PSA Justice vs Biblical Justice

Ben1445 said:

This is all arguing semantics that have no real effect on what Christ did. It’s already done.

Click to expand...

It is not semantics but defining not only what Christ has done (reconciled man and God) but what He is actively doing.

The "it" is Christ reconciling mankind and God - the Firstborn. That is accomplished.

But now is the ministry of reconciliation whereby men may be reconciled to God, and Christ mediating on behalf of those who believe as their High Priest in the present.

The future is the realization of salvation - that we will be made into His image, righteous, glorified.

This is an excellent thread. So far, I have found no need to reply to the details. I'm just enjoying reading it.

JonC said:

I agree, with the caveat that this was justice in the biblical sence (righteousness), reconciling God and man in the Person of Christ (Christ being this Reconciliation, the Firstborn of all who will believe) rather than God punishing our sins to satisfy some secular judicial philosophy.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that 'the soul that sins shall die' is a secular judicial philosophy. The good news is that the Lord Jesus has willingly taken upon Himself our sins and the punishment due to us (Isaiah 53:5 etc.) and that as a result we are indeed reconciled to God (Romans 5:6-9).

Martin Marprelate said:

I'm not sure that 'the soul that sins shall die' is a secular judicial philosophy. The good news is that the Lord Jesus has willingly taken upon Himself our sins and the punishment due to us (Isaiah 53:5 etc.) and that as a result we are indeed reconciled to God (Romans 5:6-9).

Click to expand...

It is not a secular philosophy but the context is secular. That is a verse many corrupt by expecting an English translation from the context - they misuse the English word "soul", which is not in the part of the verse you quote...the verse says "it shall die" referring back to הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ which means "life" (that which breathes)...it is the same word in Genesis 1:20 and 21 (living creatures).

"Soul" is not a mistranslation as it means "person" (you hear captains acvounting for the "souls on board"). But choosing different meanings for English words chosen is poor study.

The verse is from Ezekiel 18. The context is secular (God prohibiting Israel from punishing people for the crimes of their fathers). God describes His justice several passages down.

But yes, it is the person who sins that shall die unless that person repents and has a new heart, then God will forgive that person (Ezekiel 18).

Matthew 20:28, Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his | soul | a ransom for many.

JonC said:

God punishing our sins to satisfy some secular judicial philosophy

Click to expand...

Martin Marprelate said:

I'm not sure that 'the soul that sins shall die' is a secular judicial philosophy.

Click to expand...

JonC said:

It is not a secular philosophy but the context is secular.

Click to expand...

I think perhaps you ought to make up your mind.

JonC said:

But yes, it is the person who sins that shall die unless that person repents and has a new heart, then God will forgive that person (Ezekiel 18).

Click to expand...

Leviticus 17:11. 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.'
Hebrews 9:22. 'And according to the law almost all things are purified [or 'cleansed'] with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission [or 'forgiveness'].'
1 Peter 1:18-19. 'Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things like silver or gold, from your aimless way of life received by tradition from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.'

Martin Marprelate said:

I think perhaps you ought to make up your mind.

Leviticus 17:11. 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.'

Click to expand...

You miss my point.

The only verses that applies in your quote is Leviticus. The reason is it is the only one that uses the same word for "souls" (Ezekiel was not written in the same language as Hebrews and 1 Peter). And again, in Leviticus...it means "life", "creation".

But we know this also because the context of Ezekiel.

In Ezekiel "the soul/ person who sings must die" is not referencing God's judgment but the actions of the Israelites - God telling THEM not to punish the sons for sins of the fathers and to abandon their saying.

Men do not have the power to kill or destroy the souls of other men. They can only take our life.

So you have the history of the use of that Hebrew word (that you pretend was either English or Greek), you have the context of Ezekiel 18:1-4, and you have the fact that the verse was God commanding Israel not to hold the sons guilty of the sins of the fathers.


Interestingly enough, were you to treat Ezeliel 18 as an actual chapter rather than a mini-reference tool, the passage refutes your theology.

1. God commands Israel not to hold the sons accountable for the sins of the father - the person who sins must die.

2. Then God (several verses afterwards) transitions from Israel judging the sons to His judgment which He says they do not accept.

3. This judgment is forgiving the sins of men based on them "turning from doing evil", "turning to God", "a new heart", "repenting".


You are trying to study the Bible, and I applaud your effort. But you are doing so by extracting words and phrases you think will support your theology. That is a mistake.

Martin Marprelate said:

I think perhaps you ought to make up your mind.

Click to expand...

You misunderstood (there is no "make up my mind").

In the passage God is telling Israel to abandon a saying and a practice.

The practice was secular (Israelites judging the sons for the sins of the father). But the philosophy that the one who sins shall die is appropriate governance within a secular society (do not punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty).

About a quarter down the passage God transitions to His justice.

It is good that you are trying to study the Bible. But you need to study the Bible instead of using it as a tool to support your theology. Read the passage as a whole. See what the passage is actually saying rather than pulling out phrases you think supports your theology.

A good reference book that may help you a lot is Grasping God's Word. It will help prevent you from making those mistakes.

JonC said:

You miss my point.

Click to expand...

I don't think I do.

JonC said:

The only verses that applies in your quote is Leviticus. The reason is it is the only one that uses the same word for "souls" (Ezekiel was not written in the same language as Hebrews and 1 Peter). And again, in Leviticus...it means "life", "creation".

Click to expand...

So the entire New Testament, since it is in Greek, is useless in understanding the atonement. Is that what you're saying?
Now the word that you are being so precious about is nepes or nephesh (Strongs 5315 in case anyone is interested). In appears almost 800 times in the O.T. and has a very large semantic range, as many Hebrew words do. For example, it can be translated 'appetite' (Prov. 23:2; Eccl. 6:7), but in the KJV it is translated as 'soul' 428 times, 'life' 119 times, 'person' 30 times and as over 20 other words, including 'pleasure' 3 times (Deut. 23:24; Psalm 105:22; Jer. 34:16).
But let's look at Lev. 17:11. 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.' Whatever you think 'soul' means in Ezek. 18:20, it clearly states in Lev. 17:11 that it is only the shedding of blood that makes atonement for it. That is why I referenced Hebrews 9:22. Do you really think that the writer of Hebrews, and those who read his letter, did not have nepes in their minds? And do you really think that the Apostle Peter did not have nepes in his mind when he wrote 1 Peter 1: 18-19? You can't really be that silly, can you?

JonC said:

But we know this also because the context of Ezekiel.

In Ezekiel "the soul/ person who sings must die" is not referencing God's judgment but the actions of the Israelites - God telling THEM not to punish the sons for sins of the fathers and to abandon their saying.

Men do not have the power to kill or destroy the souls of other men. They can only take our life.

Click to expand...

You mean like in Matthew 10:28? But of course, we can't use that because the Lord Jesus didn't understand Hebrew.

JonC said:

So you have the history of the use of that Hebrew word (that you pretend was either English or Greek), you have the context of Ezekiel 18:1-4, and you have the fact that the verse was God commanding Israel not to hold the sons guilty of the sins of the fathers.


Interestingly enough, were you to treat Ezeliel 18 as an actual chapter rather than a mini-reference tool, the passage refutes your theology.

1. God commands Israel not to hold the sons accountable for the sins of the father - the person who sins must die.

2. Then God (several verses afterwards) transitions from Israel judging the sons to His judgment which He says they do not accept.

3. This judgment is forgiving the sins of men based on them "turning from doing evil", "turning to God", "a new heart", "repenting".

Click to expand...

But were you to treat the whole Bible as one book, instead of bouncing up and down on Ezek. 18 like a trampoline, you would realise that you cannot use one chapter to prove a doctrine. Yes, certainly God calls upon the Israelites to repent, turn to God and get a new heart, but that does not alter the fact that throughout the Bible it is made clear that only by sacrifice can God's righteous anger be averted. If the Israelites truly repent, they will offer sacrifices with a pure heart and they will be accepted. I am currently preaching through Nehemiah, and after readings, prayers and the confession of sins , the people signed a covenant to 'exact from ourselves yearly one-third of a shekel for the service of the house of God; for the showbread, for the regular grain offering, for the regular burnt offering .......... for the sin offering to make atonement for Israel......' (Neh. 10:32-33). Why did they need to make sin offerings when they had already repented and turned to God? Because 'without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.'

Now let's look at Isaiah 53. 'When You make His soul [Heb. nepes] an offering for sin ........... He shall see the labour of His soul [Heb. nepes] and be satisfied ............. Because He poured out His soul [Heb. nepes] unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors.' (vs. 10-12). Whatever nepes means in Ezek. 18, the Lord Jesus offered His nepes to make atonement for sinners.

JonC said:

You are trying to study the Bible, and I applaud your effort. But you are doing so by extracting words and phrases you think will support your theology. That is a mistake.

Click to expand...

Please don't patronize me. It is you who has settled on what you think is the meaning of one word in one chapter of one book to try and spoof your way through this thread.

JonC said:

It is not a secular philosophy but the context is secular. That is a verse many corrupt by expecting an English translation from the context - they misuse the English word "soul", which is not in the part of the verse you quote...the verse says "it shall die" referring back to הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ which means "life" (that which breathes)...it is the same word in Genesis 1:20 and 21 (living creatures).

"Soul" is not a mistranslation as it means "person" (you hear captains acvounting for the "souls on board"). But choosing different meanings for English words chosen is poor study.

The verse is from Ezekiel 18. The context is secular (God prohibiting Israel from punishing people for the crimes of their fathers). God describes His justice several passages down.

But yes, it is the person who sins that shall die unless that person repents and has a new heart, then God will forgive that person (Ezekiel 18).

Click to expand...

In reality isn't it the soul that did not sin, yet died, that brought about whatever was brought about between man and God?

Eze 18:1
¶
The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
Eze 18:3
¶
As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
Eze 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

I would say it is referencing God's judgment

percho said:

In reality isn't it the soul that did not sin, yet died, that brought about whatever was brought about between man and God?

Click to expand...

The context is Israel judging its own people.

God tells them that they were wrong for punishing the sons for the sins of the fathers. He forbids them from using a saying. He tells them that the one who sins will die (as opposed to their children).

The word translated "soul" does not appear in the snippet @Martin Marprelate used. It is in the English referring back to God saying that all people belong to Him.

But the context is secular justice (not divine justice).

God introduces divine justice several verses later, stating that the guilty will be punished for their sins unless they repent. If they repent then He will forgive their sins. Likewise, if one does good then turns to doing evil then that good done will not save him from punishment. One must repent, have a new heart, turn from wickedness.



That said, yes - we were freed from the bomdage of death because Christ who had no sin suffered death because of our sin and destroyed the power of the one who holds the power of death.

It is because He was sinless yet died because of our sins that the sting of death was lost.

percho said:

Eze 18:1
¶
The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
Eze 18:3
¶
As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
Eze 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

I would say it is referencing God's judgment

Click to expand...

Only because you omit verse 2. Context really does matter.

"What do you people mean by using this proverb about the land of Israel, saying,

‘The fathers eat sour grapes,
But it is the children’s teeth that have become blunt’?"


Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Hear now, house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? 26 When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness, commits injustice and dies because of it, for his injustice which he has committed he dies. 27 But when a wicked person turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life. 28 Since he understood and turned away from all his offenses which he had committed, he shall certainly live; he shall not die. 29 But the house of Israel (and @Martin Marprelate )says, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Are My ways not right, house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?

30 “Therefore I will judge you, house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord God. “Repent and turn away from all your offenses, so that wrongdoing does not become a stumbling block to you. 31 Hurl away from you all your offenses which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why should you die, house of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live!”

The problem with Martin's use of the snippet, @percho , is that he is ignoring the subject of the passage itself.

Yes, the passage as a whole contrasts Israel's judgment with God's judgment. But the point is not the person who sins dying. The point was it is evil to kill the one who did not sin.

Then God contrasts Israel's practice agsinst His own judgment. He will destroy the one who sins, but if they repent then He will forgive them.

Israel rejected God's justice in their own practices. They were not only disallowing forgiveness but they were punishing innocent people for the sins of others.

@Martin Marprelate is trying, which is great. You are as well. But you two have to remember that verses and chapter divisions are not divine reference marks for pulling out words. Men created those divisions for reference. You have to read Ezekiel as a whole idea, a whole argument. Verses 1, 3 and 4 go along with the rest.

One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.

Ezekiel 18 echos this passage. Why? Because God is righteous. There is no turning in Him.

Punishing sins is not justice. Punishment is a means of achieving justice (righteousness). This is why men can be forgiven based on repentance. Justice is achieved apart from punishment.

This is the failure of PSA. It is based on a flawed philosophy of justice - one no longer held even by PSA theorists outside of the theory it birthed.

JonC said:

Punishing sins is not justice. Punishment is a means of achieving justice (righteousness). This is why men can be forgiven based on repentance. Justice is achieved apart from punishment.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that Ezekiel is teaching that men can be forgiven by, on their part, repenting towards God. But while I would agree that in some form or another that is the basic message of what we need to do it does not teach in Ezekiel 18 that forgiveness is "based" on repentance. In other words, it is not doctrinally teaching that bare repentance is a suitable basis for God to forgive, only that that is what we have to do.

If you assume that Ezekiel 18 is teaching that nothing else is involved in the forgiveness of sins because no atonement is mentioned in that particular passage then you are just as guilty as an advocate of penal substitution of reading your philosophy into the passage. That you believe that no basis for our forgiveness of sin is needed other than our repentance is understood. What you could help with in these discussions would be to explain what then is the precise necessity that Christ die on the cross in relation to our sin. And if there is nothing in Christ's death directly related to the forgiveness of our sin then please state that. I think we all agree that repentance is all that is required on our part. Ezekiel 18 supports that. That it doesn't discuss the atonement right at that time doesn't warrant any conclusion about the whether God can justly forgive on the basis of our repentance alone - only that it is the requirement on the part of us.

DaveXR650 said:

It seems to me that Ezekiel is teaching that men can be forgiven by, on their part, repenting towards God. But while I would agree that in some form or another that is the basic message of what we need to do it does not teach in Ezekiel 18 that forgiveness is "based" on repentance. In other words, it is not doctrinally teaching that bare repentance is a suitable basis for God to forgive, only that that is what we have to do.

If you assume that Ezekiel 18 is teaching that nothing else is involved in the forgiveness of sins because no atonement is mentioned in that particular passage then you are just as guilty as an advocate of penal substitution of reading your philosophy into the passage. That you believe that no basis for our forgiveness of sin is needed other than our repentance is understood. What you could help with in these discussions would be to explain what then is the precise necessity that Christ die on the cross in relation to our sin. And if there is nothing in Christ's death directly related to the forgiveness of our sin then please state that. I think we all agree that repentance is all that is required on our part. Ezekiel 18 supports that. That it doesn't discuss the atonement right at that time doesn't warrant any conclusion about the whether God can justly forgive on the basis of our repentance alone - only that it is the requirement on the part of us.

Click to expand...

You are right, of course. This is the deadly danger of basing one's theology on one verse or one chapter and not taking in to account the rest of the Bible. @JonC is very prone to do this. For example, if one reads Acts 2:37-38, it appears that Peter has nothing whatsoever to say about faith; repentance seems to be all that is required for the remission of sins. But when Paul speaks to the Philippian jailor, in Acts 16:31, faith in Christ seems to be the only requirement for salvation. Repentance from past sins, and renewal by the Holy Spirit are not mentioned.
But we cannot set off one part of the Bible against another! We must understand that the Bible is one book, and cannot contradict itself. Likewise when we come to Ezekiel 18, we must not treat it as if no other parts of the Bible exist. I dealt with all this in post #26, but it doesn't seem that @JonC has read it.

Martin Marprelate said:

I'm not sure that 'the soul that sins shall die' is a secular judicial philosophy. The good news is that the Lord Jesus has willingly taken upon Himself our sins and the punishment due to us (Isaiah 53:5 etc.) and that as a result we are indeed reconciled to God (Romans 5:6-9).

Click to expand...

Question for you, if I may:

According to the Scriptures, what is the full punishment that is due sinners who disobey the Lord and refuse to repent of their willful and evil deeds?
Here's some of what I see:

" and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; " ( 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 )

So, in just one passage, I find Paul telling the believers at Thessalonica that:

1) Vengeance shall be taken on those that do not know the Lord...in flaming fire.
2) They shall be punished with everlasting destruction ( the Lake of Fire, see Revelation 20 ), and that punishment shall take place away from the presence of the Lord.

Another:

" Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." ( Matthew 25:41 ).
" And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." ( Matthew 25:46 ).


Therefore, if Jesus Christ took upon Himself the punishment that all those who are saved are due, then the above would apply to Him...
Wouldn't it?

DaveXR650 said:

That it doesn't discuss the atonement right at that time doesn't warrant any conclusion about the whether God can justly forgive on the basis of our repentance alone - only that it is the requirement on the part of us.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree.

There are several points to Ezekiel. Do not punish the sons for the sins of the father. God's justice is different from what Israel had been doing. Etc.

But the main point is repentance and forgiveness.

The only requirement in Scripture (in the entirety of Scripture) for forgiveness is repentance.

Scripture describes this requirement several ways - "repent and believe", "make a new heart", "turn to God", "set your mind on the Spirit", "die to sin", "die to the flesh", etc.

This is fulfilled in Christ. We cannot make ourselves anew. But through faith God will.

Do you know of a passage that states God forgives sins apart from repentance?

Repentance and belief (turning from the flesh, turning to Christ) is the only way. Christ is the only Way.


You are confusing punishment as righteousness (justice).

God will punish the wicked when He exercises judgment on the world (the Day of Judgment).

But punishment itself is not righteousness (justice). Punishment is a means to an end (righteousness, or justice).

The kingdom of God is a righteous (just) kingdom. The new heavens and new earth will have no place for unrighteousness (the unrighteous will not enter the kingdom of God).

God "casts out" (judgement, punishing the wicked, the second death) the unrighteous (the wicked). Why? Because they have no place in the new creation (it is holy, righteous).

God would be unjust if He punished those who repented when He judges because we will not be wicked. We will have been made into the image of Christ.


God achieves in us what punishment could not. Punishment is casting out evil (read the purpose of the Law as relates to Israel in Deuteronomy).


God can forgive sins. Your ideas that God must punish sins in order to "forgive" those sins negates forgiveness itself.


Why would God punish the sins of those who have died to sin, been made a new creation, been conformed into Christ's image, been made righteous?

For justice He would not need to. He would have accomplished justice in a way different from the law but not contrary to the law.


You are arguing from a standpoint of secular philosophy (not Scripture). The requirements you place on God are not from the Bible but worldly "wisdom".

Dave G said:

Therefore, if Jesus Christ took upon Himself the punishment that all those who are saved are due, then the above would apply to Him...
Wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

Dave. This is a valid point to raise. I know this because others have raised it too. And they explain it in different ways depending upon their other theological beliefs. I was looking at Barnes commentary on the Bible and he said this:
"he has shown a regard to the Law by appointing his Son to be a substitute in the place of sinners; not to endure its precise penalty, for his sufferings were not eternal, nor were they attended with remorse of conscience, or by despair, which are the proper penalty of the Law; but he endured so much as to accomplish the same ends as if those who shall be saved by him had been doomed to eternal death."

And he borrows some from the governmental writings on atonement in that the punishment was sufficient and proper in the Father's eyes to accomplish what atonement was needed. The idea being that it did not have to be exactly the same. Some Calvinist theologians take a somewhat different approach but I just had come across that recently from Barnes, for what it's worth.