Do you believe in penal substitution? // Ask NT Wright Anything

What does it mean to say that ‘Jesus died in our place’ on the cross? Tom Wright responds on how we should and shouldn’t view penal substitution.
For more Q&A on the podcast, updates and bonus content register at www.askntwright.com
***
Ask NT Wright Anything is the regular podcast that connects you to NT (Tom) Wright’s thought and theology by allowing you to ask the questions.
Presented by Justin Brierley. Brought to you in partnership with Premier, SPCK & NTWrightOnline

[@TryStone9897]

Is it just me, or is it hard to understand exactly what N.T. Wright believes. I find myself agreeing with most everything he says, then at the same time wondering if I agree. I guess after hearing him explain himself I'm left feeling more confused than before. Is anyone else experiencing this?

[@MrAnungUnRama]

Yes mate, this is exactly how I’m feeling about him. He seems to be very good at picking up places in Scripture which the church has either forgotten or not explained very well. But when it comes to very deep dogmatic issues like penal substitution, justification, imputation or even God’s wrath, he seems to have us running in the maze if you know what I mean. He seems to have a problem with some of those doctrines but is always very subtle when explaining himself. Listen to what John MacArthur said about him three years ago. WOW! 😵... If he says he can’t tell us what he believes, but only what he doesn’t believe then I feel uncomfortable. If he can’t explain himself clearly about what he actually believes then there must be something wrong there. The devil could be at work here, you never know, trying to deceive even God’s own elect. Be careful brother 😷😉🙏

[@kathyh.1720]

@@MrAnungUnRama I didn't have a problem understanding him. He did share what he believes. He has very good Bible-based theology. Perhaps people who have trouble understanding him have been taught things that aren't actually supported by the Bible but are just being passed on from person to person (or preacher to congregation), and that might be hindering people from understanding what N. T. Wright's message is.

[@MrAnungUnRama]

Kathy H. Just to clarify, I’m not saying that everything that N.T. Wright says is not Bible based, but some of things he has said and wrote are definitely not Biblically sound. E.g. he denies that the gospel has anything to do with salvation, he does not believe that God had to pour his wrath on His own Son, (in fact he’s mocked this concept) he doesn’t believe that through Christ’s death and resurrection we receive the righteousness of God in Christ when we repent and believe in Him. He seems to think that pastors before him and all the reformers got it wrong but now he’s got it right. These are very crucial things which are explicitly taught in Scripture so if you really think he’s biblically sound on these things, you should probably re read the New Testament and see what it tells us. Not trying to be horrible, it’s just I fear there’s a lot of deception going on. I know how persuasive some of these scholars can be with their knowledge but we really need to be prepared to put them to the test so we don’t end up getting mislead. Sometimes you find even their interpretations can be driven by their own opinions so do be careful. God bless you.

[@kathyh.1720]

@@MrAnungUnRama Yes, you need to be careful. I have found error in some of your statements, but it's too late in the evening to write more at the moment. I'm just suggesting that you take your own advice and look for the Biblical basis of your statements. Chapter and verse, please.

[@MrAnungUnRama]

Kathy H. Fair enough. And yes I’m happy to do this when I get the chance. However, it would help me if you were to tell me which bits I said that you think is in error. Then hopefully I can provide you with some bible references for them.

[@josephpugh1185]

Wright’s answer to this question comes from his intention to read the Bible in the light of 1st century Judaism, the context in which it was written. Those expecting his response to be framed in the same polemical language of the reformers will feel disappointed that Wright’s response doesn’t fit neatly into those categories. I think that’s part of the disconnect here.

[@savedchristian4754]

Evidences of God's wrath on Jesus: - 1Peter3:18:"Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust". - 1Corinthians15:3: "Christ died for our sins". - 1John2:2:"He is the propitiation for our sins".

[@savedchristian4754]

__ Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!

[@sarahfield9758]

@@savedchristian4754 How is that evidence of God's wrath? I mean, only if you *assume* that this is wrath language. Wrath is not mentioned, unless you presuppose that all suffering and death is God's wrath. It could just as easily be that this is the work of the devil. If the only choices are between believing in a wrathful God who would use His own Son as a whipping boy or justification by complying with the moral law, then perhaps we need to expand our minds a little?

[@savedchristian4754]

@@sarahfield9758 Isaiah53:6: 'the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all'.

[@TheDareD3vil]

@@savedchristian4754 notice that still doesn’t say anything about wrath, lol. Also, notice that Isa 53:6 says *exactly* what Wright said near the end of the video, that God collected all the guilt of sin in one place so that he could condemn it forever.

[@neilmarcusrichardson]

Every C of E answer has to begin with “There is a sense in which...” ;-)

[@jamescam04]

Shouldn’t that read “There is a very real sense in which……” 😀😄😅🤓 ?

[@littleboots9800]

Hahahaaa! This is so accurate!

[@P.H.888]

Indeed

[@WilliamFAlmeida]

Thanks for consistently pressing him to answer the question more clearly Justin.

[@bobpolo2964]

I think Wright did a good job explaining his view

[@bobpolo2964]

@@dizzydisciple What didn't you understand? Maybe i could help

[@footballpharaoh5469]

@@bobpolo2964 - Can you help me out? I don't know what he's trying to convey.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@footballpharaoh5469 He's saying that the doctrine of penal substitution can be harmful if it's poorly communicated.

[@littleboots9800]

@@bobpolo2964 well he articulated that pretty poorly himself.

[@MacClellandMan]

"He made him who knew no sin (to be) sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him." And, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Because, “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us… In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”

[@ngumoandy]

Thought about this exact text when he tried to separate Christ taking up the sin penalty for us and repackaging as an external object that Christ died for.

[@tonymercer7759]

Amen. The Scriptures tell us succinctly

[@lawrence1318]

It doesn't say "and as an offering for sin". It says: "and for sin". Read the KJV, not the modern versions.

[@justinray6557]

He actually reads the oldest Greek manuscripts. Not KJV translated from newer Hebrew manuscripts.

[@lawrence1318]

@@justinray6557 The KJV is always correct.

[@jsharp1701]

I have one very important question: May I have one of those fantastic-looking pastries?

[@uncertainty7421]

Lol!😂

[@Leadeshipcoach]

🤣🤣🤣

[@Truth537]

@@Leadeshipcoach Hahahaha. Yeah, I saw those too! :)

[@lorenzomurrone2430]

Now we're asking the real questions!

[@ndjarnag]

I want one

[@michaelcaza-schonberger9282]

Romans 5:6-10 and and Isaiah 52:13-53:12 are two of my most favourite passages of Scripture. Isaiah Gospel led this Orthodox Jew to faith, and Rom. 5:6-10 in conjunction with Isaiah 52:13-53:12 reminds me of how much God loves us. Yeshua has to die, this is clear, however He willingly laid His life down for us His sheep. As He states in John 10, “I Am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for His sheep.”

[@toddhawk4670]

As the old folks used to say, "He took the long way around the barn."

[@savedchristian4754]

He cannot answer as to whether God is unjust to let sinners go unpunished.

[@alexprice5479]

@@savedchristian4754 it’s not his place to say… it’s God who justifies And God who forgives sin. None of us deserve forgiveness. Believing on Christ doesn’t merit forgiveness “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭9:16‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “You have not bought me sweet cane with money, or satisfied me with the fat of your sacrifices. But you have burdened me with your sins; you have wearied me with your iniquities. “I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. Put me in remembrance; let us argue together; set forth your case, that you may be proved right.” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭43:24-26‬ ‭ESV‬‬

[@savedchristian4754]

@@alexprice5479 Your god is no different from the god of islam who claims to forgive sinners without a price paid!

[@savedchristian4754]

@@alexprice5479 Evidences of God's wrath on Jesus: - 1Peter3:18:"Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust". - 1Corinthians15:3: "Christ died for our sins". - 1John2:2:"He is the propitiation for our sins".

[@alexprice5479]

@@savedchristian4754 penal substitution is different from a simple substitutionary atonement. He was the spotless lamb, that’s the requirement for him to be the atoning sacrifice. No denying it it’s certainly true. But PSA espouses a bunch of other ideas that aren’t logically consistent, nor are they really the point of Christ death. Is God able to forgive sin? Or does he have an insatiable blood lust? We kno God has wrath and that Christ was punished for our sakes, but if God poured all his wrath on Christ, where does he get wrath to pour on those who don’t receive salvation? Wouldn’t the wrath be spent? If not he didn’t pour out ALL of his wrath

[@samtroy7587]

I think that NT Wright is absolutely correct (if there are misunderstandings in the comments, it's predictable - ten minutes is hardly going to give a complete explanation). He starts by saying that the idea that Jesus died to 'use up' the wrath of God can be damaging; it's better to think of the crucified God, dying because of His exceeding love. Then, he says that sin is not so much breaking rules, but 'missing the mark' - a 'hamartia' - and is corruption of the purpose of our humanity. He says that there are evil powers like Satan, into whose grip we slide when we sin. The way that God broke this grip was by bringing the sin of the world onto Jesus, and crucifying sin on the cross. The basic property of the crucifixion is mystery, and we will never understand it until we are face to face with God. However, NT Wright's explanation goes a decent way: it says that we shouldn't think of Jesus' crucifixion as a result of God's burning wrath, but of His blazing love that has allowed us to be made in His image once again.

[@savedchristian4754]

^ Evidences of God's wrath on Jesus: - 1Peter3:18:"Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust". - 1Corinthians15:3: "Christ died for our sins". - 1John2:2:"He is the propitiation for our sins".

[@something3395]

@@savedchristian4754 Those aren't evidences of God's wrath

[@savedchristian4754]

@@something3395 What sin led to God's wrath? Adam/Eve & all humans were created without moral law. So they didn't have the forbidden knowledge of good and evil. But when they & all humans disobeyed God's command in Gen2:17 & chose the forbidden moral law, God's wrath came upon them. Jesus redeemed us from the forbidden knowledge of good and evil (moral law) as per Rom7:4,6 ('But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held'). Have you accepted the deliverance? If not you are not saved from God's wrath (Rom4:15: 'the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression'). Be saved from God's wrath.

[@something3395]

@@savedchristian4754 Through Adam came sin into the world and enslaved humankind. By Jesus's crucifiction were we freed.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@something3395 Have you accepted the deliverance? If not you are not saved from God's wrath (Rom4:15: 'the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression'). Be saved from God's wrath

[@randyw.8781]

I don't care what theory in regard to atonement you follow but Jesus entered the true tabernacle in heaven by His blood and purchased us for God by His blood. The Father would not have asked/desired Jesus to undergo the agony of the cross if it wasn't necessary to fulfill all righteousness. What is clear =>"It is not for man to choose how to forgive sin" But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed.

[@josephkuzara2609]

Upon him was the discipline that brought us peace not punishment (Musar #4148) discipline is for those who Father recieves, loves and delights in (prov 3:12;Hebrews 12:4-11). Punishment is reserved for His enemies (nahum 1:2 ) and Yeshua was not a enemy to the Father who He was pleased with and recieved him (eph 5:1-2) as a ligit mortal son being himself disciplined and scourged who is our source and example as we participate in Him(rom 6), His suffering of the cup(Mark 10:38-39), His unwrathful death, burial and resurrection being not abandoned in death(ps 16:10). Yeshua through the Spirit presented Himself unblemished to Father(Heb 9:14) as a propitiatory blood ransom as He while mortal was learning obedience by what He suffered(heb 5:8-9;heb 2:10) in righteousness even such obedience on the tree (philip 2:8) in such discipline and scourging, dieing for our sins according to the scriptures, Father through His passive will allowing and Yeshua voluntarily being treated and condemned as if a defiant sinner through evil men(acts 2:22-24; 3:13-15)and satan who was decreed to bruise his heel(gen 3:15;john 13:27)being numbered with the transgressors to redeem us from the accursement of the law becoming a curse of men, intercedeing for many he was sent to willingly die for. So here is my understanding of breaking down the mechanics of what is taking place in the background to achieve our redemption and atonement while Yeshua as our source of discipline as we participate in Him while also setting an example for us to follow. Father through His passive will and Yeshua while voluntarily for our sins allowed himself to die in the likeness of sinful flesh being mortal as if a defiant sinner deserving to be hung on a tree through evil men who personally betrayed,mocked,abandoned and rejected Yeshua over to gentiles to be killed. While at the same time Father was testing the faith of his mortal son to not only be a faithful high priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses but also be the pioneer of our salvation through His divine loving discipline and scourging through the rod and blows of these instruments. How we are treated by Father in Yeshuas righteousness(Kjv 2 samuel 7:14-15) is how He was treated in His own righteousness for our sins as mortal.(Isaiah 53:5;Heb 12:4-11 )

[@JesusismyGOD]

Get this man a cookie, NOW!!!! Excellent simple to the point, logical man speak. This is why I adore the male GOD made.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@josephkuzara2609 If it was discipline & not punishment, why did Jesus die?

[@graemegibson5120]

9:10 is where you'll find a succinct statement from Wright if that's what you're here for. The rest of the video, however, is not meaningless rambling; he has some work to do before he gets to that ending statement. This mostly involves addressing the misconceptions around penal substitution, as well as defining important terms such as sin. Once he's done that, then he gives a summary statement. As others have said, Justin does do a good job keeping him on track, as it's an extremely complex subject that opens up many other questions. However, I think there is a ton of good teaching here to chew on, and it's worth watching the whole video to not only understand what Tom is saying, but why he is saying it in this way.

[@bethelshiloh]

Ty ty ty so much.

[@FanPhys]

I would heartily disagree that there is anything "extremely complex" about penal substitution: Jesus, the incarnate Son, was punished by the Father for our sin in our place. NT wright fundamentally disagrees with this position and, sadly, doesn't have the integrity to state it plainly. The language of "cosmic child abuse" that originated as a quote in Steve Chalke's book The Lost Message of Jesus has made its way into this segment, and there is no reformed evangelical who believes such a thing. It's much easier to find a position disagreeable if you first mischaracterise and misrepresent it. Much of what Wright says here is babble... he adroitly eschews the core message of Isaiah 53 that shows us what the God (the Father) did to Jesus on the cross.

[@renealeman4566]

I think he believes in 'penal substitution' but doesn't like the term as it may conjure up wrong ideas about God. Another way to put it is that some people may emphasize God's wrath when speaking about penal substitution when they should emphasize God's love for humanity. Instead of 'penal substitution,' I prefer the term 'substitutionary atonement,' but it's harder to say. LOL.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@renealeman4566 Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!

[@timothyjames6412]

@@savedchristian4754 This is clearly inconsistent with what Wright actually says in this video.

[@anolette12]

Wright: "Jesus dies as the representative substitute, taking the condemnation on himself." Everyone in the comments: "So Dangerous."

[@averyparks179]

lol this is funny, but so true.

[@WTG194]

Everyone is so terrified of the little god they are trying to follow as correctly as possible

[@micahmatthew7104]

He’s such a heretic /s

[@kathyh.1720]

@@micahmatthew7104 No, he's not a heretic.

[@michaelt.5672]

@@kathyh.1720 The "/s" stands for sarcasm.

[@LassePeterson]

I still believe Jesus died for my sins ... 😇

[@bobpolo2964]

Amen

[@lkae4]

A+

[@keithstewart934]

All humanity is included in Christ yet not all believe...God was never against us, our sins don't separate God from us they separate us from God.

[@ajsirch]

No he didn't. Jesus lived so that your sins could be extinguished in his death.

[@consideringchristianity5028]

@@ajsirch Which still means he died for our sins. Just in a different context.

[@howardbabcom]

The Exodus is a vital and profound touchstone. Liberation only comes via the passover, where judgement is only escaped by showing the blood of a slain lamb which has been participated in through a meal - all themes clearly taken up in the atonement.

[@bljgl]

"It's very easy to be difficult to understand-it's very hard to be clear. Because in order to be clear, you have to master your subject." - John MacArthur

[@matthewkilbride1669]

Ben Levermore it’s far easier and lazier to simplify what is complicated. It’s far harder to elegantly express nuance without omitting complicating passages as it suits your purpose.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@matthewkilbride1669 So God is not angry at sinners?

[@matthewkilbride1669]

@@savedchristian4754 yes, but He also loves them.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@matthewkilbride1669 Is it love for God to send Jesus to die in order to defeat sin & satan?

[@matthewkilbride1669]

@@savedchristian4754 Of course; the willingness of the Creator to sacrifice Himself for the sake of His creatures.

[@callawaycass5148]

The problem starts at 0:45 when NT Wright states that his "primary task is to expound what the New Testament says about the meaning of the death of Jesus." No, you have to start with what the OT says about the death of Jesus, then you see the NT doesn't contradict. What do the pictures of the Passover lamb and the Day of Atonement say about substitution and atonement? What does Isaiah 53 say about the death of Jesus, culminating in verse 10 with, "yet it was the will of Yahweh to crush him"? NT Wright also mentions John 3:16, but we need to continue reading all the way to verse 36, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." Yes, the wrath of God remains on the unsaved. This means that God is wrathful and that the now saved even had God's wrath upon them until they were saved. If we want to cite Paul, we can look at Romans 1:18, 2:1-10, Ephesians 5:6, and so on. These aren't "proof texts" but rather fulsome citations that in context point to wrath being an attribute of God. I think the position held by NT Wright is a reaction to the "get out of hell free" gospel that says you can be saved from an angry God and then live however you want. I agree with him that that is not the gospel. Salvation is not merely an affirmation of Christ's payment for sin so that I can go do whatever I want. No, in fact continuing in a pattern of sin without a trajectory of sanctification is a sign of being a false convert! This theme abounds in scripture, all the way from Abraham to the sermon on the mount (Matt 7:21-23) to basically the entirety of 1 John. The truly converted will love God, obey Christ, and walk in the Spirit. Grace and Peace, brothers.

[@rosewhite---]

Wright is an ecuminist and daren't say anything to alienate the devilworshipping Catholics and Anglicans as well as all the pagan Muslims, Buddhists, Hiundus etc.

[@erikbuhl2187]

This is very well said. Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree completely.

[@rosewhite---]

@Dillon Werner You seem confused? The devilworshipping Catholics aka Sungod Baal worshippers - tried to destroy Enoch's book but it is corroborated throughout the Bible.

[@rosewhite---]

@Dillon Werner Christians have existed and known the truth since they listened to Christ? Catholics worship the sun and Venus. The criteria for a book to be considered for inclusion in the assembly called the Bible was: 'Consistent with other portions of the Bible known to be valid, meaning the book couldn't contradict a trusted element of Scripture.' Enoch was consistent with both Genesis and Exodus and with everything Jesus said about Satan, his demons and how they operate. Jerome in 325 AD chose 66 books that didn't reveal the origins and lies of what was then the Roman Catholic church of the sungod worshippers based in Rome. Have you read a history book? Do some real research.

[@rosewhite---]

@Dillon Werner Yes. Research Catholic sun worship.

[@sappo504]

The more I listen to NT Wright the more confused I become. I've listened (and read) as carefully as I can and it's like being led down into a dark twisting cave of thought, with endless turns and dead ends. I can't say I'm the most intelligent person in any room but I'm not stupid. End of day I just can't follow what he's trying to communicate. I can understand a fair amount of what Jesus Christ had to say though, so I'll stick with that. I just need to work on actually applying it in my life!

[@natus49]

All too relatable! I have to say though, having read his book "The Challenge of Jesus", this clip makes a great deal more sense in light of what he said in that book. I would recommend it! I found it fairly accessible and I'm by no means very well versed in theology etc.

[@martinsolomon5500]

That’s the Trinity a later interpolation does. Jesus never said he was God. Then heavens opened up at God said “this is my son follow him”. Isaiah 11 says the messiah will fear God. How can God fear himself ! Jesus said “why do you call me good only my father in Heaven is good”. Jesus preached the Torah but…. Paul never met Jesus, didn’t know he was a virgin birth nor does John or Mark or Acts Pauline doctrine is what NT wright believes. It is complete confusion

[@sappo504]

@@martinsolomon5500 - John 1:1,14, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…14, And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” - John 5:18, “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” - John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14. John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Exodus 3:14, “And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” - John 20:28, “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” - Col. 2:9, “For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” - As for Isaiah 11:3... "And He will delight in the fear of the LORD..." The sense here is, probably, that he would take pleasure in the fear of Yahweh, that is, in piety, and in devoting himself to his service.

[@martinsolomon5500]

@@sappo504 learn Hebrew

[@pilgrimpiper7832]

@@sappo504 Yes, and Jesus accepted worship. The angels never did but deflected it to God. Jesus accepted worship and it says "My glory I will not give to another" - So Jesus is God. God The Son.

[@randyallen5645]

I was hoping for real clarity here, missed it completely...

[@kathyh.1720]

There is probably some doctrine that you've been taught that is standing in the way. Consider forgetting what you've been taught and then just read the Bible for yourself, asking the Holy Spirit to help you understand it.

[@ngumoandy]

Kathy H. I think he is stating that NT has muddled what should be blatantly clear

[@ngumoandy]

Ναζωραῖος 😂😂 thought he would hit the mark on the 3:37 mark. I was clearly wrong.

[@josephkuzara2609]

I believe that PSA is a false hypothesis of atonement and robs Yeshua of his ligitimacy as a elect human child of God. I believe a ransomed atonement and redemption is what is intended, being that Yeshua was offering Himself to Father(heb 9:12-14) as this blood ransom to redeem and atone and Father recieved Him as a sweet smelling sacrifice(eph 5:1-2) Did Yeshua suffer and die for my sin to take away and put to death within me? Yes , Isa 53, and Romans 8:3-4 is quite clear on this. But none of this was accomplished by divine Wrath, or as a sub that Yeshua took my place of sin to become the embodiment of or viewed as by Father as if wicked to die as wicked under divine wrath in my place, his death was not a divinely accursed death such would nullify His sonship(that God strongly teaches that none He recieves will ever lose) but also His sinlessness thus His propitiatory ransom in His blood to redeem and atone. scripture is quite clear on this as a blemished offering is abominable to him. Having no sin in Him 1 jhn 5:3 nor knowing sin He learned while carrying away our sins, grief and sorrow being contrited; obedience by what He suffered(heb 5:8-9) even obedience on the tree(Philip 2:8) by divine discipline and scourging(Isa 53:5-10 musar #4148) becoming the perfect pioneer of our salvation as the testing of His faith by such loving discipline being received as a legit elected human child of God .(Heb 12:4-11) Yeshua's' voluntary death to be treated and condemned as if a defiant sinner willingly being numbered with transgressors to recieve a cursed death through sinners(acts 2:22-24; 3:13-15) influenced by Satan who would bruise His heel(gen 3:15), despiseing the shame to endure such hostility to release us from the curse of the Law, but was never a accursed death Kjv 1 Corinthians 12:3 by Father is quite clear. God separates his wrathful punishment which is reserved for His enemies (nahum 1:2)from his discipline and scourging reserved for His recieved children(heb 12:4-11). teaching us through Messiah our source and example the means that which God causes us to obey so we are while in Messiah through Faith not condemned with the world. 1 Cor 11:32. Hebrews 12:4-11 is a reflection of Yeshua as we partake in Him and his suffering being partakers of His cup (matk 10:38-39)to learn to obey. PSA forces an erroneous exception for Yeshua to the pattern of teaching what God reveals how He treats and sees both the Godly and Ungodly. And God teaches that no son recieved loses sonship nor that no son recieved will die under His wrath because Yeshua is that source and example even when he voluntarily died and treated by evil men as if a defiant sinner deserving to be cursed yet all the while presenting himself as an propitiatory ransom while learning obedience by such suffering in righteousness by Fathers discipline and scourging and not while under divine wrath.

[@ngumoandy]

Joseph Kuzara 🤯

[@jonathanforsythe990]

As an American Christian thank you for the light in the muddying western theology.

[@jyerkes94]

NT Wright is brilliant. I’m sorry, but it seems to me he is saying PSA without harsh language that sometimes distorts the image. He is saying PSA in a scholarly way. I may be wrong, but good on Justin for pushing him.

[@snoopster77]

The biggest problem with Ask NT Wright Anything is that any question he answers raises 10 more.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

No. That's the problem with seriously trying to understand difficult things with serious people. Many avoid it by asking overconfident people difficult questions.

[@ChipKempston]

That's less a problem than it is an opportunity.

[@simonskinner1450]

@@ChipKempston I agree. As Tom raises issues that won't go away until one day they are solved, but they cannot be brushed under the carpet. His book Justification solves half the problem, but also shows others don't have the answer either.

[@simonskinner1450]

@Sue Blue sorry but I study the KJV and find the story of Jesus massively complicated, for his qualifications to Redeem us first as a church, and then from God's wrath. The Fake News around the Holy Bible for centuries has been that it is simple.

[@simonskinner1450]

@Sue Blue I am truly a fan of St John, and being brought up C of E I don't need converting, though the Christian aspects of love and truth are best dealt with by St John. It is not St John or the other writers fault that people have tried to reduce Christianity to 'soundbites', whereas the bringing of the new covenant and the qualifications of Jesus to Redeem the church are very complicated, and Tom who is a top theologian knows the Reformation made errors and whittled down Christianity to a few cherry-picked verses. So sad.

[@hoid8069]

"We've taken the message of John 3:16, and turned it from, 'For God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only Son' to 'For God so HATED the world that He KILLED His only Son.'" Wow, that was deep. That perfectly sums up the issue I have with penal substitution. I always like it when people can summarize such a complex issue in one simple sentence.

[@kathyh.1720]

That's the message that a lot of non-Christians get. They hear the hated and killing His Son and the penalty of wrath yet aren't told about the Love and the redemption and reconciliation back to God.

[@kathyh.1720]

@Ναζωραῖος It's not that we're worthy of death: WE ARE DEAD IN OUR SINS ALREADY. Jesus was resurrected and our hope in Him is that He will raise us up, too. Jesus didn't pay for our sins. He removed them from us and gives us hope and life, a new life, a new birth, a spiritual adoption, etc. It's not about punishment; it's about redemption.

[@patricksee10]

@@Iwasneverhere7 who killed Jesus? God?

[@ttownsupreme2183]

@@Iwasneverhere7 Where does the Bible say this

[@savedchristian4754]

@@patricksee10 Acts2:23: 'Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain'. Didn't God kill Jesus through human instruments?

[@raylampert1243]

I've watched this multiple times and still have no idea what his position is. What he describes at the very end is exactly the sort of thinking that he seems to dispute at the beginning. He went in a circle and wound up exactly where he began. He can't even keep a consistent idea of what "sin" is or means. So many others can give clear, simple, straightforward explanations. Either he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he doesn't want to be clear.

[@thecanberean]

Exactly.

[@theoldpath5137]

The only person who understood the gospel in 2000 years and couldn't explain.

[@nathanielgruber1714]

If you stick with what he's saying all the way to the end he completely answers the question about PSA. Really brilliant.

[@savedchristian4754]

So God is not angry at sinners?

[@huntsman528]

@@savedchristian4754 He loved us while we were sinners, so no?

[@savedchristian4754]

@@huntsman528 So what about those who reject God's love? God hates them right?

[@huntsman528]

@@savedchristian4754 It says He loved them. For God so loved the world. That includes them and you and me while we were children of wrath. It says He doesn't take pleasure in the death of the wicked and that it is His desire for all men to come to repentance. I think it saddens Him that some reject Him and perish. Jesus wept over Jerusalem rejecting Him. Does He hate us? I don't think so.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@huntsman528 Perishing in eternal hell is indeed God's anger right? If God wasn't angry why would He create eternal hell both for satan & humans?

[@johntrevett2944]

Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement in Exodus 29:41-42. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4-6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.

[@clarkjr6]

Not sure if I agree with every thing he said, but as usually, a very well thought out and well articulated answer. Thank you!

[@savedchristian4754]

So God doesn't get angry with sinners?

[@Andrew-dc7nl]

Respectfully, Wright delivers more ambiguity about the cross than clarity. When Paul said according to the scriptures it’s obvious that that would include Leviticus. Christ is the only sacrifice that is able to save us. The lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Of course the scriptures old and new, the entire narrative speaks of a salvific sacrifice. However, understanding the precise mechanics of the atonement is perhaps beyond our comprehension. Perhaps, what is more important is accepting God’s grace and mercy where in the cross of Christ, & in His death and resurrection, He is reconciling man to himself; that we may fellowship with Him.

[@drewmann856]

Read his books, they're brilliant. I think his obfuscating is a result of his position (Anglican, State sponsored Bishop). With the UK effectively being a Post-Christian country, I suspect he's attempting to draw people to God who have no cultural memory of Christianity. Or drawing people back who've left the Faith. Also though, once you get deep into the nitty gritty theological concepts in Christianity, and look at how different cultures and faith traditions throughout the centuries dealt with the complicated theological concepts inherent to Christianity, you realize how little you actually know about any of it. The more you learn, the less you know kind of deal. His books are much more clear on tough theological concepts like this though, while also still leaving wiggle room, which I've come to see in my 4 years in seminary as a necessary feature of the Christian religion.

[@wilfredmancy]

I like your sentence "However, understanding the precise mechanics-- " etc. as that was what I had to figure out for myself before I could get the crucifixion thing to make any sense at all to me. If the law and the prophets all hang on the two laws of who to love, sin then is anything that is not love toward God and man. If God is love then I assume Gods' life is love, I assume the life of God and the love of God are the same thing. Sin is therefore the destruction of the life of God. Being a sinner is being a destroyer of life. Seeing as the whole creation is in Jesus he has to accept our destruction of life into himself or we have destroyed ourselves, then of course we have to be willing to believe that he is in us and has given us all we need to live a holy life that he will save our souls as we accept his union in us. As we live in union with our lover he will heal our minds. Christ in dying on the cross was accepting our destruction of his life , he was dying because of our sins, he bore our sins, he died at the hands of angry sinners and offers us life instead of death. We would be wise to accept grace graciously. By the way blood is life, we are saved by the life of Christ. So is that penal substitution? I really don't care, please yourself. However if the victim (Jesus) accepts the loss and doesn't seek damages off us, I would call that forgiveness..

[@josephkuzara2609]

Well the true PSA doctrine is by chastening (Musar #4148) and scourging and not wrathful punishment and death. Jesus was the likeness of sinful flesh as our substitute and scapegoat while remaining Sinless. It is our sins upon Him in this likeness while being received as an ligit son, He underwent chastening and scourging for our sins unto death that pleased Father to nullify wrath toward the elect. Father is pleased by such chastening and scourging unto death of His Sinless Son but is not pleased by the punishment and death of the wicked of which most teach is what Jesus momentarily became while on the Pole. Which is the type of PSA accepted by mainstream churches when Luther and Calvin began to teach it. But scipture does not teach that Jesus became the exactness of sinful flesh at any moment while being our substitute and scapegoat (Lev 16)

[@kathyh.1720]

Wright wasn't ambiguous at all. You probably just didn't understand his points because you were taught something different.

[@frodericfrankenstein7590]

@@drewmann856 well said!

[@darrellmitchell4293]

I believe what he is saying is that Penal Substitution is too low of a view of the work Christ did on the cross. The idea of penal substitution lends itself too much to the idea of Christ simply dying because we break rules. The cross’ work is much higher than that. Breaking the powers of the principalities so that we can be more human or be the type of human we were always supposed to be… which is to dwell with God and reflect his image. That itself is much more than just following rules and having a sacrifice because we broke rules.

[@savedchristian4754]

# Evidences of God's wrath on Jesus: - 1Peter3:18:"Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust". - 1Corinthians15:3: "Christ died for our sins". - 1John2:2:"He is the propitiation for our sins".

[@darrellmitchell4293]

@@savedchristian4754 not sure I follow your reply. What was the reason for the scripture references?

[@savedchristian4754]

@@darrellmitchell4293 To show evidences of God's wrath on Jesus on our behalf.

[@darrellmitchell4293]

That’s all well and good. I’m not disagreeing with you and I don’t think N. T. Wright would disagree with you either. I’m just saying that a hyper emphasis on wrath skews the full picture of the gospel.

[@jcpartri]

Isaiah 53:10 - But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

[@brenosantana1458]

See other source.

[@joshf2218]

Septuagint - The LORD was pleased to purge him of his stroke

[@savedchristian4754]

@@joshf2218 !);(:+-If God is unloving to send Jesus to suffer & die for our sins, isn't God unloving to send Jesus to die to defeat sin & satan?

[@joshf2218]

@@savedchristian4754 I don’t think God is unloving to send Jesus to die for our sins. I just don’t believe that he died for our sins in the sense that the Father needed a pound of flesh in order to reconcile himself to us. Jesus experiences the full weight of what it’s like to suffer (Gods wrath) but the Father never truly abandoned or forsook Him

[@savedchristian4754]

@@joshf2218 So God is loving in sending Jesus to die in order to defeat sin & satan?

[@kiminwood6994]

... what an act of love ...john 3:16 ..." NT wright you are a blessing" ... the answer is offen in the verse after and the one before...

[@heckadude]

I don’t know if Tom is sometimes dancing around the question or if he is just taking a long time to set up his answer.

[@savedchristian4754]

He cannot answer as to whether God is unjust to let sinners go unpunished.

[@Daewonnni]

Americans want the gospel like they want their hamburgers. Fast and without nuance.

[@philiphughes5302]

I have just read When Wright is Wrong by PhillipDR Griffths. It thorougly refutes what Wright says on this matter.

[@savedchristian4754]

What are the core refutations?

[@NicholasWongCQ]

God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus, that's true. But Bible also said Jesus was "made to be sin" for us.

[@NomadSpeaker]

Thats what that means and that is what Wright is saying. IMHO

[@frankmerendino1855]

Penal substitution is one image among many drawn from the OT that is used in the NT to describe the implications of what Jesus did on the cross. I think the problem is when one image is emphasized over all the others , as if that nails down the exact mechanics and understanding. We are treading on the ground of divine mystery and love...as limited beings. So did the bible writers. This is why Paul could say, "Now we see through a glass but dimly, but then we shall know as we are also known. Now, we know in part ( our knowledge is partial), but then we shall know in full." Suffice it to say, Jesus absorbed sin and all its malignant power and condemnation, died, was buried, and rose from the dead. The nexus of sin and death couldn't hold him. God vindicated him, and all humanity in him, bringing new/eternal life, and new creation into view. The kingdom of God, life as God intended it, was now launched, and all are now invited to join up and take part, following Jesus's lead through his Spirit. This is faith, loyalty to God in Christ, that expresses itself in love.

[@savedchristian4754]

& Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!

[@lastchance8142]

Love. Yes, this is the essential nature of God, and the substance of eternal life that we are learning to apprehend in Christ, through the Holy.Spirit.

[@joshuagallardo3326]

⁠@@Iwasneverhere7“Complicated” is often used as a negative connotation for something that shouldn’t be complicated. We could use other words like “rich, nuanced, multifaceted”, etc. to help honor the berth of the our relationship with God. Just like you could “simply” explain to a child what marriage is, there are myriads marriage seminars, endless books, and couple counseling to prove…marriage is “complicated”, that is to say, it cannot by so simply confined to a sentence or two explanation. How much more the infinite workings of God in the human race.

[@scottforesman7968]

Endless wonder? Indeed. Endlessly wondering when he'll get to the point. Let me know when he does.

[@savedchristian4754]

😅🤣😂🤣😅

[@jamesdean1989]

Clear as mud...finally

[@kathyh.1720]

It was very clear to me. Why did you not understand it?

[@graceev]

So, the answer is NO. Thank you for finally clearing that up.

[@koreywilkinson2860]

He was actually saying yes. He’s does believe in PSA. Although he’s not a fan of how people have used the theory to paint a picture of an anger God that killed his Son

[@anthonybardsley4985]

If jesus didn't die for my sin I will merely rot in the grave. He satisfied that God is satisfied with the work of christ on my behalf.

[@katharinedavis4947]

I studied this twenty odd years ago when doing the Bishops Certificate. It was hard then and still is . I think i will need to listen to this a few times ! K

[@greg7384]

It is only complicated for those trying to get around what the Bible so clearly says.

[@kathyh.1720]

@@greg7384 Yes. They probably don't know what the Bible says, though, because they're holding on to what they've been taught instead of being noble like the Bereans and checking it out for themselves.

[@savedchristian4754]

& Evidences of God's wrath on Jesus: - 1Peter3:18:"Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust". - 1Corinthians15:3: "Christ died for our sins". - 1John2:2:"He is the propitiation for our sins".

[@paulallenscards]

@@savedchristian4754 make sure that the prepositions you take for these verses line up with our earliest greek sources.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@paulallenscards Why do you lie by denying God's wrath?

[@pwtheology1711]

Boy oh boy does NT do the NT-dance around the issue

[@lightlover33]

He stated plainly what he believes, that the issue of penal substitution has been distorted.

[@lolersauresrex8837]

If you can’t follow NT laying out the way that the scriptural narrative leads to a more nuanced and whole perspective of Jesus sacrifice then it’s not NT’s problem. Try meditating on scripture, and understand that the Bible is a story who’s climax is Jesus. All narrative elements reach their fulfillment and if we ignore any of those narrative themes we tarnish the COMPLETE work of Christ.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@lolersauresrex8837 Is it love for God to send Jesus to die in order to defeat sin & satan?

[@ctrlplusg]

That has got to be the most complicated way to explain the gospel. I‘m like, wut?

[@biblehistoryscience3530]

That's because it's not the gospel.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@biblehistoryscience3530 What is the gospel?

[@biblehistoryscience3530]

@@bobpolo2964, the gospel is simply that, while all men are separated from God by sin and thus under a death sentence, Jesus Christ paid that debt and offers forgiveness freely to whosoever will have faith in him. Instead of being condemned, the faithful can have eternal life with God.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@biblehistoryscience3530 That's it?

[@biblehistoryscience3530]

@@bobpolo2964, I had a feeling you were going to say something snarky, and about Christ's gospel no less. More’s the pity.

[@JewandGreek]

I wonder how many would listen to this guy if he had an American accent?

[@emilesturt3377]

So basically, he rightly acknowledges those words, but even more rightly, rejects the 500 year old Protestant version of PSA (thank God) Right on Dr Wright! 😊🙏☦️

[@MrLeadman12]

I keep thinking that in all these atonement discussions, we are missing one of the key NT themes that pops up everywhere in the NT (especially in Paul) when it comes to the death of Christ and what it means, namely, that we in some way died with Christ. Rom. 6:1-14; Gal. 2:20; 2 Cor. 5:14-21; Col. 2:11-15, 20. Especially 2 Cor 5:14, “because we have concluded this: one has died for all, THEREFORE all have died.” For Paul, Christs death “for” us (substitutionary) means we died with him (participatory). In fact that’s why Christs death can be said to be for us. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3-4), he bore our sins (1 Pet. 2:24) and all that old regime of sin and flesh was terminated, condemned, ended. Christs death for us means not that he took our punishment for us in the sense of it being something totally disconnected from us and we get the benefits of that by merely receiving it but that ours sins, our old selves, our “flesh” was killed in his death. It’s not just God removing our guilt, it’s God actually doing away with the old guilty person and then raising us with Christ and because Christ was vindicated as the just one as a result of his resurrection, we now stand justified in him, but again only because and if we have died and risen with him. This is a mouthful but should we adopt a new PSA acronym, “participatory substitutionary atonement”?

[@pilgrimpiper7832]

Yes, my sense has often been that there is something mystical and deep in that participatory aspect .

[@savedchristian4754]

@@pilgrimpiper7832 Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!

[@Phill0old]

He obfuscates, obscures and then, having said not a lot, says that what really matters isn't what really matters.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

While I’m sure NT Wright doesn’t deny penal substitutionary atonement. His response just made it more confusing....

[@bobpolo2964]

How so

[@kathyh.1720]

To me, it sounded like he did deny penal substitutionary atonement.

[@neilmarcusrichardson]

Justin does a good job trying to pin Tom down, and fair play to Tom for (at least giving the impression of) trying to draw on the whole counsel of God, but in the end it really is like pinning jelly to the wall here. Right at the end, though, in the very last sentence, I think you get to to the nub of it - he *really* doesn’t want Jesus to be the wrath-bearer. Isaiah 53 *isn’t* done justice.

[@psalm1197]

Neil Richardson He really doesn't believe in wrath....that's the point.

[@internetuser777]

You might find it interesting that our oldest and most reliable version of the Old Testament is the Septuagint, and in the Septuagint, Isaiah 53 doesn’t say that the Messiah is being punished by God.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@internetuser777 Septuagint says the following: Isaiah53:5: 'But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him'.

[@virginiashroyer2279]

Brother Wright, as usual, does a wonderful job explaining to those who want to learn.

[@bobbyadkins6983]

Really? What did you learn from this video?

[@dayperthedisciple]

Never want to use the word 'wrath' do they?

[@rosewhite---]

Mustn't upset all the evil non-beleivers and adevilworshipping Muslims, Hindus, Catholics etc...

[@ubergenie6041]

Justice seems to be deleted from the list of God's attributes on Wright's view. It is made into a strawman of "A mad, child-abusing God." There are certainly elements of Christus Victor and ransom theory, but that the NT writers also thought that all have sinned and are therefore under a curse seems to be avoided at all cost.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@ubergenie6041Justice is baked into his view actually.

[@jeffwalker5514]

Which form of ‘wrath’ do you suppose he should use? ‘Orgasm’? ‘Orgy’? Or perhaps maybe the full biblical definition of wrath, ‘intense passion or desire’?

[@dcbcplymouth]

Probably because the New Testament never uses the word wrath....

[@drummera7418]

It sounds quite clear to me what he's saying. His main point was to show the difference between the common view of Jesus's death which is based on how God kills and punish Jesus to feed and satisfy his wrath, and his view which is based on how God gives himself as an act of love on our behalf. In other words, God never requested Jesus death as a payment of a debt that we had against God. Jesus's death was about God showing that the debt we had against him was forgiven. It's not about payment. It's about forgiveness. It sounds very different to me. It makes a lot of sense. We can find so many verses in the Bible showing how it's all about forgiveness.

[@Qhaon]

I feel like he said he didn’t believe in penal substitution and then at the end gave exactly the correct understanding of what penal substitution is supposed to mean. Am I wrong?

[@mangomon]

That's exactly what I thought. I was like what's so different about this?

[@mylesb45]

I just said the same thing, representative substitution, sounds just like penal substitution.

[@michaelt.5672]

4:23 I've always found the "My God, my God, why did you forsake me" passage to be the solution, not the problem. If Jesus is God, then the fact that he says this means that the trinity of God was, quiet literally, ripped in two at that moment. God breaks the relationship that is his very nature, so as to mend the broken relationship between us and him. I think that is as deep as substitution gets.

[@PotterSpurn1]

That part means that Jesus was bearing the sin of mankind on the cross, and God - pure and holy - could not bear to look at his son at that point - because God cannot tolerate sin. That is what it means. Jesus was then ressurrected three days later which represents our unity with God.

[@johnwithah]

Clear as mud

[@jesusbliss]

SO GOOD!

[@idenhlm]

I get the message, I am not to be less human, I am to be more human. Jesus has led the way on the path. To fulfill all righteousness .

[@jennalusby9800]

I'm quite underwhelmed by his scholarship. The subject has been addressed much more clearly, and simply by others.

[@andrewridley3634]

Where please, I need something simpler for street preaching although I like NT Wright

[@bradleykimmons]

Where then? We would like to know :)

[@Fassnight]

Where, my man?

[@jennalusby9800]

I Peter 2: 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. I Peter 3: 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. And "Saved by Grace" by Dr. Jack Cottrell @@Fassnight

[@rg8276]

I think what NT is saying is something like the metaphor of a sponge and liquid. Jesus being the "sponge" and "sin" being the liquid. If one is going to "get it all" cleaned up (picture a big liquid mess), one can get the liquid in one place and then shlurp it all up with a sponge!....God, as Jesus, makes himself a "magnet for sin, thus sopping it all up and leaving us "dry"!.....

[@joblower9961]

fine, but Isaiah 53 says he was punished for us, on our behalf.

[@JesusismyGOD]

Ok, but how is that in opposition of the penial substitution?

[@JeffPelletierGWIPtoday]

To me the clarity about what Jesus did occurs when I take the time to really understand what physically happened to him and how long it took. The passion of the Christ is very good representation of it. If she just went through all of that for me, then I must’ve deserved that. What am I missing?

[@justindavis2711]

she

[@Fassnight]

I think it's a matter of what is being punished and what is being accomplished. It seems Wright's view is that our sin is placed in Christ for the purpose of Him having victory over it through the resurrection. Where penal substitution focuses entirely on the cross, Christus Victor ties the resurrection into the cross as a necessity if we are to be free from the condemnation of sin

[@DC-wp6oj]

Thankyou Mr Wright for pointing out the massive contradictions and how hard it is to harmonise the New Testament to make it intelligible.

[@franklyle8767]

Ask NT Wright anything and receive an answer to anything but what you asked

[@eoniansage1403]

Is this how Jesus' talked ?

[@kathyh.1720]

Jesus often used parables, and He often used similes. When asked a question, His response corresponded to the need of the one asking the question. Sometimes it was a direct answer and sometimes it wasn't, but it always addressed the issue at hand.

[@adane4u]

John 16:29

[@DiscoverJesus]

What puzzles me is...no end time teaching ? Isn't there insurmountable signs now that we're in the last days but no teaching on it ?!

[@elel2608]

Makes sense to me.

[@chiashinhsu9997]

I highly appreciate Prof. Wright's work, and I have been benefiting from him over the years. But I would suggest that Prof. Wright answer the question in a more straightforward way so that more people can understand his message in a more intuitive manner. I would suggest something like the following, "Yes, I affirm penal substitution. No doubt about that. But I affirm it in a particular story context that is more in line with how the first century Christians understood the gospel. Penal substitution does not take place in an ahistorical context in which everyone who believes in Jesus is abstractly and mysteriously replaced by Jesus in the penalty. Penal substitution makes the real biblical sense in a historical narrative in which God himself in Jesus went to the Cross to redeem his own creation, and Jesus does that as a representative of the fallen humanity. We receive penal substitution in the sense that Jesus is legitimately our representative as our king and the last Adam, and we escape punishment by living a new life in Christ, merging ourselves with Christ." I don't know if I say it accurately. But I am just doing my best to tell my understanding of Prof. Wright's message.

[@savedchristian4754]

* Evidences of God's wrath on Jesus: - 1Peter3:18:"Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust". - 1Corinthians15:3: "Christ died for our sins". - 1John2:2:"He is the propitiation for our sins".

[@user-fu6it4cm7x]

This is so difficult to understand. Even if someone wants to believe this concept of penal substitution, it is difficult to even comprehend fully.

[@martygough]

That shows it is false. God has revealed these truths, they are not hard to understand. Of course we will take an eternity to explore it and in a sense, we will never comprehend it fully but that does not mean it is unclear or can not be understood solidly.

[@greg7384]

@@martygough But by that logic, wouldn't Paul's letters be false being that they are "hard to understand"?

[@martygough]

@@greg7384 There are some major problems with your comparison. First, let's look at the whole context of the verse you mention: He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. So, even in this case he is not trying to hide the truth, they are expected to understand what he says, to not distort his teachings, those that do will be destroyed. He was writing God breathed scripture, therefore it was as deep as a huge well yet was able to be understood by a child in some ways. Wright does not write scripture and therefore his writings are not the same. Also, wright will use 1,000 words and the meaning of his teaching is still not clear. It is open to interpretation and unclear, aiming at heresy and error but never saying as such. This is not what the greek is saying about Paul. He wrote complex truths for sure, but the overall meaning was always there, always precise, as God wants his truth known, he does not want Gnosticism, hidden knowledge, basically, someone writes thousands of words and it is seen as wise that no one knows what they said, and in the mystery comes enlightenment. So, as you hopefully see the comparison is false. Bible teachers should reveal truth not hide it.

[@peterpulpitpounder]

It's really not that complicated at all. God's love alone cannot redeem, no more than the mere earthly love of a human judge can save a criminal. In order for justice to be served a proper and appropriate penalty must be delivered. Herein is where the Cross of Christ comes into play. Christ shed his blood for us in order to provide a valid basis for our acquittal from sins consequence. This is the essence of biblical justification. Romans speaks of God "justifying the ungodly" by the imputed righteousness of Christ. What? How can God justify ungodly people? That doesn't seem fair? It is a perfectly acceptable and valid declaration when someone else absorbed the penalty on their behalf. "He who knew no sin became sin (or the sin bearer) for us, that we might become the righteousness of God, in Him." THAT is the Gospel, plain and simple.

[@yegorguskov3842]

peterpulpitpounder Thanks for explaining.

[@billk8874]

Do you believe in penal substitution ? Tom Wright should have said, yes. The question is simple, the answer should have been simple but instead it was not and it was unintelligible.

[@kathyh.1720]

His answer wasn't Yes.

[@billk8874]

@@kathyh.1720 Agree.

[@kengineexpress]

The Good News of Christ is simple through human eyes, much more complex than we can ever understand in the eyes of Heaven. As someone who is reformed (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) I think he’s right. The Gospel of Christ is more than just a transaction to save us from His wrath (which isn’t wrong). The problem is God did more than pay off our debt to save us from our wrath. He paid our debt and gave us streets of gold. Penal substitution does not give us the full picture of Jesus’ atonement and hope we have in Christ. Thus, we struggle to have a sense of anticipation for the future when God comes back to complete His work.

[@WilliamFAlmeida]

"Jesus takes the weight upon Himself"

[@gabriellyon4461]

Sound like a complex version of Christus Victor and Ransom Theory.

[@martygough]

Yep, a heresy with false brains attached.

[@phaturtha216]

@Kevin Wayne But orthodoxy IS heresy in the modern church. If you can't weaponise the gospel, what's the point? Lump and dump, turn or burn. Plagued by rank absurdities and veiled threats.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@phaturtha216 Is it love for God to send Jesus to die in order to defeat sin & satan?

[@Brandaniron]

5:18 “sin is a failure to be genuinely human.” ??

[@superviola88]

yea he's literally an author of confusion

[@that_missionary]

I’ve actually read a lot of his books and have gleaned many “aha” moments from them. I must confess -on THIS topic i find it very hard to track with what he means. Of course it might not sound like a reformed phrase we’re used to but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be intelligible so we could all say “oh so that’s what you mean.” I think he’s done some great work but is weak in this area (As Brothers like MacArthur have their weak spots.) I for one am glad for both brothers and have profited from many of their teachings (and have to ignore others).

[@Ittoramstagram]

I greatly appreciate this conversation. Tom seems to have just stated the gospel in a way that is entirely consistent with the New Testament analogies of it, and the Old Testament expectations of it. Jesus became both the scape goat AND the sacrificial lamb from the day of atonement in Lev. In Jesus, God condemns sin. Jesus invites us into the experience of his spirit when we put our trust in him. Thus we are made one with God once again as a result of our faith in Christ, who’s work for us was ultimately a grace of God, who is one with Jesus himself. God does condemn sin or the failure to be the creatures we were designed to be, the failure to image God rightly - penal - he condemns it in Jesus instead of condemning it in us - substitutionary - and that makes us one with God - atonement. Rad.

[@bobpolo2964]

Thank you, brother

[@kathyh.1720]

I don't understand your use of "penal". How is that penal?

[@Ittoramstagram]

Kathy H. God’s condemnation of sin is absolutely penal, where he would be punishing us for our failures he punishes Jesus.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@kathyh.1720 Evidences of God's wrath on Jesus: - 1Peter3:18:"Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust". - 1Corinthians15:3: "Christ died for our sins". - 1John2:2:"He is the propitiation for our sins".

[@kathyh.1720]

@@savedchristian4754 Suffering for our sins is not God's wrath. It's our sins He suffered for, not God's wrath. Jesus choosing to die for our sins is not God's wrath. God's wrath shows up elsewhere, such as in the book of the Revelation. If Jesus took God's wrath, then there would be no more wrath, yet there is still God's wrath coming.

[@mattvall9066]

Man getting a straight answer from this guy is like nailing jello to a wall. He even had to re-ask the question and still more jello.. some people love jello. :)

[@psalm1197]

Matt V the people who like to get their ears tickled are the jello-loving types....

[@tonymercer7759]

2Tim 4.3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

[@afrox4320]

"... Genuine humanness... is reflecting God's image... "😍🙆🏿‍♀️🙆🏿‍♀️🙆🏿‍♀️🙆🏿‍♀️🙆🏿‍♀️😍

[@4emrys]

If Jesus condemned sin on the cross and it wasn't atonement for our sin. Why is sin still here? I'm having a hard time following Mr. Wright and what he thinks Jesus did on the cross if it wasn't a sacrifice on our behalf.

[@dayanandbharati6863]

These kinds of technical terms like 'peanal substitution' need to be explained using the local [native] terms and language. Otherwise it won't make any sense to those who can't understand them in other languages like English. But you managed to communicate it properly, though I prefer to understand it in my language and terms, which unfortunately you can't do.

[@savedchristian4754]

÷ Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!

[@eugengolubic2186]

I watched this few times and it now makes sense.

[@gabriel_whitney]

@@Iwasneverhere7 What part about this is confusing? I actually found this particularly enlightening and helpful

[@joseandrescarabanteshiguer4580]

I did understand NT Wright

[@JMz685]

I would somewhat agree with N.T Wright. Penal substitution does paint the Father as the angry God and Jesus as the loving God. As if they are two separate beings, the trinity didn't implode on itself on the cross. Jesus wasn't dying to save us from God, Jesus is God. He came to save us from sin and our self-destruction. But most importantly the point of the cross was to reconcile all people to himself. Paul says that "God was IN Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor. 5:19), it wasn't as if God was separate from Jesus when Jesus was crucified. The reality is, God was IN Christ. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit were working in unity to reconcile us to himself and destroy sin and death which destroys his people, his children.

[@brenosantana1458]

John 17 3.

[@savedchristian4754]

* - Hebrews9:28: "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many". - Romans4:25:"Who (Christ) was delivered for our offences". God was indeed angry.

[@paulpaulsen7245]

Why do you consider it important to have answers on all questions? Do we live in a world of finding answers on all questions? And having no proper answer - does that mean you have failed to have lived? Does that exclude you from belonging to Christ? Is knowing truth more important than encountering truth, which John connected with Jesus and Paul declared as main content of the gospel? Is there a difference between encountering a "thing" or lifeless "object" like a rule or law and encountering a living entity? I´m given to know the living Christ, and Paul tells me that I´m a completed one, καὶ ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι, ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, Col 2. I´m aware of having hardly answers on all questions, but what I know deeply that I belong to God through Christ. In other words - I know & love Christ while I`m not even close to having answers on all. Teneo quia teneor. That is enough. Greeting and thanks from Germany!

[@paulpaulsen7245]

@@Iwasneverhere7, relax as Psalm 46:10 tells & know that our lives completely run independent from our human decisions while all happens according to the great potter, see Paul´s question in Rom 9:21 - ἢ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ὁ κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι ὃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος, ὃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν; Basically I am very glad of those different theological approaches, because of Paul´s basic human insight allowing no favorite view beyond human pride - ἄρα οὖν οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος, οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεοῦντος Θεοῦ. Rom 9:16. English - nothing ever happened & happens beyond God´s sovereignty, including evil and terrible things! I tell you why lots of physically & mentally disabled folks lives on this Earth who appear mostly unable to reflect anything regarding God & Christ - because God has set Christ to represent all humans, as most clearly Paul in Rom 5:12-21declares as his approach to the gospel, and the most impressing verse to me is verse 20- νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν, ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα· οὗ δὲ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις· In my life I was blessed to have known my aunt Gisela, a quasi incarnated grace human with a long history of depression & mental health institutions! She never judged me, never asked unpleasant questions and opened to me the world of books & beyond mainstream thinking! She gave me always the feeling of being welcome & enough! And Paul´s heritage - as I perceive it - is God being grace, and His human face Christ is the living representation of grace! PS: The love chapter 1 Cor 13 appears to me as chapter on God and especially on Christ! Best regards from Germany!

[@paulpaulsen7245]

@@Iwasneverhere7, greetings & grace before! Thank you so much for answering me! Mostly i´m impressed that you, as I´ve seen on your channel & as once a famous preacher said, "puff a cigar for the glory of God"! I really like that since I suffered from three strokes was painfully giving me reason to quit smoking - nonetheless, I say nothing against smoking, but I like non smoking habits better, hahaha! Anyway, your approach appears very severe, and your reasoning sounds logical & right! Alone God is far more than LOGICS & RIGHTEOUSNESS - Paul has a whole chapter about God - the love chapter 1 Cor 13! You may read the text - it is filled with more kind & friendly things as most Christians expect! See alone verse 7 - πάντα στέγει, πάντα πιστεύει, πάντα ἐλπίζει, πάντα ὑπομένει - does that not expose another God as believers usually claim? A God of grace & mercy incarnated in Christ? Who was reflected in my merciful aunt Gisela I mentioned before? Short - Paul introduces God in ways of not deterring people but holding balance with God´s justice! And Paul does so by revealing God as clearly overstepping sin & evil by not counting them against the world, 2 Cor 5:18-19, because of Christ! God is at peace with this world rather than He is angry - τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ καταλλάξαντος ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ δόντος ἡμῖν τὴν διακονίαν τῆς καταλλαγῆς· ὡς ὅτι Θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ, μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς. Do you understand what I mean, Salty Dog? While YOU come from the side of JUSTICE FOR GOD, I come from the side MERCY FROM GOD! And both sides are allowed in the big world OF FREEDOM IN CHRIST! And I go a step further - ALL IS ALLOWED, or do you believe GOD IS A PUSSY? But remember, that - with the spirit of God living in us - BELIEVERS ARE SIMPLY NOT DOING ALL THINGS! The common argument of INVITING SIN is old and has been experienced also from Paul - see alone the beginning of Rom 6 after having introduced god´s GRACE OVER SIN (Rom 5:20) - Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ἐπιμενοῦμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ; (Rom 6:1)! Only suspicious folks would bring up the question OF SIN AFTER GRACE! And for exactly THIS REASON the Israelites did not REGOGNIZE THEIR MESSIAH and killed him! Thank you again for your concern for GOD`S JUSTICE - now allow me to tell of the other part - GOD`S ABYSMALLY DEEP MERCY & GRACE! Kind regards from Germany!

[@paulpaulsen7245]

@@Iwasneverhere7, many thanks & love & peace from Germany! :-)))

[@paulpaulsen7245]

@@Iwasneverhere7, before leaving, I´ve got to share something I consider most amazing: God knows us & deals with us & has chosen us from times before sin entered the world! That means nothing else than God must quasi "overlook" our lives entirely & completely, and He has even fun viewing us "from behind", so to say, as Eph 1:5 very clearly & literally tells - προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ; the phrase κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ means simply "according to the pleasure (or joy) of his will! And while additionally remembering that all time is in God´s hands ( בְּיָדְךָ֥ עִתֹּתָ֑י ), Psalm 31:15, and God´s time management is different than human´s (humans consider PAST as set in stone, while God has also FUTURE set in stone), Isaiah 46:10 tells us something amazing - MAGGIT MERESHIT ACHARIT - מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית - DECLARING THE END FROM THE BEGINNING! Do you imagine what that means? It means, that God completely & entirely overlooks all our lives connected with sin! And it means also, that God knows exactly all our failures not only from the beginning, BUT FROM THE END! מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית in connection that God chose us from before SIN entered this world, as exactly so Eph 1:4 tells (καθὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου), is an obvious hint emphasizing the thought of God being more gracious & merciful than HE IS JUST! Or otherwise said - as Isaiah 55:9-11 tells (please read that), God´s range of consideration & allowance TRANSCENDS ANY HUMAN IMAGINATION! And I met that reality! And each time I remember this I get deeply moved. His name is Christ Jesus. So long, Salty Dawg!

[@paulpaulsen7245]

@@Iwasneverhere7, you too :-)))

[@hiddetjevanderwaal2827]

Ironically, the answer seems to be 'yes'.

[@philipd8868]

Thank you, Justin, for really good interviewing - actually listening in full, then asking good questions in a non combative way - how it is meant to be done. I am perplexed - N T Wright says reconciliation is about failing, being under the weight of failure, and this being released by the death of Jesus on the cross. But the Bible is full of rebellion, condemnation, judgement for sin and sins, mercy, forgiveness, sacrifice for sins (and sin), substitution, propitiation, atonement, wrath on sinners - look at what Jesus Himself said, the God Man, Who surely should know! Look at Revelation - a Judgement Throne - may God have mercy on us all. Look at Romans ch 1. Look at 1 John. Where he is right is saying the atonement was not God beating up on His Son, but God choosing in the Person of His Son to stand in and take our place. We have to still admit, when all is said and done, that it is a mystery, which like food still does us good even though we do not fully understand how.

[@justinchamberlain3443]

5:00 he explains the misconception of the common understanding of salvation

[@Fairfax40DaysforLife]

While I'm very skeptical of PSA myself, what Wright describes at 2:13 is something I've only heard from PSA critics, not PSA proponents. He must be living in a different world than me.

[@jaaaaysselam3372]

yea because it's in the PSA proponents' blind spot. They're criticizing it for a reason. Talk to half your friends who are deconstructing and you'll realize the wrong understanding of PSA is more widespread than you think. hence, why Wright goes on to explain how PSA actually works.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@jaaaaysselam3372 )) Evidences of God's wrath on Jesus: - 1Peter3:18:"Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust". - 1Corinthians15:3: "Christ died for our sins". - 1John2:2:"He is the propitiation for our sins".

[@jaaaaysselam3372]

@@savedchristian4754 those verses don't actually have God as the agent...? you're going to have to do better than that

[@savedchristian4754]

@@jaaaaysselam3372 John3:36: '36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them'.

[@jaaaaysselam3372]

@@savedchristian4754 this still doesn't support PSA. you're reading that onto the text.

[@travellingmac2177]

As much as I love NT Wright, it seems to me that he can't explain in simple terms what he wants to say. I don't know whether it's his style or he does that on purpose.

[@savedchristian4754]

If he explains in simple terms, he is giving you the grip to pin him down.

[@Daewonnni]

OR Christian’s in the West have simple fundamentalist minds that just want to be affirmed.

[@quintusbrowne446]

His understanding of penal substation is a caricature of the biblical teaching then refutes the caricature

[@eamonnmurphy5385]

A suggestion my brothers and sisters in Christ! An analogy: Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the man, 'Did the Church really say, ‘You must not read from any book?' The man said to the serpent, 'We may read from books, but the Church did say, ‘You must not read from the book that is in the middle of our Church, and you must not interpret it yourself, or you could die.' 'You will not certainly die,' the serpent said to the man. 'For the Church knows that when you read from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the man saw that the words of the book were good and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, he read some and interpreted it. He also gave it to his neighbours, who were with him, and they read it. Soon there were celebrations in the streets when the people realized that they could find salvation in Apostle Paul's words without doing any good works! Peter regarding Paul's writings: 'Speaking of this as he does in all of his letters. There are some things in those [epistles of Paul] that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist and misconstrue to their own utter destruction, just as [they distort and misinterpret the rest of the Scriptures.'

[@taylorbarrett384]

Wright completely skirted the question. "God didnt hate the world so much that He killed His Son, rather, He loved the world so much that He gave His Son." Yes, but HOW does Jesus dying on the cross accomplish anything for us? THAT is the question.

[@rosewhite---]

The Bible quite explicitly says that Jesus had to die to cancel out the sins of all who believe him - JUST AS THE INNOCENT SACRIFICIAL LAMB HAD TO DIE TO GET BLOOD FOR THE HIGH PRIEST TO SPRINKLE ON THE ARK OF THE COVENANT ONCE A YEAR! We don't hear this taught and today's churches daren't speak about sin in case it upsets their congregations.

[@peterpulpitpounder]

@Kevin Wayne Divine love alone is not the basis for pardon. It was the blood of Christ, provided out of God's love, which establishes the basis for forgiveness. Can a human judge let a criminal go free just because he cares for that person? Of course not! Justice must be satisfied. Herein lies the significance and necessity of the shed blood of Christ.

[@adamsmith4195]

@@peterpulpitpounder Why must justice be satisfied?

[@peterpulpitpounder]

@@adamsmith4195 Adam, can a human judge pardon a rapist or murder, just because he loves or cares for that person? Let's say it was a relative. Can he bypass dispensing justice because he feels generous?

[@FlatOutFE]

@@peterpulpitpounder, the great thing is God doesn't see the sin anymore because he killed Jesus on our behalf. He's doesn't get mad at believers even when they are acting stupid.

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

What a way of NOT answering the question.

[@savedchristian4754]

@Joseph Kuzara Continue here...

[@stephend7420]

I can never understand what positive message N T Wright actually has to offer. The interviewer is struggling to get him to say anything straightforward. If it is this difficult to understand the Bible, then the average person may as well not waste his/her time on it.

[@philblagden]

The wrath of God is a consistent theme in scripture as is penal substitutionary atonement. I can't reconcile N T Wright's position with Isaiah 53. He is too Liberal on this and other issues as to be considered evangelical.

[@JH-jh8ms]

Watch it again and think carefully about his words people. Wright is clearly speaking in support of penal substitution while also condemning the strawman version of it.

[@taylorbarrett384]

Well, yes and no. He does condemn a strawman, and he does get around to articulating a form of penal substitution, but all that gerrymandering really does obfuscate the issue.

[@martygough]

Err, no. He has made it very clear what he does not believe, yet refuses to say what he does believe. He has said very clearly that he does not believe the fundamental elements of penal substitution. He does not believe in substitutionary atonement, that the atonement was individualistic, but that it is corporate. He preaches heresy by default. Do not be deceived.

[@biblehistoryscience3530]

@@martygough said "He has made it very clear what he does not believe, yet refuses to say what he does believe. " EXACTLY! And I've found many people who teach unorthodox (or heretical) doctrine doing just that, which is evidence that they're prevaricating in order to not upset an audience that would be upset if they openly preached what they believe.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@martygough What is the gospel?

[@martygough]

@@bobpolo2964 The Gospel is the good news that though we are all lost hell deserving sinners we might be saved by the Grace of God alone, applied by faith alone, through the cross alone. That if we repent of our sins, put our faith in the activity of Jesus alone, we might be saved from the wrath of God. Yes, that Jesus took our sins and the punishment for them is part of the Gospel

[@willrobinson1229]

Yes, behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

[@jopra49]

I'm a bit confused: Jesus "Knew no sin", in His Flesh. So, how did GOD condemn the "flesh" in Jesus? 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". Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

[@josephnatali8802]

I've been to conferences, lectures on this perspective, listened to a debate discussion with Wright on this, but every time I try to understand what he believes about atonement, I don't fully understand. Either I'm too stupid, or there's something missing. Penal sub atonement is all over the Bible. Maybe I should read his book. But I've got too much on. That said, he does say some brilliant stuff elsewhere.

[@Gaminglord123]

Joseph Natali Penal substitution is a recent theological innovation. The theory does not exist in the Bible. There are penal themes in the Bible, but not the theory itself. Christus Victor, Ransom, Recapitulation and Moral Influence are the ways the early church understood the atonement.

[@josephnatali8802]

​@@Gaminglord123 Penal substitution is a theme that goes through the Bible; it is a recent theological innovation to say that it is a "recent theological innovation". Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus; Isaiah 52-53; Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter... All of these books teach penal substitution in stark terms. " for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Romans 3 "24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." 1 Peter 2 Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The term penal substitution is just shorthand for all these verses that are clear and central to our understanding of Scripture.

[@kathyh.1720]

Penal substitutionary atonement is actually not all over the Bible. To understand that, read the Bible without having a legal or penal mindset but read it with sin as an absolutely abhorrent way to respond to a loving and holy God. Read it in terms of a relationship between God and His creation instead of as God as a rigid judge who requires death to "pay" for us somehow. Read it as God redeeming us from slavery to sin, as God removing our sins from us so that we can be reconciled back to a right relationship with Him. The Bible is about relationship, not about law and penal substitution. It's about Love and redemption and winning back His beloved creation: us.

[@josephnatali8802]

@@kathyh.1720 Actually, I can do that without having to let go of what is clearly present in all of Scripture, from Genesis 3 to Revelation (obviously not missing Genesis 22, Exodus 12, all of Leviticus, Romans and Hebrews). In fact, to redeem, the word you are using actually means to pay or buy back. Because He is a holy God, He is judge. Because He is loving, He sacrifices himself. Without penal substitutionary atonement, you lose the weight of how great God's love is.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@Gaminglord123 /)(+-Is it love for God to send Jesus to die in order to defeat sin & satan?

[@Brandaniron]

If you don’t understand penal substitutionary atonement you don’t understand the gospel. It’s clear. Just like Gods command to not eat of the tree. The door of deception is cracked open when we entertain the question, did God really mean what He said? I cannot believe the “church” is even debating or questioning this doctrine. Maranatha

[@jeremymcquoid1765]

The brilliant NT Wright is bypassing any notion of God being angry with the world, which is how Paul's Romans gospel begins (1:18) 'the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven.' How will God deal with his own righteous wrath against our sin (chs. 1-3). Christ will absorb that wrath on the cross. The cross doesn't JUST release the powers of darkness from us. It absorbs the wrath of God. Romans 3:25 is more key to this than Romans 8:3-4, and is the crescendo of Paul's 1-3 argument. God 'set forth his son as a 'propitiation' (wrath absorbing sacrifice) to deal with his own righteous wrath. He did this in fellowship with his Son, out of love for us. But to bypass the wrath of God, as NTW and many other do, is to limit the full power of the cross. 'til on that cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God, was satisfied'. NTW unfairly lambasts that line, which I believe is fully biblical.

[@FanPhys]

Amen brother! For all his eloquence and (apparent) understanding, NTW cannot answer the simple question: what are we saved from?

[@brentwoodhornclub4092]

The late, great and unsurpassed RC Sproul made very careful and measured distinctions between simple error, false teaching, and then heresy. Of NT Wright he emphatically stated "...he's a heretic!"

[@WilliamofOckham990]

With all due respect, RC Sproul was an extremist who used an historical interpretation of the Bible and the worst excesses of Calvinism to inspire terror and promote homophobia, misogyny and all sorts of other awful things.