Nature of the Atonement

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Andre:
"To the degree that we can resist it, we can indeed be held accountable."

GE
There is only one 'degree of accountability' to sin: Death; eternal death! I used to argue with my brother, that were a peson born blind, deaf, without hand or feet, but with the brightest of brains, or dumb, (like a certain 'cosmologist') he is just as bad a sinner as were he 'normal', and is accountable as much as the strongest of the normal, even though he never committed no sin as kill a fly.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Andre:
"I am not sure how answering this question undermines the position that God condemned sin at the Cross and not Jesus. Perhaps you can tell us why you think 8:1 is relevant? You seem to think that the only way there can be "no condemnation" is for Jesus to have been punished in our stead. That would be a circular argument.

I do have something to say about Romans 8:1, though. Note what Paul goes on to say:

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. "

GE
I have answered you, and told you, Jesus Christ was made sin for us and that we sinners received retribution for our sins through and in Jesus Christ. It was not our sins that received retribution in our stead; it was Christ who received our retribution in His Own Self in our stead.

The trouble with you, Andre, I have told you before, is your 'interests'. They cannot be reconciled with the Christian Faith. No 'intelligence' or 'rational' or 'wisdom' or whatever, BECAUSE: The Gospel is FOOLISHNESS to the wisdom of the world, and is it not FOOLISHNESS, is it NOT, the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Therefor know, the moment you have found your wise answers you've already lost it, VERY feelingly sorry, for YOU. Come to Jesus Christ with the SIMPLE faith of a child, and you will have found EVERY and FULL answer to any perplexities as far as things concerning your salvation is concerned. With Christian love, Gerhard Ebersoehn

 

[Andre]

I have answered you, and told you, Jesus Christ was made sin for us and that we sinners received retribution for our sins through and in Jesus Christ. It was not our sins that received retribution in our stead; it was Christ who received our retribution in His Own Self in our stead.

Unfortunately Paul disagrees with you - he clearly states that sin was condemned on the cross, not Jesus. Here is the text again:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man

The trouble with you, Andre, I have told you before, is your 'interests'. They cannot be reconciled with the Christian Faith. No 'intelligence' or 'rational' or 'wisdom' or whatever, BECAUSE: The Gospel is FOOLISHNESS to the wisdom of the world, and is it not FOOLISHNESS, is it NOT, the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Therefor know, the moment you have found your wise answers you've already lost it, VERY feelingly sorry, for YOU. Come to Jesus Christ with the SIMPLE faith of a child, and you will have found EVERY and FULL answer to any perplexities as far as things concerning your salvation is concerned. With Christian love, Gerhard Ebersoehn

I know you may think this is loving, but it is really patronizing condescension. My arguments are what they are. I am interested in discussing the scriptures and what they mean.

 

[Andre]

I think that I need to clarify my position. I can understand how people might come to think that I deny that the cross results in the forgiveness of sins by having Jesus "pay the price" on our behalf. I do in fact believe that this is the case. I have been a bit careless in making statements like "Jesus was not punished". I now need to clarify those statements

My overall position is this:

I take Paul seriously when he says that sin is condemned at the cross - and by implication that Jesus is not. Something happened on the cross that results in the "forgiveness" of our sins. I am not sure if there is any degree to which this is an issue of Jesus being punished. I lean towards believing that God would, if He could, forgive sin without punishing someone - it is very hard to see God as anything but unloving if He chooses to solve the sin problem by doing such violence to Jesus. Why not simply forgive?

So I suspect that God has to "hurt Jesus unto death" - the commitments that God has made have simply left him no other choice. I know a lot of you are inclined to believe that God can "do whatever He wants". I do not believe that. So I still think that the forgiveness of our sins involve something other than simply application of some arbitrary (that is, unnecessary) principle that the only way to forgive sin is to punish some person.

Apart from the issue of forgiveness, the atonement indeed "broke the power of sin", enabling humans, with the gift of the Spirit, to participate in the great restoration of God's creation (Romans 8:18 and following). It is in this sense that sin can be understood as a force that is de-activated at the Cross. This is the dimension of the atonement that I have been focussing on.

I suggest that many think that the goal of the Christian is to "go to heaven when you die". This is not the message of the New Testament. God did not send Jesus to die so that we can all fly away to some disembodied heaven when we die. Jesus died so that God can reclaim his creation and that we can be participants in that (and enjoy eternal life in a transformed earth and in a distinctly embodied state).

To the degree that people fail to see this, they also fail to think of the atonement in any terms other than merely forgiving sin so that we can go to heaven.

 

[swaimj]

I take Paul seriously when he says that sin is condemned at the cross - and by implication that Jesus is not.

The problem is that you are not getting to this conclusion by following Paul's arguent in Romans 7 and 8. You have a theological idea that you are reading into this one statement. No one here is denying that sin is condemned in Christ's cross work. What is being denied is the implication that Jesus death was not punishment or suffering for sin. Other passages are clear that this is the case. A biblical theologian must come to conclusions that reflect all of the texts that speak to an issue, not just some of the texts in isolation. Your statements minimize Jesus' cross work and are incorrect.

 

[Andre]

The problem is that you are not getting to this conclusion by following Paul's arguent in Romans 7 and 8. You have a theological idea that you are reading into this one statement. No one here is denying that sin is condemned in Christ's cross work. What is being denied is the implication that Jesus death was not punishment or suffering for sin. Other passages are clear that this is the case. A biblical theologian must come to conclusions that reflect all of the texts that speak to an issue, not just some of the texts in isolation. Your statements minimize Jesus' cross work and are incorrect.

We have been down this road before. You believe that other texts make your case - such as the "cursed" text from Galatians - I believe otherwise. Let the interested reader examine the scriptures and the arguments and come to their own conclusion.

I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree - unless you have new arguments to bring to bear.

 

[swaimj]

I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree - unless you have new arguments to bring to bear.

I agree with you as to others drawing their own conclusions. However, let me point out to the readers serious objections to your position that you have not addressed. There is a I Peter passage that you have not addressed. You have never addressed the curse upon Achan, which was punishment. You have not addressed the passage in Hebrews that says "every sin and disobedience resulted in retribution", and you have not explained why you partially quote the passage about the ground being cursed rather than quoting the entire sentence. I think readers will have to seriously consider those objections before they adopt your position.

 

[Andre]

You have never addressed the curse upon Achan, which was punishment.

Not an issue. To establish my case, I need not show that every use of the word "curse" does not entail punishment. I have shown that there are some clear cases where it is not used in a punitive sense.

 

[Andre]

There is a I Peter passage that you have not addressed.

I assume that the passage in question is this:

and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed

This text works perfectly well with a view where Jesus is not being punished, unless you can make a case that the only context one can be wounded in involves punishment - and I suspect that such a case will be very difficult to make.

Suppose that the HIV virus had the property that if all HIV virus particles in the world are somehow gathered together and inserted into the body of a particular kind of person (e.g. someone with a peculiar rare blood type), the virus could then be killed by blasting that person with high radiation. Sadly, the "host" will also be killed.

Is the host "wounded"? Yes he is.

Does his self-sacrifice solve the HIV problem? Yes it does.

Is he being punished? No he is not.

People can be "wounded" for the sake of others without punishment being involved.

 

[Andre]

....and you have not explained why you partially quote the passage about the ground being cursed rather than quoting the entire sentence.

I am more than happy to quote the whole sentence. You seem to be arguing that since the cursing of the ground is to punish man (something I will not dispute), this means that cursing involves punishment in this case.

If that is your argument, it is incorrect, as I have already shown.

Again: what is cursed? The ground is cursed. The fact that the cursing of the ground is also punishment for man does not suddenly mean that the ground was not cursed. It was cursed. And it makes no sense to say "the ground was punished".

Again, to repeat what I have already written:

Consider the following analogy: In order to punish her 15 year old son for sneaking liquour out of the family liqour cabinet, some mother pours sour lemonade into the scotch bottle. She is "cursing the scotch" in order to punish the son. Is she punishing the scotch? Obviously not. But she is still "cursing" the scotch, so the act of cursing the scotch does not entail punishment in respect to its true object - the scotch.

Here is the whole text. The ground is cursed, regardless of how that curse is used. The ground is the object of the verb cursed - so the groind is indeed cursed, regardless of what else is going on. This proves the word "cursed" does not necessitate punishment:

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field

The fact that the cursing of the ground is a punishment for Adam does not mean that the word curse entails punishment.

I might short-sheet my room-mate's bed to "punish" him for something. Does that mean that "short-sheeting" is alway punishment? Of course not! I can do it "just for laughs"....

 

[swaimj]

Suppose that the HIV virus had the property that if all HIV virus particles in the world are somehow gathered together and inserted into the body of a particular kind of person (e.g. someone with a peculiar rare blood type), the virus could then be killed by blasting that person with high radiation. Sadly, the "host" will also be killed.

Here is the critical difference. The HIV virus, if gathered in one place, need not be put in the body of a human in order for it to be destroyed. It could be put into a test-tube and be destroyed. However, sin could not be placed just anywhere in order for it to be destroyed. It HAD to be placed upon Jesus. He HAD to bear the wrath of God. Only Jesus could satisfy God's righteous wrath against sin. You view sees sin improperly and it does away with the necessity of Jesus' death.

 

[Andre]

Here is the critical difference. The HIV virus, if gathered in one place, need not be put in the body of a human in order for it to be destroyed. It could be put into a test-tube and be destroyed. However, sin could not be placed just anywhere in order for it to be destroyed. It HAD to be placed upon Jesus. He HAD to bear the wrath of God. Only Jesus could satisfy God's righteous wrath against sin. You view sees sin improperly and it does away with the necessity of Jesus' death.

I may not have fully explained my analogy. I did say that the person had a specific blood type. I should have said that it is specifically the combination of the effects of the blood and the radiation that together kill the virus.

So this analogy most definitely does not do away with the necessity of Jesus' death.

 

[swaimj]

The fact that the cursing of the ground is a punishment for Adam does not mean that the word curse entails punishment.

Of course, it is possible that a curse might not entail punishment, but, in this case IT DOES entail punishment--punishment of the man. The man is the one who sinned and he is the one who is punished. That is the simple fact which you have acknowledged. It is the simple fact that refutes what you are saying. Any time, anywhere, in scripture, when a curse results from a person disobeying a command of God, punishment ensues. Two concepts are involved here: personal responsibility for sin and personal accountability for sin. Your view tries to do away with both concepts. It is unbiblical.

 

[Andre]

Finally, a couple of other verses that have come to mind which argue against your theory" First, Hebrews 2:2 "For since the message declared by angels (this message, in the context is the OT law) proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience recieved a just retribution...." Retribution is pushisment. This is quite clear.

Indeed, but the context does not seem to be a specific treatment of what Jesus did. Paul is indeed talking about punishment for violating the Law. But he is not talking about what happened to Jesus. And it would beg the question at issue to argue that since Jesus "took our punishment" for such violations, this means that Jesus was being punished.

There are subtleties here that may reveal that we are not so far apart as you may think. Let's say that I break a speeding law and am fined $ 1000. The fine as applied to me is indeed a punishment. Let's say that I cannot pay and a friend pays the $ 1000. The firiend is in some sense "taking my punishment". But is the judge punishing my friend? Of course not. The demands of the law have been satisfied - the fine has been paid. But the person who paid the fine - which is indeed my punishment - is not being punished himself.

 

[Andre]

Of course, it is possible that a curse might not entail punishment, but, in this case IT DOES entail punishment--punishment of the man.

The facts are these:

1. This sentence appears "Cursed is the ground because of you";

2. There is verb "cursed" and there is an object - "the ground";

3. Unless you are going to assert that the "ground" is being punished, we have clear proof that the object of a curse - the ground in this case - is not necessarily being punished.

It does not matter that the "cursing of the ground", is then used as punishment. The simple fact is that the ground gets cursed.

My previous 2 examples show the error of assuming that if X is cursed, and that event is then used to punish Y, this means the word "cursed" always entails punishment.

Again, does short-sheeting a bed always entail punishment? No it does not - I can short-sheet the bed just to play a gag on an otherwise innocent person. So if I indeed short-sheet the bed for punishment, this does not legitimate the conclusion that whenever beds are being short-sheeted, someone is being punished.

 

[swaimj]

The demands of the law have been satisfied - the fine has been paid. But the person who paid the fine - which is indeed my punishment - is not being punished himself.

If the punishment is a fine of $1000 and your friend pays the fine, then he receives the punishment. Besides, I don't see how you can argue that what Jesus suffered on the cross, when he cried "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me" is not punishment. In fact, finite humans cannot even comprehend the suffering that is in that statement.

 

[Andre]

If the punishment is a fine of $1000 and your friend pays the fine, then he receives the punishment.

Agreed, he receives the punishment, but he is not being punished. I suspect that you think this distinction makes no sense. But I think such a distinction is entirely legitimate and relevant in this context.

It is true that the person who pays the fine on my behalf is "dealing with the punishment" or "taking the punishment", but he is not being punished - the law is not saying "this second person is considered to be morally culpable of the offense of speeding and that the $1000 he pays is specifically a punishment.

This distinction seems pretty obvious. The speeder is indeed punished - that's clear. But the demand of the law - the $ 1000 - is indeed satisfied by the innocent 2nd party. It would be incorrect to think of the 2nd party as being punished, since it is simply incoherent to talk about it being proper to punish an innocent person.

There are some very subtle issues at play here and it would not surprise me if we really believe the same thing here.

 

[Andre]

Besides, I don't see how you can argue that what Jesus suffered on the cross, when he cried "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me" is not punishment. In fact, finite humans cannot even comprehend the suffering that is in that statement.

Perhaps the "forsaking" is a mysterious necessity for the sin to be condemned. The fact that God "forsakes Jesus", which I take to mean "breaks fellowship or abandons", does not necessitate punishment.

A parent can "forsake" a fearful child to the dentist's instruments of torture without punishing the child. Yet, perhaps the dentist cannot achieve his goal of "condemning the cavities" unless the child is thus "forsaken".

Again, just because there is suffering, this not necessitate that someone is being punished.

 

[BobRyan]

Reading another thread stimulated me to bring up the question of the Atonement - what precisely happened at the Cross?

I have found the following position advanced by NT Wright to be compelling. On the cross, God condemned sin, not Jesus:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,....

In other words, the proper way to think about the atonement is one in which the intent of God was to "condemn" sin and, sadly and no doubt necessarily, Jesus dies in the process. So, on this view, God is not saying "I have to punish someone and Jesus is the one", but rather "I have to defeat sin and Jesus' death is the only way this can be accomplished"..

God condemns sin -- as we see in Romans 8;1-2 and in Col 2:13-15 we see that God pays the "price for sin" taking our "certificate of DEBT" that we OWE due to sin -- and nailing it to the cross -- payment "made".

As John says "He is the Atoning SACRIFICE for OUR SINS and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world" 1John 2:2.

Not either-or rather both-and.

Bob

 

[swaimj]

Agreed, he receives the punishment, but he is not being punished. I suspect that you think this distinction makes no sense. But I think such a distinction is entirely legitimate and relevant in this context.

All along you have said that Jesus was not punished. Now you are saying that Jesus "receives" the punishment, but was not punished. That seems to be a distinction without a difference.

Let's change the analogy a little. The speeder is in a third world country where speeding carries a "penalty" (I'll use a nuetral word here) of 30 severe strikes with a rod instead of a fine. Now when the 2nd party who agrees to "pay the penalty" gets the 30 severe strikes with a rod, is he being punished or not? He is being punished. Andre, Jesus was punished for our sin. He bore the curse for our sin. The curse is punishement just as Achan was punished for disobeying the law, just as the serpent, the woman, and the man were punished for eating of the tree, and just as Hebrews says that "every transgression and disobedience received just retribution". The evidence is snowballing against you and you have weakened your own position by admitting that Jesus "received the punishment", an admission that you waited until page 16 to make followed by an attempt to distinguish between "receiving punishment" and "being punished".