The same cup

One of the arguments made in Pierced for our transgressions that caused me to roll my eyes in despair a bit more than usual was the claim the use of the word "cup" in the gospels in reference to Jesus' death proves Penal Substitution. Their alleged logic behind this is that the Old Testament uses the word cup in the content of God punishing people and being wrathful. They quote a few passages and apparently this therefore proves by the use of the same word in the gospels that God is being depicted as wrathful toward Jesus. (God is actually never described in the Bible as wrathful toward Jesus, hence why the authors of PFOT need to go to such extreme lengths to find proof for their idea) Thus, Jesus' bears the cup of God's wrath poured out on him as a substitute for sinful humanity etc. Anyway, at the time of reading I just dismissed it as yet another one of their E-grade arguments and mentally bucketed it with Goligher's stellar argument that mention of the herb hyssop proves penal substitution.

But in Brondos' Paul on the Cross he has an extended discussion of how in the bible believers are said to suffer the same sufferings that Christ himself suffered, dying "with" Christ etc. His aim is thus to demonstrate that Christ's sufferings weren't thought of as unique among humanity's but rather that Christ suffered in the course of trying to achieve certain things and subsequently his followers suffered for those same goals. Among other passages, he mentions this:

But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They replied, "We are able." Then Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; (Mk 10:38-39)

That cracked me up. If you use the PFOT logic of "cup" meaning PS, then this says the disciples are also penal substitutes for the sins of humanity! They drink from the same "cup" of God's wrath as Jesus in their death, and are "baptized" like Jesus in God's wrath. ~snigger~

I was impressed though at Brondos' demonstration of just how strong the theme of us dying like Christ for the same things as Christ is in the New Testament. Not only the (in)famous passage "in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions" (Col 1:24) but heaps of others as well speak of believers suffering like Christ for the same causes as Christ in order to attempt to achieve and further the goals Christ was trying to achieve.

Brondos on PS and Sacrifices

The part of Brondos' book Paul on the Cross which I have found most convincing and interesting so far is his case that Old Testament sacrifices were not understood to work by Penal Substitution (pp 20-30). Here are some of the arguments he gives against this idea:

1. In the Mosaic law, transgressions deserving of the death penalty are precisely those that cannot be atoned for by a sacrifice, whereas those that do not deserve the death penalty are the ones that can be. This is inconsistent with the idea that the sacrifice dies a substitutionary death.
2. Flour can be sacrificed instead of an animal if a person is too poor to afford one. It is hard to think of flour as undergoing substitutionary death.
3. In the 'peace offering' an animal is sacrificed, but there is no atonement or forgiveness taking place. So if sacrifices work by PS, then what's the point of killing this animal?
   
4. The only time sins are said to be transferred to the animal is on the day of atonement, where the goat specifically has two hands placed on it and the sins of the people prayed onto it and then is sent away alive rather than sacrificed.
5. According to PS, sacrifices should become impure as our sin is transferred to them. But they are described as "most holy" (Lev 6:29) and the priests eat the flesh.
6. There are plenty of instances of God granting forgiveness without sacrifices, and refusing it where sacrifices were given. Thus a substitutionary death appears neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for atonement and forgiveness. The bible depicts it being up to God alone whether forgiveness is granted, which he decides as he wills based on the condition of the human heart.
   
7. It was the Jewish belief that atonement and forgiveness came primarily through repentance and prayer, the sacrifices merely accompanied the prayers like the incense.
   

While Brondos' treatment of how sacrifices don't work was nice and thorough, I found him both brief and vague when it came to explaining just how sacrifices do work.

Also on the subject of sacrifice, I recently found a lengthy bibliography here of scholarly works on the meaning of sacrifices. Thank you Professor James Watts for making that available.