Featured Punishment in the Atonement

Thanks for the caution, but the point itself won't derail the thread. It has been interpreted differently throughout history (especially recent history). As far as I know the Reformers held it to mean the entire world (all people, all times). This is how Calvin interprets the word. But I also understand that it can be interpreted to mean the "elect" of the world (of all times). But as the object is Christ as the propitiation, neither definition would point to unlimited atonement. (I agree with Calvin on this one - "whole world" means all of mankind as this goes along with Christ being the Savior of all mankind, especially the elect....Jesus is the only way, the only atonement, for all sin).

So, point taken on the differences in meaning. Personally, I believe that the meaning "all elect" is a bit forced, but I wouldn't care to argue the point.

 

No, he didn't. Jesus often used "world" to refer to forces in opposition to the kingdom of God (the "world" in dichotomy to the church or the people of God). Paul often did the same. But that's not really the point. The only thing that changes by using "world" for "the elect" is it diminishes the passage a little in terms of its Christology.

You realize that the only difference is the point being made. You interpret the verse to say "Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, not only ours but the sins of all the elect of all time (something implied, I would hope, in "our"). Others take the verse to mean that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life - no one comes to the Father but by him.

 

I can say that he died in a real sense for all mankind because i don't leave out the first part of that verse. He is the Savior of all mankind, especially the elect.

 

I understand, and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Had I known I would have tried to have been more clear.

 

Here are five times John uses "world" in that chapter:


1 John 2:
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
...
15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.17 The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

How does John use the word "world" in 1 John Chapter 2?

Are you saying that we are not to love "the elect", that if we do love the "elect" the love of God is not in us, that the "elect" are nothing but sin, the the "elect" are passing away?

Is your view consistent, or are you interpreting the word to support your theology (even though it is not contrary to limited atonement either way)?

 

I think you need to re-read the passage. If it helps to understand why you do not have to be inconsistent with that verse, take a look at Calvin's commentary on 1 John. The subject is Christ.

But, since you mention it.... John uses the word "world" 6 times in that short passage of Scripture. You interpret it 5 times as the world under an anti-Christ like fashion and 1 time as "the elect". What is your criteria for interpreting that one time as not consistent with the other 5?

And this is off topic EXCEPT that it points out how you have been interpreting Scripture with your own theology. Others on this thread, even those I disagree with, have at least been honest about their interpretation. I've been honest with mine. The_Biblicist, MartinM, all these guys have been open and honest about their interpretation. Now it is your turn. Why interpret "world" here differently from 5 other times it is used in that short passage?

 

I'm sure this thread is headed towards the end of it's life cycle, just as much as I am sure reincarnation applies to threads. So I am going to summarize my position and my objection to some versions of punishment in the atonement.

The difficulty is the word "punishment". Some contend that Jesus experienced a punishment for sin that was not exactly what we would have experienced. If so, what Jesus suffered was not our punishment in our stead, but a consequence/"punishment" in bearing our sins in our stead. Others hold a simplified version of the Cross where Jesus had to have suffered our punishment (the "second death", Hell, God's hate, a removal of the Spirit, etc). When it comes down to it, most back of the "our punishment" and instead substitute things like "Hell while on the cross", or "because he was God it counted as if it were our punishment". But then we are back at that first option (my position).

Consider Edwards: Jesus suffered the wrath of God for men’s sins in such a way as he was capable of, being an infinitely holy person, who knew that God was not angry with him personally, knew that God did not hate him, but infinitely loved him. The wicked in Hell will suffer the wrath of God, as they will have the sense and knowledge, and sight of God’s infinite displeasure towards them and hatred of them. But this was impossible in Jesus Christ.

Most of the time I believe that Scripture has in mind the physical death and resurrection of Christ (at least I’m sure we can agree this is often the case as Paul bases our hope in the resurrection on Jesus’ physical death and resurrection). But we all suffer a physical death and we all will be resurrected (some to eternal life, others to eternal judgment).

Concerning the Cross, we do not gain adverted punishment insofar as physical death (we will experience a physical death), but life (we will be in the presence of Jesus, and will be bodily resurrected). In this way, the punishment of death (the removal of its “sting”, which was the law) is justly rendered but also conquered in Christ.

This leaves the “second death”, which is a separation as those who are not “in Christ” are cast into Hell, “the lake of fire”, or the “outer darkness”. Jonathan Edwards is right that it was impossible for Jesus to suffer the same punishment that the lost will suffer as the “second death”. It would be impossible for Jesus to experience God’s wrath in the punishment of the lost as Christ’s deity and the Father’s revealed nature prohibits such a punishment. Jesus did not “go to Hell”; was not void of hope, trust and faith in the Father; did not experience God’s anger or hatred towards his nature or his person, etc.

So my argument is that Jesus died in our place, as our representative, bridging the gap that we could never bridge ourselves. Jesus was chastised for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, and crushed because it was God’s will to offer him as an atoning sacrifice and lay our iniquities on him. And Jesus lay down his life and bore our sins, obedient to the Father even to the death of a cross. Penal and substitution. BUT the punishment is defined as taking on the consequences of sin, not “our punishment” (i.e., the punishment that we would have experienced) but a far greater consequence because while his earthly ministry was accomplished as the will of the Father by the power of the Spirit, Jesus is still God.

 

Another point may be that the object of the passage is Christ (He is the propitiation) and not the sins or sinners who experience forgiveness. In this way, the verse is simply stating that Jesus is the Savior of man, especially those who believe. There is no other Sacrifice, no other propitiation. Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world, for the elect and non-elect, and there will be no other.

So just like Paul in 1 Timothy 4:10 - "Jesus is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe" - John could be making a similar statement - "Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, not only ours but also the whole world". Neither indicate universal salvation. Both speak of Christ as the only atonement for sin.

 

No, Edwards is right on this point. Jesus only suffered God's wrath in such a way as he was capable of, being an infinitely holy person, knowing that God was not angry with him personally (actually, Scripture says God was well pleased...even that the cross was God's will), and that he was the Beloved of God - obedient (to the Father) even to death on a cross. You are completely off base here, brother.

In fact, even thought Edwards did not say it here, Scripture tells us that Jesus accomplished the work of the cross through the Spirit. And that God, rather than leaving him there, was actively offering him as a sacrifice (not walking away and letting men finish him off). And that Jesus' faith was in God to deliver him from that forsaken state (Psalm 22).

I think that the issue you have is that you just realized what is plainly obvious - that if Jesus did not experience Hell, the "outer darkness", God's hatred and casting away, being revealed as completely evil with no hope of reconciliation, and void of the Spirit, void of life, void of Truth, void of Light, and all of this for eternity...then Jesus was not punished with our punishment. Instead he had to be punished for our sins, but not with our punishment in our stead. But if Jesus did experience all of those things, then he ceased being God because God cannot literally be darkness, evil, void of the Spirit,ect. You either have to concede that Jesus suffered punishment for our sins rather than our punishment for our sins, that the consequence here was physical death and that conquered, or Jesus ceased being God on the cross. Or that your view hangs on one word "forsaken" regardless of context and chalk the rest of Scripture up to "mystery".