Nature of the Atonement

[Andre]

The only thing that really increased was Fred's awareness.

Why not take Paul at his word. He does not say that awareness increases - he says that the trespass increases.

The law was added so that the trespass might increase

It is interesting how we simply re-make what Paul is saying. We need to assume that he means what he says - that the trespass increases. This is not the same thing as the awareness of the trespass.

And in Romans 7, we need to again let Paul tell us what it is that "increases in magnitude";

so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful

If we super-impose our own thinking on Paul by saying that awareness increased, we simply do not take him seriously. In the above, he clearly says that someting - sin - becomes drawn out to the fullness of its expression. For "sin to become utterly sinful" means that sin "grows" to reach the full flower of its expression. It is sin that grows to full expression, not awareness of sin.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Andre:
"It is sin that grows to full expression, not awareness of sin."

GE:
Yes, and know. Awareness of sin does have a lot to do with the nature of sin. It is awareness that tells you who are made aware of your sins through the Holy Spirit (He convinces of sin and judgment), how your sin and sinning grows to full expression - the closer your walk with God, the more accute your awareness, the more your sins, the bigger your sins, the ugglier. So, it is both "sin that grows to full expression", and, 'to full impression'. "Where sin abounded, grace super-abounded" - 'hou epleonasen heh hamartia, hypereperisseysen heh xaris' Ro5:20b.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ask me, I know!

 

[Andre]

Perhaps we have gone as far as we can go on the Romans 5 and 7 statement about "trespass increasing". Some think this is really all about the awareness of sin, others (perhaps only me actually) think it is about a real increase in the sin of Israel, brought about by Torah. Before leaving this, consider this from Romans 7:

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire.

Again, we need to let Paul tell us what he means. And here it seems clear that there is more going on than a mere matter of awareness. Instead, Paul says that "sin", in specific response to the Torah, produces evil desires. Paul did not write this:

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, revealed in me every kind of covetous desire.

But I now intend to expand the argument, looking at a range of Old Testament texts and other stuff in Romans to substantiate the position that God's big plan is to concentrate sin - build it up, increase it - in national Israel and then have Israel pass that burden onto Jesus in order that, at the Cross, God condemns sin in the flesh of Jesus.

Just to stir things up, I will give this advance teaser: I submit that that the "potter and his pot" text in Romans 9 has nothing to do, as is commonly held, with the doctrine of pre-destination of individuals, but rather is about God using Israel as a vessel fitted for destruction - as the "pot" into which the sins of the world are poured.

 

[swaimj]

I submit that that the "potter and his pot" text in Romans 9 has nothing to do, as is commonly held, with the doctrine of pre-destination of individuals, but rather is about God using Israel as a vessel fitted for destruction - as the "pot" into which the sins of the world are poured.

So we go from one unsubstantiated claim to another.

 

[Andre]

So we go from one unsubstantiated claim to another.

I will let the reader judge my arguments. You find them unconvincing. That's your right.

I was clear in my last post: what I said about Romans 9 was only a teaser. The brunt of the argument is yet to come. And trust me, I will, if not otherwise interrupted dump a whack of material about Romans 9. I think the arguments that it is about Israel are extremely powerful.

 

[swaimj]

I will let the reader judge my arguments.

Still hanging in this thread are questions to you about the interpretation of two passages in I Peter, an unanswered response about Galations 3:10, and a question about your statement about forgiveness. That's just questions from me, not counting questions others have asked. In the words of Ricky Riccardo, "You've got some 'splainin' to do!":wavey:

 

[Andre]

I think it is clear that Romans 9 has nothing at all to do with the election of individuals, whether as the main meaning or even as a "double meaning". This issue is relevant to the nature of the atonement since if the election stuff Romans 9 is indeed about Israel, this feeds into the picture where Israel's election is specifically to be the place where the sin of the world is concentrated before it is then passed to Jesus and then condemned "in his flesh". Remember, Romans 8:3 states that it is sin that is condemned, not Jesus.

In this post, I will only give summary points:

1. Romans 9 and 10 is a re-telling of the covenant history of Israel from establishment of the covenant with Abraham all the way through to exile and covenant renewal. All the highlights of the covenant history - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses + Pharaoh, exile, and covenant renewal - are all there in the correct sequence. And that is just the beginning of the case that this is about Israel

2. Paul is rather clearly using the covenant history he presents here to make the following case: God has been faithful to the covenant even though ethnic Israel has rejected the gospel.

3. The "potter and his clay" (as per Romans 9) echoes several Old Testament passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah where God's treatment of Israel is likened to the relationship between a potter and clay. Paul is alluding to those images and his references to potters and pots needs to be understood in the broader scriptural context of which he was keenly aware.

4. It would make Paul a very confused writer to insert statements about election of individuals to salvation or loss in the middle of an argument that is otherwise so clearly about Israel and how God has been faithful to his covenant with her.

5. Even though there is no explicit statement to this effect, a powerful argument can be made that, in the potter account in Romans 9, Paul is saying that Israel is a "vessel fitted for destruction" inasmuch as she "acts out the Christ pattern" in being "cast away for the sin of the world". This notion is derived from material in Romans 5 and is echoed again in such passages as Romans 11:15.

 

[Andre]

Still hanging in this thread are questions to you about the interpretation of two passages in I Peter, an unanswered response about Galations 3:10, and a question about your statement about forgiveness. That's just questions from me, not counting questions others have asked. In the words of Ricky Riccardo, "You've got some 'splainin' to do!":wavey:

I have addressed Galatians, but obviously not to your satisfaction. I may not address all your questions, but please do not take that personally. At a certain point, we may need to agree to disagree. However, I will do the best I can, while not pursuing lines that are obviously going nowhere.

 

[Andre]

Please explain how Galations 3:10, and I Peter 2:24 and 3:18 fit your scheme.

OK. Let's look at 1 Peter 2:24

24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

This text does not require us to believe that Jesus was specifically punished in the context of a judicial system that requires that someone be punished in order for sin to be forgiven.

Clearly, this passage also works with the "virus - cure" kind of view that I am advocating where sin can be likened to a virus that can be localized in one place and then subject to the devastating effect of God's wrath (as per Romans 8:3 where we are told that sin was condemned on the cross).

The sins of the world are somehow "concentrated" into Jesus' body - he "bears our sin". And then God vents his wrath on sin, with Jesus dying in the process.

Such a model works perfectly well the text as written - the text does not force us into only one interpretation of what is going on.

I suggest that people absorb the one paradigm from their tradition - that Jesus is being punished - and cannot step back and realize that other models also fit such texts as this one.

And I will continue to underscore that Romans 8:3 does great damage to the "standard" view, since it explicitly identifies sin and not Jesus as the target of God's condemning wrath.

 

[swaimj]

Andre, the verse does not say "by the destruction of sin you have been healed", it says "by his wounds you have been healed". You are minimizing Jesus' work on the cross and you are misstating the sacrifice he made for us.

By your view, sin could have been lured in and localized anywhere--in a mountain, in a tree, in the carcass of a dead animal--and been destroyed. For you Jesus is just an innocent, unwitting, and unnecessary decoy in the destruction of sin.

 

[Andre]

Andre, the verse does not say "by the destruction of sin you have been healed", it says "by his wounds you have been healed".

True, but this is not the point. It is clearly possible that the destruction of sin is only achievable by Jesus being the place where sin is concentrated. So the text is consistent with my view, even if it does not explicity support it.

I could make the same comment to you and assert "the verse does not say that by being the recipient of punishment, Jesus has caused us to be healed", it says "by his wounds you have been healed".

You are minimizing Jesus' work on the cross and you are misstating the sacrifice he made for us.

I am doing neither. My view is no different than yours in respect to the centrality of Jesus. Mine just happens to work with Romans 8:3 whereas yours does not seem to - unless you can tell us how you reconcile Romans 8:3 with your view.

By your view, sin could have been lured in and localized anywhere--in a mountain, in a tree, in the carcass of a dead animal--and been destroyed. For you Jesus is just an innocent, unwitting, and unnecessary decoy in the destruction of sin.

No. While I have not addressed what it is about Jesus that makes him solely capable of being this "lure", my silence on this matter cannot (reasonably, anyway) be understood as an endorsement of the view that "any old thing will do". So to be clear: Only Jesus can play this role.

I suspect that the "explanation" lies in something deeply mysterious about the fact that Jesus was sinless. One way that I think of this is to conceive of sin "attacking" Jesus innocence and "burning itself out" in the process, and of course killing Jesus. No other vessel would have this innocence and so no other vessel could be the place where sin is defeated.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Andre:
"Perhaps we have gone as far as we can go on the Romans 5 and 7 statement about "trespass increasing". Some think this is really all about the awareness of sin, others (perhaps only me actually) think it is about a real increase in the sin of Israel, brought about by Torah. Before leaving this, consider this from Romans 7:

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire."

GE:
I think exactly like you, but also exactly not like you -- How? Simple, Where you read the Torah into Romans 7, I read the Law Jesus Christ in Romans 7! God since Jesus Christ has NO Law but his Word Jesus Christ the Risen. Christ is the Law that in you works death: namely the death of your old man. Unless This Divine Law kill your old man and that other law within you that craves after sin and sinning, you're condemned to die in your sins and sinfulness. The Torah shows you but little if any of your sinfulness -- brings about but scarce awareness of sin; but Christ breaks the hard core of one's unrepentful heart, and makes it fit for the Seed of Life to grow in and bear fruit. He is The Law that indeed can make alive -- what the 'Old Law' could not.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Christ is the Law of sin and death : the only antidote for sin and death.
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin IS THE LAW" -- and the Strength of the Law is The Only Omnipotent, its Giver; eventually the Law is God and God the Law: Rex Lex; Lex Rex : Only in the case of God King, God Law.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

For sin, taking occasion by the Law (showing me my sinfulness against Jesus Christ) deceived me, and by (deception) slew me (lied to me, told me I am as good as dead!). Wherefore Christ being the Law unto me, is holy, and the Word of Commandment is holy, and just, and good; for only God is good. Was then that which is good, Jesus Christ being both Law and God (to me), is that made death unto me? By no means! But sin, working death in me by That Which Is Good - The Law which (to me) is Christ; that sin by the Commandment Word of God, Jesus Christ, might become exceeding sinful.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The key to the Gospel-meaning of Romans 7 is which 'Law' one understands "The Commandment" is.

 

[swaimj]

I could make the same comment to you and assert "the verse does not say that by being the recipient of punishment, Jesus has caused us to be healed", it says "by his wounds you have been healed".

If a person is intentionally wounded is this not purnishment? If not, please explain the distinction. Also, I have demonstrated on the Gal 3:10 passage that punishment is certainly involved in the curse under the OT law. I think this is the critical flaw in your argument, so I hope you will respond to what I said.

 

[Andre]

If a person is intentionally wounded is this not purnishment? If not, please explain the distinction.

I do not see "wounding" as being necessarily tied to punishment per se - I could see myself being wounded in the process of, say, giving a kidney. Or, more to the point, Jesus could be wounded (unto death) as "collateral damage" as God vents his righteous fury against sin.

Things get tricky as we get into the murky issue of the complex interplay between context and specific words when it comes to ascribing meaning. Very tricky stuff indeed.

Here I would like to underscore an intuitive appeal of the view I am advocating for - it avoids the deeply counterintuitive idea that it is sensible for God to punish person B for the sin of person A. Instead, the view I am advocate makes a lot more sense to us specifically because God is attacking the thing that "deserves" condemnation - that is sin. And we can at least make sense of the idea that perhaps that the death of the "container" of the sin is unavoidable.

Also, I have demonstrated on the Gal 3:10 passage that punishment is certainly involved in the curse under the OT law. I think this is the critical flaw in your argument, so I hope you will respond to what I said.

I promise to get back to you on this - I know what post of yours you are referring to.

 

[Marcia]

OK. Let's look at 1 Peter 2:24

24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

This text does not require us to believe that Jesus was specifically punished in the context of a judicial system that requires that someone be punished in order for sin to be forgiven.

Clearly, this passage also works with the "virus - cure" kind of view that I am advocating where sin can be likened to a virus that can be localized in one place and then subject to the devastating effect of God's wrath (as per Romans 8:3 where we are told that sin was condemned on the cross).

The sins of the world are somehow "concentrated" into Jesus' body - he "bears our sin". And then God vents his wrath on sin, with Jesus dying in the process.

Such a model works perfectly well the text as written - the text does not force us into only one interpretation of what is going on.

I suggest that people absorb the one paradigm from their tradition - that Jesus is being punished - and cannot step back and realize that other models also fit such texts as this one.

And I will continue to underscore that Romans 8:3 does great damage to the "standard" view, since it explicitly identifies sin and not Jesus as the target of God's condemning wrath.

We are just going to have to disagree on the "increased sin" interpretation you have.

Are you saying here that man is not accountable for his sin? Are you saying sin is like some kind of alien virus or germ? If so, then we are not accountable for it.

 

[swaimj]

I do not see "wounding" as being necessarily tied to punishment per se - I could see myself being wounded in the process of, say, giving a kidney. Or, more to the point, Jesus could be wounded (unto death) as "collateral damage" as God vents his righteous fury against sin.

The problem with this argument is that your analogy--being wounded while giving a kidney--does not correspond to what Jesus did. He Himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree. God was not performing an action separate from Christ that happened to affect Christ. Christ Himself was the focus of the action. The scriptures say elsewhere "It pleased the Lord to bruise him..." So the wounding was punishment.

I reiterate, that the above is not the strongest argument I have made linking Christ's death with punishment. The strongest argument I have advanced is from Galations 3:10. You said you would respond to it and I have confidence that you will. Just a reminder....