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

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 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!

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

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).

 

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 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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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).

 

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.