One Died For All

[Clare73]

duplicate

 

[Clare73]

Hebrews is bound to be misinterpreted if the underlying imagery and themes aren't understood, like if someone were to try to explain something in a TV show that references a movie and the person doesn't have the underlying understanding of the movie to get the reference.

The underlying imagery can be interpreted or understood in more than one way. Hebrews, in the context of the whole NT, prevents misinterpretation and misunderstanding of them.

As for penal substitution, the objection on my part is to neither of the named aspects and purely to the Calvinist idea of substitution as a satisfaction of God's wrath.

That is defined by the Greek meaning of the word used there.

What Greek word do you think carries the meaning that the theological term "satisfaction" holds? And where is this used?

I've already done that.

It's hilasmos in 1Jn 2:2, 4:10, and hilasterion, place of propitiation, in Ro 3:25.

 

[JAL]

1) It's transmission comes from living in a corrupted world. It's not an inherent feature of the material world, but the corruption is complete and simply being within that corrupted world lends to our corruption. We are born into the world dead, and must be born from above to cleanse the flesh of its sin. 2) I believe you mean metaphysical, and that would be that it has no substance of its own but instead distorts reality.

Unquestionably in my view the corrupt disposition is the soul, specifically its evil desires, it's addiction to sloth, immorality, rebellion, and so on. Your point is valid that the principal ontological term for it in Scripture is flesh - in fact that's one of my favorite debating points because I'm a staunch materialist. Allow me to summarize my view: the soul is physical, intermixed with the human body/protoplasm as closely as milk intermixed with water (forming one body) and thus it was thoroughly appropriate for Paul to refer to the sinful soul as the sinful body or sinful flesh. Without this amalgamation, the language of Romans 7 and 8 seems unintelligible, as argued in post 191 on another thread.

 

[Clare73]

Where does Paul use the phrase "sinful nature?" The closest I know of being "sinful flesh" but that does not correspond to the modern claim of a "sin nature." The idea of a "sin nature" comes from Augustine's arguments with Pelagius, and much of that based on an inappropriate translation of "epi" in Jerome's Vulgate that transformed "because all sinned" to "in whom all sinned" that allowed him to maintain his manichean anthropology.

Flesh in Paul usually means a human being driven by sinful desire; i.e., a sinful nature (Ro 7:5,
18, 25, 8:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 13:14; 1Co 5:5; Gal 5:17, 19, 24, 6:8; Eph 2:3; Col 2:11, 13).
Also see 2Pe 2:10, 18.

Will those do?
.

 

[Fervent]

The underlying imagery can be interpreted or understood in more than one way. Hebrews, in the context of the whole NT, prevents misinterpretation and misunderstanding of them.

That is defined by the Greek meaning of the word used there.

I've already done that.

It's hilasmos in 1Jn 2:2, 4:10, and hilasterion, place of propitiation, in Ro 3:25.

Hilasmos isn't a place of propitiation, it's the mercy seat. It's a reference to where the blood of atonement was spread and can only properly be understood through recognizing what was accomplished. It is literally the ark-covering, rendering it propitiation is taking on pagan ideas rather than the Biblical usage of the term. That usage is the cleansing of the temple through the removal of the stain of sin, no indication of wrath. Leviticus is abundantly clear, and Hebrews agrees, that the principal action of the blood is to cleanse and the atonement is in the blood. No where is it said the atonement is in the death of the animal, but that God gives the life of the animal for the purpose of atonement.

 

[JAL]

Flesh in Paul usually means a human being driven by sinful desire; i.e., a sinful nature (Ro 7:5,
18, 25, 8:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 13:14; 1Co 5:5; Gal 5:17, 19, 24, 6:8; Eph 2:3; Col 2:11, 13).
Also see 2Pe 2:10, 18.

Will those do?
.

Clare, our point is valid that Scripture doesn't ever call it "sinful nature". In the original Greek it is generally "flesh" or "body".

 

[Fervent]

Flesh in Paul usually means a human being driven by sinful desire; i.e., a sinful nature (Ro 7:5,
18, 25, 8:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 13:14; 1Co 5:5; Gal 5:17, 19, 24, 6:8; Eph 2:3; Col 2:11, 13).
Also see 2Pe 2:10, 18.

Will those do?
.

I disagree with your reading of Paul when he uses flesh, and we're back to the original objection. Are you saying Jesus was not flesh?

 

[Fervent]

Unquestionably in my view the corrupt disposition is the soul, specifically its evil desires, it's addiction to sloth, immorality, rebellion, and so on. Your point is valid that the principal ontological term for it in Scripture is flesh - in fact that's one of my favorite debating points because I'm a staunch materialist. Allow me to summarize my view: the soul is physical, intermixed with the human body/protoplasm as closely as milk intermixed with water (forming one body) and thus it was thoroughly appropriate for Paul to refer to the sinful soul as the sinful body or sinful flesh. Without this amalgamation, the language of Romans 7 and 8 seems unintelligible, as argued in post 191 on another thread.

Your philosophies aside, a lot of the reading comes down to a tendency to treat Paul's writings as principally theological treatments when they were written with specific issues in mind. Romans is written to a church that had divided itself into a Jewish wing and a gentile wing with no overlap, so Paul wrote them as a single church and addresses each group at different parts. Romans 7 isn't troubling when we consider the blindness of the flesh, as it is explaining how sin comes from the flesh through inborn desires. The desires themselves are neither sinful nor Godly, they are things like hunger and libido, but the flesh making no distinction between what is righteous and what is sinful merely wants to satisfy those desires and so the desires give rise to sin. Training the body through the Spirit causes us to express those desires in a Godly fashion, which is why moral precepts remain even though we are dead to the law. The whole letter must be taken together rather than reading a single part and expounding on it.

 

[Clare73]

Hilasmos isn't a place of propitiation, it's the mercy seat. It's a reference to where

the blood of atonement was spread and can only properly be understood through recognizing what was accomplished. It is literally the ark-covering,

rendering it propitiation is taking on pagan ideas rather than the Biblical usage of the term. That usage is the cleansing of the temple through the removal of the stain of sin, no indication of wrath. Leviticus is abundantly clear, and Hebrews agrees, that the principal action of the blood is to cleanse and the atonement is in the blood.

No where is it said the atonement is in the death of the animal, but that God gives the life of the animal for the purpose of atonement.

"Mercy seat" is not in Scripture.
The word is Heb: kapporeth, which is "lid, place of covering"
and Gr: hilasterion, which is "place of propitiation."
The lid is the place of propitiation, rather than the "mercy seat."

What was accomplished on the Day of Atonement was cleansing the atonement cover, by sprinkling with the finger the bull and goat blood in front of and before it, of the defilement caused by the sins of the High Priest, his household, and the people.

You'll have to take up the "taking on of pagan ideas" with the apostle John, because he is the one who uses the word "propitiation." (1Jn 2:2, 4:7).

The atonement is the blood because the blood is from the death of the animal which died as a substitute to pay the penalty for their sin, thereby turning aside the wrath of God against them.

 

[Fervent]

"Mercy seat" is not in Scripture.

The "mercy seat" is the "atonement cover."

Mercy seat is an English rendition of kapporet, it refers to the lid that covered the ark on which the blood for atonement was spread. The word hilasterion is a word coined by the LXX to describe this object, which was then used as a reference to Christ's sacrifice in the NT. Outside of the LXX pagans who heard the word thought that what they did for their gods was the same as what occured on the mercy seat so they used it for propitiation/expiation. Rather than looking to the Bible to give words definitions, you are instead relying on pagans to define them when you insist that it means propitiate.

 

[JAL]

Your philosophies aside...

But always bear in mind that such dismissals are sheer assertion. All we see is matter. That's all we have real proof of. Any additional postulation is an extraordinary claim - an extraordinary philosophical claim - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of evidence.

Do we have extraordinary amounts of biblical evidence for the existence of "spirit"? Do we have ANY biblical evidence for it? None - as explained on that thread. It's a purely philosophical claim (originating in Plato), it's sheer assertion, and flies in the face of all the biblical data.

As that other thread demonstrates, the English term "spirit" is a blatant mistranslation of the Greek term pneuma indicating physical wind/breath. For example, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, president and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, argued that angels are physical since:

“the term spirit…in both Hebrew and Greek is primarily a material term, indicating wind, air, or breath” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Angelology Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 98:392 (1941), p. 401).

In that article Chafer named several church fathers who viewed angels as physical: Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Caesarius. He even seems to strongly imply that God is physical, although one could hardly expect him to be fully explicit, given the historical bias for "spirit".

 

[Clare73]

Clare, our point is valid that Scripture doesn't ever call it "sinful nature". In the original Greek it is generally "flesh" or "body".

Agreed.

The meaning is taken from its context.

 

[JAL]

Your philosophies aside, a lot of the reading comes down to a tendency to treat Paul's writings as principally theological treatments when they were written with specific issues in mind. Romans is written to a church that had divided itself into a Jewish wing and a gentile wing with no overlap, so Paul wrote them as a single church and addresses each group at different parts. Romans 7 isn't troubling when we consider the blindness of the flesh, as it is explaining how sin comes from the flesh through inborn desires. The desires themselves are neither sinful nor Godly, they are things like hunger and libido, but the flesh making no distinction between what is righteous and what is sinful merely wants to satisfy those desires and so the desires give rise to sin. Training the body through the Spirit causes us to express those desires in a Godly fashion, which is why moral precepts remain even though we are dead to the law. The whole letter must be taken together rather than reading a single part and expounding on it.

I have a couple of objections here - the main one here is that I personally cannot associate desires - whether good, evil, or morally neutral - with mere machinery (protoplasm). You're right that Paul called it "the flesh" but that term fits quite well in my framework.

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[JAL]

Agreed.

The meaning is taken from its context.

Ok but just bear in mind that "flesh" is the worst possible choice of terms to designate an immaterial substance. For example if you were trying to introduce a theology student to the concept of an "immaterial realm", the description "realm of flesh" would be the worst possible terminology because "flesh" is a term that screams matter.

Look, I can't prove anything 100% apodictically. I can't even prove that you exist. What I CAN say, with some confidence, is that Paul's usage of the term flesh casts a bit of doubt on the translation "immaterial sinful nature".

 

[Fervent]

I have a couple of objections here - the main one here is that I personally cannot associate desires - whether good, evil, or morally neutral - with mere machinery (protoplasm). You're right that Paul called it "the flesh" but that term fits quite well in my framework.

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

Probably, though does your body not hunger? Do you not get weak and possibly grouchy, with rumblings in your bowels, when you haven't eaten in a while? What would you call that, if not desire?

 

[Fervent]

But always bear in mind that such dismissals are sheer assertion. All we see is matter. That's all we have real proof of. Any additional postulation is an extraordinary claim - an extraordinary philosophical claim - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of evidence.

Do we have extraordinary amounts of biblical evidence for the existence of "spirit"? Do we have ANY biblical evidence for it? None - as explained on that thread. It's a purely philosophical claim (originating in Plato), it's sheer assertion, and flies in the face of all the biblical data.

As that other thread demonstrates, the English term "spirit" is a blatant mistranslation of the Greek term pneuma indicating physical wind/breath. For example, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, president and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, argued that angels are physical since:

“the term spirit…in both Hebrew and Greek is primarily a material term, indicating wind, air, or breath” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Angelology Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 98:392 (1941), p. 401).

In that article Chafer named several church fathers who viewed angels as physical: Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Caesarius. He even seems to strongly imply that God is physical, although one could hardly expect him to be fully explicit, given the historical bias for "spirit".

I'm not sure "matter" is sufficiently defined to declare it all we see. Besides that, when God speaks to an individual in the spirit that alone is enough to confirm the existence of the spiritual. It's simply that man's spirit is blind and deaf, so spiritual things are easy to deny.

 

[Clare73]

I disagree with your reading of Paul when he uses flesh, and we're back to the original objection. Are you saying Jesus was not flesh?

He was not sinful flesh, as I am.

 

[Fervent]

mistake

 

[Fervent]

He was not sinful flesh, as I am.

So His nature is fundamentally different from ours? Not truly human, as we are?

 

[Clare73]

Mercy seat is an English rendition of kapporet, it refers to the lid that covered the ark on which the blood for atonement was spread. The word hilasterion is a word coined by the LXX to describe this object, which was then used as a reference to Christ's sacrifice in the NT. Outside of the LXX, pagans who heard the word thought that what they did for their gods was the same as what occured on the mercy seat so they used it for propitiation/expiation. Rather than looking to the Bible to give words definitions, you are instead relying on pagans to define them when you insist that it means propitiate.

No, I'm trusting that the apostle John, who near the end of the first century, chose the Greek word with the correct meaning.