A problem with substitutionary atonement

~Anastasia~ said:

One more thought.

It's not that Christ didn't die to atone for our sins. He did. The major problem with "choosing a theory of atonement" to hold to (in opposition to other theories of atonement) is that all of these "theories" are just mental models put forth by men. All of them tend to focus on only a limited aspect of the Truth.

It's not that most of them are wrong (there is much more right than wrong about them - with the exception of the "penal" aspect of PSA) ... it's that each of them taken alone is incomplete.

It's like the blind men examining an elephant. The one with the trunk thinks it's like a snake, the one with the leg thinks it's like a tree, and so on.

There's no reason to go through mental gymnastics in order to make the SA model "need" a Resurrection because Christ resurrected.

Rather, look at the big picture. Scripture says over and over that Christ defeated death. Death was the curse brought on by sin. Death is the final enemy that will be defeated. Christus Victor is one "theory of atonement" and (to the early Church the primary one) but they wouldn't have denied that Christ died to atone for our sins.

Embrace ALL of what Scripture teaches and stop trying to distill it into a particular human theory of atonement and make it fit.

God be with you.

Click to expand...

I actually think the Orthodox prefer a "medical" model because it disguises the mechanism of the religion. Its hard to argue with somebody who claims to be a doctor who only wants to help.

Medical or forensic models aren't good or bad, it just depends on how they are used and whether they are over-reified to the exclusion of other themes.

Daniel Martinovich said:

I think your reading to much into it. The resurrection was the proof of the Gospel claims. It's the proof of the ransom, the atonement, the substitutionary payment of the penalty etc etc. Without the resurrection the story is to easy to fake. More than that though. The resurrection is actual power of salvation. Meaning. We are not just believing some story here, which can be faked. The power of the Hoy Spirit that raised Christ from the dead comes tangibly into our lives and does all kinds of great things. So much so that he is called the down payment on the promise of eternal life in Ephesians 1:14

Click to expand...

I agree. The Resurrection is the divine evidence, the confirmation of who Jesus is and that the Cross was effective for our atonement. (By the way, a "Holy" edit is in order).

Rubiks said:

I've been reading the Bible and stumbled on this verse.

1 Cor 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

Paul says the resurrection was necessary for salvation, yet a SA model would not need a resurrection.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

If Christ did not resurrect that means He sinned and therefore could not overcome death. If He sinned, His death would not have been able to pay for our sins. But because He didn’t sin, He overcame death and rose again. Which means He died without sin and the blood He sacrificed was holy and therefore acceptable as payment for the sin of the world.

I think the answer is covered in Romans 5. Particularly in Romans 5:12-21.

The SA answers the very penalty of death God gave Adam and Eve for their defiance of God. They died spiritually and later physically. The resurrection of Christ shows His power over sin and death AFTER He made the SA.

The SA makes those redeemed alive to God (the atonement)...Christ's resurrection shows His power over sin and death and guarantees all believers will also be resurrected spiritually and physically.

Rubiks said:

I've been reading the Bible and stumbled on this verse.

1 Cor 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

Paul says the resurrection was necessary for salvation, yet a SA model would not need a resurrection.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

This is simply an inadequate understanding of substitutionary atonement. The Resurrection is testimony from God that Jesus fully satisfied the wrath of God. It's the receipt of payment, as it were. The resurrection says that atonement has been made. If Jesus stayed dead, then we would have no hope that our sins have been atoned for.

συνείδησις said:

Justification came through Christ's death, not his resurrection. Being justified, we live through his life.

Click to expand...

The Bible says that Jesus was raised for our justification (Romans 4:25).

Dr Bruce Atkinson said:

The Resurrection of Christ does not save us, but it unmistakenly confirms who Jesus is, and it endorses that what He accomplished on the Cross was effective for the salvation of all who would believe.

If Jesus had not been raised, it would mean that He was neither divine nor qualified to die in our place.

But yes, it was His suffering and death on the Cross (the substitutionary atonement) which won for us the possibility of forgiveness and eternal life. The Resurrection proved it. You cannot truly separate these divine events. They are all of a piece, along with the Ascension, Pentecost, and His Return for which we await.

Click to expand...

The resurrection is Jesus' justification. If Jesus is not justified, then neither are we. The resurrection certainly does save us - although not separated from the life or death of Jesus or his currently supplication for us in heaven.

Tree of Life said:

The Bible says that Jesus was raised for our justification (Romans 4:25).

Click to expand...

It says he was raised through, or on account of (διά, dia) our justification, not for (the purpose of) our justification. His death and blood are what justify us.

G1223 διά dia (dee-ah') prep.
1. through

συνείδησις said:

It says he was raised through, or on account of (διά, dia) our justification. not for (the purpose of) our justification. His death and blood are what justify us.

ος παρεδόθη διά τα παραπτώματα ημών και ηγέρθη διά την δικαίωσιν ημών Romans 4:25
​

G1223 διά dia (dee-ah') prep.
1. through

Click to expand...

Greek prepositions are slippery things. dia can either accompany a genitive object or accusative object. In the case of an accusative object (as την δικαίωσιν is accusative), it takes the sense of a causal preposition. It should be rendered "because of", "on account of", or (preferably) "for the sake of".

It's saying that Jesus was raised for the sake of our justification.

NASB - ...was raised because of our justification.

NIV - ...was raised to life for our justification.

KJV - ...was raised again for our justification.

ESV - ...raised for our justification.

This also makes contextual and grammatical sense. It makes sense to say that Jesus was raised so that we could be justified. It's unclear what it would mean to say that Jesus was raised through our justification.

ubicaritas said:

I actually think the Orthodox prefer a "medical" model because it disguises the mechanism of the religion. Its hard to argue with somebody who claims to be a doctor who only wants to help.

Medical or forensic models aren't good or bad, it just depends on how they are used and whether they are over-reified to the exclusion of other themes.

Click to expand...

I agree that to use either model to the absolute exclusion of the other dilutes (or conceals part of) the whole truth. There is an element of some legal aspect in Orthodox understanding. But the medical model indeed prevails. It was quite prevalent in the writings of the ECfs.

To be honest, what I see everywhere besides Orthodoxy tends to be a reliance solely on the forensic model. Maybe I've missed what some others are saying, but ask the average person on the street "how to be saved" and they will talk ONLY of God's justice and the necessity of someone "paying the price". That's usually as far as the understanding goes.

And when that is paired with the penal aspects of PSA, that tends to paint a picture of a monstrous God to unbelievers, who either mock him in disbelief or rightly reject wanting anything to do with him.

I know a priest (and I've known a Protestant pastor or two) who recognized this, and would (for example) invite an atheist to tell them about the "god" they don't believe in. These wise men would then assure the atheist "I don't believe in that God either." (And of course go on to give them the real Good News.)

Taken to some of the logical conclusions, exclusive of other understandings, the God we present (especially with PSA) is more like Zeus than the Holy Creator. And people rightly reject such a charicature of the Living God.

I agree.

Jesus died (defeating sin and evil) to remove the barrier between us and God. Some say "made right with God". Some say "justified".

Jesus rose defeating death that we may have eternal life.
=============
IMHO, we should always be clear that the blood of Jesus makes us right with God.

συνείδησις said:

It says he was raised through, or on account of (διά, dia) our justification, not for (the purpose of) our justification. His death and blood are what justify us.

ος παρεδόθη διά τα παραπτώματα ημών και ηγέρθη διά την δικαίωσιν ημών Romans 4:25
​

G1223 διά dia (dee-ah') prep.
1. through

Click to expand...

Tree of Life said:

Greek prepositions are slippery things. dia can either accompany a genitive object or accusative object. In the case of an accusative object (as την δικαίωσιν is accusative), it takes the sense of a causal preposition. It should be rendered "because of", "on account of", or (preferably) "for the sake of".

It's saying that Jesus was raised for the sake of our justification.

NASB - ...was raised because of our justification.

NIV - ...was raised to life for our justification.

KJV - ...was raised again for our justification.

ESV - ...raised for our justification.

This also makes contextual and grammatical sense. It makes sense to say that Jesus was raised so that we could be justified. It's unclear what it would mean to say that Jesus was raised through our justification.

Click to expand...

For the sake of doesn't work. That completely inverts the meaning and function of dia. Because of (NASB) does work, but its the complete opposite of for the sake of (the other 3 translations).

If you're going to use that kind of reasoning then you have to apply the same rule to what precedes that clause and conclude that Christ was delivered for the sake of our offenses, which is nonsensical. He was delivered on account of our sins, not for their sake.

mark46 said:

IMHO, we should always be clear that the blood of Jesus makes us right with God.

Click to expand...

Certainly much more now being justified in his blood we will be saved through him from the wrath. Romans 5:9

συνείδησις said:

For the sake of doesn't work. That completely inverts the meaning and function of dia. Because of (NASB) does work, but its the complete opposite of for the sake of (the other 3 translations).

If you're going to use that kind of reasoning then you have to apply the same rule to what precedes that clause and conclude that Christ was delivered for the sake of our offenses, which is nonsensical. He was delivered on account of our sins, not for their sake.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that dia needs to take the same sense in both clauses, but fair point. Still, if we go with your rendering, Jesus' resurrection and our justification are very closely linked in Romans 4:25.

Here are some examples in the NT when dia means "for the sake of"...

Matthew 10:22 - "and you will be hated by all for my name's sake."
Matthew 13:3 - "For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife."
Mark 2:27 - "And he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
John 1:31 - "I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."
1 Corinthians 11:9 - "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

I could go on. There are roughly 75 instances of dia in the NT which should be rendered "for the sake of". It's certainly possible in Romans 4:25.

Tree of Life said:

I don't believe that dia needs to take the same sense in both clauses, but fair point. Still, if we go with your rendering, Jesus' resurrection and our justification are very closely linked in Romans 4:25.

Here are some examples in the NT when dia means "for the sake of"...

Matthew 10:22 - "and you will be hated by all for my name's sake."
Matthew 13:3 - "For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife."
Mark 2:27 - "And he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
John 1:31 - "I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."
1 Corinthians 11:9 - "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

I could go on. There are roughly 75 instances of dia in the NT which should be rendered "for the sake of". It's certainly possible in Romans 4:25.

Click to expand...

Technically, there would be no justification without the resurrection because Jesus had to apply his blood to the mercy seat.

Every one of your verse examples makes sense using through (though the translations you provided don't always make that clear). For example, woman was created through the existence of man, not vice versa. I think that's the key about dia; something is done through something that already exists.

συνείδησις said:

Technically, there would be no justification without the resurrection because Jesus had to apply his blood to the mercy seat.

Every one of your verse examples makes sense using through (though the translations you provided don't always make that clear). For example, woman was created through the existence of man, not vice versa. I think that's the key about dia; something is done through something that already exists.

Click to expand...

2 Corinthians 8:9 - "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich."

I think that the doctrine of "justification" is much more mysterious and involved than folks here suggest. For example, Lutherans and Catholics spent months (years?) developing a joint document that they could both accept.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Tree of Life said:

2 Corinthians 8:9 - "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich."

Click to expand...

For the sake of works sometimes. It depends on the context. Through (because of) works in that verse as well.

JojoM said:

If Christ did not resurrect that means He sinned and therefore could not overcome death. If He sinned, His death would not have been able to pay for our sins. But because He didn’t sin, He overcame death and rose again. Which means He died without sin and the blood He sacrificed was holy and therefore acceptable as payment for the sin of the world.

Click to expand...

Well said, JojoM. Little more needs to be added.

~Anastasia~ said:

I agree that to use either model to the absolute exclusion of the other dilutes (or conceals part of) the whole truth. There is an element of some legal aspect in Orthodox understanding. But the medical model indeed prevails. It was quite prevalent in the writings of the ECfs.

Click to expand...

The ECF's use different metaphors to describe salvation, at least in my readings of them. After all, both Calvin and Luther read the ECF's and used them as justification for their theology.

The therapeutic model fits with the Eastern Orthodox ethic of humility and obedience, "Be good and take your medicine", etc. Western culture, esp. Protestanism, has been more interested in questions of justification, because that ties into our sense of individualism, and how we as sinful human beings can have some sense of peace with God in a world without basic trust in hierarchy and special, holy people.