Nature of the Atonement

[Paidion]

Greetings Rich and Steve7150,

From your posts I am getting the impression that you think I do not believe in the efficacy of Christ's death on our behalf. I do so believe! The angel announced to Joseph that the babe's name was to be "Jesus" (saviour) for he would save his people from their sins. I have quoted many times passages which give the reason for Christ's death in relation to our sin and wrongdoing:

I Peter 2:24 He himself offered up our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living .

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Heb 9:26 ...he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Christ didn't die so that we might have forgiveness of sins (although according to many translations, this reason is given in some verses); He died so that we might have deliverance (salvation) from sin, so that we might cease from sins. According to Hebrews 9:26, the purpose of Christ's sacrificial death was to do away with sin completely!

What I am opposing in this thread is the concept that Christ died to pay for our sins as a sort of legal, commercial contract. For example some think the devil somehow acquired ownership of man, and so Christ had to offer a payment in order to buy us back from Satan. On the other hand, perhaps you mean "pay" in a figurative way, that is, that Christ paid with his life, so that we might be delivered from sin. I have no problem whatever with that concept.

My position is not some offbase heresy. It is the ancient position of the whole Christian Church. Whereas the Western branch of the Catholic Church (Roman Catholicism, as well as Protestantism which sprang from it) has espoused the penal substitutionary view of the atonement (which in my opinion is heresy), the Eastern branch, which became the Orthodox Church in 1054 A.D., have never held this view.

You can listen to and watch a video on the topic by Hany Mina Mikhail, a teacher in the Christian Coptic Orthodox Church. This is Video 1 of 12. You can watch all 12 videos at this site:

Divine Justice by Hany Mina Mikhail

If you are interested in a fuller explanation of my own beliefs, you can review the first chapter of a booklet I wrote by clicking the link below. You can also read chapter 3 in the same area of the old forum.

[url=ttp://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=708 ... 738471a27d]The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ-Chapter 1[/url]

[steve7150]

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Heb 9:26 ...he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Christ didn't die so that we might have forgiveness of sins (although according to many translations, this reason is given in some verses); He died so that we might have deliverance (salvation) from sin, so that we might cease from sins. According to Hebrews 9:26, the purpose of Christ's sacrificial death was to do away with sin completely!

What I am opposing in this thread is the concept that Christ died to pay for our sins as a sort of legal, commercial contract. For example some think the devil somehow acquired ownership of man, and so Christ had to offer a payment in order to buy us back from Satan. On the other hand, perhaps you mean "pay" in a figurative way, that is, that Christ paid with his life, so that we might be delivered from sin. I have no problem whatever with that concept.







Paidion,
You present this as an either/or scenerio meaning either forgiveness or deliverance but not both for some reason. In the above verses from Titus and Hebrews there are references to "redeem us from all iniquity" and "do away with sin" so i wonder what happens to our prior sins in the eyes of God if we don't need forgiveness? Also you never responded to the 4 examples i gave from Isa 53 , where it sounds to me like it was him who took on to himself our transgressions and inequities. I did answer why i thought the subject in Isa 53 can't be Israel as the suffering servant was righteous yet tortured and that the reference about knowing his offspring referred to the resurrection. Also i agree it's not about the devil but rather something about God's own internal requirement of justice.

[Paidion]

Hi Steve 7150. Historically, atonement theories do seem to be either or but not both. Take Thomas Aquinas for an example of a teacher of the Western Church's view of the atonement as a legal "satisfaction" to God. Sacrifice was necessary for forgiveness, in order that God's justice might be satisfied. No purely human sacrifice was sufficent because every human being has sinned, except one human being who didn't sin because of the divine aspect. So the humanity of Christ was sacrificed to the divinity in Him, and thus the payment of satisfaction was delivered, so that God was able to forgive and still retain His justice. For if God simply forgave wthout this sacrifice, He would be condoning sin. For those who sinned AFTER their baptism into Christ, it was necessary for them to do penance in order to pay for these sins. In this case, it was the sinner himself who paid for his own sins. Aquinas didn't say a word about being delivered from sin by Christ. He was completely caught up in the legal method by which it was possible for God to forgive sin. The whole structure is built on the penitential system that require people to pay for their crimes.

My own view is that which I quoted from the Bible — that Christ died to deliver us from sin. If, being delivered, we obey Him, and stay on the narrow path which leads to life, God will certainly not hold our former sins against us. His forgiveness will accompany our deliverance. This may be compared to a human father who has a rebellious son. If the son repents (has a change of heart and mind) concerning his actions, and proves it by coöperating with his father instead of rebelling, the father is not going to hold the son's past against him. He does not need to be appeased by a sacrifice from his son in order that he might forgive him.

If you should decide to look at the Hany videos on Divine Justice, you will see that the Eastern branch of the Church (today's Orthodox Church) holds the classic view of the atonement rather than the juridical, Latin view.

Would you describe your own view in greater detail?

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

According to Hebrews 9:26, the purpose of Christ's sacrificial death was to do away with sin completely!

If the purpose of Christ's atonement was to empower us so that we would no longer sin, according to your proof text, it would appear that the atonement was a great failure, otherwise Christians would never sin. Can you cite even one case where, in any person, sin has been done away with completely? I think the imputed righteousness model is better; His atonement is 100% successful for those who trust in Him, just as those who looked upon the serpent Moses lifted up.

My position is not some offbase heresy. It is the ancient position of the whole Christian Church

I would like to see your proof of this. How do you explain the following?

Letter to Diognetus, circa 125-200, 1.28:

The Father himself placed upon Christ the burden of our iniquities. He gave his own Son as a ransom for us: the holy one for the transgressors, the blameless for the wicked....For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness?...O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors.

Polycarp, circa 135, 1.35:

Jesus Christ "bore our sins in His own body on the tree".

Iranaeus, circa 180, 1.544:

By transgressing [God's] commandment, we became His enemies. Therefore, in the last times, the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation. He has become "the mediator between God and men," propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned. He has cancelled our disobedience by His own obedience. He also conferred upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker.

[dseusy]

Paidion wrote:
Christ didn't die so that we might have forgiveness of sins (although according to many translations, this reason is given in some verses); He died so that we might have deliverance (salvation) from sin, so that we might cease from sins.

My own view is that which I quoted from the Bible — that Christ died to deliver us from sin. If, being delivered, we obey Him, and stay on the narrow path which leads to life, God will certainly not hold our former sins against us.

I'm curious how you interpret Jesus' fulfillment of the law.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18

Then later:

"Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." Matthew 5:23-24

What saves us from performing the Law and the Prophets? Earth has not passed away, so isn't the Law of Moses still in effect?

[steve7150]

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18






Desusy,
Perhaps all was accomplished on the cross? i.e. "it is finished."

[steve7150]

Would you describe your own view in greater detail?




Paidion, My view is the "for our" view or "penal substitutionary" view or another words , Christ took upon himself our punishment view.
"Surely he has borne our griefs" 53.4
""carried our sorrows" 53.4
"wounded for our transgressions" 53.5
"the chastisement of our peace was upon him" 53.5
"with his stripes we are healed" 53.5

"And he is the propitiation for our sins and not only for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" 1 John 2.2

Paidion, how would you define "propitiation"?

I think that the other benefits that come afterwards such as overcoming sin and walking in the light , all these things are manifestations of first being forgiven of our sins. We love God because he loved us first in that His Son died for us while we were yet sinners.

[Paidion]

I'm curious how you interpret Jesus' fulfillment of the law.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18

Then later:

"Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." Matthew 5:23-24

What saves us from performing the Law and the Prophets? Earth has not passed away, so isn't the Law of Moses still in effect?

No, the law of Moses is not in effect. If a woman defends her husband in a fight with another man, by grabbing the man's genitals, we should not cut off her hand, showing no mercy.

"The Law" is the section of the Hebrew Bible called "The Torah", Genesis through Deuteronomy. "The Prophets" are just that — the writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the twelve "minor" prophets. Jesus fulfilled all that was prophesied of Him in these writings. Jesus indicated that not the smallest letter or stroke" would pass from the Mosaic writings until He has fulfilled all the prophecies about Him which are found therein.

The idea that Jesus lived His life in complete accord with the law of Moses so that we don't have to do so, is erroneous. According to John, Jesus broke the Sabbath (John 5:18)

When the Pharisees accused Christ's disciples of breaking the Sabbath by plucking heads of grain and eating them, Jesus didn't deny that this contrary to Sabbath keeping. Rather he gave the example of David eating the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, implying that David did not sin in doing so. He also added that He Himself was the Lord of the Sabbath.

So if we bear one another's burdens, we will fulfill the Law of Christ (which is the Law of Love. This would also include doing all that Jesus enjoined his disciples to do as recorded in Matthew 5, 6, and 7. You may take the position that these injuctions are an expansion of the Law of Moses. I don't think so. They spell out the true Law of God, love for God and neighbour. Rather the Law of Moses is an expansion of the Law of God and contains instructions which were never meant to be kept in perpetuity. Indeed the apostle indicates that we are now dead to the law, and belong to Christ. The implication is that we are under no law except Christ's law.

... do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. Romans 7:1-4 ESV

[Paidion]

Paidion, My view is the "for our" view or "penal substitutionary" view or another words , Christ took upon himself our punishment view.

That is the Latin view of the "atonement", that which developed later in the Catholic Church and carried into Protestantism. It was not the classic view. Again, a great deal of understanding may be acquired by listening to

Divine Justice by Hany Mina Mikhail

But more than video one is necessary. Every additional video give one a deeper understanding of the view that the Eastern Chuch held right from the beginning.

"And he is the propitiation for our sins and not only for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" 1 John 2.2

Paidion, how would you define "propitiation"?

It may be defined as "an appeasement or conciliation of an offended power." But that is significant to the discussion only if the Greek words so translated actually mean "propitiation". What follows is a section of my booklet The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in which I attempt to explain what the Greek words mean and why.

The Greek Words ἱλασμος (hilasmos) and ἱλαστηριον (hilastārion)]

The words used in the Greek New Testament and rendered as “atonement” or “atoning sacrifice in some modern translations are ἱλασμος (1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10) and ἱλαστηριον Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5). Both are derived from the verbal form ἱλασκομαι The Hebrew word translated as "atonement" is "kippur" and is usually rendered as ἐξιλαστηριον in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, translated about 250 B.C. in the reign of Ptolemy. Note that it differs from the New Testament word only by the addition of the prefix ἐξ (out of ). The verbal form of the Hebrew word “kippur” is "kaphar".
In the King James Version, ἱλασμος is translated as “propitiation”, that is, an appeasement or conciliation of an offended power. It is so rendered also by Darby, by the Douay translators, and by the translators of the King James Version and of Young’s Literal Translation.

The translators of the Revised Standard Version render ἱλασμος as “expiation”, that is, the act of making amends of reparation for wrongdoing. This is also the meaning of the English word “atonement.” In current English, “atone” is used in precisely the same way as “expiate.” If I accidentally run into the neighbour’s fence post and break it off, the neighbour may tell me, “You’re going to have to atone for that!” In other words, I’m going to have to “make up for it” in some way, perhaps by repairing the fence myself. In the NIV and the NRSV ἱλασμος is translated as “atoning sacrifice.”

The translators of the KJV and the Douay also render ἱλαστηριον as “propitiation” in Rom 3:25, and in the RSV it is translated as “expiation.” However in Heb 9:5, the translators of the KJV render the same word as “mercy seat”! It is so rendered also by Darby, and by the translators of the RSV, the NRSV, and Young’s Literal Translation. Mercy seat! That meaning is quite different from either “propitiation” or “expiation.”

Perhaps a look at the verbal form of the words would be helpful in deciding the true meaning of the words ἱλασμος and ἱλαστηριον

ἱλασκομαι [Strong's 2433]

Lu 18:13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' RSV

In this parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, every translation of which I am aware translates ἱλασκομαι as "be merciful". ἱλασκομαι is derived from the adjectival form ἱλιως, the meaning of which is “merciful”, and is so translated in Hebrews 8:12:

For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more. RSV

Curiously, the RSV translators render the word differently in Heb 2:17:

Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. RSV

Does consistency demand that the final phrase be translated as “to be merciful concerning the sins of the people”? If the verbal form means “be merciful” and the adjectival form means “merciful”, could the nominal forms be rendered as “means of mercy”? Let’s see how the verses would read if that were done:

ἱλασμος [Strong's 2434]

1Jo 2:2 and he is the means of mercy concerning our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1Jo 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the means of mercy concerning our sins.

ἱλαστηριον [Strong's 2435]

Ro 3:25 whom God put forward as a means of mercy by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins;
Heb 9:5 above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

We can leave the translation in Heb 9:5 as “mercy seat,” though under Mosaic law it was indeed considered a “means of mercy.”

One may confidently affirm that the translations which render ἱλαστηριον and ἱλασμος as "propitiation", a word which carries the idea of appeasement and averting of wrath are not correct. Our examination of the passages quoted above would cast doubt even upon the translation of these words as “expiation” or “atonement”. I suggest “means of mercy” as an appropriate translation of these words, a translation that is correct etymologically as well as contextually.

What a mercy the grace of Christ, that divine enablement! This enablement is described in Titus 2:11, 12:

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, upright, and pious lives in this world.

O gracious Yahweh! Through your son Jesus, and the words with which you have inspired your apostles, help us to understand more fully the means of mercy through the Anointed One, by which you have made available to us the process of salvation from sin. May this understanding help us to more fully appreciate your love and grace, to be better prepared, through your enabling grace, to show others the way to enter the door of salvation, to become your children, and thus to press on toward completion, to be conformed to the image of your son, and to be among the many brothers and sisters of the resurrection, of whom Jesus is the first born.

[dseusy]

Paidion wrote:
"The Law" is the section of the Hebrew Bible called "The Torah", Genesis through Deuteronomy. "The Prophets" are just that — the writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the twelve "minor" prophets. Jesus fulfilled all that was prophesied of Him in these writings. Jesus indicated that not the smallest letter or stroke" would pass from the Mosaic writings until He has fulfilled all the prophecies about Him which are found therein.

Where does it state that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies about Him?

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18

These two verses are sandwiched between:

"Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." Matthew 5:16

and

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19

My understanding is that Jesus is stating that He came, not to abolish the requirements of the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill... if Jesus was speaking of fulfilling the prophecies about Him, why doesn't the context support it? He speaks about good works, then speaks about fulfilling the Law & Prophets, then reminds us not to annul the commandments (just because He fulfilled the requirements of the Law & Prophets doesn't mean we should annul the commandments, because they are still in effect- which is congruent with Romans 3:31, "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law." and Luke 16:17, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.").

Fulfillment can be fulfilling a prophecy or fulfilling a commandment (doing it, completing it)- but I believe this context shows the fulfilling of a requirement of the Law & Prophets, not the fulfilling of prophecies written about Jesus, although this is spoken of elsewhere and was also accomplished.