is a biblical word, and therefore we need to proceed with great caution” (The Cross of Christ, p. 112). Unless they dare presume to walk on water, their venture into quicksand may well be a fateful step even for the great evangelical doctors of the church. [10/25/07]

This is a little bit like saying, “To be sure, the Bible aims the big guns of neither God’s ‘wrath’ nor His ‘condemnation’ at Christ, our Head, and therefore we need to aim them there and pull the trigger with great caution.” ]8/27/08]

The way Jesus was cursed was decidedly not for his being one “who is not remaining in all things written in the scroll of the Torah to do them” (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26), but by “getting hanged on a timber” (Galatians 3:13, Deuteronomy 21:23). This means that “imputation of our sins,” had nothing to do with it! Therefore he was not cursed for “bearing the guilt of our sins as our substitute” at all. This is an artificially fabricated substitute explanation, i.e., a different gospel! (Galatians 1:6) He was accursed because the Jews dared to cause his crucifixion in order to anathematize him wholesale! Yet “no one speaking by God’s Spirit is saying ‘Jesus is anathema’.”  Rather, he is the resurrected and blessed Lord (1 Corinthians 12:3)! [10/26/07]

At one time or another, virtually every analogy of the Atonement (patristic fishing analogy, Anselm’s honor-satisfaction analogy, Calvin’s penal substitution analogy, Grotius’ governmental analogy, Abelard’s exemplary analogy, Aulén’s Christus victor analogy, etc.) has been forced to walk on all fours. Such humiliation may be expected to cause a backlash and disaffection. Still, we could fondly hope for some fortuitous evolution of primitive, at times even “grotesque,” four-footed analogies into full-fledged (feathered!), upstanding theories that might actually take off and soar to unrivaled prominence and universal acceptance. However, the absence of such a prospect on the horizon suggests that this is all a fruitless reverie. Something more serious is afoot in this perennial struggle for survival of rival analogies or contention among complementary ones. [10/26/07]