Penal Substitution & Universalism

[Bob Wilson]

I'm sympathetic to Bobx3 and others' difficulties with "redemptive violence." And though it seems that the cross as "penal substitution" could nicely support universalism, if it paid the "penalty'" for all ('unlimited' atonement), I fear that its' assumption that God needs violent retribution done to Jesus at the cross in order to forgive, actually reinforces the ungracious view of God that hinders many from trusting in One whose love would never stop pursuing God's beloved offspring. So I'm offering 2 pages on why I find P.S. unbiblical, and would welcome any critiques of my rationales.

Bob1

[JasonPratt]

Dang, you've been busy recently...

I don't have all my ref works here at the house, but my initial estimate is "no disagreements at all". In fact, I would consider these notes prime material for an evangelistic sermon.

(Okay, my memory says there was one thing back up there I partially disagreed with, but I can't remember now what it was... time for an evening nap, obviously... and I don't recall that fixing it would obviate the point. I'll try to remember tomorrow what it was. Nothing major.)

Very very very well done! {bow!}

[james.goetz]

I'm sympathetic to Bobx3 and others' difficulties with "redemptive violence." And though it seems that the cross as "penal substitution" could nicely support universalism, if it paid the "penalty'" for all ('unlimited' atonement), I fear that its' assumption that God needs violent retribution done to Jesus at the cross in order to forgive, actually reinforces the ungracious view of God that hinders many from trusting in One whose love would never stop pursuing God's beloved offspring.

Hi Bob, Thanks for sharing this. First, the motivation of this paper seems off base to me. We need to study the Bible to see if it teaches that Christ died to take the punishment that we deserve for our sins. And if it does, then we don't change that teaching because we fear some people might interpret this mean that God is an ungracious God. Second, I need to see how you interpret various verses to see how your teaching stands up to the Bible. For example, how do you interpret Isaiah 53:5:

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
(Isaiah 53:5 TNIV)

[JasonPratt]

We need to study the Bible to see if it teaches that Christ died to take the punishment that we deserve for our sins. And if it does, then we don't change that teaching because we fear some people might interpret this mean that God is an ungracious God.

I take the paper to be a report of results of such study. Although as you noted, it should ideally address apparently countervailing information. For sake of topical concentration, though, that might be better as the focus of a subsequent presentation.

[TotalVictory]

Wow Bobx1 (who, by the way, is Bobx2??? How is it I’ve missed him? ) that is a really fine summary of the problems with the Penal Substitution model of the Atonement. Before UR became my favorite theological topic, this one -- the Atonement -- was. 2 of my favorite books on this topic, and the severe limitations of the PS model, are:

-- “Recovering the Scandal of the Cross” by Joel B Green and Mark D Baker
-- “The NONVIOLENT Atonement” by J Denny Weaver

I would be surprised if you told me you had not read them, but if you have not, I’d love to know what your favorite books are which lead you to your views on PS.

Now on the face of it, your essay/summary was on the flaws of the PS system -- yet your topic thread title is “Penal Substitution & Universalism”… leaving me unclear on how you see these two ideas interrelating. I’m most curious about this. You admit upfront that a strictly Penal Sub theology really does lend itself to a belief in UR -- that is, that penalty WAS paid for ALL. Yet you eschew PS and still find yourself to be a UR believer. Early on I was sure I could use my UR understandings and theology to obliterate (in a nice Christian way of course! ) the theology of PS (which I am quite convinced is grossly inadequate to convey the full meaning of the Cross). Now, I’m not so confident. And it seems that it is in fact possible to hold both beliefs at the same time. (Jim seems as if he might be such a one, but I’m not sure. Often Jim’s comments/questions are too cryptic and brief for me to be sure. Any help here Jim??)

Anyway, it seems to me that, if PS is true, it is still quite possible to most reasonably also believe in eventual UR if one taps into the ideas of God’s Total and complete victory; death being the last casualty of sin; and the idea that not to accept God’s gift of salvation is insanity -- and God simply will restore sanity (and thus not violate freedom) and sane minds will, obviously and almost by definition, choose salvation. So, ironically I suppose, my embrace of UR has actually softened my animosity and disdain for the theologies of PS.

My last comment/question though goes to Jim who said:

--First, the motivation of this paper seems off base to me. We need to study the Bible to see if it teaches that Christ died to take the punishment that we deserve for our sins. And if it does, then we don't change that teaching because we fear some people might interpret this mean that God is an ungracious God. Second, I need to see how you interpret various verses to see how your teaching stands up to the Bible.--

The reason this comment seems odd to me is that, at the same time, it implies that one can come to the bible with a completely open mind and no preconceived ideas -- while also having presumptions like needing to determine if X (X being penal Sub) is valid. So that confuses me. But more centrally, perhaps you (Jim, or anyone else here) can help me discern the meaning of something Talbott said (or, oh my, was it GM? I’ve searched in vain for the specific reference…) (I can’t really ask Tom about it on his section because, well, I’ve already asked more than my share of questions over there anyway.)

It was a strange sort of admission I thought at the time I read it; the idea being that maybe in fact the bible writer really wasn’t “intending” to write in favor of UR, and may not have even believed in the idea of UR, yet his writings upheld the idea of UR. (Anyone recall that passage??) That seems an astonishing thing to ponder -- doesn’t it?? Using a bible writer as support for a belief the writer himself did not hold!

So if this kind of dynamic is allowed, of course one could then also say that while the writer really did believe X himself (X being here Penal Sub) his understanding was in fact more limited than mine and it is now clear that I can use his words to actually go beyond PS. Or something like that. While that kind of bible interpretation is obviously vulnerable to abuse, I think it’s crucial to also remember that there really are transitions to greater understandings, (ie “Moses said -- but I say…”) and growth implies taking what we know and moving to what we don’t know -- and so on.

Enjoyed,
TotalVictory (Bobx3)

[james.goetz]

Hi Bobx3,

I'll try to answer some of your questions. First, my Christian faith is centered on my loving relationship with God and belief in the original deity of Jesus, his atoning death, his resurrection, the divine authority of the written word of God, and salvation by faith through grace. And from these flows my secondary beliefs that include Universalism. I'm unsure if I hold to all of the classical points of Penal Substitution (PS), but I have no doubt that Christ died to take the punishment for the sins of all humanity, which I believe is clearly taught in the Bible. And I agree that there is more to the death of Christ than PS such as the example of sacrifice that all followers of Christ need to follow. And I find no conflict at all between divine punishment and a redemptive end to all punishment.

I hope that I wasn't too short for you in this, and I made no attempt to be cryptic.: ) And I'll try to clarify anything that is unclear.

Update

In regards to your question about an open mind, I want to add that God intends for us to progress in our understanding of the Bible. We can approach the Bible with an open mind while we build upon what we learned from God in the past. And this can get difficult because there are complex teachings in the Bible that sometimes takes many years to understand. (If you have more questions about this, which is tangent to PS, then this part will need to be spun off into a different topic.)

[TotalVictory]

Thanks Jim:

I had assumed that you believed/would say approximately that; best to ask though than assume. So thanks. Of course those words/convictions of yours might also be held by others -- who hold very different visions of what the words actually mean. How often I’ve driven by a random church, read on their outside “bulletin board” that, unlike those “other” churches, THEY are bible based… Yeah right; does any church advertise being NON Bible based??? You see the dilemma.

But when you say this:

--I have no doubt that Christ died to take the punishment for the sins of all humanity, which I believe is clearly taught in the Bible.--

questions are immediately -- and legitimately -- raised. I seriously doubt that there is any real legitimacy to the idea that act X “deserves” punishment Y. Just because it’s written somewhere as “law”. The $150 fine for driving 85 mph in a 55 mph zone is very random and arbitrary and created by us as a community to alter behaviors.... So we then move to the notion that punishment has a goal; that goal being change of a person so that he becomes a person who acts appropriately NOT because he will be punished if he doesn’t, but because he now has that “law” on his heart. He internalizes the intent and purpose of the meaning of that arbitrary penalty and so doesn’t do it any more. So if the person learns the lesson, apart from the law, the purpose of the law is still accomplished -- and it is not necessary to fulfill some free-floating obligation to law. Or something like that.

It’s not like there are a bunch of penalties lying around that need to be “paid” by someone to a brutal and rigid creditor. The idea of punishment as discipline in order to effect change in rebellious minds then emerges. And nobody understands the idea of punishment as teaching tool better than do Universal Reconciliationists. (Did I just coin a new term??) I mean what is hell if not that place where lessons of reality and truth are to be taught and finally learned which were ignored in this life?? It’s certainly not a place where some kind of free floating debt is paid… Just to make sure the books are balanced or something...

However, if one is able to grant this idea (I think most here are -- with certain of their own caveats…) the notion of Christ taking the punishment immediately begins to become absurd; why would Christ need to take my discipline -- that great teaching tool -- since He obviously does not need to be “taught” anything; nor does He need to be “disciplined”. It is on this very point that Penal Sub Forensic model adherents go wrong I think. Here, Romans 8:23 is grossly distorted and misunderstood it seems to me; death for sin is not a penalty levied by God, but is instead a natural consequence and effect of our actions and attitudes. I love the way Goodspeed puts it: SIN pays it’s wage -- that wage is death. (But the GIFT OF GOD is eternal life!!) So God is in the business of giving gifts -- not of seeing that penalties are met out.

Thus the entire model of penalty payment is merely (I say merely, though that does not exclude “powerfully”) a metaphor to aid and assist understanding. Sin HAS serious consequences; the Cross demonstrates those in spades. But there are many other metaphors as well; like adoption, and restoration of relationship, and so on. Problem seems to be that once Penal Substitution gets in the door, it immediately tends to dominate the scene, and drown out all the other wonderful images ALSO on prominent display in the NT.

But I must say that it is very hard to read the bible and take away an image of a God who is appeased by the death of an innocent; that seems rather diabolical and quite remote from the very Christ Himself who said if you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father...

Now I’ve been around long enough to realize that some very saintly folks hold the Penal Sub imagery very dearly -- and it in no way conveys to them a God who demands the taste of blood to be appeased.

Lastly, it’s quite interesting to note that to agree that Christ died “for” my sins can mean many different things. For many PS proponents, that simply means He paid my penalty. But the word “for” has so much more nuance:

--in support of or in favor of
--affecting, with regard to, or in respect of
--on behalf of or to the benefit of
--having (the thing mentioned) as a purpose or function
--having (the thing mentioned) as a reason or cause
--having (the place mentioned) as a destination
--representing (the thing mentioned)
--in place of or in exchange for (something)

So yes, Jesus died for us, just as He lived for us and was resurrected for us and even now acts for us via the Spirit (how this works I got little clue). It was ALL done “for” the purpose of winning the creation back to trust. The entirety of the salvation process revolves totally around the person of Christ then -- which I think we all agree is the central biblical truth. We just vary on the details….

Thanks Jim,

TotalVictory (Bobx3)

[james.goetz]

Hi Bob3x, I appreciate your search into this.

I want to clarify that to answer your first question, there are many churches and Christians who imply that they don't believe that all of the teachings taught in the Bible are correct. Many people suggest that they feel no obligation to balance all of the teachings in the Bible. Regardless of political leanings, this is called "liberal theology" or a "liberal interpretation of scripture". And some "liberal Christians" believe in the Trinity while they reject some teachings in the Bible. I don't support this view in the least while I also learn various things from liberal Christians. For example, one liberal Christian minister believed in the basics of the gospel and oversaw chaplain visitations at two nursing homes. I preached at those nursing homes and that liberal minister became a mentor to me. He particularly helped me avoid getting caught off guard by some of the stories told me by some of the patients who had dementia.

I also want to clarify that I don't know all of the reasons why God designed sacrificial systems for the forgiveness of sins. I suppose that God could have handled the forgiveness of sins another way, but I see from the Bible that God decided to forgive sins through substitutionary atonement. I don't boggle my mind to think of how things might have happened in an alternative universe, but I embrace what I know has happened in this universe.

[JasonPratt]

I will briefly mention, passing through, that somewhere back in my 1038 comments (most likely in the thread about whether UR can undermine the notion of God's violence--which I'll be getting back to sometime before the winter arrives, I hope ), but also in other places, too, so far as I recall...

{inhale} (sorry, long sentence)

...I noted my belief that God, on the cross, is acting not only in consolidation with victims of sin, but also in consolidation with sinners. He doesn't inflict a punishment from on high, but suffers along with the ones who are being punished. The spanking hurts Him even more than it hurts them.

The atonement, or (as the phrase originally meant in English when it was coined) the at-one-ment, isn't especially substitutionary. But it is participatory.

I think much of this, though, can be better understood, once we understand better what is entailed in God creating Nature at all. (And even, I would say, once we understand better what is entailed in God's own self-existent action at all--not the same thing as creation of Nature, yet one is related to the other and can only proceed subsidary to the other higher action.)

That would take several hundred pages of working out implications and stuff, however. (Which makes it hard for me to explain, in any brief way, what I am talking about. Sorry. I know it sounds vague.)

[TotalVictory]

I also want to clarify that I don't know all of the reasons why God designed sacrificial systems for the forgiveness of sins. I suppose that God could have handled the forgiveness of sins another way, but I see from the Bible that God decided to forgive sins through substitutionary atonement

 
It really does fascinate me that the sacrificial system is so easily seen as supporting Penal Substitution models; though on the superficial face of it I guess it's sort of logical if one presupposes such a thing in the first place. Sin --> kill Lamb --> sin resolved/forgiven --> repeat as often as necessary. But at some point, maybe after your whole flock of sheep/lambs has been seriously depleted, you begin to think "HEY!! Maybe if I could somehow stop sinning I wouldn't keep having to spill all this blood!" At SOME point then it should dawn that Hey -- if I can somehow shut down this sin factory, get at the very root cause of sin, maybe that'd be better than all these slit lamb throats and rivers of lamb blood. Which of course points directly AWAY from the ideas of Penal Substitution and toward inner transformation and healing.

While some might insist that it is only mushy sentimentalism that causes one to deny that the sacrificial system proves the truth of Penal Substitution, one quickly is lead to wonder at God’s frequent rejection of the sacrifices being offered. Sacrifice must mean something else then; and this seems to be precisely what God wanted folks to ponder and can readily be seen by all the times God says things like "I'd rather have mercy than sacrifice" and "the smoke of your sacrifices are an annoying stench in my nostrils" (but God! you asked for those sacrifices -- didn’t You?) and then of course we have stunningly insightful words like Psalms 51. In fact, Jeremiah 7:22-23 even has God saying this!!!

 

22 "For I did NOT speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
 23 "But THIS is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.'

So the idea that an act is to represent far far more than the mere action itself is seen when, for another example, God says He wants His people to circumcise the foreskins of their hearts. Circumcision is to represent an attitude of the heart already present!

On the face of it then God certainly doesn't seem interested in populating heaven with pardoned criminals; they must also be transformed; changed; healed -- which mere Payment of Penalty simply can't accomplish. That seems common sense -- but also has good biblical support I think.

Thus it's quite possible to build to the idea that maybe the intent of sacrifice was more a recognition and acceptance of the truth that God always WAS and IS a forgiving God -- that our act of offering a sacrifice is not causing Him to be so. While no language expert, I've read (on Jewish sites) that one meaning of the Hebrew word for sacrifice is to draw near, or come close. Thus sacrifice signified intent and desire on the part of the sinner to return to closeness to God. (God always being close to us and having no need to "move" as-it-were)

The sacrificial system can then be thought of as being designed to encourage thought and reflection; the act of sacrifice served to recognize and personalize a forgiveness already in place and in effect and freely extended! This idea is really not so very different from the idea that unless we are willing to forgive, God cannot forgive us. To be willing to extend to others that which God extends to us IS to embrace the entire philosophy and intent of forgiveness; that of paving the way for change and transformation and healing. Understanding that God holds nothing against us, we in turn show we too will hold nothing against OUR brother -- so that we may also experience reconciliation with him.

It seems to me God has the double problem of:
A) getting us to see the seriousness of our condition and plight -- while at the same time
B) realizing that our plight need not be seen as a barrier to reconciliation and oneness with Him.

--- So maybe sacrifice serves to underline sin’s seriousness, even while teaching that sin is NOT an impossible barrier to God since God Himself provides a way for us to demonstrate our repentance and remorse. (Recall there WAS no sacrifice available for INTENTIONAL sin)
 
It seems to me as if the horrible distortion of paganism is the notion that we can effect God into this attitude of forgiveness towards us. There was a "cost" to show us this was NOT the way of God; and on the Cross, that cost WAS "paid" (if such language must be used). If anything, the cost is being paid to US -- so that WE might be won back to confidence and trust again.

If one takes away from the concept of Penal Substitution the fact that God is willing to do ANYTHING to effect our reconciliation back to Oneness with Him, (which brings us right to UR) then that is a good thing right?!!

That’s approximately how I’m seeing it these days…
Blessings,

TotalVictory
Bobx3

[james.goetz]

Bob3x,

All of the examples of God rejecting biblical sacrifices involved disobedience. God has no interest in sacrifices from people who willfully disobey God. God has always been more interest in obedience than sacrifice. In the case of Jeremiah 7:22-23 that you point out, this isn't teaching that God never instituted a sacrificial system for various sins while the Israelites journeyed in the dessert, but this is one of many passages where God teaches that sacrificial offerings without obedience is bad.

David's case is interesting because their was no Mosaic sacrifice for adultery. The only then biblical option would have been for the Israelites to gather around their anointed King and Bathsheba to stone them to death. I agree that this and other cases of forgiveness in the Old Testament went beyond the Mosaic sacrificial system. Another interesting example is that God appeared to Abram before he made a sacrifice. Likewise, you can say that these are examples of forgiveness without sacrificial system in place. (By the way, some of the sins in sin offerings and guilt offerings went beyond unintentional sins.) And perhaps you can speculate that God could have made a plan for justice and redemption that didn't involve substitutionary punishment as taught in Isaiah 53 and many verses in the New Testament, but God made his decision before he created the universe.

And I completely agree with you that God wants believers to progress toward moral perfection instead of endlessly appealing to substitutionary punishment. Even hardcore believers in every point of PS would agree with that.

I want to make sure that I understand your view. Are you saying that Christ didn't die to take the penalty for our sins or are you saying that he did die to take the penalty our sins while he could have done it another way?

[JasonPratt]

While no language expert, I've read (on Jewish sites) that one meaning of the Hebrew word for sacrifice is to draw near, or come close. Thus sacrifice signified intent and desire on the part of the sinner to return to closeness to God. (God always being close to us and having no need to "move" as-it-were)

Hey... that sounds familiar. To give over completely to God? Didn't I just a minute ago read someone mentioning a similar concept in regard to whole destruction--and then restoration?

[TotalVictory]

Hi Jim:

All of the examples of God rejecting biblical sacrifices involved disobedience.

This seems a curious thing to say; you’re not suggesting here that we are to categorize sins into obedient ones and disobedient one are you?? Are not all sins disobedience to the Law? If sin is disobedience, that would suggest a category of obedient disobedience -- which I don’t think is your intent at all. I think maybe you’re conflating an attitude of remorse and sorrow with obedience… The point must be that sacrifice alone is meaningless; sacrifice as mere act is empty. But further, I get the strong sense that contrition, repentance, broken spirits, embrace of justice, obedience are far and away preferable to sacrifice; not just in addition to sacrifice. Mercy over and against sacrifice. (I'm hearing that you don't share that sense.)

But as an aside, isn’t it also a huge problem for penal substitution (as well as for the sacrificial system) that there remains this large (maybe very large) category of sins for which there IS no solution; which implies that we first must somehow acquire an attitude of repentance and remorse and only THEN can we participate in God’s reconciliation. But this runs counter to the idea that Jesus gave His life before any such change -- that is, while we were yet sinners! This all simply suggests to me that the idea of Penal Substitution simply can’t bear all the theological weight many seem to think it does. That is, it is one metaphor among many.

Now your suggestion that

--God made his decision before he created the universe.--

is, I assume, derived from the idea that Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. But I’m still not entirely sure that sacrifice was God’s idea all along. For example, there is no record of God telling Cain and Abel to offer their sacrifices. We must go to Hebrews to learn that what rendered Abel’s sacrifice “better” (ie more acceptable?) was not the fact that it was a lamb (indeed grain offerings were very acceptable in the system under certain circumstances later on) or that it was carried out as commanded, but simply that it was offered in faith.

I am quite open to the idea that sacrifice was something already commonplace in that time and was already deeply ingrained behavior in the surrounding cultures and religions which predated the Hebrews but with which they were very familiar. God, recognizing this ingrained association of sacrifice with worship and connection with deity, wisely co-opted the practice for His own purposes. His intent then was to take an existing system which, in it’s pagan distortions had the sacrifice appeasing angered deities and altering that deities attitudes, and transform it into a system which, when properly understood in God’s new paradigm was instead teaching tool into HIs values of self-giving love, not conditional, coaxed forgiveness.

In a similar vein, the “pattern” of the tabernacle God commanded them to build (rectangle divided into one third most holy place and 2 thirds holy place etc) was already in widespread existence in the surrounding cultures. It was therefore easily recognized as a serious place of worship. Now I happen to see this as extraordinarily gracious of God to use what they were already familiar with, to make them comfortable perhaps, but transforming it to teach what HE wanted to reveal -- which was markedly counter to the prevailing views held of angry gods whose attitudes could be effected into acceptance of the human supplicant.

When John the Baptist, on seeing Jesus, says “Behold! the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (Jn 1:29) the reflex is to assume this must mean via Penal Substitution -- as if the only way to “take” sin “away” is via this “sin transfer” mechanism…

However, to my mind anyway, this simply cannot be for (at least) 2 reasons; reasons insurmountable for Penal Substitution models and therefore demanding a complete reevaluation of the events and relational dynamics interpreted as “Penal Substitution”.

First, sin is simply, and obviously, not a “thing” which can be passed around. Yet Penal Sub depends upon this transferability aspect of sin, which I think is quite mistaken. As Bobx1 noted, Eze 18:20 explicitly makes this clear; the soul who sins will die -- the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. So not only is penal sub disallowed, so too is transfer of Christ’s righteousness to us not allowed. Do we also use that imagery? Sure; but it works only as metaphor.

Second, no legal system recognizes one taking another’s penalty; except maybe in civil law where I may, for example pay your speeding ticket. It is legal fiction to suggest that criminal punishment can legitimately and legally be borne by another. This simply cannot be literally true; so the intent of such language must be to compel a search for deeper meanings.

John the Baptist's exclamation then would be more true if Jesus “takes away” the entire problem of sin and rebellion by the full revelation of the Cross which necessarily includes healing/transforming us so we don’t sin anymore. I’m not quite sure why so many have difficulty seeing Penal Substitution as simply a useful, but limited metaphor but that’s the way it is I guess. We have little problem with seeing as metaphor all the others in use; ransom from slavery (Mk 10:45), battleground triumph-over-evil images, commercial dealings (again, ransom), relational imagery like adoption and reconciliation, in addition to court of law images. None of these metaphors stand by themselves and all need each other for the full meaning to be realized.

In addition, this act of sacrifice had many other applications -- not just dealing with sin. Sacrifice was to accompany thanksgiving, communion with God, worship, and feasting. In addition it seems the idea of “sin offerings” also covered things relating more to ritual purification (like, say, from menstruation -- which can hardly be considered a “sin”.) This strongly suggests to me that associating sacrifice with Penal Substitution severely restricts and diminishes it’s intended purpose and meaning.

So I’m not sure I can even answer your question Jim

--Are you saying that Christ didn't die to take the penalty for our sins or are you saying that he did die to take the penalty our sins while he could have done it another way?--

given that I don’t see as literal the whole “payment of penalty” premise. Both these questions are based on the premise that my penalty needs to be paid and/or that’s what Jesus did on the cross. (Though it does interest me that many of those who insist on it being literal are unwilling to answer the literal questions of who the penalty is paid to.) So yes; Jesus death on the Cross is the central and crucial and necessary and saving event (literal history) in history -- it’s just that to my mind mere payment of penalty doesn’t come close to accomplishing all that.

Rambling on too long Jim.
Blessings and an early Happy Fathers day to all us fathers out there!!!

TotalVictory
Bobx3

PS -- still wondering what Bobx1 thinks is the association between Penal Sub and Universalism... Also, John 1:29 really can be seen as a wonderful text illustration Universal Reconciliation -- though that could work for a Penal Sub believer as well.

[Bob Wilson]

I've been camping with Auggy, but appreciate all the comments and discussion!

Jason, Thanks for your generous encouragement. Some of our past dialogue on the Trinity was beyond my comprehension, but I find most of your insights parallel and stimulative to mine. We both see 'salvation' involving gracious deliverance from sin.

Bobx3, Thanks, I knew you'd resonate (I see Roofus-Robert as Bobx2)! I also resonate with your thoughts on sacrifices. Yes, I've read Green with profit and some of Weaver. Also helpful: The Atonement Debate (papers from London Evangelical Symposium on the Theology of Atonement-pro & con); Stricken By God? (Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ; edited by Brad Jersak & includes a piece by N. T. Wright); IVP's The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views; Fortress Introduction to Salvation and the Cross by David Brondos (a Lutheran N.T. prof in Mexico).

(footnote: I think MacDonald cites Talbott on 2 Thes. 1:9, that Paul's "destruction" for opponents may not consciously have in mind their eventual salvation; but he does think Paul holds to universalism in Rom. 5, Col. 1, etc. Thus, that he would be convinced by Talbott that his 'payback' words are not inconsistent with that end. On P.S., I'd prefer to argue that the apostles, though diverse in their terminology, did not believe in it.)

Yes, I think P.S. folk can affirm UR (with the logic you outline to Jim and I)! Yet, I find it unbiblical, problematic, and unnecessary for UR. My followup paper intends to develop the alternative you wonder about.

But, to oversimplify, I've already implied that the cross aims to transform our sinfulness, but is not a 'transaction' that secures God's gracious love. Rather, it's a demonstration of the redemptive love that God already has by nature. Thus, we'd expect that God need never require sheer retribution, nor even must make his gracious love contingent on our acceptance of the cross's provision. Rather, we'd expect that his unfailing love and power is free to pursue us in our resistance, albeit sometimes in the form of 'severe mercies' (as you detail to Jim), until God achieves the genuine restoration of the sinner's life that God rightly seeks. I.E., nothing impedes God from a UR outcome. My case for Universalism under "Essays" amplifies on this.

More to follow on Jim's stimulating questions.

Grace be with you all,
Bobx1

[Bob Wilson]

Jim,

Thanks for your reflections! I agree the issue is "studying what the Bible teaches," and that changing that out of fear of misinterpretation is fallacious motivation. (I do follow George MacDonald and Talbott in thinking that if a belief troubles our moral conscience-esp. one informed by Jesus' teaching, that is proper motivation to review that interpretation.)

I also agree that to evaluate my "teaching," you would need to see how I interpret texts that P.S. uses. Indeed, this paper is my preface to a study of how Isaiah, Luke, and Paul address God's approach to salvation and atonement. Only there did I intend to examine such texts and exposit an alternative "teaching."

My introduction's focus is to raise questions about whether P.S. is compatible with major Bible themes. For my bias is that (1) it wars against them. (2) We all come to texts with preconceptions, and folk like me who have had this interpretation ingrained tend to find it even in texts which do not teach it. Thus (3), we may not be motivated to take a fresh look at what the Bible says, without a prior sense that P.S. is Biblically problematic.

You rightly cite my need to follow with an exposition of all relevant texts, and an alternative interpretation. And I gratefully realize that you are the only one who has offered significant challenges. But, in effect, my preface is simply calling challengers to show how 'substitutionary punishment' accords with the many text I have cited.

You say that what is clear is that "Christ died to take the punishment..." I assume you mean, as in P.S., to suffer the penalty for all sins so that we can be exempt from such a consequence. As I examine wider texts, it would help to know which texts you think most clearly declare this.

I perceive that the apostles' usual summary of the Gospels' fuller crucifixion narrative is that Jesus died "for us," or "for our sins" (quite parallel to Isaiah 53's language). As Bobx3 suggests, this cryptic phrase allows debate about what mechanism it signifies, and what "punishment" Jesus endured. Clearly, he experiences the punishment (the 'capital' kind)given to evil-doers, the sort that befits true sinners like me. And his embrace of such a punishing injustice was according to his Father's will and plan(cf. Isa. 53:10a, 6b, 8d), and this leads to peace and restoration for us. But how? Where are we told that this was God's punishment, that it is a substitute for righteousness in the truly wicked, or that exercising punishment itself directly frees God to cancel sin's consequences?

You cited the obvious text which deserves much reflection. Isaiah 53:5,8 cite the Suffering Servant's redemptive punishment for those who sinned against him. My perception is that Israel's sins bring this punishment. Thus, vs. 4's interpretation, "we considered him punished by God, stricken by Him," is precisely what Isaiah is refuting. For the context is that they wrongly despised the servant, assuming that his suffering must be God's punishment based on his sinfulness, when the opposite was true.

Like Jesus, he suffered punishment as a result of God's sheep, who all sinfully reject his faithful message and way (5:1,3,6,8a). What makes his suffering redemptive, is that he willingly absorbed the unjust punishment they brought on him. Like Jesus, his God-like love "intercedes" for his killers (53:12c), "because they know not what they do"(Lk. 23:34)!

Isaiah's amazement is that God's powerful "arm" to restore Israel should now be "revealed" in a humilated servant whose "offering" (10) appalls us, yet is able to show mercy to enemies who crush him (52:14f; 53:1-3). I find that the Bible sees such a painful (and participatory--thanks Jason) demonstration of grace offers Good News that has divine power to produce salvation in hardened sinners like us. God is pleased by what such love, accompanied by the Spirit's power, is able to achieve in we who are his beloved.

But is it necessary to perceive that God is the One who needed to be satisfied or changed by the infliction of such violence? I am jealous against proclaiming God as if God is the one who needs to be repaired, reconciled, or transformed. Doesn't it seem that our assurance rests more solidly on One whose gracious nature will never change?

Blessings,
Bobx1

[james.goetz]

But is it necessary to perceive that God is the One who needed to be satisfied or changed by the infliction of such violence? I am jealous against proclaiming God as if God is the one who needs to be repaired, reconciled, or transformed. Doesn't it seem that our assurance rests more solidly on One whose gracious nature will never change?

Hi Bob,

I see nothing in the general concept of substitutionary atonement that suggests that God needs to be repaired, reconciled, or transformed.

[Bob Wilson]

Hi Jim!

Thanks for your reaction. I suspect that even the incarnation implies a sort of "substitutionary" role, as Jesus takes on our sort of plight, including death. And I'm glad that my sense of the "penal" version of this is not recognizable to you.

Still, my inartful words, such as "transforming God," indicate my impression that P.S. emphasizes that inflicting punishment upon Jesus is about directly "changing" God and His wrathful disposition toward sinners. Do you see it that way, and if so, can you desribe how you perceive that it does that?

I find that we neglect what appears to be the N.T. emphasis, that the cross's purpose is to change our life and stance toward God. I appreciate that you also want to affirm this. In the sense that God's wrath is a fitting response of holy love toward our rebellion, and the cross changes our disposition, then I can see that it is essential and can be said to remove His wrath. Is that P.S., or do you see it as meeting a requirement that God has to transfer and execute a 'justice' that 'satisfies' Him, without necessarily depending on our own transformation? Or does this sound like I'm making a semantic distinction that appears for you to be a caricature or to have no substance?

[james.goetz]

Hi Bob,

First I want to clarify that my view is more along the lines of Moral Government instead of PS. After I started to discussing this with you, I reviewed major concepts of atonement such as Ransom, Satisfaction, Penal Substitution and Moral Government. I have sympathy toward aspects of all those views. And I saw that PS is primarily a Calvinist doctrine while many Arminians work with Moral Government.

Here are general ideas about atonement that goes across the boards with various evangelical colleagues of mine that include Calvinists and Arminians. Across the boards, my colleagues past and present believe that God gives (imputes) righteousness to new believers and new believers begin a life that includes progressive sanctification. The progressive sanctification should result in ongoing transformation. God's nature and love never changes. We change and reconcile with God.

I believe the Bible teaches that human decisions influence how God gives out rewards and punishments. And I'm unashamedly Arminian with this.

I'm still unsure where we might be having trouble with semantics in our conversation. Are you also implying that you oppose teaching that neglects the importance of progressive sanctification, which should result in an ongoing transformation?

[Bob Wilson]

Jim,

Thanks for the clarifications! I agree that God's dealings with us appear correlated with our "human decisions" (though I sense that God's grace gets the decisive credit when we really get things right). But I'm afraid that I'm unfamiliar with "Moral Government" atonement. Are there historical or present writers associated with it?

Yes! I see P.S. diminishing the importance of "progressive sanctification," though everyone would say they're for transformation. I've perceived that P.S. (by Calvinists or Arminians) emphasizes that Jesus suffers (and perhaps pays a "ransom") to provide "satisfaction" for God's wrath and justice. This enables God to then be just in "imputing" Christ's righteousness to our account. I take it that you're not so sure about the satisfaction concept, but affirm "imputation."

But if God "gives righteousness" to us (Christ's perfection imputed to our account?), would there be less incentive toward the "progressive sanctification" that we both support? I am so flaky as to even be unsure about the imputation interpretation. I see that God provides enormous forgiveness, grace and enablement, but it seems that the real and practical righteousness that this produces in us remains a pivotal concern for how he deals with us.

[james.goetz]

Hi Aug and Bob teamwork:)

Any aspect of God's grace can be distorted, which can include both imputed righteousness and Universalism.

Imputed righteousness is directly related to justification by faith. New believers are instantaneously justified before God because of a miraculous work of regeneration. Underemphasizing this ends up with a works driven system such as Roman Catholocism or Eastern Orthodoxy. And overemphasizing this can end up with "antinomianism", which teaches salvation by faith alone to the extreme that believers can live immorally with no repentance. I strongly believe that we need to avoid both extremes.

I've heard various growing Christians emphasize justification by faith to the point that it sounds like antinomianism while they appear fearful of teaching a works-based system. They're not making excuse for their own sins, but are trying to defend God's role in justification.

I like the Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Governmental_view). I'm not thrilled with any formal modern writings about it, but I like the general concepts that are described in this article.

[james.goetz]

Upon more reflection, I'll refrain from identifying myself with any particular view of atonement. Here are basics of my view:

1) God planned the atoning death of the incarnation of God, Jesus Christ, before the creation of the universe
2) All humans apart from Christ sinned and fell into a debt that they could not pay
3) Christ paid the debt for our sins that frees believers from the devil's domain and all curses
4) The atonement includes healing/salvation in spirit, mind, and body

[JeffA]

James,

I've always had difficulty with point number 3.

If the debt has been paid but I don't become a believer then I get punished - isn't that paying the debt twice?

Some people see it like Jesus leaving a bag of gold outside my front door such that I have to pick up the bag and take it to my creditor before the debt is paid. Yet the bible never describes that scenario - it always says that the debt has already been paid. That is more like Jesus taking the bag of gold to the house of my creditor and giving it to him.

This has always confused me

[james.goetz]

James,

I've always had difficulty with point number 3.

If the debt has been paid but I don't become a believer then I get punished - isn't that paying the debt twice?

Hi Jeff,

I appreciate that your an agnostic, but regardless of what you now don't know, you'll eventually get saved and tap into the redemption of Jesus Christ.

[james.goetz]

Topic split to "Atonement by firstborn888" in "Soteriology" http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=442

[auggybendoggy]

While we we're camping we had a good long discussion on this topic. One thing I've noticed in our discussions has been that the seemingly inevitably conclusion of Ultra Universalism if Penal Substituion is held. I mentioned to Bob that I've been trying to tread the waters of Imputed Righteoussness with Univeralism and wondering if it has to lead to Ultra Universalism.

My thoughts are it does. As I've listened to Mike Williams and panetlists like him, it seems they are big on Imputed Righteoussness which I believe is inseperable to Penal Substitution.

For if Jesus died to appease the anger of God because God requires perfection, and we are not perfect then the righteoussness must be imputed to us.

now as for the paper,
point 1: So, the cross satisfies & “demonstrates His love,” not his wrath (Rom. 5:6-10). No change is ever needed in God’s inclination toward sinners (Mal. 3:6).
Often we take it to be God is punishing Jesus on the cross but it seems that in the typology it is MAN (high priest) who holds the knife which kills the lamb of God. It's as if God was telling us, he's not going to kill the innocent man, WE WILL!
I don't see much depiction that God is trashing the innocent. If he does than I'll assume the calvinist can be right in saying he can make some men for heaven and some for hell by his own decree without giving men a choice. Truly Jesus did not die to save us from God, but to RECONCILE us TO God.

[james.goetz]

Hi Aug,

I'm still unsure why you believe the Imputed Righteousness would result in Ultra Universalism.

And concerning Point 1 in the paper, the Ancient Church had alternatives. Some said that Christ paid the ransom for our redemption to the Father. Others said that Christ paid the ransom for our redemption to the devil. And others said that Christ paid the ransom for our redemption, but not to the Father or the devil. Regardless, Christ paid the ransom for our redemption (Mt 20:28, Mk 10:45, 1Ti 2:6, Heb 9:15). And that redemption cleanses us of our sin by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, which makes us righteous. We don't have to believe in Penal Substitution to believe that the regeneration of the Holy Spirit makes us righteous.

[james.goetz]

Hi Aug and Bob,

As I've been reading the Bible since my last post in this thread, I reviewed Hebrews teaching about the atonement and noticed Romans 3:25-26:

[25] God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- [26] he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:25-26 TNIV)

As far as I can see, this verse teaches that the Father presented the Son as a sacrifice. And Hebrews clearly associates the death of Jesus with Old Testament sacrifices.

I think we're seeing a complex situation. On one level, the Father had no joy in sacrificing his Son. But the Son, being equal to the Father and the creator of all humans, decided to take punishment on behalf of believers. And God allowed the devil and evil humans to actually strike down the Son, as temporary as it was.

[auggybendoggy]

I think we're seeing a complex situation. On one level, the Father had no joy in sacrificing his Son. But the Son, being equal to the Father and the creator of all humans, decided to take punishment on behalf of believers. And God allowed the devil and evil humans to actually strike down the Son, as temporary as it was.

James,
I don't think anyone is contending that Jesus was a sacrifice which was offered by God. What is being contended is that it was God punishing his son. If God punished a innocent man then that would actually show that he is not just (being Jeff's point).

Of course the typology is Abraham/Isreals father (God) who places his son upon the altar. What the typology does not show is that Abraham was angry at Isreal/Abrahams Son (Son of God).

I believe the position that God punishing an innocent man can ONLY mean an injustice since GOD NEVER punishes the innocent. Offering up his son as a sacrifice can mean many things. What we DO KNOW it means is God LOVES mankind (adom). The "many things" it might mean is what we should really look at.

Aug

[james.goetz]

I don't think anyone is contending that Jesus was a sacrifice which was offered by God. What is being contended is that it was God punishing his son. If God punished a innocent man then that would actually show that he is not just (being Jeff's point).

Of course the typology is Abraham/Isreals father (God) who places his son upon the altar. What the typology does not show is that Abraham was angry at Isreal/Abrahams Son (Son of God).

I believe the position that God punishing an innocent man can ONLY mean an injustice since GOD NEVER punishes the innocent. Offering up his son as a sacrifice can mean many things. What we DO KNOW it means is God LOVES mankind (adom). The "many things" it might mean is what we should really look at.

Hi Aug,

I have a clearer idea about your concerns. I hope to answer them in the next four paragraphs, but we'll see.

This argument is big among various neo-unitarians such as Fausto Sozzini, who by definition reject that Jesus Christ is God Almighty. The two biggest points in Christian orthodoxy are: 1) Jesus is both human and God Almighty; 2) Jesus voluntarily chose to take the punishment on behalf of others before he created the universe. If Jesus were drafted into the crucifixion, then I would share some of the concern. But Jesus lovingly decided to die on the cross on behalf of others and Jesus made this decision before he created the universe.

Concerning typology with Abraham and his son Isaac, we must remember that types/prefigurations are never exact matches. Prefigurations foreshadow. They have some similarities and some differences.

In the case of Abraham and Isaac, I agree we see no specific mention of God being angry with Abraham. And we need to understand the cultural background. Human sacrifice was a common religious practice in the Middle East in Abraham's time. And scripture clearly teaches that God merely tested Abraham and never wanted him to sacrifice Isaac. And the ram in thicket, not Isaac, was the prefiguration of Christ.

God setting up the volunteer sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God is the only example of God punishing an innocent human. And I assume that there are many cases of innocent humans who voluntarily pay a debt owed by a loved one.

[Bob Wilson]

Jim,

I too see a crucial need to avoid distortion and extremes about grace and works. I'll grant that the imputation interpretation arguably could be consistent with that, but my central question as to how it is biblical remains.

Thanks for the "govermental" atonement link, distinguishing it from Penal Satisfaction, especially since Christ doesn't receive the "exact" punishment due to us. Still, its' language that Jesus provides a "propitiation" (pain that relieved God's anger?) that "appeased" God and was a "substitute" for our "penalty" sounds like the essence of P.S. that my paper argued is contra-Scripture. I was also puzzled by citing an arch-Calvinist, Jonathan Edwards, for an ostensibly Arminian alternative.

Blessings, Bob

[auggybendoggy]

I have a clearer idea about your concerns. I hope to answer them in the next four paragraphs, but we'll see.

This argument is big among various neo-unitarians such as Fausto Sozzini, who by definition reject that Jesus Christ is God Almighty. The two biggest points in Christian orthodoxy are: 1) Jesus is both human and God Almighty; 2) Jesus voluntarily chose to take the punishment on behalf of others before he created the universe. If Jesus were drafted into the crucifixion, then I would share some of the concern. But Jesus lovingly decided to die on the cross on behalf of others and Jesus made this decision before he created the universe.

I'm not sure how it all follows logically. Simply because one does not see Jesus as being punished does not logically deduce to 1) he is not God nor 2) Jesus did voluntarily gave himself. So I affirm both 1 and 2 (He is God, and He did give himself).

Concerning typology with Abraham and his son Isaac, we must remember that types/prefigurations are never exact matches. Prefigurations foreshadow. They have some similarities and some differences.

Agreed, I'm simply saying some people might read into the typology what is not there. I'm not saying it PROVES he is not angry but rather that it does not show he is angry and so I used it as an example where it's an offering of love.

In the case of Abraham and Isaac, I agree we see no specific mention of God being angry with Abraham. And we need to understand the cultural background. Human sacrifice was a common religious practice in the Middle East in Abraham's time. And scripture clearly teaches that God merely tested Abraham and never wanted him to sacrifice Isaac. And the ram in thicket, not Isaac, was the prefiguration of Christ.

in my opinion he was not only testing Abe, but was also teaching us through the imagery. Similar to Jonah being in the belly for 3 days and nights.

God setting up the volunteer sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God is the only example of God punishing an innocent human. And I assume that there are many cases of innocent humans who voluntarily pay a debt owed by a loved one.

Then it is the only injust act God has done. For God does not punish the innocent. I see no way around this except to rethink our view of what happened and consider other approaches to understanding it. Indeed I'm sure innocent humans have voluntarily payed a debt owed by another but bale out money is different than a murderer found guilty and his/her innocent family member gets to go to jail while the murderer walks.....name one example of that?

If this was done would justice be served?

I don't see sacrifice as a necessity of God to forgive sin but rather, it is Love in it's most beautiful form being played like a symphony. For if you love one perfectly YOU WILL GIVE YOURSELF and that is what might have appeased God. Namely that this Jesus of Nazareth loved perfectly (obedience), died perfectly (sacrifice) and lives.

Aug

[james.goetz]

I too see a crucial need to avoid distortion and extremes about grace and works. I'll grant that the imputation interpretation arguably could be consistent with that, but my central question as to how it is biblical remains.

Thanks for the "govermental" atonement link, distinguishing it from Penal Satisfaction, especially since Christ doesn't receive the "exact" punishment due to us. Still, its' language that Jesus provides a "propitiation" (pain that relieved God's anger?) that "appeased" God and was a "substitute" for our "penalty" sounds like the essence of P.S. that my paper argued is contra-Scripture. I was also puzzled by citing an arch-Calvinist, Jonathan Edwards, for an ostensibly Arminian alternative.

Hi Bob,

Concerning the Jonathon Edwards quote, How much can we expect from a Wikipedia article?

Anyway, would it help to say that "propitiation" primarily refers to appeasing God's plan for justice?

[Bob Wilson]

Jim,

Of course, you're right that Wikipedia can present confusing unreliable juxtoposition. Also that appeasing (or even just satisfying) God's requirement for "justice" sounds better than appeasing his anger.

Yet my critique (esp. #3) emphasizes that the Bible doesn't teach any concept of true "justice" or righteouness that inflicting punishment would "satisfy." If the Bible argues both that it's unjust to punish the innocent, and that failing to press for true righteousness in the wicked is injustice, how does Jesus' suffering "appease" God's plan for justice? If "justice" means making something "right" again, and if the heart of the story is that it was God's will for Jesus to lovingly respond to the wicked's "injustice," why not say that the gracious love demonstrated in that powerful love brings the crucial change and righteous outworking of grace and transformation in us, instead of saying that God punishes Jesus or that this pays or executes "justice" itself?

Blessings,
Bob

[Bob Wilson]

Thanks for your genuine research and wrestling with the mysteries of the cross. You've cited some crucial texts, and I reflected in detail on Isaiah 53. But I just realized you've mentioned TNIV's Romans 3:25f, understandably the usual critical linchpin for P.S. "Justice" surely makes it sound like the implication is that bearing punishment is what would demonstrate that, especially when it translates (non-literally) another word as pointing to "punishment."

But N.T. Wright is one who insists the dikaios or "righteousness" in Israel's story typically refers to God's "faithfulness," which appeared problematic when He apparently kept "overlooking" (translated non-literally as "unpunished" by TNIV) Israel's (the supposed light of the world's) untransformed failures. But now Paul sees that Jesus is the (one seed of) Israel, who embodies the faithfulness that God seeks, and that his faithful demonstration of the Good News of God's kingdom has power to produce in any who by faith enter into union with Him precisely what Israel lacked.

It is that "sin-offering" that enables a people in whom "the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met.." as they "live not according to the sinful nature," which establishes that God is in fact faithful and "righteous" (8:4). I admit this non P.S. interpretation is debateable, but my bias is that it is then more consistent with many other Bible themes, such as my own points 1-12.

[TotalVictory]

Gentlemen:

Am enjoying this conversation greatly. More to say when/if I get the time but found this brief essay while searching for something else and found it incredibly interesting and pertinent to this discussion. Here is the link:

http://www.frederica.com/writings/christs-death-a-rescue-mission-not-a-payment-for-sins.html

The author is Frederica Mathewes-Green and the title is CHRIST'S DEATH: A RESCUE MISSION, NOT A PAYMENT FOR SINS

As I've heard it, she considers herself more of the Orthodox tradition which, it seems, views atonement without involving payments of penalties and without substitution. This position resonates very deeply with me. I'd be interested to know how firstborn 888 sees this; my sense he will like the "rescue mission" aspect, but would have trouble with the depiction of a personal "evil one" ie devil that Frederica talks about.

Blessings,
TotalVictory
Bobx3

[james.goetz]

Hi Aug,

I have a clearer idea about your concerns. I hope to answer them in the next four paragraphs, but we'll see.

This argument is big among various neo-unitarians such as Fausto Sozzini, who by definition reject that Jesus Christ is God Almighty. The two biggest points in Christian orthodoxy are: 1) Jesus is both human and God Almighty; 2) Jesus voluntarily chose to take the punishment on behalf of others before he created the universe. If Jesus were drafted into the crucifixion, then I would share some of the concern. But Jesus lovingly decided to die on the cross on behalf of others and Jesus made this decision before he created the universe.

I'm not sure how it all follows logically. Simply because one does not see Jesus as being punished does not logically deduce to 1) he is not God nor 2) Jesus did voluntarily gave himself. So I affirm both 1 and 2 (He is God, and He did give himself).

I didn't saying somebody must be a unitarian if they struggle with any of these concepts, but I'm noting a historical precedent. I saw some parallel in that Sozzini argued that it's an injustice, and I appreciate that you clearly explain the different perspective.

Concerning typology with Abraham and his son Isaac, we must remember that types/prefigurations are never exact matches. Prefigurations foreshadow. They have some similarities and some differences.

Agreed, I'm simply saying some people might read into the typology what is not there. I'm not saying it PROVES he is not angry but rather that it does not show he is angry and so I used it as an example where it's an offering of love.

In the case of Abraham and Isaac, I agree we see no specific mention of God being angry with Abraham. And we need to understand the cultural background. Human sacrifice was a common religious practice in the Middle East in Abraham's time. And scripture clearly teaches that God merely tested Abraham and never wanted him to sacrifice Isaac. And the ram in thicket, not Isaac, was the prefiguration of Christ.

in my opinion he was not only testing Abe, but was also teaching us through the imagery. Similar to Jonah being in the belly for 3 days and nights.

God setting up the volunteer sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God is the only example of God punishing an innocent human. And I assume that there are many cases of innocent humans who voluntarily pay a debt owed by a loved one.

Then it is the only injust act God has done. For God does not punish the innocent. I see no way around this except to rethink our view of what happened and consider other approaches to understanding it. Indeed I'm sure innocent humans have voluntarily payed a debt owed by another but bale out money is different than a murderer found guilty and his/her innocent family member gets to go to jail while the murderer walks.....name one example of that?

I cannot quote any examples, but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody took a murder wrap for a loved one. And David felt like dying in Absalom's place, which is prefiguration of Christ. Anyway, I see no reason for that exact example and I see no logic in saying that Christ voluntarily taking punishment that others deserves was unjust.

If this was done would justice be served?

To me, that looks to be the implication of Isaiah 53 and Romans 3:25-26.

I don't see sacrifice as a necessity of God to forgive sin but rather, it is Love in it's most beautiful form being played like a symphony. For if you love one perfectly YOU WILL GIVE YOURSELF and that is what might have appeased God. Namely that this Jesus of Nazareth loved perfectly (obedience), died perfectly (sacrifice) and lives.

Romans 3:25-26 and Hebrews appear to teach that the death of Christ was a covenantal sacrifice that satisfies justice for believers. Was that sacrifice a punishment? I'll work on that in my reply to Bobx1 in this thread because he brought up the implications of Isaiah 53:4-5.

[james.goetz]

Of course, you're right that Wikipedia can present confusing unreliable juxtoposition. Also that appeasing (or even just satisfying) God's requirement for "justice" sounds better than appeasing his anger.

Yet my critique (esp. #3) emphasizes that the Bible doesn't teach any concept of true "justice" or righteouness that inflicting punishment would "satisfy." If the Bible argues both that it's unjust to punish the innocent, and that failing to press for true righteousness in the wicked is injustice, how does Jesus' suffering "appease" God's plan for justice? If "justice" means making something "right" again, and if the heart of the story is that it was God's will for Jesus to lovingly respond to the wicked's "injustice," why not say that the gracious love demonstrated in that powerful love brings the crucial change and righteous outworking of grace and transformation in us, instead of saying that God punishes Jesus or that this pays or executes "justice" itself?

Thanks for your genuine research and wrestling with the mysteries of the cross. You've cited some crucial texts, and I reflected in detail on Isaiah 53. But I just realized you've mentioned TNIV's Romans 3:25f, understandably the usual critical linchpin for P.S. "Justice" surely makes it sound like the implication is that bearing punishment is what would demonstrate that, especially when it translates (non-literally) another word as pointing to "punishment."

But N.T. Wright is one who insists the dikaios or "righteousness" in Israel's story typically refers to God's "faithfulness," which appeared problematic when He apparently kept "overlooking" (translated non-literally as "unpunished" by TNIV) Israel's (the supposed light of the world's) untransformed failures. But now Paul sees that Jesus is the (one seed of) Israel, who embodies the faithfulness that God seeks, and that his faithful demonstration of the Good News of God's kingdom has power to produce in any who by faith enter into union with Him precisely what Israel lacked.

It is that "sin-offering" that enables a people in whom "the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met.." as they "live not according to the sinful nature," which establishes that God is in fact faithful and "righteous" (8:4). I admit this non P.S. interpretation is debateable, but my bias is that it is then more consistent with many other Bible themes, such as my own points 1-12.

Hi Bob,

First, I want say that I never rely on a single translation when making conclusions about doctrine. Second, I want to see how much we agree about the atonement. Do you agree with the following? "The death of Jesus was a covenantal sacrifice that appeases justice for the moral debt of humans while faith in Christ is the condition for the covenant."

[Bob Wilson]

Jim,
I'm sympathetic that Jesus' life and death is "sacrificial," and certainly that the accounts of the last supper associate it with sealing the promised new "covenant." But all my posts to you including the original paragraph I emphasized and the comment on Romans three that you reprinted, are questioning the meaning of saying that Jesus' death appeased "justice."

I have argued that Jesus was actually faithful in embracing an act of 'injustice' which does not in itself satisfy or accomplish the importance God puts upon righteousness, but which is an instrument God uses to transform us in a way that accomplishes and satisfies God's properly required goal of creating a gracious people of faith who reflect his righteous character and love. I've sought to enunciate this in a variety of ways and to address objections you've raised. I'm not sure how to make it clearer that I don't think Jesus' death is about God exacting justice.

Grace be with you,
Bobx1

[james.goetz]

Hi Bobx1,

Sorry it took me this long to understand that. May I ask how you interpret Romans 3:25-26, which I copied earlier?

[Bob Wilson]

Jim,
See the letter you quoted above from June 27.
Thanks, Bobx1

[james.goetz]

Hi Bobx1,

Do you agree with the NASB translation of Romans 3:25-26?

[25] whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

[26] for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

[Bob Wilson]

Jim,

As implied in citing Wright's interpretation, I find NAS's "righteousness" and "passed over" superior to NIV. This leaves the debate rightly focused on how the cross shows or accomplishes God's righteousness and faithfulness.

More controversial and unique among today's translations, is using "propitiation." Volumes have been written debating the Bible's use of hilasterion and sacrifices. If it's taken to mean "punishment that brings justice by assuaging the deity's anger," then I think it's not a good reading of the Bible's emhasis upon the character of God and his mercy. Thus I prefer the other translations on this term. What do you think?

[james.goetz]

As implied in citing Wright's interpretation, I find NAS's "righteousness" and "passed over" superior to NIV. This leaves the debate rightly focused on how the cross shows or accomplishes God's righteousness and faithfulness.

More controversial and unique among today's translations, is using "propitiation." Volumes have been written debating the Bible's use of hilasterion and sacrifices. If it's taken to mean "punishment that brings justice by assuaging the deity's anger," then I think it's not a good reading of the Bible's emhasis upon the character of God and his mercy. Thus I prefer the other translations on this term. What do you think?

Hi Bob,

I see hilasterion refers to the sprinkling of blood on the mercy seat in Leviticus 16 because the next phrase in Romans 3:25 includes "blood". And dozens of verses affirm the centrality of the shed blood of Jesus in redemption such as the following in the NASB:

Matthew 26:28, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:24, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.

Luke 22:20, In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

John 6:53, Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

John 6:54, Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

John 6:55, For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

John 6:56, Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Acts 20:28, Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Romans 3:25, God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood--to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--

Romans 5:9, Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

1 Corinthians 10:16, Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 11:27, So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Ephesians 1:7, In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace.

Ephesians 2:13, But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Colossians 1:20, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Hebrews 9:12, He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

Hebrews 9:14, How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Hebrews 10:19, Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,

Hebrews 10:29, How much more severely do you think those deserve to be punished who have trampled the Son of God underfoot, who have treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who have insulted the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 12:24, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

Hebrews 13:12, And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

Hebrews 13:20, Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

1 Peter 1:2, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

1 John 1:7, But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Revelation 1:5, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,

Revelation 5:9, And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God members of every tribe and language and people and nation.

Revelation 7:14, I answered, "Sir, you know." And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Revelation 12:11, They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.

Revelation 19:13, He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Sorry for the overkill in the scripture quotes, but I wanted to emphasize that the biblical importance of the shed blood of Jesus. And I understand why you oppose theology that presents God as primarily angry and needing appeasement.

I see Romans 3:25 teaches that the Father presented the Son as a sacrifice for sin that was foreshadowed by the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. I also see divine justice as an extension of God's love. And I'm grateful that Christ died to take away the sins of the world.

[Bob Wilson]

Jim,

Thanks for persevering to grasp my alternative interpretation. No "overkill" is needed! I agree hilasterion points to the "mercy seat" of Lev. 16. Many exegetes prefer translating it precisely that way here (instead of NASB's "propitiation" that I argued against). And, of course, no one can miss that the N.T. ties it directly to the shedding of Jesus' "blood."

But the question remains as to what "mercy seat" or "blood" signifies. I agree with your own final language, when you assume it points to the idea that "Christ died to take away the sins of the world." I do doubt that this Biblical way of referring to Jesus' faithful death means that there is something unique about "blood" in some kind of material sense, that in itself satisfies justice or anything within God. Stoning caused death by the loss of much blood, but crucifixion, while more humiliating and excruciating, often brought death without much blood being spilled.

So how do you understand the purpose of Jesus' 'atonement' in Romans 3? Contrary to your last post, your citation was not NASB. But consistent with NASB, suppose that God "passed over" Israel's sins (not doing much to correct their self-centered failures), and thus appears not "righteous" regarding his promised purpose to create a holy people, a light to the nations who would bless all familes of the earth. Does Paul then conceive that the cross shows that God is in fact faithful about "righteousness," because he has inflicted what amounts to 'justice' upon Jesus (even though my initial 12 reasons to you asserts that many Bible texts oppose this concept of justice )?

Or, could it be that: (1) The life and death of Jesus (the true seed of Abraham) displayed the gracious righteousness that God sought in Israel, thus "demonstrating" that God is in fact lovingly faithful to accomplish what he said. (2) Christ then becomes the means of producing a universal family of Abraham, whose character will actually reflect the godly righteousness that His Spirit produces in those who now can rest their "faith" in the kind of faithful and loving God demonstrated in Jesus?

What do you think? Of course, my sense is that #2 (Wright) best fits and culminates the Bible's whole storyline (such at Gregory Mac Donald outlines), making interpretation one unnecessary and unbiblical.

Grace be with you,
Bob

[james.goetz]

So how do you understand the purpose of Jesus' 'atonement' in Romans 3? Contrary to your last post, your citation was not NASB. But consistent with NASB, suppose that God "passed over" Israel's sins (not doing much to correct their self-centered failures), and thus appears not "righteous" regarding his promised purpose to create a holy people, a light to the nations who would bless all familes of the earth. Does Paul then conceive that the cross shows that God is in fact faithful about "righteousness," because he has inflicted what amounts to 'justice' upon Jesus (even though my initial 12 reasons to you asserts that many Bible texts oppose this concept of justice )?

Or, could it be that: (1) The life and death of Jesus (the true seed of Abraham) displayed the gracious righteousness that God sought in Israel, thus "demonstrating" that God is in fact lovingly faithful to accomplish what he said. (2) Christ then becomes the means of producing a universal family of Abraham, whose character will actually reflect the godly righteousness that His Spirit produces in those who now can rest their "faith" in the kind of faithful and loving God demonstrated in Jesus?

What do you think? Of course, my sense is that #2 (Wright) best fits and culminates the Bible's whole storyline (such at Gregory Mac Donald outlines), making interpretation one unnecessary and unbiblical.

Hi Bob,

I see that the Lord eventually poured severe punishment on both the Northern Kingdom and the Kingdom of Judah. I don't see 'suppose that God "passed over" Israel's sins (not doing much to correct their self-centered failures), and thus appears not "righteous" regarding his promised purpose to create a holy people, a light to the nations who would bless all familes of the earth.'

[james.goetz]

Hi Bob,

One of my issues is that I see most of your 12 points as a stretch while I see implications of substitute sacrifice all over the Bible. I jotted a note or two about each of your 12 points.

1. Christ saves us from the punishment we deserve for our sins.
2. Perhaps God could've decided on another plan for forgiveness, but many verses in both the Old Testament and the New Testament point to a sacrificial system to restitute the consequences of sin.
3. The Bible is strong in telling people not to take justice in there own hands and let God ultimately handle justice. (And Socrates or one of his friends could have paid a fine instead of Socrates suffering the death penalty.)
4. God designed a system of justice while he disciplines us for our own good.
5. This relates to 4. The justice we deserve would be too much for us so God made another plan.
6. The focus of 1 Corinthians 15 is that if Christ didn't rise from the dead then the apostles are false witnesses and their faith is worthless.
7. The New Covenant requires that we believe in Jesus, which includes all of his teachings.
8. I in no way see that believing that Christ dies to take the penalty for my sins makes ongoing sins less of a concern.
9. Old Testament sacrifices and the New Testament sacrifice are worthless without genuine repentance.
10. Each individual will on day be reconciled to God. It's both individual and corporate.
11. These verses could be describing Jesus feeling rejected by the Father.
12. The Father offered the Son as a sacrifice. This was a deliberate act by the Father.

You come across to me as presenting false dilemmas. I don't see your points making substitute sacrifice for sins unbiblical.

May I ask how you see that the blood of Christ cleanses our consciences (Hebrews 9:14)?

[TotalVictory]

1. Christ saves us from the punishment we deserve for our sins.

Not to interrupt this conversation, but this line triggered for me the notion that I should share an essay I wrote a few years back.

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=462

TotalVictory
Bobx3

[Bob Wilson]

Bobx3,
You are very welcome to jump in! I too am skeptical about the use of "deserve." Salvation is a gift that transcends it, and I also would not see 'punishment' as involving a requirement to render what is "deserved" to meet 'justice.' I'd prefer emphasizing it as consistent with love which functions to obtain correction and practical righteousness, rather than securing what is deserved. Indeed, N.T. Wright's "Evil and the Justice of God" argues that our Western world has neglected the centrality of "restorative justice."

[Bob Wilson]

Hi Jim!

Many haven't engaged our issue. Jason and Bobx3 seem to welcome my atonement slant, but you're clearly unconvinced, which keeps it interesting! But I'm puzzled by the first of your most recent responses. Also your interpretation still appears unclarified as to how "blood" functions, or what dikaios and "demonstrating" it means in Romans 3.

Your response to questions on these seems to assume that God's "punishment" upon Israel means that recognizing God's faithful "righteousness" cannot really be at issue, as I argued it is. Thus you conclude that you "don't see that God passed over Israel's sins," or did not correct their failures, or leave them looking as if God had not faithfully created a holy people. Are Wright and I deceived that Paul sees that God's dealing with Israel had indeed failed to produce a light to the nations, nor blessed the families of the earth?

Are you saying that God had already in fact effectively put Israel's sins right? Or that since God '"eventually" allowed some punishments, Paul can't mean that God "passed over" Israel's sins? If you thus mean that NASB wrongly translates this, what is your alternative? If you believe it means that God effectively "forgave" their sins, how can that be even more compatible with your own observation that He actually punished them? What is 'forgiveness'?

I'm confused. I continue to think that both NASB and Wright remain unanswered. What am I missing?

[james.goetz]

Hi Bob,

Many haven't engaged our issue. Jason and Bobx3 seem to welcome my atonement slant, but you're clearly unconvinced, which keeps it interesting! But I'm puzzled by the first of your most recent responses. Also your interpretation still appears unclarified as to how "blood" functions, or what dikaios and "demonstrating" it means in Romans 3.

I see blood functioning as a sign of both life and death. The Old Testament (OT) describes blood as the life of animals. And the OT emphasized the shedding and sprinkling of blood in the Levitical sacrificial system that played a central role in salvation from sins for the nation of Israel. And blood-shedding sacrifices in the Levitcal system foreshadowed the scourging of, crucifixion of, and final spear thrust into Jesus. The death of Jesus signified by the shedding of his blood paid ransom for sinful humans.

I suppose dikaios means "righteous" or "just" depending on the context and is similar to dikaiosune. I suppose you're referring to God demonstrating righteousness according to Romans 3:25. I assume this refers to God revealing his perfect plan for salvation in the new covenant.

Your response to questions on these seems to assume that God's "punishment" upon Israel means that recognizing God's faithful "righteousness" cannot really be at issue, as I argued it is. Thus you conclude that you "don't see that God passed over Israel's sins," or did not correct their failures, or leave them looking as if God had not faithfully created a holy people. Are Wright and I deceived that Paul sees that God's dealing with Israel had indeed failed to produce a light to the nations, nor blessed the families of the earth?

Are you saying that God had already in fact effectively put Israel's sins right? Or that since God '"eventually" allowed some punishments, Paul can't mean that God "passed over" Israel's sins? If you thus mean that NASB wrongly translates this, what is your alternative? If you believe it means that God effectively "forgave" their sins, how can that be even more compatible with your own observation that He actually punished them? What is 'forgiveness'?

I'm confused. I continue to think that both NASB and Wright remain unanswered. What am I missing?

I'm sorry that I left these assumptions open to you. My main point is that God severely punished the Israelites while I reject interpretations of Romans 3:25-26 that suggest otherwise. Also, I believe that God forgave the sins of the minority faithful among the old covenant Israelites while the severe punishments didn't make the majority of Israel righteous. And God upped the grace by offering Jesus to be scourged and crucified to death as ransom for sinful people.

I'm sorry that I don't know the specifics of your reference to Wright. But I love his defense and clarification of substitutionary atonement (http://www.ivpress.com/title/ata/wright_qa.pdf).

One of the things that I’ve been frustrated and puzzled about in some of the
debates that have gone on and in messages on blog sites and so on, is that people have often said things that imply that I, Tom Wright, don’t believe, for instance, in substitutionary atonement. Or that I don’t believe in justification by grace through faith. And I want to say to them, “Here. Read my lips. Look what I’ve done, look what I’ve written. I’ve been preaching and writing about substitutionary atonement and justification by grace through faith for twenty or thirty years now.”

Indeed, when it comes to substitutionary atonement, I think I have written the longest ever defense of the view that Jesus himself conceived his own coming death in terms of Isaiah 53 in my book Jesus and the Victory of God. I actually expected when I wrote that chapter that many of my evangelical friends and colleagues would stand up and cheer. Instead they were worried about other aspects of the book and that seems to have slid by them.

That caused me to reflect that sometimes people hold the right doctrine but they put it into the wrong story. It’s possible to say a phrase, but the phrase comes out as part of a different narrative, then the phrase is going to mean something very slightly different. If I say, “I love you,” and I’m in a context where I’m with my wife, and we’re doing stuff together, then it means what it means within that narrative. But if I say, “I love you” in a different context it might mean something completely different. It’s a silly example, but you see what I mean.

If you say Christ died in our place and took our penalty and our punishment, that’s fine. But if the narrative that you have in mind is of a malevolent, capricious, angry God who is determined to punish somebody for all this sin that’s going on, and, ah! here’s somebody who happens to be his own Son, right, he’ll do, we’ll punish him and then the rest of you can go free--that story radically distorts the beautiful biblical meaning of substitutionary atonement.

Now I deliberately caricature to make the point. But substitutionary atonement which is so central to justification means what it means within the biblical story, which is not that rather arbitrary angry God, determined to take it out on somebody, and it just happens to be an innocent victim. I’m not surprised that when people hear the story told like that, they often react against it. My aim has been to tell the story of the death of Jesus in its proper biblical context.