PSA

Just putting some more notes out there as I try to 'congeal' this into something that resembles my understanding.

So the idea of 'penal' substitution is inherent within the Scriptures. However, is the term 'penal' based on our understanding based on our culture, our upbringing, our worldview? Or are we conforming to the idea as laid out in the text?

When I hear the term 'penal' I think 'deserved it'. "Jesus got what we deserve." The problem with this, as I see it anyhow, is that the focus is still us, as if God's sole focus is to get us, to give us what we deserve? I can't shake that and it clouds my idea of how a 'loving' (of course, my understanding of what that means) God could be so, well, vindictive.

I understand that from a law point of view, the punishment would fit the crime of sin = death. But isn't that punishment enough? We sin, we die. What if there is more to this than that? 

Did Jesus come to conquer sin or conquer death? After all, if He defeated death is sin not vanquished? In other words, if He came to conquer the 'sin' problem wouldn't death still be unresolved? He made us 'righteous' with God but then there is still the death thing. Without the resurrection, death still remains an issue.

Where am I going with this? I was talking to someone about this and the response to Jesus sacrifice was this: I deserved it, He took on my punishment and I owe Him my life because of it. While I do not disagree with this necessarily there is something missing. Or maybe it is just that simple and I need to chill.

But it sounds like a mere swap, a straight legal transaction, balancing the equation. And I believe this is the claim often leveled against PSA in its basic, or base, understanding. 

The questions, for me, still remain: paid the price. To whom? Ransom. From what? Bore my infirmities. And did what with them?