Theories of Atonement

[JayP]

A lot is interesting thoughts. And while I agree there are lots of interpretations of specks of Christianity that can “all work” in helping us understand, I would also be fine to stand that the words substitionary and atonement are good, penal is not

Jesus did NOT pay the price for our sins. I accept in a vague way in night help people understand but it does more harm than good.
The idea of only we find a way to come up with the $500 to pay the fine we are good to go forward under plays what sin is.

[Bootstrap]

No John, Catholics absolutely do not use PSA.

I think this is accurate. The catechism is clear:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM

603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. 405 But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"406 Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".407

Here's the whole section:

III. CHRIST OFFERED HIMSELF TO HIS FATHER FOR OUR SINS

Christ's whole life is an offering to the Father

606 The Son of God, who came down "from heaven, not to do (his) own will, but the will of him who sent (him)",413 said on coming into the world, "Lo, I have come to do your will, O God." "and by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."414 From the first moment of his Incarnation the Son embraces the Father's plan of divine salvation in his redemptive mission: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work."415 The sacrifice of Jesus "for the sins of the whole world"416 expresses his loving communion with the Father. "The Father loves me, because I lay down my life", said the Lord, "(for) I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father."417

607 The desire to embrace his Father's plan of redeeming love inspired Jesus' whole life,418 for his redemptive passion was the very reason for his Incarnation. and so he asked, "and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour."419 and again, "Shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?"420 From the cross, just before "It is finished", he said, "I thirst."421

"The Lamb who takes away the sin of the world"

608 After agreeing to baptize him along with the sinners, John the Baptist looked at Jesus and pointed him out as the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world".422 By doing so, he reveals that Jesus is at the same time the suffering Servant who silently allows himself to be led to the slaughter and who bears the sin of the multitudes, and also the Paschal Lamb, the symbol of Israel's redemption at the first Passover.423 Christ's whole life expresses his mission: "to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."424

Jesus freely embraced the Father's redeeming love

609 By embracing in his human heart the Father's love for men, Jesus "loved them to the end", for "greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."425 In suffering and death his humanity became the free and perfect instrument of his divine love which desires the salvation of men.426 Indeed, out of love for his Father and for men, whom the Father wants to save, Jesus freely accepted his Passion and death: "No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord."427 Hence the sovereign freedom of God's Son as he went out to his death.428

At the Last Supper Jesus anticipated the free offering of his life

610 Jesus gave the supreme expression of his free offering of himself at the meal shared with the twelve Apostles "on the night he was betrayed".429 On the eve of his Passion, while still free, Jesus transformed this Last Supper with the apostles into the memorial of his voluntary offering to the Father for the salvation of men: "This is my body which is given for you." "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."430

611 The Eucharist that Christ institutes at that moment will be the memorial of his sacrifice.431 Jesus includes the apostles in his own offering and bids them perpetuate it.432 By doing so, the Lord institutes his apostles as priests of the New Covenant: "For their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth."433

The agony at Gethsemani

612 The cup of the New Covenant, which Jesus anticipated when he offered himself at the Last Supper, is afterwards accepted by him from his Father's hands in his agony in the garden at Gethsemani,434 making himself "obedient unto death". Jesus prays: "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. . ."435 Thus he expresses the horror that death represented for his human nature. Like ours, his human nature is destined for eternal life; but unlike ours, it is perfectly exempt from sin, the cause of death.436 Above all, his human nature has been assumed by the divine person of the "Author of life", the "Living One".437 By accepting in his human will that the Father's will be done, he accepts his death as redemptive, for "he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."438

Christ's death is the unique and definitive sacrifice

613 Christ's death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world",439 and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the "blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins".440

614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices.441 First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.442

Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience

615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities".444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445

Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross

616 It is love "to the end"446 that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.447 Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. the existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

617 The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation"449 and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us."450 and the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope."451

Our participation in Christ's sacrifice

618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the "one mediator between God and men".452 But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, "the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery" is offered to all men.453 He calls his disciples to "take up [their] cross and follow (him)",454 for "Christ also suffered for (us), leaving (us) an example so that (we) should follow in his steps."455 In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.456 This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.457 Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.458

IN BRIEF

619 "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" (I Cor 15:3).

620 Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (I Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

621 Jesus freely offered himself for our salvation. Beforehand, during the Last Supper, he both symbolized this offering and made it really present: "This is my body which is given for you" (Lk 22:19).

622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers" (I Pt 1:18).

623 By his loving obedience to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfils the atoning mission (cf Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will "make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities" (Is 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19).

[Nomad]

A lot is interesting thoughts. And while I agree there are lots of interpretations of specks of Christianity that can “all work” in helping us understand, I would also be fine to stand that the words substitionary and atonement are good, penal is not

Jesus did NOT pay the price for our sins. I accept in a vague way in night help people understand but it does more harm than good.
The idea of only we find a way to come up with the $500 to pay the fine we are good to go forward under plays what sin is.

I would word it a little differently. Its not "we" who find a way to come up with $500. "We" aren't purchasing ourselves. It's Christ who purchases us and its by His blood...not by pulling out His wallet. His blood atones for the debt that we have accrued via our sins.

Acts 20:28
[28]Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

[Heirbyadoption]

If we hold the little saying we are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved...in other words as long as we’re being obedient sons and daughters, how or why does it actually matter.

Well, since you asked... Herein lies the value in have some sort of actual concept or framework in mind regarding the subject. The reality that so often crops up in application-oriented Christian cultures like conservative anabaptism is a morphing of the "as long as we're being obedient sons and daughters" into "as long as we're hopefully being obedient enough sons and daughters", and suddenly its a whole different ballgame...

[Ernie]

This started as a bunny trail in another thread, where this video is mentioned. Dean's point of reference is the early church, which is a little different from saying that Mennonites did, do, or should adopt PSA as the primary view of the atonement.

A friend who has studied and written about the atonement extensively has this to say about Dean's speech.

If you stick your tongue firmly in your cheek, close one eye and hop around on one leg, you can think of a way to justify the term “penal substitution” in light of some things said by some fathers in the early church. The problem is, that is not what the Protestant doctrine of penal substitution is. The Protestant doctrine is understood a specific way. I don’t think a single early Christian would have agreed with the statement, “the Father poured out his wrath on his son.”

So to use the term “penal substitution” when it carries Protestant connotations, is anachronistic. The effect of Dean Taylor‘s message will be that as evangelicals hear their pastors speak things that I think are quite mistaken, they will cheerfully imagine they are hearing something the early church taught.

[Ernie]

My friend says this further...

I listened with interest and disappointment to Dean Taylor's presentation entitled, "Yes, the Early Church taught Penal Substitutionary Atonement".
In contrast to this claim, the Wikipedia page for "Penal Substitution" says, "It has been generally recognized that only hints of penal substitutionary atonement can be found in the writing of the Early Church, with the most explicit articulations arriving during the time of the Reformation."

How to resolve this apparent discrepancy?
The Early Christians taught that Jesus' life and death accomplished multiple things.
We were in bondage to sin, death, and the devil.
We needed our sins washed away, and to be given the power to live above sin.
Because we were dead in trespasses and sins, we needed to be given spiritual life.
And we needed the power of the devil over us to be broken.

Because we were powerless to do these things, unable to save ourselves, Jesus came and did them for us. Then, he invites us to unite with him. In that union with him, we become members of his body. We "put on Christ". His blood, which is clean, "cleanses us". In other words, uniting to him, being a "member of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," means that we participate in his victory and share in his qualities, as well as his reward given him by the Father. It is through being united to Christ that we are saved.
So, the fact that Jesus did something on our behalf that we could not do means that he is a "substitute" for us. But there are multiple ways to be a substitute without being a "penal substitute".
Like the scapegoat had the sins of the people confessed on his head, and then he carried them away into the wilderness, Jesus took the burden (heavy load) of our sins upon himself, and took them "as far away as the east is from the west."

In contrast to that perspective, many Protestants teach as their main theory of the Atonement that the way Jesus saves us is that God's wrath came down on him instead of us, God exacted punishment from him so he would not be required to punish us. In fact, they can hardly say anything about the Atonement without saying this.

For example, John MacArthur:
"We must remember, however, that sin did not kill Jesus; God did. The suffering servant’s death was nothing less than a punishment administered by God for sins others had committed...God put his own Son to death? That is precisely what Scripture teaches."--John MacArthur
And John Piper:
In his sermon titled “The Pleasure of God in Bruising the Son,” John Piper affirms:
"Jesus was not swept away by the wrath of uncontrolled men. He was bruised by his Father."
Wyatt Graham, director of The Gospel Coalition, wrote:
"Jesus bore divine wrath at the cross for our sake, and so protected us from it. This act implies that God hates humans since he would have poured wrath upon humans."
Trevin Wax, a writer for The Gospel Coalition as well, argues:
"God killed Jesus. I know that might sound harsh, and it is, indeed, hard to wrap your mind around. But it’s true. God the Father sacrificed his Son. He killed his Son in order to spare us His righteous wrath."
In his sermon, "Jesus sweats blood," Evangelical pastor Mark Driscoll explains:
"See, at the cross of Jesus, there is hatred for Jesus and love for us...on the cross, the wrath of God was poured out on the Son of God. To say it another way, Jesus took the cup on the cross and drank every single drop of the wrath of God, and he endured it. This was physical, emotional, spiritual, mental suffering to a degree that is incomprehensible."
C.J. Mahaney, an evangelical Reformed pastor and former president of Sovereign Grace Ministries, preached:
"Who killed Jesus? The Father. The Father killed the Son….He crushed his son for you! He crushed Him! He bruised him! He punished him! He disfigured him! He crushed him! With all of the righteous wrath that we deserved. That’s what the Father did. So great was His love."
David Platt, evangelical reformed Baptist pastor and former president of IMB, writes:
"Jesus was pulverized under the weight of God’s wrath as he stood in our place...At the cross, God showed the full expression of his wrath."

WHAT!!!
What if the cross was an awful expression of the wrath and sin of man, and the fullest expression ever given of the love of God as he said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"!

The early Christians occasionally said things about Jesus's sacrifice that could be interpreted as harmonizing with a PSA view of the Atonement, such as this statement by Eusebius
"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on Himself. And therefore He will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on His own."

But notice what Eusebius does not say. He does not say that the mechanism by which this works is God pouring out his wrath against sin on his Son, or God the Father punishing Jesus so that he is not obligated to punish us.
There are multiple non-penal ways to understand this statement. For starters, Jesus literally received the sins of men on himself, as we spit on, mocked, whipped, and pierced him. Jesus spiritually received the weight of all our sins, as he was tasked with carrying them away like taking out the trash. When someone sins against you and you retaliate, sin wins. If you don't retaliate, like Jesus, you absorb sin, and break its power. (Beloved, do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.) That's what Jesus did, as he overcame all sin.
Eusebius says, "He will suffer the penalty of sinners." The wages of sin is death. Jesus died. So he experienced what sinners deserve, even though he didn't deserve it. Since he didn't deserve death, death had no power over him, and therefore, he resurrected. Thus, while "suffer the penalty of sinners" could imply penal substitution in the Protestant/Evangelical sense, we would need to establish that by a quote from Eusebius like one of the authors above.
And there is no such quote as this in the Early Church writings.

The collection of writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and Post Nicene Fathers are vast--28 volumes, occupying about three feet of space on a shelf. Dean Taylor has gone through these and come up with several pages of quotes that are claimed to demonstrate Penal Substitution in the Early Church--and none of them actually does.
Well, almost none of them. There is a quote by John Chrysostom that does have the features of Penal Substitution, in that guilt is transferred from a criminal to a king's son. But this is more a coincidence than Chrysostom's theory of the atonement, as he grapples for analogies to explain what Jesus did.
A few paragraphs before the paragraph about the "king's son", Chrysostom says, God "did not require satisfaction", and in the paragraph about the king's son, he says, "He exacted not justice" This is something that Luther, Calvin, and the rest would never have said. So he must be thinking differently than they.

One quote in 28 volumes! (There are other quotes in Dean's paper that are worthy of attention. I'd like to discuss them all, but that would be too tedious here. But I believe they can all be explained in ways other than supporting Protestant PSA.)


So, "Penal Substitution" refers to a modern Protestant theory of how God saves us. When Dean Taylor says, "the Early Church taught Penal Substitution along with Christus Victor", the result will be that his listeners will say, "Ah, all's well," and will go on cheerfully singing, "'Til on that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied." They will relax, satisfied that they are getting Biblical teaching over the pulpit.

I don't think this is a fair way to portray what the Early Christians taught about Jesus' death. Yes, they would have taught that Jesus suffered for sin, because of sin, and on behalf of sin. They would have taught that Jesus offered himself to the Father. Of course he did! "Father, into thy hands, I commit my spirit." Jesus' whole life and death was an offering--on the one hand to us, and on the other hand in obedience to his Father, who asked him to come and bring us salvation. Jesus is also the means by which the Father's favor comes to us. The wrath of God abides on sinners. Jesus' work convinces us to turn from sin. His blood cleanses us. Now, we are in God's favor and not under wrath. So in that sense, the work of Jesus makes God "propitius" to us. That is one way to think about "propitiation", and I think it is the way Origen is thinking when he says that Jesus is "the propitiator not only of believers and the faithful but also of the whole world". Origen appears to think that "propitiation" changes us.

But please don't say, "The early Christians taught penal substitution." The accurate thing to say would be, "The early Christians do not appear to have held to Penal Substitution in the modern Protestant sense."

[Ernie]

My friend writes further in response to an inquiry...

"In what way was Jesus' death substitutionary?"

There are multiple ways to think about the work of Christ. The primary category in which I think of it is that of Jesus bringing us life.
There are many ways to think about substitution. For example, if I kill and eat a cow, its death is a substitute for my death (from starvation). You could even say that its meat is a substitute for my hunger. If I didn't have food in my stomach, I would be hungry instead. You can substitute like things, or unlike things. You can substitute death for death, or death for life.
Any congressman is a substitute for the people he represents. If he wasn't in congress representing them, they would need to be there representing themselves.
The way I think about substitution in the atonement has been called "representative substitution." I think this is a valid way to think about Christ's work, although I don't think it needs to be the primary way or the focus. So, you might ask, why think about it that way? Well, if you are trying to dialogue with someone who believes strongly in penal substitution, I think it could be helpful to offer them a "substitute" substitution. They may feel less threatened by it.

Your question was, "What verses could be used to infer a substitutionary death, other than Isaiah 53?" Here are some that occur to me.
First, there is the story of the Passover. This is a good example to show how we can interpret things in different ways. PSA would interpret the lamb as receiving God's wrath, as a substitute for the firstborn. Non-PSA would interpret the lamb's blood as being given on behalf of, to protect the firstborn. But either way, the lamb does die as a substitute for the firstborn dying. I don't believe there is any more reason to assume that the firstborn of Egypt were receiving "wrath and punishment" any more than there is reason to assume that Ezekiel's wife was receiving God's wrath and punishment when God told Ezekiel he was taking her away with a stroke. God was not angry with Ezekiel's wife. Rather, he killed her as a sign to the people of Israel, as part of a larger narrative he was developing about sin, consequences, and judgement. In the same way, God had no wrath toward the 3 day old male Egyptians. They died as part of a larger narrative of sin, consequences, and judgment, as well as potential deliverance if one is protected by the blood of Jesus.

Galatians 3:13
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the of the Spirit through faith.
I think there are three possible ways to understand, "a curse for us".
1. Jesus became a curse instead of us.
2. Jesus became a curse along with us.
3. Neither #1. nor #2., but Jesus became a curse on our behalf.
The way I understand this passage is as follows: If you are under the law, its curse is always hanging over you, ready to fall on you if you transgress. If you have transgressed, its curse has fallen on you. Jesus suffered a cursed death (became a curse) to fulfil and remove the (Mosaic) law from its place of authority over us. The law still exists, but Jesus has risen above the law. If we rise with him (Colossians 3:1) we also are no longer under the (Mosaic) law. (We are under the law of Christ.) The curse of the law comes upon disobedience. However, when Deuteronomy says, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree", it assumes that the person who hangs on a tree is doing so because he has already transgressed the law and has come under God's curse upon transgressors. He is already cursed because of his prior disobedience. The Greek father Origen taught that Jesus delivered us from the curse of the law by substituting one curse for another. He substituted a curse that comes upon a person through their transgression by suffering one that he was able to receive without having done any transgression. Therefore, he experienced something on our behalf that we should have suffered because of our transgressions. In the process, he broke the power of the law.
The way I think about this is that as our representative, he went through the whole process of being judged, condemned, and executed, yet undeservedly and without sin. We can escape our deserved death, even though we deserve it, by uniting to him, and having his accomplishment applied to our lives through being in union with him. Of course, this idea can fit in with penal substitution, but it can fit in even more comfortably with a representative substitution. To be a penal substitution according to the Protestant understanding, Jesus would have had to suffer the wrath of God and God's punishment on sin. Scripture nowhere explicitly teaches this. However, as a representative substitute, Jesus can enter our situation and go through something which we deserve and he did not, in order to be victorious where we could not be victorious, and then share his victory with us. In other words, if we had suffered a well-deserved crucifixion, we would have stayed dead. Jesus however, suffering unjustly, did not stay dead. He was our representative at that event. Now, he is our life giver, having been resurrected according to "the power of an endless life".
I personally find Galatians 3:13 to be one of the most obscure verses on the atonement, and I would not want to build my understanding of Jesus' work around it. However, I think it is important that as we behold Jesus, that we are able to see and feel that, "He suffered a death on my behalf that he did not deserve, but I did." That makes him a representative substitute. We could quibble about the exact extent of punishment we deserve, since the wages of sin is death, not torture. However, Paul says that everyone ought to receive the saying that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." So if anyone deserves what Jesus suffered, then I along with him.
Dean Taylor says in his recent podcast that we need PSA for the pastoral and emotional effect of seeing what Jesus did for us. I am contending in the paragraphs above that one can have the exact same effect of appreciating Christ dying for me, suffering what he did not deserve but I did, without believing that Jesus was suffering God's wrath. Indeed, I think the representative substitution is superior to the penal substitution, because it creates the same impression of who I am and what my needs are, as well as appreciation for what Christ did for me, without the added theological problems about God's wrath coming on his beloved son, the picture of the angry Father, and strange ideas about God punishing one person so he did not need to punish another.
Jesus, however, did take the burden of our sins upon himself so that he might expiate them, so that we might be cleansed, and changed, and not abide under wrath (John 3:36).

Romans 5:19
For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
This can be seen in a substitutionary sense, although I don't know that this is the most important way to think about it. However, one can see this as Jesus's obedience is substituted for Adam's disobedience. If we unite to Jesus, we receive the benefits of transferring our sonship from Adam's failed family to Jesus' saved family. Jesus' success is substituted for Adam's failure.

Philippians 3:9.
that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
PSA says that Christ's righteousness is substituted for our unrighteousness in the ledgers of heaven, but does not change the inward character of the sinner. That is how they understand "imputed righteousness". However, if Jesus cleanses away my unrighteousness, and gives his Holy Spirit to me, thus giving me God's righteousness in my inward character and heart, then he has substituted his righteousness for my unrighteousness. That makes his work, accomplished through his death, "substitutionary". The difference is about whether the justification and resulting righteousness of the believer is "forensic justification" or "ontological justification".

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.
It is true that we need to die with Christ. But the way that we die with him is that we participate in his death, through union with him. PSA would say that Jesus' substitutionary death was suffering God's wrath and punishment instead of us. Non-PSA would say that Jesus tasted death on our behalf, so that we could participate in his death and receive the same reversal of it as we resurrect with him. Of course, there is a sense in which he died "instead of us" since we don't (usually) experience a death by crucifixion in the same way as Jesus. (Some, like the Apostle Peter, have.) However, the focus is on Jesus receiving death in order that he might give us life. But that makes his death substitutionary in a representative way. Had we died for our sins, we would not have resurrected according to the power of an endless life. Since Jesus died undeservedly for our sins, he did resurrect according to the power of an endless life, and we can share in his death and resurrection.

Maybe more verses could be brought forward, but these are the ones that occurred to me as I thought about your question, "In what way was Jesus' death substitutionary?".

[R7ehr]

Thanks for these, Ernie.

[joshuabgood]

My friend writes further in response to an inquiry...

I guess you aren't at liberty to say who your friend is?

[HondurasKeiser]

I like your friend.