Did Jesus become sin?

[Dane Gjesdal]

Hey everyone. It has been a while. I have a discussion topic dealing with Easter and the cross.

Did Jesus become sin?

2 Corinthians 5:21
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin (sin offering or actual sin?) for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Peter 2:24-25
24 He himself bore our sins (the act of, or the effect of) in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

If Jesus became sin how could he be the spotless lamb?

Is there a difference in the act of sin and the effect of sin? What do you think????

[Bob Jones]

When Moses lifted a serpent on a stick, it represented Christ. The serpent is uniformly accepted as a symbol of sin, even sin incarnate.

This is one of the reasons that Protestant crosses are empty. The body on the cross had become sin whom the Father had forsaken. God no longer dwelled amongst men. This is one of the reasons for the darkness at the cross.

The exchanging of identities is typified by the laying of hands on the head of the sacrifice in Leviticus. And is further typified by Uzziah aka Azariah.

The imagery of the redeemer kinsman also hints that the redeemer becomes the substitute debtor.

But the plain teaching comes from the passage that you cited.

The spotless lamb is the one that takes the identity of the sinner who lays his hands on his head. So the lamb also is a shadow of sin incarnate when he is sacrificed.

[Dane Gjesdal]

Thank you for responding. I have read this for years with out questioning it. Then it struck me funny in my study of the atonement in Wiley. Then I have had to rethink and re-dig on my understanding of it. I want to see if others have had to reexamine the implications of imputed sin on Jesus. Please do not feel I am challenging you or any one, I am also challenging my own thinking. I am still having a hard time articulated what I am thinking.


When Moses lifted a serpent on a stick, it represented Christ. The serpent is uniformly accepted as a symbol of sin, even sin incarnate.

This is one of the reasons that Protestant crosses are empty. The body on the cross had become sin whom the Father had forsaken.

God no longer dwelled amongst men. This is one of the reasons for the darkness at the cross.

I’m not sure we find the Father forsaking Jesus. I used to think this and maybe I still do, but I have been challenged to rethink my view by Steve Deneff on this very thought. It does not say that the Father forsook Jesus. This was a cry out from Jesus to the Father.

Christ was fully human. Sometime I forget that Jesus has the same emotions that I have. Jesus asked a question, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”? We do not know the answer from the father. It may have been, “My Son, my son, I have not forsaken you. We might view this no different than Jesus asking the father, “if it is possible let this cup pass…”? Was Jesus trying to get out of redemption? Or is this the humanity of Jesus? Not sin, but a normal human emotion.

Adam Clark: Matthew 27:46
Some suppose "that the divinity had now departed from Christ, and that his human nature was left unsupported to bear the punishment due to men for their sins." But this is by no means to be admitted, as it would deprive his sacrifice of its infinite merit, and consequently leave the sin of the world without an atonement. Take deity away from any redeeming act of Christ, and redemption is ruined.

This is sufficiently evident; for he well knew why he was come unto that hour; nor could he be forsaken of God, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Originally Posted by Bob Jones:
The exchanging of identities is typified by the laying of hands on the head of the sacrifice in Leviticus. And is further typified by Uzziah aka Azariah.

I was under the impression that the hands laid on the head was for us to realize the price of sin as the priest feels to life drain out of the sacrifice (death). God said, “If you eat of the tree you will surely die”. The sacrifice (death) was the “sin offering”, a life taken (foreshadow of Jesus) for the saving of the life and forgiveness on behalf of the one that presented the offering.

Originally Posted by Bob Jones:
The imagery of the redeemer kinsman also hints that the redeemer becomes the substitute debtor.

But the plain teaching comes from the passage that you cited.

The text I cited is not plain to me. It is the only text in the entire Bible that uses the phrase “became sin”. All of the OT uses the phrase “sin offering”. There is a difference. Adam Clack believes it should be translated “sin offering”. He explains why in detail in his commentary.

Originally Posted by Bob Jones:
The spotless lamb is the one that takes the identity of the sinner who lays his hands on his head. So the lamb also is a shadow of sin incarnate when he is sacrificed.

I am with you to a point – but – “sin incarnate” I am having a problem with. To say that Jesus was sin incarnate is a hard pill for me to swallow. But I can swallow it if need be.

[Bob Jones]

I’m not sure we find the Father forsaking Jesus. I used to think this and maybe I still do, but I have been challenged to rethink my view by Steve Deneff on this very thought. It does not say that the Father forsook Jesus. This was a cry out from Jesus to the Father.

Christ was fully human. Sometime I forget that Jesus has the same emotions that I have. Jesus asked a question, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”? We do not know the answer from the father. It may have been, “My Son, my son, I have not forsaken you. We might view this no different than Jesus asking the father, “if it is possible let this cup pass…”? Was Jesus trying to get out of redemption? Or is this the humanity of Jesus? Not sin, but a normal human emotion.


I hate proof texting, so please take this as a sampler, and if we need to develop the thought we can break off another thread.

God says he will forsake the "remnant".

2 Kings 21:14
I will forsake the remnant of my inheritance and hand them over to their enemies. They will be looted and plundered by all their foes,



I was under the impression that the hands laid on the head was for us to realize the price of sin as the priest feels to life drain out of the sacrifice (death). God said, “If you eat of the tree you will surely die”. The sacrifice (death) was the “sin offering”, a life taken (foreshadow of Jesus) for the saving of the life and forgiveness on behalf of the one that presented the offering.

The text I cited is not plain to me. It is the only text in the entire Bible that uses the phrase “became sin”. All of the OT uses the phrase “sin offering”. There is a difference. Adam Clack believes it should be translated “sin offering”. He explains why in detail in his commentary.


I apologize. When I said it was "plain" I meant that I believe it is the passage that addresses the issue best. I would use that passage as the basis for interpretting the shadows of Uzziah, the serpent on the staff, the redeemer kinsman, etc.

21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Clack may wish to interpret it differently, but there is no evidence the current translations are bad. (Here in Utah I have to make a clear distinction between "translation" and "interpretation".)

The difference in the usage between this verse and the OT is that the OT contained the shadows. The emphasis between the type and its fulfillment is on the fulfillment.

So the offering was only important because it pointed to Christ, it was not important, in and of itself.

If this were on the SAT, which pairing of words makes more natural sense? SIN:RIGHTEOUSNESS or SIN OFFERING:RIGHTEOUSNESS

Grammatically, SIN has it.

[John S Knight]

Bob,

Jesus was familiar with and quoting Psalms 22, as we all know. He would have also known (though there would be no "verse" breaks, etc.) verse 24;

"For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden his face from Him;
But when He cried to Him, He heard." Psa 122:24

Wouldn't it be a cruel kind of God who rewards our total submission and obedience with (as our Lord was doing) with "forsaking us?"

[Dane Gjesdal]

I know this is long over due as a post but after reading the book by Larry Shelton “Cross & Covenant” I have become even more fascinated in the study of the atonement.
John 3:14-15
14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

Numbers 21:8-9
8 The LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.
When Moses lifted a serpent on a stick, it represented Christ. The serpent is uniformly accepted as a symbol of sin, even sin incarnate. .
Actually a Snake or the Serpent represents Satan. A Snake or Serpent never in all of the scriptures represents “SIN”. There is a huge difference between the “tempter” and the “act of sin”.

Too many people or theologians today make a huge mistake in not understanding the reference in Numbers 21:8. Most commentators on both sides of theology are in agreement on Numbers 21:8 that the Snake represents Satan. In Numbers 21 the people were under God’s judgment and being bit by snakes and dieing. They cried out in repentance and God instructed Moses to make a bronze snake and place it on a pole and anyone who looks to it will live. When one is impaled on a pole it displays a sign of defeat (Ezra 6:11). So in short, Satan, who is the tempter that lead the Israelite people astray is triumphed over and defeated by God as illustrated by being impaled on a pole. So when the people saw the bronze snake (defeated) they saw God as the victor and they lived.

The snake does not represent sin but Satan.
Therefore Jesus does not become Satan on the cross.

Jesus was “lifted up”, a symbol of humiliation and defeat, but because of the resurrection the cross, the stumbling stone, became a sign of victory over Satan.

Galatians 3:13
13 For it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Colossians 2:15
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Therefore this reference does not fit with Jesus becoming sin (imputed sin). Jesus was the spotless lamb that had no sin, but became the sin sacrifice. This does not make Jesus sin.


This is one of the reasons that Protestant crosses are empty. The body on the cross had become sin whom the Father had forsaken. God no longer dwelled amongst men. This is one of the reasons for the darkness at the cross.
The scripture does not say that the Father forsook the Son. It was a human cry, a human emotion of loneliness that Jesus cried out in question form, “Why have you forsaken me?” This does not say anything about God turning his back on his Son.
The exchanging of identities is typified by the laying of hands on the head of the sacrifice in Leviticus. And is further typified by Uzziah aka Azariah. .
Read carefully the sacrificial system. Only when “both hands” are laid on the escape Goat is there is a “transfer of sin” and that Goat is not even killed, but lead out into the wilderness as a symbol of the removal of Sin.
When the “single hand” is laid in the head of the sacrifice there is no mention of any transfer of sin. It is a symbol of “identification” and “participation” with the animal as the life drains out. The offer(er) experiences and identifies with the death (offering) that he caused because of his sin. The animal does not become sin.

[Hans Deventer]

I know this is long over due as a post but after reading the book by Larry Shelton “Cross & Covenant” I have become even more fascinated in the study of the atonement.

Can you tell me something more about the book, Dane? I read his article on "The Covenant Concept of Atonement" in the Wesleyan Theological Journal a long time ago, and liked it a lot.

[Dane Gjesdal]

21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Clack may wish to interpret it differently, but there is no evidence the current translations are bad. (Here in Utah I have to make a clear distinction between "translation" and "interpretation".)

The difference in the usage between this verse and the OT is that the OT contained the shadows. The emphasis between the type and its fulfillment is on the fulfillment.

So the offering was only important because it pointed to Christ, it was not important, in and of itself.

If this were on the SAT, which pairing of words makes more natural sense? SIN:RIGHTEOUSNESS or SIN OFFERING:RIGHTEOUSNESS

Grammatically, SIN has it.

Even the NIV has a foot note for this reference. (5:21 a: or be a sin offering) So Adam Clark as well as other theologians saw this point when translating the NIV.

2 Corinthians 5:21 - Adam Clarke's Commentary
In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the chaTa'ah and chaTa'at of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word by hamartia in 94 places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; namely, that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own. One of these writers translates the passage thus: Deus Christum pro maximo peccatore habuit, ut nos essemus maxime justi, God accounted Christ the greatest of sinners, that we might be supremely righteous. Thus they have confounded sin with the punishment due to sin. Christ suffered in our stead; died for us; bore our sins (the punishment due to them), in his own body upon the tree, for the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all; that is, the punishment due to them; explained by making his soul-his life, an offering for sin; and healing us by his stripes.

But that it may be plainly seen that sin-offering, not sin, is the meaning of the word in this verse, I shall set down the places from the Septuagint where the word occurs; and where it answers to the Hebrew words already quoted; and where our translators have rendered correctly what they render here incorrectly.

In Exodus 29:14,36; Leviticus 4:3,8,20-21,24-25,29 (twice),32,33,34; Leviticus 5:6-9 (twice),11 (twice),12; Leviticus 6:17,25 (twice),30; Leviticus 7:7,37; 8:2,14 (twice); Leviticus 9:2-3,7-8,10,15,22; 10:16-17,19 (twice); Leviticus 12:6,8; 14:13 (twice),19,22,31; Leviticus 15:15,30; 16:3,5-6,9,11 (twice),15,25,27 (twice); Leviticus 23:19; Numbers 6:11,14,16; 7:16,22,28,34,40,46,52,58,70,76,82,87; 8:8,12; 15:24-25,27; 18:9; 28:15,22; 29:5,11,16,22,25,28,31,34,38.

Besides the above places, it occurs in the same signification, and is properly translated in our version, in the following places:

2 Chronicles 29:21,23-24; Ezra 6:17; 8:35; Nehemiah 10:33; Job 1:5; Ezekiel 43:19,22,25; 44:27,29; 45:17,19,22-23,25. In, all, 108 places, which, in the course of my own reading in the Septuagint, I have marked.

Robertson's Word Pictures
He made to be sin hamartian epoieesen. The words "to be" are not in the Greek. "Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb. God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin."

Robertson reveals that Jesus was “treated as sin”, not that Jesus “became sin”. Jesus was treated and bore the “punishment of sin” or was the “sin offering” This is a huge and important distinction. Jesus did not become the homosexual, or the rapist, or the liar on the cross. This is what is taught by the doctrine of “imputed sin” by saying that Jesus “became sin” on the cross. Jesus did not become sin, he bore the punishment due to sin; death. That is why in the resurrection death was swallowed up in victory. Jesus did not on the cross make sin acceptable. Sin cannot be redeemed, but the punishment for sin (second death) can be redeemed. Sin will always kill. It will always produce death unless we receive the redeemer who bore the consequences, not the acts, of sin.

[Dane Gjesdal]

Can you tell me something more about the book, Dane? I read his article on "The Covenant Concept of Atonement" in the Wesleyan Theological Journal a long time ago, and liked it a lot.

Shelton’s approach is that we have accepted the Reformed Church’s version of the atonement, that is, “Penal Substitution” as the base line for all our understanding of the atonement. The Reformed doctrine (Calvinism) views God as one who has to be appeased for the offence of sin, while Wesley, Clark and Willey viewed the Covenants & Atonement with the foundation being that of LOVE and RELATIONSHIP. I see Shelton wanting to display more of God’s nature in the Covenant and Atonement than just his justice. This is a view that I have held for a long time in reading the word but I could never put it into words as Shelton so masterfully and skillfully has done.

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks, Dane. That is another book on my "to buy list". Is it OK with you if I copy your review to the book forum? Copy, not move!

[Jamie Wayne]

I haven't the time to read the other posts right now, as I'm getting ready to go to my grandmother's funeral (it's a good thing), but my position is that Jesus, who is God, cannot ontologically become sin. In other words, the being of God cannot sin, nor can God be sin.

[Ian Gentles]

I haven't the time to read the other posts right now, as I'm getting ready to go to my grandmother's funeral (it's a good thing), but my position is that Jesus, who is God, cannot ontologically become sin. In other words, the being of God cannot sin, nor can God be sin.


So sorry to hear about your grandmother. :(

[Ryan Scott]

my position is that Jesus, who is God, cannot ontologically become sin. In other words, the being of God cannot sin, nor can God be sin.

Yeah, that's where the substitution thing loses some credibility with me. Even if we define sin as a relationship apart from God, how could Jesus be apart from God when Jesus is God?

I'm guessing the interpretation of that passage has something to do with the meaning, but in a sense, by Christ's sacrifice, he showed us the exact opposite of sin, which could be seen as becoming sin for us in that it defined physically what sin looks like (as in the opposite of Christ's action). Did that make any sense at all?

[Scott Hilton]

Yeah, that's where the substitution thing loses some credibility with me. Even if we define sin as a relationship apart from God, how could Jesus be apart from God when Jesus is God?

I'm guessing the interpretation of that passage has something to do with the meaning, but in a sense, by Christ's sacrifice, he showed us the exact opposite of sin, which could be seen as becoming sin for us in that it defined physically what sin looks like (as in the opposite of Christ's action). Did that make any sense at all?

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h150/thornspop/confused.jpg

[Jamie Wayne]

Yeah, that's where the substitution thing loses some credibility with me. Even if we define sin as a relationship apart from God, how could Jesus be apart from God when Jesus is God?

Which is why I argue that Jesus could not have sinned, because He was (is) God...and why there could have been no ontological breach of the Trinity on the Cross.

I'm guessing the interpretation of that passage has something to do with the meaning, but in a sense, by Christ's sacrifice, he showed us the exact opposite of sin, which could be seen as becoming sin for us in that it defined physically what sin looks like (as in the opposite of Christ's action). Did that make any sense at all?

Jesus didn't need to become sin in order to pay the wages of sin, which is death.

We often say that "Jesus died for us (and for many)...for the forgiveness of sins". We don't usually go around saying that "Jesus became 'sin' for us."

[Ian Gentles]

As He was holy in perfect sense He couldent be sinfull as both are opposites. Also sin is rebellion agains God, Jesus obeyed the Father!

[Dane Gjesdal]

Thanks, Dane. That is another book on my "to buy list". Is it OK with you if I copy your review to the book forum? Copy, not move!

That is fine, but I am not a good writer - If you want to edit it that is fine.

I would also like to start a thread on this book for people to discuss it. I do not buy into all his thinking - but enough to challenge our thinking on our view of Atonement.

[Scott Hilton]

Which is why I argue that Jesus could not have sinned, because He was (is) God...and why there could have been no ontological breach of the Trinity on the Cross.



I was waiting for that thread to pop up in this discussion, lol:basic01

[Dane Gjesdal]

I was waiting for that thread to pop up in this discussion, lol:basic01

Jump in - What are your thoughts, or angle or direction on this topic. The atonement is under preached and under taught in our churches today. I am doing a series on the "Shadow of the Cross" by looking at all the "shadows" in the OT and then looking at the "reality" = Jesus and how he was the fulfillment. This brings the OT alive with NT application.

[Scott Daniels]

I'm reading Greg Boyd's Repenting of Religion right now and he makes an interesting argument about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He argues that the temptation to eat of the tree is the temptation to become "as God" in terms of putting ourselves in the position to judge Good from Evil. In essence he argues that love and judgment are opposed to one another.

If that is the case, then Jesus became "as sin" not from a divine perspective but from a human perspective. He was judged (by humankind and the religious establishment in particular) as a sinner, cast out of the city as a sinner, and executed as a sinner. But our judgment upon him as sinner only further revealed our sinful and violent nature and the fallen and sinful nature of the principalities and powers (again, including the religious principalities and powers).

In the cross, love not judgment, is revealed as God's primary character and in the resurrection mercy triumphs over judgment.

I am intrigued by Boyd's theory re: sin and the garden. It fits well with a non-violent, narrative, Christus Victor interpretation of atonement.

[Dane Gjesdal]

In the cross, love not judgment, is revealed as God's primary character and in the resurrection mercy triumphs over judgment.

I am intrigued by Boyd's theory re: sin and the garden. It fits well with a non-violent, narrative, Christus Victor interpretation of atonement.

What I like to do is glean from all the views a different facet of the same cross. I think all the views reflect different facets of the nature of God in the atonement.

I do not think God functions in a compartmentalized way in regards to his nature. I see the attributes of God’s nature functioning in tandem and unity, and not Love first, Justice second, and so on.

[Hans Deventer]

I do not think God functions in a compartmentalized way in regards to his nature.

Agreed.

I see the attributes of God’s nature functioning in tandem and unity, and not Love first, Justice second, and so on.

Hmm. It wasn't His justice, His holiness, omnipotence, or whatever other attribute there is that made Him save us. It was His love. So from a human point of view (and I really don't think we have any other), love must be primary in defining who God is to us.

[Scott Hilton]

Jump in - What are your thoughts, or angle or direction on this topic. The atonement is under preached and under taught in our churches today. I am doing a series on the "Shadow of the Cross" by looking at all the "shadows" in the OT and then looking at the "reality" = Jesus and how he was the fulfillment. This brings the OT alive with NT application.

This, so far is above my ability to rightly discuss, but I am enjoying the read of it. Very interesting and good stuff.

blessings
Scott

[Scott Daniels]

What I like to do is glean from all the views a different facet of the same cross. I think all the views reflect different facets of the nature of God in the atonement.

I don't think that is a bad approach. Certainly all of our ways of describing the cross end up being some type of metaphor - bringing with those metaphors places of connection but also limitations.

I think there are important insights we can glean from theories like the moral influence, Christus Victor, mimetic theories like Rene Girard, even Liberation theories from the margins, etc. But personally, I struggle to get the penal substitutionary model to have much coherence with these other ways of thinking. It may be that I rebelling so hard against the PS theory that has so dominated the religious dialogue in Western Evangelicalism that I have trouble seeing its merits...

But even though we glean from various theories, those theories ought to have some coherence with one another. I have a hard time making PS fit.

[Dane Gjesdal]

Agreed.



Hmm. It wasn't His justice, His holiness, omnipotence, or whatever other attribute there is that made Him save us. It was His love. So from a human point of view (and I really don't think we have any other), love must be primary in defining who God is to us.

I see your point - but

I do not think we can say what is primary. As if God moved to save us primarily by love, and in the back ground there was justice and holiness. To have a primary requires a secondary. I do not see it that way because we do not have a chronology or a list of what attribute spawned our redemption for I see all of them at work in our redemption at the same time. Love is just one facet of the act of redemption that includes holiness and justice. I think it may help people to have a primary attribute to hang their hat on, but to single out one as the mover of God is unclear and my not even be necessary. Who’s to say that God was not primarily moved by his holiness that was expressed by his love? For only a pure holy and perfect God can act and be sufficient to redeem. It is an endless argument that requires a compartmentalization of his nature in an order of motive in regards to atonement, like - First: He loved us. Second: He required Justice. Thirdly: His holiness desired things to be made right. I just do not see this.

Another example: How can a holy God love sinful rebellious man? - His nature would not allow it. What came first the chicken or the egg? There was his foreknowledge, his holiness, his justice; his love at work before the world was formed in Christ being crucified before man even bit the fruit of the tree.

[Dane Gjesdal]

But personally, I struggle to get the penal substitutionary model to have much coherence with these other ways of thinking. It may be that I rebelling so hard against the PS theory that has so dominated the religious dialogue in Western Evangelicalism that I have trouble seeing its merits...

But even though we glean from various theories, those theories ought to have some coherence with one another. I have a hard time making PS fit.
Well stated - maybe we need to have the PS theory presented. Your struggle is the same as Larry Shelton's and he rejects the PS theory all together. I personally do not, but I do reject some of the extreme views of the PS. Willey and Wesley handle it well. I do see a "Penalty" that was taken in our behalf.

[Roland Hamilton]

Growing up in ultra-reformed, fundamentalist churches I heard nothing but the penal subsitution theory. I have always had problems with it, probably most because of what it seems to suggest about the nature of God. During this past Lenten season I read a commentary broadcast on BBC Radio 4 by Dr Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans Cathedral, Hertfordshire, in which he discusses this very issue. Among his comments:

"The cross, then, is not about Jesus reconciling an angry God to us; it's almost the opposite. It's about a totally loving God, incarnate in Christ, reconciling us to him. On the cross Jesus dies for our sins; the price of our sin is paid; but it is not paid to God but by God. As St paul says, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Because he is Love, God does what Love does: He unites himself with the beloved. He enters his own creation and goes to the bottom line for us. Not sending a substitute to vent his punishment on, but going himself to the bitter end, sharing in the worst of suffering and grief that life can throw at us, and finally sharing our death, so that he can bring us through death to life in him."

Although I'm not sure I agree with everything Dr John says, it makes me think, and it's reassuring me that others struggle with this explanation of the atonement and what it suggests about God.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/lent_talks/scripts/jeffreyjohn.html

[Hans Deventer]

It is an endless argument that requires a compartmentalization of his nature in an order of motive in regards to atonement, like - First: He loved us. Second: He required Justice. Thirdly: His holiness desired things to be made right. I just do not see this.

No, I don't see that either. But your example may illustrate what I mean.


Another example: How can a holy God love sinful rebellious man? - His nature would not allow it. What came first the chicken or the egg?

God is holy (totally different from us, "having a spiritually pure quality") exactly because He is love. Which we are not. So the contradiction isn't there. His holiness isn't something else. Every attribute (I don't even like the word, but you know what I mean) is rooted in love.

Perhaps the word "primary" isn't a good one. I'm not trying to count or describe a sequence. I'm trying to say that ho Theos agape estin is the most fundamental statement in the Scriptures about God. There is no "side" or "attribute" of God that does not fit with that statement. It's like the framework in which justice, holiness etc have their place. It is like the house itself in which every room shows a different attribute. It sustains them all, so to speak. That is what I meant.

[Dane Gjesdal]

Among his comments:
"The cross, then, is not about Jesus reconciling an angry God to us; it's almost the opposite. It's about a totally loving God, incarnate in Christ, reconciling us to him. On the cross Jesus dies for our sins; the price of our sin is paid; but it is not paid to God but by God. As St paul says, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Because he is Love, God does what Love does: He unites himself with the beloved. He enters his own creation and goes to the bottom line for us. Not sending a substitute to vent his punishment on, but going himself to the bitter end, sharing in the worst of suffering and grief that life can throw at us, and finally sharing our death, so that he can bring us through death to life in him."http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/lent_talks/scripts/jeffreyjohn.html
This is great stuff and I agree with it. But I do not think it has to be either or when it comes to PS. I do not see how we get around PS and why do we need to?

God’s nature could not tolerate sin, if it could he would not be holy nor God. This is why God said if you “eat of the tree you will surly die”. This is not God waiting to pull out his gun to blow us away when we ate of the tree, but death is the byproduct of an eternal separation form the life source. The consequences of rebellion against God resulted in death. Following the rebellion in the garden, as Wiley describes, humanity would have suffered complete and immediate cessation, if it were not for the atonement of Christ. There was an offence against a holy God that destroyed a loving relationship. This offence had to be remedied.

“The wages of sin is death” “the soul who sins will die” This is a penalty or a price that is paid for rebellion against God. Wages are what we earn and we pay the price and penalty for sin. How can we get way from this fact? Jesus died in my place – so that the second death will have no power over me.

Can we neglect the justness of our God who was offended in every aspect of his nature because of Man’s rebellion? This situation can not be ignored by God or we can not take our God seriously today when it comes to what he has to say.

In scripture we can discover how God feels about those who do continue to live in sin. It is as if Jesus never was sacrificed. We see here in Hebrews how God feels today and how he felt from the beginning about the first rebellion. I see here judgment, penalty, vengeance, raging fire and an angry God. This is all there unless we believe in Jesus. He took this blow from God for us. Without Jesus people still take this blow from God.

Hebrews 10 -
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Am I missing something?

[Dane Gjesdal]

No, I don't see that either. But your example may illustrate what I mean.



God is holy (totally different from us, "having a spiritually pure quality") exactly because He is love. Which we are not. So the contradiction isn't there. His holiness isn't something else. Every attribute (I don't even like the word, but you know what I mean) is rooted in love.

Perhaps the word "primary" isn't a good one. I'm not trying to count or describe a sequence. I'm trying to say that ho Theos agape estin is the most fundamental statement in the Scriptures about God. There is no "side" or "attribute" of God that does not fit with that statement. It's like the framework in which justice, holiness etc have their place. It is like the house itself in which every room shows a different attribute. It sustains them all, so to speak. That is what I meant.
It sure sounds like we feel the same way.

[Hans Deventer]

It sure sounds like we feel the same way.

It just takes a lot of words to reach that conclusion :basic05

But that's okay! Good communication is worth it, also if it takes time.

[Dane Gjesdal]

What has helped me out in understanding “Penal Substitution” and Atonement is that it has two directions in its application. This is how I have reconciled PS and other theories.

There are two directions of the atonement; one is man-ward and the other God-ward. The man-ward aspect of the atonement is how it affects man in its application as well as in his (man’s) participation. The God-ward aspect of atonement is how it affects God in its application and his participation.

[Roland Hamilton]

This is great stuff and I agree with it. But I do not think it has to be either or when it comes to PS. I do not see how we get around PS and why do we need to?

I agree with you that it doesn't have to be either/or; but regrettably that is often how it is presented in western reformed circles. As to your last question, I don't think it is so much a matter of trying to 'get around' this theory of atonement as it is attempting to aggregate it along with other metaphors used by Biblical writers to try to comprehend, as much as humanly possible, the magnitude of what God has done as is in the process of doing.

“The wages of sin is death” “the soul who sins will die” This is a penalty or a price that is paid for rebellion against God. Wages are what we earn and we pay the price and penalty for sin. How can we get way from this fact? Jesus died in my place – so that the second death will have no power over me.

All of this is true, and can be backed up with references. Yet there are also illustrations of God's Kingdom in which we get the wages that we really didn't earn, and we don't get the penalty that we really deserve. Grace. So obviously there is more to the story.

Can we neglect the justness of our God who was offended in every aspect of his nature because of Man’s rebellion? This situation can not be ignored by God or we can not take our God seriously today when it comes to what he has to say.

In scripture we can discover how God feels about those who do continue to live in sin. It is as if Jesus never was sacrificed. We see here in Hebrews how God feels today and how he felt from the beginning about the first rebellion. I see here judgment, penalty, vengeance, raging fire and an angry God. This is all there unless we believe in Jesus. He took this blow from God for us. Without Jesus people still take this blow from God.

Am I missing something?

If you see judgment, penalty, vengeance, raging fire and an angry God, and that is all there is in the vision, then I do suspect that something is missing. This is why it is important to think beyond the penal substitution model. When we stand right in front of a mountain it is easy to miss the rest of the landscape. As for me, I am still working on it, but it has taken me a long time to get beyond the "angry, vengeful" images of God.

[Dane Gjesdal]

I agree with you that it doesn't have to be either/or; but regrettably that is often how it is presented in western reformed circles. As to your last question, I don't think it is so much a matter of trying to 'get around' this theory of atonement as it is attempting to aggregate it along with other metaphors used by Biblical writers to try to comprehend, as much as humanly possible, the magnitude of what God has done as is in the process of doing.

All of this is true, and can be backed up with references. Yet there are also illustrations of God's Kingdom in which we get the wages that we really didn't earn, and we don't get the penalty that we really deserve. Grace. So obviously there is more to the story.

Very true, but the issue is what happens and why, for those who do not choose that way of escape (grace).

If you see judgment, penalty, vengeance, raging fire and an angry God, and that is all there is in the vision, then I do suspect that something is missing. This is why it is important to think beyond the penal substitution model. When we stand right in front of a mountain it is easy to miss the rest of the landscape. As for me, I am still working on it, but it has taken me a long time to get beyond the "angry, vengeful" images of God.

Very very true, and that is why I like to dove tail all the biblical acceptable views of atonement together. Some are God-ward, and should not be confused with the man-ward aspects of the atonement, and visa-versa. That is why Shelton’s approach is such a breath of fresh air – and a welcome addition to my understanding of the atonement.

I have a hard time understanding “vengeance” too because I am limited with all my inadequacies of a fallen nature. In trying to grasp vengeance I place my understanding and application of it into my vantage point. For me to think about vengeance makes me feel as if I am a hypocrite because of my nature’s limitation and its fallen condition. But God’s vengeance is simply punishment, because he knows all, sees all, and grasps all, and judges all; justly.

If it is viewed through the eyes of Love it makes more sense to me – We are God’s lover and he is ours. Sin, our choice to rebel, expelled us from his presence. In other words, we left our lover and defiled and damaged ourselves and placed ourselves above and beyond God (in need of a remedy). We are made in God’s image and the emotion of hurt, anger and a holy vengeance (retribution, vindication), are all expressions of God’s nature; expressions we understand. How would I feel if my wife left me for another lover? Would I be happy? Anger and vengeance (retribution) is holy and pure layered with love. What kind of love did God have for us if it affected him any other way? This shows the seriousness and the damage of sin. If God responded any other way the message would have really confused us to the point of not understanding his nature at all, let alone our understanding of rebellion/sin. This is why universalism is so confusing and contradictory. This is what is amusing about Calvinism, because it is basically “micro-universalism” toward the “elect”.