The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[John Caldwell]

Penal Substitution Theory is the version of the Latin atonement theory developed during the Reformation, particularly by John Calvin. Some of the language and ideas carry over to other views, but there are distinctions when we consider the context as a whole (it would be an error, for example, to assume that Justin Martyr affirmed the theory as some have tried to claim simply because similar language can be extracted from his works. For example ‘debt of sin’ can point to either the Latin or the classic type of atonement theory.

The issue that I disagree with the Penal Substitution Theory is not that I reject penal and substitutionary aspects of the Atonement. Christ died for us, bore our sins, became a curse for us and by His stripes we are healed. We escape the wrath to come because of the work Christ has accomplished. These are essential to any theory of Atonement.

The issue with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is that it begins with the premise that divine justice must be satisfied and this as a presupposition. This starting point is often defended by pointing out that God will not acquit the guilty (ignoring the remainder of the passage that God does not condemn the righteous). In other words, the Theory presupposes a form of retributive justice as the starting point of redemption. From there passages are decontextualized and reconstructed into a nucleus that is but a weak amalgamation of ideas taken from the Theory itself. The result is something to rival the imagination even of Mary Shelley.

IMHO this issue, and not the five points of Calvinism, should be at the crux of the debate. If the tree is right then so is the fruit of that tree. If Penal Substitution Theory is correct then Calvinism is correct (and fifteen centuries of Christians are wrong).

 

[Stranger]

Penal Substitution Theory is the version of the Latin atonement theory developed during the Reformation, particularly by John Calvin. Some of the language and ideas carry over to other views, but there are distinctions when we consider the context as a whole (it would be an error, for example, to assume that Justin Martyr affirmed the theory as some have tried to claim simply because similar language can be extracted from his works. For example ‘debt of sin’ can point to either the Latin or the classic type of atonement theory.

The issue that I disagree with the Penal Substitution Theory is not that I reject penal and substitutionary aspects of the Atonement. Christ died for us, bore our sins, became a curse for us and by His stripes we are healed. We escape the wrath to come because of the work Christ has accomplished. These are essential to any theory of Atonement.

The issue with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is that it begins with the premise that divine justice must be satisfied and this as a presupposition. This starting point is often defended by pointing out that God will not acquit the guilty (ignoring the remainder of the passage that God does not condemn the righteous). In other words, the Theory presupposes a form of retributive justice as the starting point of redemption. From there passages are decontextualized and reconstructed into a nucleus that is but a weak amalgamation of ideas taken from the Theory itself. The result is something to rival the imagination even of Mary Shelley.

IMHO this issue, and not the five points of Calvinism, should be at the crux of the debate. If the tree is right then so is the fruit of that tree. If Penal Substitution Theory is correct then Calvinism is correct (and fifteen centuries of Christians are wrong).

Divine justice, the demand from God against sin, which is against Him, must be satisfied.

Stranger

 

[John Caldwell]

Divine justice, the demand from God against sin, which is against Him, must be satisfied.

Stranger

Yes. That is my point. People say that the demands of justice must be satisfied (God cannot forgive except God satisfy the demands of justice by punishing sin) as if it were a biblical fact. This is especially the case in evangelical Christianity where we are steeped in this tradition. It is one the things we inherited from the Reformation that colors our view.

 

[Episkopos]

Penal Substitution Theory is the version of the Latin atonement theory developed during the Reformation, particularly by John Calvin. Some of the language and ideas carry over to other views, but there are distinctions when we consider the context as a whole (it would be an error, for example, to assume that Justin Martyr affirmed the theory as some have tried to claim simply because similar language can be extracted from his works. For example ‘debt of sin’ can point to either the Latin or the classic type of atonement theory.

The issue that I disagree with the Penal Substitution Theory is not that I reject penal and substitutionary aspects of the Atonement. Christ died for us, bore our sins, became a curse for us and by His stripes we are healed. We escape the wrath to come because of the work Christ has accomplished. These are essential to any theory of Atonement.

The issue with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is that it begins with the premise that divine justice must be satisfied and this as a presupposition. This starting point is often defended by pointing out that God will not acquit the guilty (ignoring the remainder of the passage that God does not condemn the righteous). In other words, the Theory presupposes a form of retributive justice as the starting point of redemption. From there passages are decontextualized and reconstructed into a nucleus that is but a weak amalgamation of ideas taken from the Theory itself. The result is something to rival the imagination even of Mary Shelley.

IMHO this issue, and not the five points of Calvinism, should be at the crux of the debate. If the tree is right then so is the fruit of that tree. If Penal Substitution Theory is correct then Calvinism is correct (and fifteen centuries of Christians are wrong).

Penal substitution is backwards. God wasn't so angry about sin that He killed His own Son in anger. God would never take out a person's sin on another person.

For God so LOVED the word.... not...for God was so ANGRY at the world. So here we have just one more case of drawing wrong conclusions..which happens a lot!

It was evil men that put Jesus to death...not God. But God's will was to turn something evil into something good.

But this doesn't mean that God was satisfied by Jesus death. His death was inevitable because of the wickedness of men.

Jesus redeemed us back from the captivity to sin and the devil...through His death and resurrection. His death redeems the whole world back to God...from it's captivity to the devil. His resurrection justifies they who believe into Him....by giving them of His life....His eternal life.

And the passion of Christ is a template for all who would follow Him. We are to also enter into His death and resurrection in order to partake of life on His level.

So then it is a life for a life (Ex. 21:23) in death...and a life IN a life (Deut. 19:21) for resurrection life.

 

[John Caldwell]

Penal substitution is backwards. God wasn't so angry about sin that He killed His own Son in anger. God would never take out a person's sin on another person.

For God so LOVED the word.... not...for God was so ANGRY at the world. So here we have just one more case of drawing wrong conclusions..which happens a lot!

It was evil men that put Jesus to death...not God. But God's will was to turn something evil into something good.

But this doesn't mean that God was satisfied by Jesus death. His death was inevitable because of the wickedness of men.

Jesus redeemed us back from the captivity to sin and the devil...through His death and resurrection. His death redeems the whole world back to God...from it's captivity to the devil. His resurrection justifies they who believe into Him....by giving them of His life....His eternal life.

And the passion of Christ is a template for all who would follow Him. We are to also enter into His death and resurrection in order to partake of life on His level.

So then it is a life for a life (Ex. 21:23) in death...and a life IN a life (Deut. 19:21) for resurrection life.

Well said. I think that many of us who hold (or held) Penal Substitution Theory do so because that is what we have been taught. Retributive justice is a part of our ideology and we cannot separate it without effort from how we read Scripture.

I preached a sermon about Penal Substitution Theory (explaining the "truth" of the theory). I thought it was one of my best sermons at the time, and others approached me praising a well delivered and articulated sermon. I went to bed feeling great about myself. I woke up with the conviction that I had not preached the gospel but my own theology. I went out and bought two dry erase boards and worked through every verse supporting Penal Substitution Theory. Absent my presuppositions, there was absolutely no evidence to support the theory. When I speak about teaching or preaching things that I'm now ashamed to have taught, this is the time (the one time) in my life. I honestly saw Penal Substitution Theory in Scripture even though it was not there. It was tradition, plain and simple.

And I am sure that I have other presuppositions that influence my understanding. I am not sure that we can rid ourselves of the like in this world - but I believe we should at least try.

That's when this became my signature on another forum:

"There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there." - Thomas Hardy

 

[Enoch111]

The issue with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is that it begins with the premise that divine justice must be satisfied and this as a presupposition.

And this is exactly what the Bible presents. Before grace and mercy can be extended, the penalty for sins must be paid. That is the same a saying that divine justice must be fully satisfied. Please note carefully:

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Rom 3:26)

How could God be just if He ignored His own laws regarding the penalty for sins. If the wages of sin is death, then either you would pay that penalty (including the second death) or someone else would pay it on your behalf.

 

[John Caldwell]

And this is exactly what the Bible presents. Before grace and mercy can be extended, the penalty for sins must be paid. That is the same a saying that divine justice must be fully satisfied. Please note carefully:

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Rom 3:26)

How could God be just if He ignored His own laws regarding the penalty for sins. If the wages of sin is death, then either you would pay that penalty (including the second death) or someone else would pay it on your behalf.

Please bear with me - I'm trying to respond on my phone.

Forgive me, but I am not familiar with this verse: "Before grace and mercy can be extended, the penalty for sins must be paid." What is the reference?

The passage in Romans is Paul explaining that apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets with men being justified as a gift by God's grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God displayed as a propitiation in His blood through faith.

Then comes the verse you offered:

This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? Romans 3:26-27

Have you considered the fact that this verse does not say God punished Christ to satisfy the demands of justice. In fact, this passage does not even say the demands of justice had to be satisfied for God to justly forgive. If God forgives what charges remain? What if Christ is the "Second Adam" and judgment is moved from the Father to the Son?

At one time I presupposed that God must punish sin and therefore He punished Christ. One problem is that this idea is fairly new to Christianity. Another problem is that this is not forgiveness as defined by Scripture. The largest problem is that this is not actually in the Bible so even if it were true it would be very shaky ground upon which to build a theology.

 

[historyb]

I prefer the Recapitulation theory of atonement instead of the west idea of legal terms.

 

[John Caldwell]

I prefer the Recapitulation theory of atonement instead of the west idea of legal terms.

I love how Irenaeus and Martyr deal with Christ's life and death. I did not mention it, but it is also troubling to how Penal Substitution Theory reduces the actual work of Christ to essentually being a target for divine wrath on our behalf.

I lean to a Ransom theory (not that God paid a ransom to satan but that we were ransomed from the bondage of sin and death). Jesus took upon Himself our sin (the human condition) on behalf of the human family, became a curse for us and paid the consequences of sin. God raised Jesus that He would be the Firstborn of many. Therein lies our hope - the "Second Adam". We are not spared physical death but delievered through it.

 

[justbyfaith]

If Penal Substitution Theory is correct then Calvinism is correct (and fifteen centuries of Christians are wrong).

I do not see that. For I hold to the penal substitution theory of atonement and do not define myself as a Calvinist.

For God so LOVED the word.... not...for God was so ANGRY at the world.

The justice of the Lord has nothing to do with anger...although I could probably bring up verses that say that God is angry with the wicked.

I honestly saw Penal Substitution Theory in Scripture even though it was not there.

The largest problem is that this is not actually in the Bible

It is indeed in the Bible. I do not think that you understand what the word propitiation means. It means "appeasement of wrath."

This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? Romans 3:26-27

Have you considered the fact that this verse does not say God punished Christ to satisfy the demands of justice.

I believe that the verses before it do, however, say that God punished Christ to satisfy the demands of justice. And the verse in question does substantiate the idea.

 

[Enoch111]

Forgive me, but I am not familiar with this verse: "Before grace and mercy can be extended, the penalty for sins must be paid." What is the reference?

The reference is NOT to a specific verse but to (1) the whole tenor of the Gospel, (2) the reason for the sacrifice of Christ for sins, and (3) the character of God Himself.

GOD'S WRATH IS AGAINST ALL SIN AND EVIL
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness... (Rom 1:18)

THE JUSTICE OF GOD IS HIS WRATH AGAINST SIN
But we are sure that the judgment* of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds... But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile (2:2-9)

*Strong's Concordance
krima: a judgment
Original Word: κρίμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: krima
Phonetic Spelling: (kree'-mah)
Definition: a judgment
Usage: (a) a judgment, a verdict; sometimes implying an adverse verdict, a condemnation, (b) a case at law, a lawsuit.

THE PENALTY FOR SIN IS DEATH (THE FIRST AND SECOND DEATHS)
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen 2:17,18)
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom 6:23)
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:14,15)

WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Heb 9:22)

CHRIST SHED HIS BLOOD FOR OUR REDEMPTION
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (Heb 9:11-15)

Now it is both simple logic and spiritual truth, that unless Christ had shed His blood for our redemption, and paid the death penalty ("that by means of death") for all humanity, God could not possibly have extended His grace, mercy, and the gift of eternal life to sinners. The mere NECESSITY of the sacrifice of Christ establishes this truth.

 

[Stranger]

Yes. That is my point. People say that the demands of justice must be satisfied (God cannot forgive except God satisfy the demands of justice by punishing sin) as if it were a biblical fact. This is especially the case in evangelical Christianity where we are steeped in this tradition. It is one the things we inherited from the Reformation that colors our view.

It is a Biblical fact.

If the price of sin is not paid for, God cannot allow one into heaven or eternal life with Him. Neither His love or mercy can change that.

God cannot just say to one I love you, so I am going to forget the sins you have committed against Me and let you into Heaven. If that did happen, which it won't, and you entered His presence, His righteous nature would burst forth in judgement against you and destroy you.

Thus the problem never was just how to get us to Heaven. It was compounded with, how does God get us to Heaven and still be just in doing so.

And of course God has solved the problem so that as Paul says, (Rom. 3:26) "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

Stranger

 

[Deborah_]

Penal Substitution Theory is the version of the Latin atonement theory developed during the Reformation, particularly by John Calvin.

The penal substitution "theory" predates John Calvin by about 4 centuries! It was first put forward by Anselm.
So it's incorrect to link it with Calvinism.
And it's only one way of looking at the atonement:
Atonement

I believe not only in penal substitution but also in the ransom and in the Christus Victor aspect. They are not mutually exclusive - just different ways of looking at the same (very complex) truth.

See also this forum thread:
Why did Jesus have to die?

 

[Episkopos]

I do not think that you understand what the word propitiation means. It means "appeasement of wrath."

In the NT the Greek word translated as "propitiation" is "hilasterion" which is used in the Septuagint OT to mean "mercy seat."

The appeasement idea is a pagan one...of mollifying an angry god. Unless you see Christianity as a pagan religion.

God has mercy on whom He wills. The sacrifices in the OT were not for God...but for us to realize the cost of sin. Sin kills. Likewise the death of Jesus...it was necessary to realize how wicked mankind truly is. The cost of sin is death. How we kill each other...and ourselves through sin.

When will we say "enough"???

The soul that sins...it shall die. This is not a vengeful statement but a simple truth that sin kills us. But religion turns that around to push sinning back on God, so we can go on blindly engaging in that which kills us and others. The deceived call this destructive practice....grace...which shows that these don't know what grace is.

 

[brakelite]

I love how Irenaeus and Martyr deal with Christ's life and death. I did not mention it, but it is also troubling to how Penal Substitution Theory reduces the actual work of Christ to essentually being a target for divine wrath on our behalf.

I lean to a Ransom theory (not that God paid a ransom to satan but that we were ransomed from the bondage of sin and death). Jesus took upon Himself our sin (the human condition) on behalf of the human family, became a curse for us and paid the consequences of sin. God raised Jesus that He would be the Firstborn of many. Therein lies our hope - the "Second Adam". We are not spared physical death but delievered through it.

But we are spared the second death... Which means it was the second death that Jesus experienced. A death without hope of resurrection. Now I know Jesus had faith in the Father that He would be resurrected... Jesus spoke of this several times.. But at the precise time of His death, He was alone, dying the death we deserve.

 

[GodsGrace]

Penal Substitution Theory is the version of the Latin atonement theory developed during the Reformation, particularly by John Calvin. Some of the language and ideas carry over to other views, but there are distinctions when we consider the context as a whole (it would be an error, for example, to assume that Justin Martyr affirmed the theory as some have tried to claim simply because similar language can be extracted from his works. For example ‘debt of sin’ can point to either the Latin or the classic type of atonement theory.

The issue that I disagree with the Penal Substitution Theory is not that I reject penal and substitutionary aspects of the Atonement. Christ died for us, bore our sins, became a curse for us and by His stripes we are healed. We escape the wrath to come because of the work Christ has accomplished. These are essential to any theory of Atonement.

The issue with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is that it begins with the premise that divine justice must be satisfied and this as a presupposition. This starting point is often defended by pointing out that God will not acquit the guilty (ignoring the remainder of the passage that God does not condemn the righteous). In other words, the Theory presupposes a form of retributive justice as the starting point of redemption. From there passages are decontextualized and reconstructed into a nucleus that is but a weak amalgamation of ideas taken from the Theory itself. The result is something to rival the imagination even of Mary Shelley.

IMHO this issue, and not the five points of Calvinism, should be at the crux of the debate. If the tree is right then so is the fruit of that tree. If Penal Substitution Theory is correct then Calvinism is correct (and fifteen centuries of Christians are wrong).

I agree with you. I also do not care for the Penal Substitution Theory.
In this theory God is portrayed as a wrathful God that requires sacrifice to be appeased.

This is just not the God that I've come to know.
In fact in some verses of the O.T. it plainly states that God does not desire sacrifice but our heart.
Psalm 40:60
Psalm 51:16

God desires to give us a new heart:
Ezekiel 36:26
Jeremiah 31:33

There is an older theory of atonement from which the Penal Substitution Theory was developed:

The Satisfaction Theory
This theory also justifies a quality of God,,but it is not wrath..
it is the JUSTICE of God.

This states that God was so hurt by the breaking of the relationship with man that He requires some kind of restitution....this also is paying back a debt as is the Penal Theory.

In the Satisfaction Theory it is humanity that owes a debt to God that must be paid back. Jesus, as our representative, pays back that debt (just as Adam was a representative of mankind).

 

[brakelite]

I agree with others here... That although God"laid on Him the iniquity of us all", the death of the Son of God was voluntary... God did not sacrifice His Son... The Son sacrificed Himself.

 

[GodsGrace]

I do not see that. For I hold to the penal substitution theory of atonement and do not define myself as a Calvinist.


The justice of the Lord has nothing to do with anger...although I could probably bring up verses that say that God is angry with the wicked.


It is indeed in the Bible. I do not think that you understand what the word propitiation means. It means "appeasement of wrath."


I believe that the verses before it do, however, say that God punished Christ to satisfy the demands of justice. And the verse in question does substantiate the idea.

So you believe in a wrathful God?
Not a loving, merciful and just God?

 

[John Caldwell]

The reference is NOT to a specific verse but to (1) the whole tenor of the Gospel, (2) the reason for the sacrifice of Christ for sins, and (3) the character of God Himself.

GOD'S WRATH IS AGAINST ALL SIN AND EVIL
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness... (Rom 1:18)

THE JUSTICE OF GOD IS HIS WRATH AGAINST SIN
But we are sure that the judgment* of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds... But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile (2:2-9)

*Strong's Concordance
krima: a judgment
Original Word: κρίμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: krima
Phonetic Spelling: (kree'-mah)
Definition: a judgment
Usage: (a) a judgment, a verdict; sometimes implying an adverse verdict, a condemnation, (b) a case at law, a lawsuit.

THE PENALTY FOR SIN IS DEATH (THE FIRST AND SECOND DEATHS)
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen 2:17,18)
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom 6:23)
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:14,15)

WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Heb 9:22)

CHRIST SHED HIS BLOOD FOR OUR REDEMPTION
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (Heb 9:11-15)

Now it is both simple logic and spiritual truth, that unless Christ had shed His blood for our redemption, and paid the death penalty ("that by means of death") for all humanity, God could not possibly have extended His grace, mercy, and the gift of eternal life to sinners. The mere NECESSITY of the sacrifice of Christ establishes this truth.

Thank you for your explanation and fot taking the time to clarify your position here. I thought I might have missed something.

At one time I would have agreed with you. I absolutely agree with the passages you have provided, just not the idea they necessitate the ideas you have presupposed.

Those who reject Penal Substitution Theory do not reject those passages. Thet reject Penal Substitution Theory. Have you considered an interpretation without superimposing retributive justice into the mix?

I do appreciate you taking the time to address my question.

 

[Stranger]

I agree with others here... That although God"laid on Him the iniquity of us all", the death of the Son of God was voluntary... God did not sacrifice His Son... The Son sacrificed Himself.

There is something wrong with this statement.

(John 6:38) "For I cam down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

(Luke 22:43) "...Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."

(John 8:28) "...When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."

The sacrifice of the Son was done by the Father. Just as Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son. The Son was obedient to death.

Stranger