Penal Substitution

[Andrewn]

I have always had a problem with all the atonement theories, but did not dig into them until I was in a deep discussion with four Muslims and could not help, but agree with their logic reasoning and conclusions, but they were just pointing out the huge weaknesses in all the popular theories of atonement.

This is a good start. Unbelievers are 2 kinds: atheists (which probably includes most Western Buddhists), and theists (which includes Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.). It is explaining to the latter group that I'm most concerned about.

Please read Lev. 5 before going further.

I've read it.

We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible).

I agree.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

Waiting for part 3 .

 

[Andrewn]

To deal with our estrangement from God, God joined us on our side, accepting the kind of thing that those on our side all too often have to accept. By joining us in our broken world, he removes the isolation between us. Beck is describing the same thing, but in much more pointed terms.

I think all good theories have to start with the concept of Recapitulation and build on it, just like St Athanasius did.

Recapitulation theory of atonement - Wikipedia

 

[FenderTL5]

I think all good theories have to start with the concept of Recapitulation and build on it, just like St Athanasius did.

Recapitulation theory of atonement - Wikipedia

Agree.

Near the end of the Orthros/Matins prayer service, prior to the Doxology and beginning of the Liturgy, almost every week (during some feasts the wording is altered), we chant/sing the following:
"..through Him.. was Hades taken prisoner, and Adam has been summoned back; the curse has been neutralized, and Eve has been liberated; death has been put to death, and we have been brought to life.."

Recapitulation with most of the other theories of atonement as illustrations depicting aspects of recapitulation, but none telling the full story.

 

[bling]

This is a good start. Unbelievers are 2 kinds: atheists (which probably includes most Western Buddhists), and theists (which includes Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.). It is explaining to the latter group that I'm most concerned about.


I've read it.


I agree.


Waiting for part 3 .

Before we leave Lev. 5 realize God is not being satisfied with a bag of flour and the relationship between the sinner and his sacrifice is not one of replacing him.

Another verse which is often ignored by supports of the popular theories is Ro. 3:25

Romans 3:25 New International Version (NIV) 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.

I use the NIV though I do not like any translation, NIV does what I consider to be the best translation of the Greek word πάρεσις (paresis) which most just translate with “past over”, since the NIV translates it “left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”. The Greek word Πάρεσις is only found here in the Greek New Testament and not used at all in the Greek Old Testament, so it is difficult to translate, but really not that hard, since secular koine Greek manuscripts can be found using πάρεσις. It is used to describe when a lender, on rare occasions, does not put a debtor in prison to try and get some of his money back from friends and relatives of the debtor, before releasing him. So, In the context of Ro. 3:25 the forgiven sinners prior to the cross were not disciplined/punished for their sins but were just forgiven and let go. Since Paul is making his argument showing a huge contrast between Jews before and after the cross, those after the cross would have to go through some “punishment” or better expressed as some disciplining to be a contrast.

There are lots of excellent benefits from being disciplined, but prior to Christ’s crucifixion, there was no way to fairly/justly discipline a rebellious disobedient repentant child seeking forgiveness and allow the child to live. The disciplines were just to hard being banishment or physical death. By Christ going to the cross we can now be “crucified with Christ”, empathetically. How severe of a disciplining is this for Christians and how would it compare to the pain and sorrow God went through while Christ was crucified?

Notice there is no language suggesting the sins are put on hold, rolled forward or dealt with later, but are “passed over”/left unpunished.

Lets look at the rest of the passage:

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive/accept that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).

Have you ever stopped to think about what Christ went through while on the cross because of you personally?

 

[Andrewn]

NIV does what I consider to be the best translation of the Greek word πάρεσις (paresis) which most just translate with “past over”, since the NIV translates it “left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”. The Greek word Πάρεσις is only found here in the Greek New Testament and not used at all in the Greek Old Testament, so it is difficult to translate, but really not that hard, since secular koine Greek manuscripts can be found using πάρεσις. It is used to describe when a lender, on rare occasions, does not put a debtor in prison to try and get some of his money back from friends and relatives of the debtor, before releasing him. So, In the context of Ro. 3:25 the forgiven sinners prior to the cross were not disciplined/punished for their sins but were just forgiven and let go.

There are 2 relatively obscure verses in Acts that shed light on "paresis," both spoken by Paul to Pagans that he encountered on his trips:

1) In Lystra he said, "In past generations He allowed all the nations to go their own ways." Act 14:16

2) In Athens he said, "God overlooked the times of ignorance, but now He commands all men everywhere to repent." Act 17:30

So, "passing over sins previously committed" 1) It means "overlooking the times of ignorance" and "allowing all the nations to go their own ways". 2) It does not mean "forgiving sinners prior to the cross" or "leaving the sins committed beforehand unpunished" as NIV and some other 'dynamic" translations say. 3) It was spoken to Pagans describing the way God dealt with pagans and not with Jews.

Ellicott's Commentary explains the situation this way, "The second object of the death of Christ was to remove the misconceptions that might be caused by the apparent condoning of sins committed in times anterior to the Christian revelation. A special word is used to indicate that these sins were not wiped away and dismissed altogether, but rather “passed over” or “overlooked.” This was due to the forbearance of God, who, as it were, suspended the execution of His vengeance. Now the Apostle shows by the death of Christ that justice that had apparently slept was vindicated."

Eugene Peterson in The Message paraphrase also explains that the goal of God was "to set the world in the clear with himself through the sacrifice of Jesus, finally taking care of the sins he had so patiently endured." This is more theologically correct than NIV.

Since Paul is making his argument showing a huge contrast between Jews before and after the cross, those after the cross would have to go through some “punishment” or better expressed as some disciplining to be a contrast. There are lots of excellent benefits from being disciplined, but prior to Christ’s crucifixion, there was no way to fairly/justly discipline a rebellious disobedient repentant child seeking forgiveness and allow the child to live. The disciplines were just to hard being banishment or physical death.

Your application of "paresis" and the whole phrase to Jews leads to a contradiction when you say, "the forgiven sinners prior to the cross were not disciplined/punished for their sins but were just forgiven and let go" and then turn around and contradict yourself by saying, "The disciplines were just to hard being banishment or physical death."

By Christ going to the cross we can now be “crucified with Christ”, empathetically. How severe of a disciplining is this for Christians and how would it compare to the pain and sorrow God went through while Christ was crucified? Notice there is no language suggesting the sins are put on hold, rolled forward or dealt with later, but are “passed over”/left unpunished.

But this is just _not_ what the passage indicates (vide supra). The unrighteous: both Jews and Pagans were punished in Hades (Jesus' parable). Rom 3:25-26 is written to christians of both Pagan and Jewish backgrounds and contains seemingly disconnected thoughts that need to be understood in light of the rest of the NT.

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive/accept that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).

Yes, and these thoughts are clearly explained in other passages:

Mat 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

1Ti 2:6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all—the testimony at the proper time.

 

[bling]

There are 2 relatively obscure verses in Acts that shed light on "paresis," both spoken by Paul to Pagans that he encountered on his trips:

1) In Lystra he said, "In past generations He allowed all the nations to go their own ways." Act 14:16

2) In Athens he said, "God overlooked the times of ignorance, but now He commands all men everywhere to repent." Act 17:30

So, "passing over sins previously committed" 1) It means "overlooking the times of ignorance" and "allowing all the nations to go their own ways". 2) It does not mean "forgiving sinners prior to the cross" or "leaving the sins committed beforehand unpunished" as NIV and some other 'dynamic" translations say. 3) It was spoken to Pagans describing the way God dealt with pagans and not with Jews.

Ellicott's Commentary explains the situation this way, "The second object of the death of Christ was to remove the misconceptions that might be caused by the apparent condoning of sins committed in times anterior to the Christian revelation. A special word is used to indicate that these sins were not wiped away and dismissed altogether, but rather “passed over” or “overlooked.” This was due to the forbearance of God, who, as it were, suspended the execution of His vengeance. Now the Apostle shows by the death of Christ that justice that had apparently slept was vindicated."

Eugene Peterson in The Message paraphrase also explains that the goal of God was "to set the world in the clear with himself through the sacrifice of Jesus, finally taking care of the sins he had so patiently endured." This is more theologically correct than NIV.


Your application of "paresis" and the whole phrase to Jews leads to a contradiction when you say, "the forgiven sinners prior to the cross were not disciplined/punished for their sins but were just forgiven and let go" and then turn around and contradict yourself by saying, "The disciplines were just to hard being banishment or physical death."

I appreciate your thoughts and comments.

First off: Paul does not use the Greek word πάρεσις (paresis) in describing what was done with Gentiles prior to the cross and that adds another point because in Acts 14:16 there are no Jews present and in Acts 17:30 there are no Jews present, Paul is very much addressing just gentiles.

In Romans 3 Paul is coming down hard on the Jews in Roman start with Ro. 3:1 “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?”

Paul goes on to say: 9…Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.

20. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

Paul in Ro. 3 is showing the huge contrast between before and after Christ’s crucifixion, with the Jews under the Law. The Gentiles did not have the Law and were always saved by grace as where the Jews who were under the Law, saved by grace.

I did at one time look up the reference to the secular writings using “πάρεσις (paresis)” and you would do good to do the same.

If you say “πάρεσις (paresis)” conveys the idea of “ignorance of sin” then this verse does not apply to Jews at all, because they are not ignorant of sin, yet there are definitely Jews in the group being addressed at this time?

Paul used the word “πάρεσις (paresis)” which convey the idea of “leaving unpunished” and not the idea of “overlooking ignorance”, because the Jews, prior to Christ, were not ignorant of sin as Paul points out extensively in Ro. 3. The Jews were certainly deserving of severe punishment prior to the cross and under the Law (they would have all been banished or killed), so it is not ignorance which God overlooked, but the severe punishment they deserved did not happen, because the Jewish people could not carry it out.

I am also not referring to forgiving of sins (which God/Christ can do without the need of the cross), but I am talking about the passing over of the “punishment/discipline” which did happen prior to the cross.

No matter what we think: the Jews prior to Christ, which were saved and went to heaven, were not severely “disciplined” for their sins (like: Moses, the prophets and David), yet after the cross, Jews (and all of us) are severely disciplined for our sins. Look at Acts 2 especially Acts 2: 36-37: those Jews felt a death blow to their heart (the very worst feeling they could experience and live) when they realized they had cruelly murdered their Messiah (Savior/Lord). The thought of cruel murdering Christ is hard to live with and we are reminded of it every time we take the Lord’s Supper, yet at the same time the greatest Love is being experienced, which allows us to rejoice.

Without Christ going to the cross prior to your existence: how could you or anyone empathetically experience being “crucified with Christ”?

As far as “commentaries” (which can include individual interpretations of scripture), they are often trying to sell you on their conclusions and avoid the contradictions.

I like to use Bibles translated by groups of diverse Biblical scholars, which had to go through their own peer review before the translated verse goes to print.

I can continue to address this or move on?

 

[Andrewn]

I can continue to address this or move on?

I never said "ignorance of sin." Might as well move on. We'll see where this leads.

 

[bling]

I never said "ignorance of sin." Might as well move on. We'll see where this leads.

Before leaving Ro. 3:25: How did you get from the context of Ro. 3 that: “It was spoken to Pagans describing the way God dealt with pagans and not with Jews”? We seem to agree it is talking about; before the cross and the Jews certainly did rebellious disobedience and were no disciplined for these sins (even though they should have been banished or killed), so why are they not included?

The NIV is just trying to translate the Greek into the English by finding out from all sources how the words were used at that time, it is not a commentary. Individual translations and commentaries are trying to explain what they think is being said (but they could be wrong). As far as I can see all the translations done by groups of diverse biblical scholars do not contradict each other.

My point being the Jews (nor the Gentiles) prior to the cross were not punished/disciplined fairly/justly for their rebellious disobedience and after the cross they are.

I would like to go over all the verses with you especially Lev. 16, Psalms 22, Is. 53, and all the New Testament verses on the crucifixion and atonement, but this is not my normal teaching method, since I mostly just ask questions of my students and wait for their responses to see what needs to be asked next. I am not interested in just having you agree or disagree with my “conclusions” but for us both to work together developing a better understanding.

God’s Love is not logical, but everything else seems to be logical considering this illogical Love, so lets just take some time and look at the logic behind the atonement process.

If a parent neglects to discipline their repeating disobedient child when there is opportunity and a way to fairly /justly discipline their children, how would you feel about that parent?

Do you understand the difference between being “punished” and being “disciplined” since both are “just”?

Dr. Dobson would say: “You discipline your children and never punish your children”.

Think about this:

There is a, one of a kind, Tiffany vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.

Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair treatment? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?

Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?

Suppose after smashing the vase, repenting and forgiveness, your older brother says he will work with your father putting the vase together, so you can keep up with your social life. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

Suppose Jesus the magician waved his hands over the smashed vase and restored it perfectly to the previous condition, so there is really very little for you to be forgiven of or for you to do. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?

Suppose it is not you that breaks the vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Tiffany vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Was the neighbor forgiven and if not why not?

 

[Andrewn]

So was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Was the neighbor forgiven and if not why not?

This is a nice example for the difference between discipline and punishment. Without repentance you deserve the latter.

 

[dms1972]

Heres an article several of the theories, including CS Lewis's.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: The Perfect Penitent

 

[bling]

This is a nice example for the difference between discipline and punishment. Without repentance you deserve the latter.

A big part of what I am trying to get across is the huge importance and huge benefit to being Lovingly disciplined. The fact Christ and God are both going through the disciplining (crucifixion) with us really helps. We need this disciplining to be motivated not to sin, give a reason for other not to sin, understand how bad sin is, realize how much God/Christ Love us, allow us to put the sin behind us (the atonement/discipline is completed), and really build a stronger relationship with our Father.

All Christians might feel at least a little punishing discipline by being empathetically crucified with Christ, but can and should we really experience a similar feel of a death blow to our hearts, the worst emotion we can experience and yet live, like those Jews on Pentecost (Acts 2) who came to realize they had cruelly crucified the Messiah?

Like I said atonement is something better experienced than explained.

Go back to the three most emotional prays of Christ in the garden all asking for another way. All we have of these prays is the “If it be possible let this cup (crucifixion) pass from me”. Why is that all we have if it was not for us to know? Would God out of empathy for Christ feel the same way? What other way could even be possible? Is this suggesting both Christ and God personally wanted Christ’s blood to remain flowing through His veins?

If I personally fulfilled my earthly objective without sinning Christ would not have had to go to the cross for me, but would there have been even more? Could I have established “another way”, if one human could fulfill his/her earthly objective without sinning then others could also. So, God in the first century could have looked down the corridor of time 2000 years and seen “another way”. If this is true, then I am personally responsible for Christ going to the cross, since I could have kept it from happening.

What I like to do and get others to do with any passage is ask and answer the following: “What if this action had not taken place what would I loss out on?” Suppose a soldier in the garden had sliced Christ’s head off in an instant and all the Old Testament prophecies supported this type of death, how would that change me. Who needed Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered on the cruel cross? Instead, Christ in an instant goes to heaven to be with God.

What would have happened on Pentecost if Peter could not say: “You crucified the Messiah”? Would 3000 have been baptized that day? What about that thief on the cross? What about my being disciplined for my sins: that fellowship, worship, feeling Loved, knowledge of the severity of sin, and allowing me to feel the process is completed now there is no second shoe to fall, and I have righteous sorrow?

Yes, I need Christ to go to the cross to receive the benefits of being Lovingly disciplined.

I have given just some reasons to see atonement as a disciplining activity but is there more to it and/or can other theories of atonement just include this disciplining?

 

[bling]

Is there something more going on beside just being disciplined?

People will try to incorporate the idea of being disciplined into their own pet atonement theory, as an add on, but is there scripture support for this?

The main scriptures used to show something greater going on then just the crucifixion of Christ are: Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?)

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

We also have Is. 53 and Lev. 16 which seems to add support for more happening, but these I would like to go over later individually.

First off: I know we can't “proof” anything by the lack of usages, but all I see being discussed about Christ’s sacrifice in scripture is what could be seen and hear with Christ on the cross. Why did Peter not talk about more happening in Acts 2 as an example?

OK let’s start: 2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

This is an extremely important verse to show imputing our sins to Christ, so the imputing of righteousness to man seems logical, BUT:

Is that even a good translation?

What does “Christ made to be sin” or “Christ made sin” mean: did Christ become a sinner, did a being become an intangible thing like “sin” and are there other scripture to help us with this?

If you go to the NIV there is an alternative translation for at the bottom where “sin offering” is given as an alternative to “being made sin” and we all know Christ was a “sin offering”, so what support is there for that translation?

Paul being a scholar of the Torah, used a Hebraism. In this case, the Hebrew word for "sin" was also used to mean "sin offering" (see the Hebrew word: chatta'ath), and thus to be "made sin" was a Hebrew way of saying "made a sin offering". the NASB cross-references to Romans 8:3 which uses "sin offering" in a similar text as 2 Corinthians 5:21

There is the analogy in 2 Corinthians 8:9; the cross-reference to the clearer statement in Romans 8:3 that Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to deal with sin; and the allusion to Sacrifice in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where it says Christ "knew no sin" in corresponding to the sacrificial animal being free of blemish (otherwise Paul saying "knew no sin" would be irrelevant here).

The Greek word for "sin" that Paul uses is used in the Greek Old Testament both to mean "sin" and "sin offering," with both usages even in the same verse such as in Leviticus 4:3.

You can certainly do a deeper study of 2 Cor 5: 21 and we can go into Ro.3-4.

OK now : Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?)

Does this really show God left Christ while Christ was on the cross?

First off: to interpret any scripture you have to keep 5 things in mind: context, context, context, context and context.

Remember this was not written directly to us and we are reading other people’s mail.

1. “Eli, Eli” in Matthew is Hebrew for dad, dad or father, father, so why use Hebrew (Mark records it as being Aramaic which I will try to address later).

2. Why did Jesus use his last precious breaths to make this short statement?

3. Who was this said to is very important? We always like to think it was being said directly to us and for us, but that is never the case, so who? If you say God then Jesus is wasting his breath, since God has forsaken him (if that is what really has happened) and Jesus does not have to verbalize to talk to God. So, who?

4. Let me ask you this: Going back to every time Jesus was asked a question by one of the religious leaders or even one of the religious leaders’ spies, Jesus gave them the very best possible answer often quoting scripture. Even when Jesus was brought before the high priest and asked to comment about false witnesses’ statement (everyone in the room knowing they were false witnesses) Christ remaining silent was the very best answer. Just before Christ makes His statement in Matt 27:46 we have the Matt. 27:41: In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God. Those same words are used in Psalms 22: 7 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads. 8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say, “let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.”

Tell me this: What is the very best answer Christ could give to these teachers of the law and elders? If you say: “Christ needs to agree with them and tell them “God has forsaken me” then it will allow them to go home happy or continue their mocking.

The very best answer I see to get across the message: “I must stay until all prophecy is fulfilled, like the prophecies in Psalms 22”, would be to direct the religious leaders to Psalms 22. Saying the first line of Psalms 22 in Hebrew would allow the religious leaders, who would know Hebrew, Christ is talking to them and they all would have Psalms 22 memorized and used only the first verse to bring it to mind. The truth is: Psalms 22: 24. For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help. Psalms 22 is a lament written in the diatribe format so you have a debate question with the wrong answer support coming first and the right answer given afterward with support.

When the religious leaders realized what they were seeing and say right before them was prophesied about the Messiah in Psalms 22 they would have shut their mouths and most likely left.

We also have: Mark 15: 34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

This is in Aramaic and not Hebrew so what is going on?

I don’t like thinking Mark messed up here or the Spirit did not do a good job of protecting and preserving this verse in the Bible allowing Mark or some copier of Mark to change the word from Hebrew to Aramaic although that is the common scholarly opinion.

My thought is it was said twice once in Hebrew and once in Aramaic, but only recorded once each in all four gospels. So why was it said two different ways, we understand the need for the Hebrew, but why would it be said in Aramaic?

Again, we need to back to the context: The verse just before Matt. 27: 46 comes Matt. 27:44 In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

This means both Jewish thieves were also mock Christ just before His quotation of Psalms 22:1, but they would most likely not know Hebrew, but they would know Aramaic and would likely have memorized Psalms 22 in Aramaic.

There has to be a logical reason for one of the thieves to go in the matter of minutes from mocking Christ to praising Christ as the Messiah, so what could have happened?

If the one thief could have Psalms 22 brought to his mind, looked around to see it was being fulfilled before his very eyes, he could have been shockingly convinced in a moment of time: “Jesus is our Messiah”!

This teaching of the thief while suffering on the cross would be so much like Christ.

I am happy to go on, but would like your thoughts and maybe what you would like me to address next.

I do want and feel we need to do a little word study of the word “for” and that might be what I would do next?

 

[Andrewn]

If you go to the NIV there is an alternative translation for at the bottom where “sin offering” is given as an alternative to “being made sin” and we all know Christ was a “sin offering”, so what support is there for that translation?

I'm aware of the rendering "sin offering" in 2Co 5:21 and have no doubt that it represents the correct understanding. One problem in understanding Paul is that he uses the words "sin" and "law" frequently and with different implications.

My thought is it was said twice once in Hebrew and once in Aramaic, but only recorded once each in all four gospels. So why was it said two different ways, we understand the need for the Hebrew, but why would it be said in Aramaic?

Both Mark and Matthew quote Jesus' Aramaic words. They just transliterate them a little differently into Greek bec Aramaic has a letter for "h" and Greek doesn't. Jesus did not quote Psalm 22 in Hebrew which would be, "ëliy ëliy lämäh ázav'Täniy."

I do want and feel we need to do a little word study of the word “for” and that might be what I would do next?

In 2Co 5:21 "for us" is understood to mean "for our sake," no?

 

[hedrick]

2 Cor 5:21:

Martin, in the Word commentary advocates for "offering for sin", per Is 53:10, where the LXX uses hamartia as offering for sin. That would, however, defeat the apparent symmetry between making Christ sin and us righteousness. I looked up the LXX of Is 53:10. While it does use hamartia as offering for sin, there's additional wording pointing to this special use, not present in this passage. Furnish in the Anchor Bible disagrees, and I believe "offering" is a minority view.

Saying that Jesus becomes sin avoids saying that he becomes a sinner, which has obvious issues. Identifying him with an abstract (sin) is parallel to Gal 3:13 in which he is said to become a curse, and 1 Cor 1:30.

"For us" uses the Greek huper. Louw and Nida say "a marker of a participant who is benefited by an event or on whose behalf an event takes place." So "On our behalf" would be reasonable.

There are also two different views of what it means to be the righteousness of God. (1) The view most of you have probably heard is that we are made righteous by justification. There's another possibility that I think is more likely, giving the context. (2) The righteousness of God, as Luther recognized, is God's commitment to saving his people. The context is about reconciliation with God, and being Christ's ambassadors. Thus "becoming the righteousness of God" would mean we become God's representatives in reconciling others to God. In that case the point isn't just that we become righteous ourselves, but we become part of God's righteousness, his work to redeem his people.

(Furnish lists both possible meanings of the righteousness of God, but doesn't seem to choose. Martin doesn't really look at it, though he notes that "“Righteousness of God” in v 21 may be suspected since, while it is undeniable that Paul’s salvation-teaching centered precisely on this phrase, it is normally (as in Rom) used of the power of God that introduced a new age of grace and forgiveness for the world." That would tend to favor (2).)

None of this, of course, describes any particular theory of atonement.

 

[Andrewn]

Martin doesn't really look at it, though he notes that "“Righteousness of God” in v 21 may be suspected since, while it is undeniable that Paul’s salvation-teaching centered precisely on this phrase, it is normally (as in Rom) used of the power of God that introduced a new age of grace and forgiveness for the world." That would tend to favor (2).)

I'll side with Martin on this understanding of the "righteousness of God" and on the understanding of "sin" as "sin offering." In Gal 3:13, he became a curse bec he was crucified. The Gospels do mention a lot of peoples cursing Jesus while he was on the cross.

According to 1Co 1:30, Jesus became to us wisdom and righteousness and holiness and redemption. He became to us a paradigm of wisdom, a paradigm of righteousness, a paradigm of holiness, and a paradigm of restitution.

But we cannot say that he became a paradigm of sin, it doesn't make sense! What would becoming "sin" mean if not becoming "sin offering?" Perhaps the alternative would be an understanding similar to 1Pe 2:24? But this is the same as becoming a "sin offering."

 

[hedrick]

I'll side with Martin on this understanding of the "righteousness of God" and on the understanding of "sin" as "sin offering." In Gal 3:13, he became a curse bec he was crucified. The Gospels do mention a lot of peoples cursing Jesus while he was on the cross.

According to 1Co 1:30, Jesus became to us wisdom and righteousness and holiness and redemption. He became to us a paradigm of wisdom, a paradigm of righteousness, a paradigm of holiness, and a paradigm of restitution.

But we cannot say that he became a paradigm of sin, it doesn't make sense! What would becoming a "sin" mean if not becoming a "sin offering?" Perhaps the alternative would be an understanding similar to 1Pe 2:24? But this is the same as becoming a "sin offering."

The other position is that this is just like Christ becoming a curse. Neither can be true in a literal sense. But both approaches are possible readings. I don’t know whether it’s a typo, but it says that Christ became sin, not a sin.

 

[Andrewn]

The other position is that this is just like Christ becoming a curse. Neither can be true in a literal sense. But both approaches are possible readings. I don’t know whether it’s a typo, but it says that Christ became sin, not a sin.

Thank you for pointing out the typo. I went back and corrected it. Cambridge Commentary offers the following explanation:

"He made Him to be sin, i.e. appointed Him to be the representative of sin and sinners, treated Him as sin and sinners are treated (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:15). He took on Himself to be the representative of Humanity in its aspect of sinfulness (cf. Romans 8:3; Php 2:7) and to bear the burden of sin in all its completeness. Hence He won the right to represent Humanity in all respects, and hence we are entitled to be regarded as God’s righteousness (which He was) not in ourselves, but in Him as our representative in all things. See also 2 Corinthians 5:14."

Is this close to your understanding of the verse?

I don't have a problem with this. It sounds very much like the Recapitulation Theory, which I like. But I don't find it very different from "sin offering," either. I must be missing something .

 

[bling]

I'm aware of the rendering "sin offering" in 2Co 5:21 and have no doubt that it represents the correct understanding. One problem in understanding Paul is that he uses the words "sin" and "law" frequently and with different implications.


Both Mark and Matthew quote Jesus' Aramaic words. They just transliterate them a little differently into Greek bec Aramaic has a letter for "h" and Greek doesn't. Jesus did not quote Psalm 22 in Hebrew which would be, "ëliy ëliy lämäh ázav'Täniy."


In 2Co 5:21 "for us" is understood to mean "for our sake," no?

2 Cor 5:21:

Martin, in the Word commentary advocates for "offering for sin", per Is 53:10, where the LXX uses hamartia as offering for sin. That would, however, defeat the apparent symmetry between making Christ sin and us righteousness. I looked up the LXX of Is 53:10. While it does use hamartia as offering for sin, there's additional wording pointing to this special use, not present in this passage. Furnish in the Anchor Bible disagrees, and I believe "offering" is a minority view.

Saying that Jesus becomes sin avoids saying that he becomes a sinner, which has obvious issues. Identifying him with an abstract (sin) is parallel to Gal 3:13 in which he is said to become a curse, and 1 Cor 1:30.

"For us" uses the Greek huper. Louw and Nida say "a marker of a participant who is benefited by an event or on whose behalf an event takes place." So "On our behalf" would be reasonable.

There are also two different views of what it means to be the righteousness of God. (1) The view most of you have probably heard is that we are made righteous by justification. There's another possibility that I think is more likely, giving the context. (2) The righteousness of God, as Luther recognized, is God's commitment to saving his people. The context is about reconciliation with God, and being Christ's ambassadors. Thus "becoming the righteousness of God" would mean we become God's representatives in reconciling others to God. In that case the point isn't just that we become righteous ourselves, but we become part of God's righteousness, his work to redeem his people.

(Furnish lists both possible meanings of the righteousness of God, but doesn't seem to choose. Martin doesn't really look at it, though he notes that "“Righteousness of God” in v 21 may be suspected since, while it is undeniable that Paul’s salvation-teaching centered precisely on this phrase, it is normally (as in Rom) used of the power of God that introduced a new age of grace and forgiveness for the world." That would tend to favor (2).)

None of this, of course, describes any particular theory of atonement.

Thank you, Andrewn and Hedrick both very much for the comments. I usually receive very little push back with either of these interpretations for 2 Cor. 5:21 and Matt. 27:46.

Looking at 2 Cor. 5:21

I would go back to the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) and see how they might translate the Hebrew “sin offering” (chatta'ath) and in Lev. 4 the same Greek word “hamartia” is used as a translation of the Hebrew chatta'ath.

As I said: “The Greek word for "sin" that Paul uses is used in the Greek Old Testament both to mean "sin" and "sin offering," with both usages even in the same verse such as in Leviticus 4:3.”

We all seem to agree Christ was not made a sinner and Christ’s crucifixion in other places is referred to as a sin offering, so what does it mean in 2 Cor. 5:21?

Hedrick brings up the very important point of context. 2 Cor. 5: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

What do we need in order to be reconciled to God, become truly ambassadors of God/Christ, partnering with God to allow God to work through us and feel, know and be righteous (right with God)? If we say: “Christ needs to become sin” is that for us or God? I certainly need Christ to become my sin offering, but that is not “sin” itself, so does God need Christ to become sin for Him? First, I do not see God “needing” anything, so everything is done for our sake.

I see man’s need to feel and know he is righteous, reconciled and justified standing comfortably next to God/Christ is the same thing a rebellious disobedient child needs to stand comfortably next to his/her parents. The parent is not the one with the problem, but the child. The child who has rightly gone through a fair/just Loving discipline with the parent, can feel comfortable being next to that parent. That child feels reconciled. The parent who just forgives the child and does not see to the fair/just disciplining of the child, leaves the child feeling of an incompleteness in the reconciling process. Christ being our atonement sacrifice allows for that fair/just Loving disciplining.



We can certainly continue this discussion especially if I said something wrong, since I do not know Hebrew or Greek.

Andrewn brings up an interest point by saying both in Matt and Mark Jesus is speaking Aramaic, which I have never heard before. It is very true Jesus did not quote the ancient Hebrew with “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” but that was supposedly the Hebrew used in the first century. If that is not true, I have not found any source that says: “Eli” is Aramaic.

Andrewn said: “Looking at Matt 27:46 Both Mark and Matthew quote Jesus' Aramaic words. They just transliterate them a little differently into Greek bec Aramaic has a letter for "h" and Greek doesn't. Jesus did not quote Psalm 22 in Hebrew which would be, "ëliy ëliy lämäh ázav'Täniy."”

The difference in the Hebrew of the original Psalms 22 and Jesus quoting it in Matt. 27:46 can be the fact Jesus is using the Mishnaic Hebrew (or Hebrew of His day). The Hebrew and Aramaic had changed over time and there seems to have been different dialects depending on where you grew up.

I very much like to look at the context, since I learned early on from a biblical scholar to interpret scripture you have to first keep in mind context, context, context, context and context.

What ever language Jesus spoke the write tells us what He said: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”. That sentence is the first sentence of Psalms 22, so context gives us the exact translation no matter what language He spoke.

Please address the question I gave you in my post 32:

2. Why did Jesus use his last precious breaths to make this short statement?



3. Who was this said to, this very important? We always like to think it was being said directly to us and for us, but that is never the case, so who? If you say God then Jesus is wasting his breath, since God has forsaken him (if that is what really has happened) and Jesus does not have to verbalize to talk to God. So, who?



4. Going back to every time Jesus was asked a question by one of the religious leaders or even one of the religious leaders’ spies, Jesus gave them the very best possible answer often quoting scripture. Even when Jesus was brought before the high priest and asked to comment about false witnesses’ statement (everyone in the room knowing they were false witnesses) Christ remaining silent was the very best answer. Just before Christ makes His statement in Matt 27:46 we have the Matt. 27:41: In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God. Those same words are used in Psalms 22: 7 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads. 8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say, “let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.”

Tell me this: What is the very best answer Christ could give to these preists, teachers of the law and elders? If you say: “Christ needs to agree with them and tell them “God has forsaken me” then it will allow them to go home happy or continue their mocking.

The very best answer I see to get across the message: “I must stay until all prophecy is fulfilled, like the prophecies in Psalms 22”, or just direct the religious leaders to Psalms 22. Saying the first line of Psalms 22 in Hebrew or Aramaic would allow the religious leaders, who would know Hebrew and Aramaic, Christ is talking to them and they all would have Psalms 22 memorized and used only the first verse to bring it to mind. The truth is: Psalms 22: 24. “For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.” Psalms 22 is a lament written in the diatribe format, so you have a debate question, with the wrong answer support coming first and the right answer given afterward with support.

One verse does not just stand alone.

 

[5thKingdom]

4. They show universal atonement, which has to be illogically explained away to be for only those saved?

How very true.

.