Back by popular demand - An often unpopular view of the Atonement

[JonC]

I believe that Christ bore our sins, was "made sin for us". I believe we have been justified by the blood of Christ - that we will be saved by Him from the wrath of God. Our redemption is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (that the Law is a witness of God's righteousness).

We are justified by God's grace through Christ, Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood as a demonstration of His righteousness that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Christ borne our griefs And carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities and chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

I believe that for our sake He made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. His flesh for our flesh. Christ is our Redeemer and our Representative - the "last Adam", the Firstborn among many brethren.

I believe we were dead in our trespasses and God made us alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. I believe that God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. I believe that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus. I also believe that the death of Christ satisfied the demands of divine justice.

I believe that the Father wished Christ, for mankind, to take upon Himself the curses of us all knowing that, after He had been crucified, He would raise Him up. The Father caused Christ to suffer these things on our behalf. And Christ willfully submitted His will to the will of the Father.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Where your understanding falls short, so far as I can see, is that you do not believe that God shows or feels wrath, fury or anger against sin, or that these need to be propitiated by Christ. At least none of these words shows up in your post above. I have mentioned Psalm 7:11 before: 'God is a just judge; and God is angry with the wicked every day.' I am not a Hebrew scholar, but my understanding is that the word za'am (Strong's 2194), translated 'angry,' literally has to do with foaming at the mouth with rage and indignation. @John of Japan or @TCassidy will correct me if I am wrong. God is spirit, and therefore has no literal mouth, but the word is placed there to show God's extreme disgust at sin.

Perhaps the reason for this is that you do not fully appreciate what the Puritans were wont to call 'the sinfulness of sin.' But it's not for me to attribute motives to you. Perhaps you would care to comment on this before I continue? Perhaps your reply would include a brief comment of Ezekiel 36:18, and how such fury or wrath is assuaged?

 

[JonC]

Where your understanding falls short, so far as I can see, is that you do not believe that God shows or feels wrath, fury or anger against sin, or that these need to be propitiated by Christ. At least none of these words shows up in your post above. I have mentioned Psalm 7:11 before: 'God is a just judge; and God is angry with the wicked every day.' I am not a Hebrew scholar, but my understanding is that the word za'am (Strong's 2194), translated 'angry,' literally has to do with foaming at the mouth with rage and indignation. @John of Japan or @TCassidy will correct me if I am wrong. God is spirit, and therefore has no literal mouth, but the word is placed there to show God's extreme disgust at sin.

Perhaps the reason for this is that you do not fully appreciate what the Puritans were wont to call 'the sinfulness of sin.' But it's not for me to attribute motives to you. Perhaps you would care to comment on this before I continue? Perhaps your reply would include a brief comment of Ezekiel 36:18, and how such fury or wrath is assuaged?

I see. You misunderstand my words.

I do believe that God's wrath is against wickedness. As to the extent that God is feeling wrath (emotional) as opposed to wrath being a verb, I'm really not certain as this may introduce the issue of external causes having sway over God and question immutability.

But I do believe that we must be delivered from God's wrath against sin. And I do believe that divine justice has to be satisfied (and I believe it is in Christ).

So you are mistaken on those points. Where you are not mistaking is that I do not accept your philosophical ideas concerning divine justice.

While I am not a Puritan (I appreciate many of their writings, but their theology was not without problems of its own), I will discuss Ezekiel 36:18 on the next post (for clarity). Here I just wanted to point out that you have misjudged aspects of my belief. Hopefully we can get to know each other better "theologically" as we continue.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate ,

I hope this helps.

One of my favorite passages concerning Redemption is found in Ezekiel 36. This is one of the points where I disagree with the idea of Penal Substitution Theory.

I understand that some believe this chapter to deal with Israel as a nation, but I accept it as speaking of God's work of recreation in salvation. God "poured out His wrath" on Israel, scattering them among the nations. But He had concern for His holy name, which Israel had profaned among the nations.

Starting in verse 22: "Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went. I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD," declares the Lord GOD, "when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight.

And look at what God will do: "For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.


What does God say He will do? Exercise His wrath against us to satisfy justice so we can be forgiven?...OR.....make us new creatures in Christ - forgive us, put a new heart and a new spirit within us, remove our heart of stone and give us a heart of flesh, put His Spirit in us and cause us to walk in His statutes?

I believe that God is just and the Justifier of sinners. He does not simply forgive us - He re-creates us in Christ - we are "new creations in Christ Jesus - there is no condemnation - we are justified in Him, by His nature, by His obedience, by His righteousness (not by expending wrath on our punishment). I do believe that redemption is God's righteousness manifested apart from, rather than through, the law. I do not believe that God is bound, chained by His own ideological sense of justice so that He must choose between faithfulness towards His Word (that He will not condemn the Just, and will have mercy on the repentant) and the redemption of man.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I see. You misunderstand my words.

I knew this was coming. Well, I am not going to play Twenty Questions with you, so why don't you clarify? Here is my definition of Penal Substitution AGAIN:

The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. [as you know, it is not actually my definition but that of Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach, but I have adopted it because it is brief and accurate]

I shall not be replying again on this thread until you state where you differ with this statement. Stop mucking about and get on with it!

I do believe that God's wrath is against wickedness.

Well why did that not appear in your O.P.? Am I a mind-reader?

As to the extent that God is feeling wrath (emotional) as opposed to wrath being a verb, I'm really not certain as this may introduce the issue of external causes having sway over God and question immutability.

The definition of God in the 1689 Confession as being "Without parts or passions" (2:1) means that He is without emotions which are unstable and which dominate the person, like sexual love, greed or human hatred. Whatever emotions God feels, He has always felt and always will feel. He cannot 'just forgive' because that would be to 'deny Himself' (2 Timothy 2:13). So whatever He has done to save sinners, He has done in eternity past (Titus 1:2), even though these things take place in time (e.g. Jeremiah 31:3).

 

[John of Japan]

Where your understanding falls short, so far as I can see, is that you do not believe that God shows or feels wrath, fury or anger against sin, or that these need to be propitiated by Christ. At least none of these words shows up in your post above. I have mentioned Psalm 7:11 before: 'God is a just judge; and God is angry with the wicked every day.' I am not a Hebrew scholar, but my understanding is that the word za'am (Strong's 2194), translated 'angry,' literally has to do with foaming at the mouth with rage and indignation. @John of Japan or @TCassidy will correct me if I am wrong. God is spirit, and therefore has no literal mouth, but the word is placed there to show God's extreme disgust at sin.

I don't find the meaning "foaming at the mouth" in BDB or Keil and Delitzsch so I suppose that Strong was probably referring to the etymology, which he often did. However, much more than etymology, the usage is more important. The word occurs 12 times in the OT, most often as "indignation" or "angry" in the KJV, and "foaming at the mouth" is nowhere a clear meaning in the OT.

 

[JonC]

I don't find the meaning "foaming at the mouth" in BDB or Keil and Delitzsch so I suppose that Strong was probably referring to the etymology, which he often did. However, much more than etymology, the usage is more important. The word occurs 12 times in the OT, most often as "indignation" or "angry" in the KJV, and "foaming at the mouth" is nowhere a clear meaning in the OT.

I took Greek at the graduate level (only a year and a half) and I can say it's all Hebrew to me.

Psalm 7:11-12
God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day. [12] If he does not turn back, He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready.

Is it fair to say God's anger relates to His role as a "just judge" (to His righteousness)? Also, given the verse (above in the NKJV) is this indignation or anger independent of human repentance?

 

[John of Japan]

I took Greek at the graduate level (only a year and a half) and I can say it's all Hebrew to me.

I love Greek and have taught it off and on since 1987, but fortunately they asked my son to teach the Hebrew here, or they would have really regretted asking me!

Psalm 7:11-12
God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day. [12] If he does not turn back, He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready.

Is it fair to say God's anger relates to His role as a "just judge" (to His righteousness)? Also, given the verse (above in the NKJV) is this indignation or anger independent of human repentance?

In my theology (I think seen in Ps. 7), man sins; God is angry at the sin because He is completely holy and righteous; man continues in sin and thus God's anger results in judgment; or, man repents and God is wonderfully merciful. Does that answer your question?

 

[JonC]

I love Greek and have taught it off and on since 1987, but fortunately they asked my son to teach the Hebrew here, or they would have really regretted asking me!


In my theology (I think seen in Ps. 7), man sins; God is angry at the sin because He is completely holy and righteous; man continues in sin and thus God's anger results in judgment; or, man repents and God is wonderfully merciful. Does that answer your question?

Yes. And I agree.

Thank you for taking the time.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where your understanding falls short, so far as I can see, is that you do not believe that God shows or feels wrath, fury or anger against sin, or that these need to be propitiated by Christ. At least none of these words shows up in your post above. I have mentioned Psalm 7:11 before: 'God is a just judge; and God is angry with the wicked every day.' I am not a Hebrew scholar, but my understanding is that the word za'am (Strong's 2194), translated 'angry,' literally has to do with foaming at the mouth with rage and indignation. @John of Japan or @TCassidy will correct me if I am wrong. God is spirit, and therefore has no literal mouth, but the word is placed there to show God's extreme disgust at sin.

Perhaps the reason for this is that you do not fully appreciate what the Puritans were wont to call 'the sinfulness of sin.' But it's not for me to attribute motives to you. Perhaps you would care to comment on this before I continue? Perhaps your reply would include a brief comment of Ezekiel 36:18, and how such fury or wrath is assuaged?

JonC does not seem to see the Lord having personal wrath towards sins and sinners in the sense that Jesus had to bear them and pay for the due sin penalty that we owed to God Himself.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. And I agree.

Thank you for taking the time.

Where does the sin guilt/debt of the Fall of Adam upon all of us get paid for though, for all of us are born as sinners, judged as guilty, so even if we lived perfectly forwarded. Jesus still must die in order to cover up for and appease the wrath of God towards the sin of Adam that he sees now in all of us, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

I took Greek at the graduate level (only a year and a half) and I can say it's all Hebrew to me.

Psalm 7:11-12
God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day. [12] If he does not turn back, He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready.

Is it fair to say God's anger relates to His role as a "just judge" (to His righteousness)? Also, given the verse (above in the NKJV) is this indignation or anger independent of human repentance?

Regardless if humans repent or forsake sinning though, past owed sin debt must be atoned and paid for by someone!

 

[JonC]

Regardless if humans repent or forsake sinning though, past owed sin debt must be atoned and paid for by someone!

I do not believe this is true. Please provide a passage that states God must punish sin in order to forgive that sin.

Thanks.

 

[JonC]

Where does the sin guilt/debt of the Fall of Adam upon all of us get paid for though, for all of us are born as sinners, judged as guilty, so even if we lived perfectly forwarded. Jesus still must die in order to cover up for and appease the wrath of God towards the sin of Adam that he sees now in all of us, correct?

Partly correct. You are assuming that divine justice binds God to an "eye for an eye" type law. But what if God can forgive people simply because they repent (as Scripture actually states)? What if men will not do this except God makes them "new creations" in Christ (which Scripture also states)? And what if this is a manifestation of God's righteousness apart from the law rather than through it (also, what is stated in Scripture)? Well, then God is just and the justifier of sinners because of the Cross. Our redemption is grace.

 

[JonShaff]

I do not believe that Jesus became sin, He became a sin OFFERING. The NLT shares this view...2 Cor. 5:21

Also, Isaiah 53
Isaiah 53:10 (KJV) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

 

[JonC]

I do not believe that Jesus became sin, He became a sin OFFERING. The NLT shares this view...2 Cor. 5:21

Also, Isaiah 53
Isaiah 53:10 (KJV) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

The ironic thing is (based on previous discussions) some reject that interpretation in favor of a "literal" one.....and then say it was God considering Christ as if He were a sinner (which is less literal than "sin offering").

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't find the meaning "foaming at the mouth" in BDB or Keil and Delitzsch so I suppose that Strong was probably referring to the etymology, which he often did. However, much more than etymology, the usage is more important. The word occurs 12 times in the OT, most often as "indignation" or "angry" in the KJV, and "foaming at the mouth" is nowhere a clear meaning in the OT.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I took the meaning from The Complete Word Study Dictionary, Old Testament, by Warren Baker and Eugene Carpenter, in which they say:

za'am: A verb meaning to be indignant, to be enraged. The root literally means to foam at the mouth, to be enraged. It is used to describe the fury of the king of the North against the holy covenant in Daniel's vision (Dan. 11:30). Because God is a righteous judge, He shows indignation against evil every day.(Psalms 7:11). The theme is picked up in Isaiah 66:14.........

I accept that usage is more important than etymology, but is it fair to say that the word refers to severe anger? Is 'fury' a reasonable translation?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do not believe that Jesus became sin, He became a sin OFFERING. The NLT shares this view...2 Cor. 5:21

From my blog:

We learn in the Scriptures two things that the Lord Jesus became on our behalf. He became sin ‘for us’ (2 Corinthians 5:21), and He became a curse ‘for us’ (Galatians 3:13). First, He became sin. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.’ So God the Father made the sinless Christ to be sin on our behalf. What does this mean? Well, it does not mean that Christ was made a sinner; He was never that! It means that all the sins of God’s elect were imputed to Christ– that is, laid to His account (c.f. Isaiah 53:6), and He has paid the penalty for them (Isaiah 53:5). At the same time, His perfect righteousness and obedience to His Father’s will are credited to us who believe. This is what Luther termed the ‘Great Exchange.’ The sinless One made sin, and sinners made righteous through the cross.

It has been suggested that Christ was not made ‘sin’ in 2 Cor. 5:21, but a ‘sin offering.’ There are three reasons why this suggestion should be rejected:

Firstly, hamartia, the Greek word translated ‘sin’ never means ‘sin offering’ in the New Testament, though it sometimes does elsewhere.

Secondly, hamartia occurs twice in the verse, and it would be strange if it had two meanings in one sentence; but to say, “God made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us” makes no sense.

Thirdly, in John 3:14, the Lord Jesus declares, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up……” The reference is, of course, to Numbers 21:8-9, where Moses made a ‘fiery serpent,’ lifted it up on a pole, and everyone who looked upon it was cured of snake-bite. The serpent is clearly some sort of type of the Lord Jesus, but what sort? Well where do we see in Scripture a red, fiery serpent? Well in Revelation 12:3, we are introduced to ‘A great fiery red dragon’ who, in verse 9, is seen to be the serpent, alias Satan himself. So how is Satan a type of Christ? He is a type of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Christ was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin debt, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Still no reply to my question at post #5.

Here is my definition of Penal Substitution AGAIN:

The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. [as you know, it is not actually my definition but that of Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach, but I have adopted it because it is brief and accurate]

I shall not be replying again on this thread until you state where you differ with this statement. Stop mucking about and get on with it!

There really is no going forward with this thread until this simple question is answered.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I took the meaning from The Complete Word Study Dictionary, Old Testament, by Warren Baker and Eugene Carpenter, in which they say:

za'am: A verb meaning to be indignant, to be enraged. The root literally means to foam at the mouth, to be enraged. It is used to describe the fury of the king of the North against the holy covenant in Daniel's vision (Dan. 11:30). Because God is a righteous judge, He shows indignation against evil every day.(Psalms 7:11). The theme is picked up in Isaiah 66:14.........

I accept that usage is more important than etymology, but is it fair to say that the word refers to severe anger? Is 'fury' a reasonable translation?

Zaam looks interesting (but perhaps a bit silly). I remember it when I was a kid.

edited.....sorry, that was Shazam.