Nature of the Atonement

[Homer]

Brother Steve,

I am surprised. I find echoes of Joseph Smith in your post. Smith taught that a man caught in adultery and shot to death by the woman's husband would have, by his own blood, paid for his sin.

I wonder about the last sentence. I am not saying you are wrong, but I wonder if the scriptures support this notion. Romans 6:7 says (in the Greek), "He who has died has been justified from sin."

Are you saying this is not referring to our "death" to our old life and to our status in Christ? I see nothing problematic in the verse.

And how can Jesus' payment of a penalty on our behalf remove the stain of guilt, if the payment of a penalty does not have this affect?

Surely it is because of the efficacy of the one sacrificed for our sins, the sinless Lamb of God. The only sacrifice, or punishment, that can suffice. Do you not believe in imputed righteousness?

This may be true, but do we know this to be the case? I mean, a stronger biblical case could be made affirming that a person pays the penalty for his sins when he dies (Rom.6:23). If there is additional punishment after death.........?

I am stunned at this statement. It causes me to think you must have read Hosea Ballou and now consider the "no-hell" position to be a viable option.

I think your affirmation, above, sound a lot like what I would dutifully have said myself, due to my evangelical upbringing, until I began to require of myself biblical support for my opinions.

And this is what has puzzled me the most about your position. You say you require biblical support for your position and yet, unless you have made a recent change, you have become agnostic regarding the fate of the lost. You have maintained in discussion with me that "the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", spoken to the Apostles, applies to us today as it did to those Jesus spoke to. How is it the more books you read the less certain you become? I suggest you have "overstudied" something that is rather plain in the scriptures; that is, that there is no post death "second" chance (or rather, unlimited opportunity to be saved).

P.S. - recently you argued that the Catholics were wrong to take John 20:23 as applicable to them today because it was not spoken to us which would seem to contradict your application of John 16:13.

[steve]

I am surprised. I find echoes of Joseph Smith in your post. Smith taught that a man caught in adultery and shot to death by the woman's husband would have, by his own blood, paid for his sin.

Well, I am not echoing anyone that I know of. I am asking whether we are saying what scripture says, or whether we are saying what we have been told that the scripture teaches.

I wonder about the last sentence. I am not saying you are wrong, but I wonder if the scriptures support this notion. Romans 6:7 says (in the Greek), "He who has died has been justified from sin."

Are you saying this is not referring to our "death" to our old life and to our status in Christ? I see nothing problematic in the verse.

I believe that, in the whole context, Paul is discussing our death with Christ and its effect of justifying us. However, the particular force of the word "for" at the beginning of verse 7 appears, to my mind, to be referencing natural death as an analogy to illustrate the effect that death (including having died with Christ) has upon the sinner's status.

And how can Jesus' payment of a penalty on our behalf remove the stain of guilt, if the payment of a penalty does not have this affect?

Surely it is because of the efficacy of the one sacrificed for our sins, the sinless Lamb of God. The only sacrifice, or punishment, that can suffice. Do you not believe in imputed righteousness?

I am not doubting that Christ's death is uniquely efficacious, unlike that which any other man could offer. I am raising the point that, if we believe that Christ's payment of our penalty eliminates our guilt, then we must be affirming that the payment of a penalty can eliminate guilt. If we do not think that the payment of the penalty actually settles the score, then how does His payment of the penalty do so? And if payment does not have this effect, then what is the point of punishing sinners at all? Is its purpose the settling of a score, or mere vindictiveness? If it is the balancing of the books, then my question is, how much does it take for a sinner to suffer to balance those books? These are questions for which I, at this point in time, see no obvious answers. And I do believe in imputed righteousness.

This may be true, but do we know this to be the case? I mean, a stronger biblical case could be made affirming that a person pays the penalty for his sins when he dies (Rom.6:23). If there is additional punishment after death.........?

I am stunned at this statement. It causes me to think you must have read Hosea Ballou and now consider the "no-hell" position to be a viable option.

I have not read Ballou's book. I am musing from the scriptures merely. I am not suggesting answers, only questions.

I think your affirmation, above, sound a lot like what I would dutifully have said myself, due to my evangelical upbringing, until I began to require of myself biblical support for my opinions.

And this is what has puzzled me the most about your position. You say you require biblical support for your position and yet, unless you have made a recent change, you have become agnostic regarding the fate of the lost. You have maintained in discussion with me that "the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", spoken to the Apostles, applies to us today as it did to those Jesus spoke to. How is it the more books you read the less certain you become?

I do, in fact, believe that it is the Spirit who leads us into all truth. This is not done, however, apart from the Bible (it is the Holy Spirit's book, after all), nor do I consider that He leads apart from our thinking and reasoning faculties. These latter are best used when we consider every reasonable possibility before deciding that we know something for sure.

I am not of the opinion that the Spirit will lead us into a certainty of knowledge on every subject, including those which are unnecessary for us to know. The fate of the lost is certainly unnecessary for us to know, which is why I regularly say that I do not expect ever to reach a conclusion about it. If ever I do reach such a conclusion, it will have to be that the scriptures will have become more crystal clear to me on this subject than they currently are.

I suggest you have "overstudied" something that is rather plain in the scriptures; that is, that there is no post death "second" chance (or rather, unlimited opportunity to be saved).

If you think that the proposition that "there is no post death 'second' chance" is "rather plain in the scriptures," then perhaps you have some passages in mind that I have not considered. I personally have not found the Bible to say anything very plainly about the state of man after death.

P.S. - recently you argued that the Catholics were wrong to take John 20:23 as applicable to them today because it was not spoken to us which would seem to contradict your application of John 16:13.

Some things in the upper room discourse are indeed addressed only to the apostles with regard to their apostolic mission and privilege (e.g., John 15:27), while other statements seem to be for the entire Church (e.g. John 13:34-35). I readily admit to finding some difficulty, with some of the statements, in deciding whether they apply to all Christians, or only to the apostles. This includes John 20:23. Depending upon what it actually is promising, it might be applicable to all Christians, or only to the apostles. No one has every heard me commit myself to one or the other view on this verse.

[Paidion]

Homer, can you quote even one sentence from the New Testament which states that Jesus paid for our sins? I cannot find such a sentence.

It is true that Paul writes twice in I Corinthians the words, "You were bought with a price", but the context doesn't make clear the meaning of this sentence.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

See Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45 where the Greek word lutron is used of Christ's ransom payment, and 1 Timothy 2:6 where the Greek word antilutron is used of the same.

Of lutron Joseph Thayer says "the price for redeeming, ransom (paid for slaves Lev. 19:20; for captives, Isaiah 45:13, for the ransom of a life, Ex. 21:30; Num. 35:31)."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says of "ransom":

1. Usage by Christ:

The supremely important instance is the utterance of the Lord Jesus Christ as reported by Matthew and Mark (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45), and in looking at it we shall be able, by way of illustration, to glance at the Old Testament passages. The context refers to the dispute among the disciples concerning position in the Kingdom, with their misconception of the true nature of Christ's Kingdom. Christ makes use of the occasion to set forth the great law of service as determining the place of honor in that Kingdom, and illustrates and enforces it by showing that its greatest exemplification is to be found in His own mission:

"For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister" (Mark 10:45). His ministry, however, was to pass into the great act of sacrifice, of which all other acts of self-sacrifice on the part of His people would be but a faint reflection--"and to give his life (soul) a ransom for many" (same place). He thus gives a very clear intimation of the purpose and meaning of His death; the clearest of all the intimations reported by the synoptists. The word He uses bears a well-established meaning, and is accurately rendered by our word "ransom," a price paid to secure the freedom of a slave or to set free from liabilities and charges, and generally the deliverance from calamity by paying the forfeit. The familiar verb luo, "to loose," "to set free," is the root, then lutron, that which secures the freedom, the payment or forfeit; thence come the cognate verb lutroo, "to set free upon payment of a ransom," "to redeem"; lutrosis, "the actual setting free," "the redemption," and lutrotes, "the redeemer." The favorite New Testament word for "redemption" is the compound form, apolutrosis.

2. Old Testament Usage--the Law:

The word lutron was common in Greek classical literature, constantly bearing the sense of "ransom price," and was frequently connected with ritual usage, with sacrifice and expiation. But for the full explanation of our Lord's great thought we have to look to the Old Testament usage. The two leading Hebrew verbs translated in our version by "redeem," are generally rendered in the Septuagint by lutroo, and derivatives of these words conveying the idea of the actual price paid are translated by this very word lutron.

Also when Jesus from the cross said "it is finished" the Greek word used, teleo, is said to be the word used as a stamp on debts meaning "paid in full".

Hope this information helps your understanding of this great topic.

[Paidion]

I appreciate your reply, Homer. But you still haven't quoted a verse which states that Jesus paid for our sins. You seem to have injected the concept into the passages which you did quote. The prime examples are the two passages to which you refer. Taken out of context, one could imagine that since they speak of ransom, they must speak of Jesus paying a ransom price for our sins by his death. But in context, this is clearly not the case.

Since they both seem to describe the same incident, I will deal with the Matthew passage, though my point applies equaly well to the passage in Mark.

... Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:25-28

The theme of this passage is NOT Jesus' sacrificial death. It is all about how his disciples are not to Lord it over people but to serve them, just as He served people. Jesus served His own disciples (who were under His authority), washing their feet. He prevented the woman taken in adultery from being stoned, did not condemn her Himself, but instructed her to go and sin no more. He healed all who came to Him, and set the prisoners free. This is how Jesus gave His life — the life that He lived while on earth! He gave His whole life to serve others rather than Himself. But then how was that a "λυτρον" if the word means "ransom"? The word does indeed mean "ransom" but the word has a broader meaning than that also. As you have pointed out, the word comes from "λυω", the verb "to loose". So the broad meaning of the word is "a means of loosing". Indeed, Strong's defines it as "something to loose with". Paying a price is one way to loose a slave, but there are several other ways as well. Jesus gave His life, His life here on earth, as a means of loosing people from their suffering — healing the sick, loosing those in prison, saving lives, etc.

The verb "λυτροω" that you mentioned also has a wider meaning that to redeem by paying a price.

Please consider the following passages:

[Jesus Christ] gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

What price could Jesus pay to buy us from lawlessness? To whom did He pay it? To God? To the devil? However, the meaning is simple if we consider the wider meaning "to deliver". Jesus by His death delivered us from lawlessness. He didn't pay a price to anyone.

... knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ,... I Peter 1:18,19

I suppose this is one where you could make a case that a ransom price was paid not with money, but with the precious blood of Christ. But if that were the case, the idea of being ransomed "from futile ways" seems odd. It would make more sense to be ransomed or bought from the devil or from some other agent who held you captive. How can you be ransomed from futile ways? To whom was the blood price paid?

When talking with Jesus after He had been raised from the dead, one of His disciples said concerning Him:

But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Luke 24:29

Now what was that disciple hoping that Jesus would do to redeem Israel from the Romans? Pay the Romans money so that they would free Israel? I don't think so. I think they were hoping He would raise up an army and take it by force. Once again, the meaning is that they hoped He was the one to deliver Israel from the Romans.

So actually there is no verse in the entire New Testament which states that Jesus paid for our sins.

The closest thing to payment is found in Revelation:

Revelation 14:3 they sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth.
Revelation 14:4 these are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. these are the ones who follow the lamb wherever he goes. these were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to god and to the lamb.

Here the word translated "redeem" is "αγοραζω". This verb is derived from the noun "αγορα", which means "marketplace". So "αγοραζω" means to do business in a market place — to buy or sell there. Notwithstanding we still have that oddity even in these verses — "redeemed from the earth" and "redeemed from among men". To whom was the price paid?

[steve7150]

But you still haven't quoted a verse which states that Jesus paid for our sins





Paidion,
Though Isa 53 is not the NT i assume you agree it's about Christ,

"But he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our well being fell upon him, and by his scourging we are healed" Isa 53.5


It sounds to me like it was him for us 4 consecutive times.

[steve7150]

The difficulty with all of this, and indeed universalism, is that we can in no way make ourselves right. We can never pay for our sins, no matter that we spend 10,000 years in hell. That will not even pay for one. We can never, apart from Christ's rightousness, become not guilty. Though a murderer be executed for his crime, and be said to pay for his sin, he is as guilty after his execution as he was before.Homer






Evangelical Universalism does not affirm we can pay in full for our sins, it affirms Christ did that just as traditional Chrisatianity does. It simply believes hell is not eternal and God determines whatever happens to the unbeliever in the lake of fire. Whatever it is that happens to the unbeliever i think it's more for the sake of justice and more for the sake of spiritual cleansing but as you know we are not told the specifics. However none can ever obtain salvation without confessing Christ as Lord and Savior, but the bible does plainly state that there will be such a day when every tongue will in fact make that confession. Since that day can not happen until after death i'm not so sure everything really is all that ambiguous except for the fact that it would require a radical change of view. Most people don't like doing anything radical.
However Homer considering how much we all have discussed this topic in the past i'm surprised you would claim CU affirms unbelievers can pay for their own sins. I don't remember that claim ever being made.

[Paidion]

Paidion,
Though Isa 53 is not the NT i assume you agree it's about Christ,

Actually, while it's applied to Christ, it may not be DIRECTLY about Christ. How this can be, is a big subject in itself, which I hope to introduce some day, and hopefully much can be learned from the discussion.

In any case, the nation of Israel is called "my servant" by Yahweh on several occasions, and the official Jewish explanation of the passage is that it is a prophecy about Israel, the suffering servant of Yahweh. One might wonder how verse 10 can apply to Jesus (he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days) and also verse 12 (Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong).

Notwithstanding, let us suppose that the prophecy is about Christ. Is there any part of it that says the suffering servant will PAY for the sins of God's people?

[RICHinCHRIST]

Paidion,

You're awesome. You just never give up!


I disagree with you though. I was wondering what you thought about my post earlier.




Are we not being saved from God's wrath on account of the blood of Christ according to this passage?

[steve7150]

"But he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our well being fell upon him, and by his scourging we are healed" Isa 53.5




Paidion,
I understand that earlier in Isaiah Isreal was often the subject but i think this started to change before Isa 53 but here this suffering servent is called "righteous"
yet he would still suffer for the sins of others. In Deut 27 - 28 , God said if Israel were righteous she would be blessed coming and going, so this suffering servent is tortured though he was righteous and that means it can't be Israel, for this and other reasons. Also Matthew quoted this verse and applied it to Jesus , so you would have to believe Matthew was wrong about this.
Re your point about where it says Christ would pay for our sins, the above says that this righteous suffering servent would suffer for our iniquities,transgressions,well being and that through his scourging we are healed. Although the word "pay" is not used , it sounds to me as if he is in fact paying a price for others.
BTW i take verse 10 to be speaking about the resurrection.