'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[Clare73]

Jesus (Emmanuel – “God with us”) was deprived of justice at the cross.

That is very clear from the above verse in Acts. So, you can’t reasonably gloss over this passage and say it has no relevance to Romans 3:25 and the interpretation that suggests that Jesus was JUSTLY punished by God in our place – even as one made guilty for our sins.

I understood you to say that the Father was deprived of justice.
The Father was not deprived of justice, Jesus was deprived of justice.

Yes, you are right to acknowledge that Jesus was murdered – that is biblical. The apostles presented the crucifixion as an act of murder against God’s Son. The resurrection overturned the verdict. – That was God’s justice.

Ro 3:25-26 reveals that God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement so as to be just, not that the resurrection made him just.

Your interpretation of Ro 3:25-26 is not consistent (logically sensible) and does not reckon with what is actually stated.

Please deal with the text itself and what is actually stated there.

 

[Clare73]

Clare (addressed to Hedrick): "How well do you know the Day of Atonement, where the sins of the people were transferred to the scapegoat?"

May I answer this? Thanks.

Notice, only the goat ‘for the Lord’ was a blood sacrifice—His life was yielded up to God. The crucifixion of Christ sealed God’s condemnation of this world and its prince. That sins are symbolically carried away to the wilderness may be seen as a metaphor showing God’s indictment for all sin

That's not what the NT shows.

Both goats had sin laid upon them, to signify the two aspects of Christ's atonement.

The procedure for the goat of the sin sacrifice required laying hands on the goat to transfer sin to it as the sacrificial sin offering.
Sin was likewise transferred to the scapegoat.

The sin-sacrifice goat signified Christ's sacrifice to pay our penalty for sin.

The scapegoat sent into the wilderness signified Christ's remittance (removal) of the sin of those who believe in him (Ro 3:25).

 

[Clare73]

I'll give my own answer.

my problem with PS isn't the concept of substitution. That is clearly present. It is the larger explanation that God can't forgive without punishing someone, i.e. that his justice (in the sense of Plato -- justice is giving every man his due) demands punishment.

Ro 3:25-26 reveals that God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement to display his justice.

You have not reckoned with that.

The primary theme of PS, that God can't forgive without punishment, contradicts Jesus at a basic level.

Again, that is your personal opinion, which enjoys no Biblical support.

For to support your opinion, you have presented no consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical exegesis of Ro 3:25-26 that reckons with God's justice which is specifically stated there.

 

[hedrick]

Ro 3:25-26 reveals that God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement to display his justice.

You have not reckoned with that.

Yup, because sacrifice of atonement doesn't mean what you think it does.

Again, that is your personal opinion, which enjoys no Biblical support.

For to support your opinion, you have presented no consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical exegesis of Ro 3:25-26 that reckons with God's justice which is specifically stated there.

Yup. But God's justice doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

[Clare73]

Yup, because sacrifice of atonement doesn't mean what you think it does.

Yup. But God's justice doesn't mean what you think it does.

And yup, you have again provided no Scriptural support for your personal opinion.

 

[hedrick]

And yup, you have again provided no Scriptural support for your personal opinion.

Unfortunately you can't find Scriptural proof texts to define words. To understand things like righteousness and atonement requires careful exegesis of all relevant passages. That's not practical here.

However I can give some references. First, on the righteousness of God in Rom 3:25. Luther's key insight was that the righteousness of God is not "justice by which God is righteous and punishes sinners and the unrighteous", but rather is "righteousness with which the merciful God justifies us by faith." Martin Luther on the ‘Righteousness of God’ | The Strange Triumph of the Lamb.

The problem is that defending the Protestant concept of God's righteousness really requires a full commentary on Romans, something I'm not in a position to provide. However I'd like you at least to be aware that you're defending the Catholic position, against Luther.

The history of "propitiation" in this passage is more complex. As far as I can tell, Luther's commentary on Romans is not available online. However my understanding is the Tyndale represents Luther's understanding: "Christ Jesus, whom God hath made a seat of mercy through faith in his blood." This goes back to an early Christian understanding of the term "hilasterion" as referring to the mercy seat.

Calvin refuses to decide between this understanding and propitiation. However it's worth looking at his overall explanation:

"it seems indeed to me that he intended, by one single sentence, to declare that God is propitious to us as soon as we have our trust resting on the blood of Christ; for by faith we come to the possession of this benefit. But by mentioning blood only, he did not mean to exclude other things connected with redemption, but, on the contrary, to include the whole under one word: and he mentioned “blood,” because by it we are cleansed. Thus, by taking a part for the whole, he points out the whole work of expiation. For, as he had said before, that God is reconciled in Christ, so he now adds, that this reconciliation is obtained by faith, mentioning, at the same time, what it is that faith ought mainly to regard in Christ — his blood."

That is, he sees the verse as referring to the entire process by which God justifies us by faith, an explanation close to Luther's.

Here's a more technical discussion of the history of interpretation of the key word: Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary - Arland J. Hultgren - Google Books The author is on the faculty of Luther Seminary, so it's not surprising that he understands it as Luther did.

 

[cygnusx1]

So why did Christ have to die if not for sin ?

If forgiveness of sin is all that is required all could be forgiven in a second

 

[bottomofsandal]

So why did Christ have to die if not for sin ?

If forgiveness of sin is all that is required all could be forgiven in a second

What then is people's understanding of what happened at the cross ?

Happy Resurrection Day brother !




If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice ! < just 4 you

 

[cygnusx1]

What then is people's understanding of what happened at the cross ?

Happy Resurrection Day brother !




If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice ! < just 4 you

Both sentiments are welcome bro , spoken like a friend

 

[jerusalem]

I understood you to say that the Father was deprived of justice.

- I never said any such thing.

Ro 3:25-26 reveals that God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement so as to be just, not that the resurrection made him just.

I never said the resurrection made Jesus just.

" ...to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom.3;26, NKJ).

"At the present time" refers to this present day of salvation. God always acts in a way that is right and just. God is unchanging in His holiness.

Of Jesus, it is written: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow" (Heb.13:8). But, let us consider something else: Jesus said, ‘I am the way, THE TRUTH and the life’ (John 14:6). To say that Jesus became guilty for all our sins is to say that The Truth of God became guilty for all our lies and falsehood. No. Jesus remained ever The Truth of God - unchanged in His holiness.

Christ’s offering on the cross did not become a despised and abhorrent unholy thing from which God had to hide His face (Ps.22:24). Jesus was accepted as ‘a fragrant offering and sacrifice’ (Eph.5:2).

Did God withdraw the Holy Spirit? No. We can read that Jesus ‘through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God’ (Heb.9:14, NKJ). The Holy Spirit was very much involved in the offering Christ made of His life. God’s Son, ‘holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners’ …offered Himself ‘once for all’ (Heb.7:26-27, NIV). The Bible declares that Jesus was separate from sinners, innocent and pure, when He, as our High Priest, made a fragrant offering and sacrifice of His life to God.

J

 

[jerusalem]

Regarding the "Day of Atonement", Justin Martyr (c150 AD) wrote:

"And the two goats which were ordered to be offered during the fast, of which one was sent away as the scape [azazel, goat of departure], and the other sacrificed, were similarly declarative of the two appearances of Christ: the first, in which the elders of your people, and the priests, having laid hands on Him and put Him to death, sent Him away as the scape; and His second appearance, because in the same place in Jerusalem you shall recognise Him whom you have dishonoured, and who was an offering for all sinners willing to repent, and keeping the fast which Isaiah speaks of, loosening the terms of the violent contracts, and keeping the other precepts, likewise enumerated by him, and which I have quoted, which those believing in Jesus do. And further, you are aware that the offering of the two goats, which were enjoined to be sacrificed at the fast, was not permitted to take place similarly anywhere else, but only in Jerusalem." (40)

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, (Ante-Nicene Fathers, trans. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson)

From this we see that Justin understood the &#8216;goat of departure&#8217; as typifying an appearance of Christ &#8211; the priests laid hands upon Him and sent Him away to die. In doing so, they dishonoured and killed the One who made an offering of His life for all who repent of sins, as prophesied.

Therefore, we see that Justin wrote of two appearances of Christ &#8211; one by which He came unrecognized, dishonoured and cursed; the second by which He came known and understood by His disciples to be the One who offered His life for all sinners who truly repent and seek the righteousness of God. In this sense, the goat for Azazel prefigured what would happen to Christ during the first appearance. Jesus was rejected as an object of revulsion, just like the goat that was driven away to die in the wilderness.

 

[Clare73]

Unfortunately you can't find Scriptural proof texts to define words. To understand things like
righteousness and atonement requires careful exegesis of all relevant passages.
That's not practical here.

I can. . .I have. . .it is.

Sacrifice of atonement doesn't mean what you think it does.

"Atonement" in NT Greek is hilasterion, the neuter of an adjective signifying "propitiatory."

"Propitiation" means "appeasement, satisfaction, reparation, amends."

If you prefer "expiation," its meaning is "appease, to make complete satisfaction."

In either case, Jesus' sacrifice made complete satisfaction, appeasement for the sin of sinners.

That is the meaning of Jesus' sacrifice of atonement presented in Ro 3:25-26, and with which I agree.

God's justice doesn't mean what you think it does.

Are you sure about that?

Let's begin our look at what the NT presents regarding God's justice with a look at what it presents regarding God's wrath.

Ro 1:18 - "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the godlessness (not glorifying or thanking God, v.21) and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.

Ro 2:5 - "you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed."

Ro 4:15 - "the law brings wrath."

Ro 5:9 - "how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! (This is what salvation is about, and what Jesus' sacrifice of atonement accomplishes.)

Ro 9:22 - "What if God, choosing to make his wrath and power known,"

Ro 12:19 - "leave room for God's wrath.

Ro 13:4 - "He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrong doer."

So God's wrath is the execution of his righteous (just) judgment in punishment.

"Now let's look at what the NT presents regarding God's justice.

"Justice" in NT Greek is dike, ekdikesis, ekdikeos, and means "execution of a sentence, punishment, vengeance."

You will find this definition of justice used in Lk 18:7-8, 21:22; Ro 12:19, 13:4; 1Th 4:6 ; 2Th 1:8, 9; Heb 10:30;
1Pe 2:14; Jude 7; Rev 6:10, 19:2.

So Biblically, "sacrifice of atonement" and "justice" don't mean what you think they mean.

In the NT, Jesus' "sacrifice of atonement" means complete satisfaction, appeasement for the sin of sinners, and

in the NT, God's "justice" means execution of his just/righteous judgment.

That is the meaning of God's justice presented in Ro 3:25-26, and with which I agree.

 

[Clare73]

I never said the resurrection made Jesus just.

I didn't say you did.

" ...to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom.3:26).

Then we are in agreement that "God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement. . .that he might be just" (Ro 3:25-26).

 

[Arcoe]

Let's begin our look at what the NT presents regarding God's justice with a look at what it presents regarding God's wrath.

Ro 1:18 - "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the godlessness (not glorifying or thanking God, v.21) and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.

Here God's wrath is against men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. This is against anyone, elect or not. Anyone who holds back the truth through his/her wickedness is in danger of God's wrath.

Ro 2:5

- "you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed."

Interesting you should bring this passage up. But you need to include the previous passages to get its full meaning. Romans 2 -

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

Wrath will be rendered to those who do not obey the truth (or suppress it by their wickedness). Wrath will not be rendered to those who do good, but rather, eternal life will be given.

Ro 4:15

- "the law brings wrath."

No one today lives under the OT law except for Orthodox Jews. So, we can conclude Paul was talking to the Jews who came out from under the OT law, but yet, desired to live under it.

Ro 5:9

- "how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! (This is what salvation is about.)

Since Jesus is the Truth and Word Itself, it is by obeying His Truths and doing good that we are saved from His wrath.

- "What if God, choosing to make his wrath and power known,"

This is specifically talking about the Jews who were cut off from the root through unbelief.

Ro 12:19

- "leave room for God's wrath.

- "He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrong doer."

Again, this is for those who do evil, and not those who do good.

So

God's wrath is the execution of his righteous (just) judgment.

God's wrath is reserved for those who continue in evil, and not for those who do good.

 

[Clare73]

Regarding the "Day of Atonement", Justin Martyr (c150 AD) wrote:

"And the two goats which were ordered to be offered during the fast, of which one was sent away as the scape [azazel, goat of departure], and the other sacrificed, were similarly declarative of the two appearances of Christ

There was a time in the history of the Church when interpretation of Scripture was very allegorical.

However, knowledge of Leviticus shows the sacrificial system patterns something other than Justin's allegory.

 

[Clare73]

Since Jesus is the Truth and Word Itself,
it is by obeying His Truths and doing good that we are saved from His wrath.

Not according to the NT.

We are agreed that God visits his wrath on wickedness.

 

[jerusalem]

Arcoe - post 94 - excellent response!

It is the revelation of Scripture that the &#8216;cup of God&#8217;s wrath&#8217; represents God&#8217;s judgement upon the incorrigibly wicked who refuse to turn from their evil ways. This cup of His fury is not poured out or given to those who are willing to repent. Indeed, the repentant are promised life: &#8216;For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!&#8217; (Ezek.18:32). It is theologically incorrect, therefore, to claim that Jesus drank the cup of God&#8217;s wrath on our behalf when He suffered and died. Jesus died to save all who are willing to repent&#8212;not those who refuse to repent, for whom the cup of His wrath is justly reserved. The cup of suffering that He drank was not the outpouring of God&#8217;s anger, but was the witness He had to endure for our sakes, in order to fulfil all that was written. Only those who elect to follow the way of evil and refuse correction suffer the wrath of God. This will be the fate of the wicked at the end of the age: &#8216;We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign. The nations were angry; and your wrath has come&#8217; (Rev.11:17, NIV).

 

[hedrick]

So why did Christ have to die if not for sin ?

If forgiveness of sin is all that is required all could be forgiven in a second

I maintain that Jesus died for sin, not for sins. That is, God can forgive sins freely. That's a theme of Jesus' teaching, and Paul notes in Rom 3:25 that he passed over sins before Jesus. But the real problem is that we are God's enemies. The Western tradition calls that original sin, though I have issues with some of how that has been understood. That's what leads to the individual sins. As Jesus says, good fruit comes from good trees.

Both Jesus and Paul have this concept that what we need is to change the foundation of our lives. For Jesus this is described as being "born again", and coming to love God. For Paul it is being justified. The basic Protestant viewpoint, following Paul, is that what the cross does is make that change. It reconciles us with God. In Pauline terminology, it justifies us, making us one of God's people. That connection between the cross and justification is very clear in Rom 3:24-25.

I think Rom 6:3-11 is Paul's best explanation for how this works. It is based on what Calvin calls the "mystical union" between us and Christ. Though that union our old selves die with him on the cross, and we rise with him to new life. Calvin's treatment of the atonement emphasizes the importance of Jesus' obedience. Not just his obedience on the cross, but throughout his life. Calvin's first explanation for the atonement is that through our union with Christ, we receive his obedience, just as he takes our sin and wipes it out.

This does not eliminate all sins, because the old man continues to be present, even though it has in principle been defeated. So we still need forgiveness on a daily basis. But justification is a stable status, being one of Christ's people.

 

[cygnusx1]

I maintain that Jesus died for sin, not for sins. That is, God can forgive sins freely. That's a theme of Jesus' teaching, and Paul notes in Rom 3:25 that he passed over sins before Jesus. But the real problem is that we are God's enemies. The Western tradition calls that original sin, though I have issues with some of how that has been understood. That's what leads to the individual sins. As Jesus says, good fruit comes from good trees.

Both Jesus and Paul have this concept that what we need is to change the foundation of our lives. For Jesus this is described as being "born again", and coming to love God. For Paul it is being justified. The basic Protestant viewpoint, following Paul, is that what the cross does is make that change. It reconciles us with God. In Pauline terminology, it justifies us, making us one of God's people. That connection between the cross and justification is very clear in Rom 3:24-25.

I think Rom 6:3-11 is Paul's best explanation for how this works. It is based on what Calvin calls the "mystical union" between us and Christ. Though that union our old selves die with him on the cross, and we rise with him to new life.

This does not eliminate all sins, because the old man continues to be present, even though it has in principle been defeated. So we still need forgiveness on a daily basis. But justification is a stable status, being one of Christ's people.

1Cor 15:1-4 The gospel is that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and then He was resurrected on the third day.

Romans 4:25-5:2 He was delivered over to death for our sins and then was raised to life to put us right with God. By faith in this, then, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.

 

[hedrick]

1Cor 15:1-4 The gospel is that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and then He was resurrected on the third day.

Romans 4:25-5:2 He was delivered over to death for our sins and then was raised to life to put us right with God. By faith in this, then, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.

Perhaps the distinction between dealing with sin and sins wasn't a good way of putting it. The point I was getting at is that in Romans Paul sees Jesus' death as justifying us, which is a basic change in relationship that goes beyond forgiving individual sins. God could forgive individual sins without the cross, but doing so would be dealing with the symptom and not the disease.

I believe Roman 4:25 ff makes that connection between the cross and basic change. 1 Cor 15 is about the resurrection as history, not atonement, so it doesn't give enough detail about how it deals with sins to judge.