Nature of the Atonement

[Paidion]

From the beginning of mankind, God has wanted people to be righteous and sin free. Why? Surely God cannot be harmed by our sin! As I see it, God is LOVE, and He knew that man's righteousness would most benefit him. For example, it is through man's compassion that others have their needs supplied, and feel loved. It is through the sins of hate and envy that others are beaten, tortured, and murdered. Cain was not accepted, not because he offered vegetables instead of meat, but because he yielded to sin. When he was angry at God for not accepting him and his gifts, God said, "Why are you angry? If you do well, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do well, sin is crouching at your door, but you must master it." Throughout the history of man, God has asked people to do well and avoid wrongdoing. Because man in general still continued in evil, even the chosen people, God provided a sacrifice to show man the way of sacrifice, and to provide the grace to enable him to live righteously.

The reasons given in the New Testament for Christ's death are all essentially the same:

I Peter 2:24 He himself endured [or "bore"] 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.

So Christ died primarily to save us from our sins (the purpose which the angel announced to Joseph). He wants us to become righteous people, and has facilitated this by the death of His Son. Escaping the consequences naturally accompanies the process of salvation, but is not its primary purpose.

The question is frequently asked people who hold this view, "We can never be perfect, so how can we know whether we will ever be righteous enough to ever make it to heaven?"

First, is it true that we can never be perfect? Jesus said to his disciples, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48

How many of us believe it is possible to be perfect as the Father is perfect? Jesus obviously did, or he would never have given this instruction to his disciples.

As I see it, every true disciple of Christ is on the road to perfection. Is this not the "narrow path that leads to life" which few find? If we continue on this road (or path), then will Christ not put the finishing touches upon us when He returns? So that whether we are alive at His returning, or have been resurrected at that time, we will have at last arrived at perfection? Thus we need not fear about "not making it", if we stay on the narrow path.

Paul seemed almost to suggest that perfection is possible even in this life.

... And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ ... Ephesians 4:11-13 NKJV

I am wondering whether perfection will be obtained by some prior to Christ's coming. I am far from certain about this. Nevertheless, perhaps the "overcomers" of Revelation, or the "manifest sons of God" of which Paul speaks, will have arrived at that state through the grace of God, even before Christ comes.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

The question is frequently asked people who hold this view, "We can never be perfect, so how can we know whether we will ever be righteous enough to ever make it to heaven?"

First, is it true that we can never be perfect? Jesus said to his disciples, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48

How many of us believe it is possible to be perfect as the Father is perfect? Jesus obviously did, or he would never have given this instruction to his disciples.

As I see it, every true disciple of Christ is on the road to perfection. Is this not the "narrow path that leads to life" which few find? If we continue on this road (or path), then will Christ not put the finishing touches upon us when He returns, so that we are alive at His returning, or have been resurrected at that time, we will have at last arrived at perfection? So we need not fear about "not making it", if we stay on the narrow path.

Since Jesus appears to be the only one who was perfect, and every one else who has ever lived has fallen short in one way or another, why would Jesus not "put the finishing touches" on everyone when He returns? Are some not trying hard enough? What about the Buddhist who is trying to live a good life and, although he does not pretend to know Jesus, is, in fact, living more as Jesus would have him live than many Christians? Are we saved by striving for perfection, or are we saved by faith in Chist and find our "sabbath rest" in Him and follow Him as our Lord, because we are abiding in Him?

And you wrote:

I am wondering whether perfection will be obtained by some prior to Christ's coming. I am far from certain about this.

No uncertainty on my part, IMO the answer is no, unless you mean a temporary perfection, or redefine what it means to be perfect. As Jesus taught, even thoughts can be sin; they do not have to be acted on. That momentary pleasure felt when something bad happens to an enemy is sin. And this is not even considering sins of ignorance. There are situations where we do not truly know God's will for us and fail to meet His expectations. This too is sin.

On the other hand, I have no doudt that there are a great number of Christians who have reached a state of maturity, as the NASB translates teleios as "mature" in the passage you cited in Ephesians where the NKJV has "perfect" man. I'm sure you know that teleios is legitmately translated as "mature". What you may not be aware of is that there is a Greek word that actually means sinlessness and it is never used in the New Testament. It is the word anamartesia. We find the adjectival form used once in John 8:7, "he who is without sin....".

In your system I am at a loss to understand how anyone can ever know they are saved.

God bless, Homer

[Paidion]

In your system I am at a loss to understand how anyone can ever know they are saved.

I am assuming by "saved", you mean "saved from hell". You cannot "know" this in any system.
But in "my system", as you call it (which is the "system" about which I read throughout the records of Christ's words, and those of His apostles), you can have assurance by staying on the narrow path, as I have clearly stated. So I am not sure why you are "at a loss to understand".

To give a rather poor analogy, I cannot know that I will live another year. But if I take care of my health, and avoid walking in dangerous parts of cities, and be cautious in using my chain saw, etc., etc., I may have a fair degree of assurance that I will. This is a poor analogy because in the case of staying on the narrow path, I can have complete assurance that I will not need to go to hell, for I am on my way to perfection, for God allows no sin, nor sinful tendencies in heaven, and by the time I am raised from the dead, or shortly thereafter, my perfection will be complete. However, the reason I cannot know that I will escape hell, is that I do not know that I will remain on the narrow path. Although I may want to stay on it with all my heart, it is possible that I might at some point choose otherwise. That's the risk because of the freedom to choose with which God has created mankind.

Some may say that they know that they will escape hell because of what Jesus did for them on the cross. But Jesus' death on the cross does not over ride free will. Just as His death does not insure that everyone will escape hell (since most people will not choose to be His disciples), so his death will not insure that all disciples will escape hell (since they have the free will to stop serving Christ, and begin living for self again). The writer to the Hebrews emphasized the importance of the choice of perseverance.

Hebrews 3:14 For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end. RSV

[steve7150]

Steve7150,

John Mark Hicks answers your question very well, I think:






Yes thank you Homer , Hicks gave a comprehensive explanation about the atonement including expitiation (i learned a new word) and propitiation and that God did it for the sake of his own self.
To me this is important as i agree with Hicks that God did do it for the sake of his own self or to put it differently , for the sake of his own integrity or righteousness. The only reason that makes sense to me re why the atonement would be from God to God for his creation and for God's own righteousness is that to some extent God considers himself at least partially responsible for mans sin because he made man innocent and unable to resist Satan and temptation.
Man is also responsible obviously knowing right from wrong yet in the end i think God created us to fall , learn from it and to be restored back to him in the end.

[Paidion]

To me this is important as i agree with Hicks that God did do it for the sake of his own self or to put it differently , for the sake of his own integrity or righteousness. The only reason that makes sense to me re why the atonement would be from God to God for his creation and for God's own righteousness is that to some extent God considers himself at least partially responsible for mans sin because he made man innocent and unable to resist Satan and temptation.

Jesus, the Son of God, begotten before all ages, is Another exactly like His Father:

He is the brightness of [God's] glory, and the exact expression of His essence... Hebrew 1:3

Jesus came as the "logos" (expression) of the Father. He revealed the Father's nature both by His teaching, and His life of service.

Mark 10:45 For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a λυτρον for many.

Now the Greek word "λυτρον" comes from the word "λυω" which means "to loose". So Christ came not to be served but to serve giving his life as a means of loosing for many. "Giving his life" does not refer to His sacrifice on the cross, but the giving of His life while on earth to serve others rather than serving Himself. That this is the meaning is clear from the previous three verses.

And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
But 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 slave of all. (Verses 42-45)

Jesus didn't serve Himself but served others by loosing them from their illnesses, sin, and all that oppressed them. So if Jesus is Another just like His Father, then the Father also doesn't serve Himself. Since God is LOVE, He gives Himself for the sake of people, just as Jesus did. and not "for the sake of his own self" or "for the sake of his own integrity or righteousness".

[steve7150]

Jesus didn't serve Himself but served others by loosing them from their illnesses, sin, and all that oppressed them. So if Jesus is Another just like His Father, then the Father also doesn't serve Himself. Since God is LOVE, He gives Himself for the sake of people, just as Jesus did. and not "for the sake of his own self" or "for the sake of his own integrity or righteousness".




For the sake of himself or for the sake of his integrity or righteousness i don't take as serving himself in a selfish way as you seem to be framing it, but like a judicial standard of righteousness that is part of God's character and He won't contradict his character/righteousness/holiness by leaving a true sin debt unpaid. Jesus loves us yet he also will judge us because he is righteous and will judge us justly.

[Paidion]

For the sake of himself or for the sake of his integrity or righteousness i don't take as serving himself in a selfish way as you seem to be framing it, but like a judicial standard of righteousness that is part of God's character and He won't contradict his character/righteousness/holiness by leaving a true sin debt unpaid. Jesus loves us yet he also will judge us because he is righteous and will judge us justly.

I don't see God's character as requiring Him to be bound by some celestial judicial standard by which He is obligated to punish sin retributively as human courts do. Retribution serves no useful purpose, whereas correction does. God is interested in correcting us, changing our character --- in other words, "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things have passed away; behold all things have become new."

Since you appear to believe in the reconciliation of all to God, I am wondering how you fit this belief with your view of retributive justice, whereby God makes people "pay" for their wrongdoing.

[steve7150]

I don't see God's character as requiring Him to be bound by some celestial judicial standard by which He is obligated to punish sin retributively as human courts do. Retribution serves no useful purpose, whereas correction does. God is interested in correcting us, changing our character --- in other words, "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things have passed away; behold all things have become new."

Since you appear to believe in the reconciliation of all to God, I am wondering how you fit this belief with your view of retributive justice, whereby God makes people "pay" for their wrongdoing




Just to be clear, phrases like "celestial standard" and "retribution" are your words probably used by you to frame my belief in a certain light. From the Tanach by Stone in Isa 53.6 "Hashem inflicted upon him the iniquity of us all" and "Hashem desired to oppress him and He afflicted him."
So you may believe that Jesus sacrifice which did involve him being tortured before he died serves no useful purpose but to me at least Isa 53 taken as a whole unambigously desribes a substitutionary sacrifice in that it explicitly says he died for our sins and by his stripes we are healed.
You seem to have this either/or scenerio , meaning only one view can be true as if a substituionary sacrifice can't be compatable with God desiring us to be righteous on our own. It's possible the sacrifice of Jesus was substitutionary not only for individuals but also for the world as Jesus is called "the Savior of the world" and Mary was told "he will save men from their sins."
Since we know Jesus defeated Satan on the cross (Col 2) (John 12.31) it's possible in Isa 53 that the reason Hashem desired to oppress him was not for retribution but somehow the suffering part his sacrifice and his resurrection was all necessary to defeat Satan and ultimately defeat the power of evil. There appear to me to be several reasons for Jesus atonement and we are never explicitly told all the hows and whys, just the ultimate impact. However it does seem to me that God sacrificed to himself and judicially speaking the only reason that would be necessary IMHO is that God is responsible for creating man spiritually weak and unable to resist temptation and Satan. I think it is a necessary thing for us to learn about evil and overcome it.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Mark 10:45 For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a λυτρον for many.

Now the Greek word "λυτρον" comes from the word "λυω" which means "to loose". So Christ came not to be served but to serve giving his life as a means of loosing for many. "Giving his life" does not refer to His sacrifice on the cross, but the giving of His life while on earth to serve others rather than serving Himself. That this is the meaning is clear from the previous three verses.

You never cease to amaze me by the unfounded assertions you make. So lutron came from luo which means "to loose", thus lutron must simply mean "loose". You are capable of better than this. You like to use the Septuagint to make your points about how Greek words were used. Go check Leviticus 27:31 and tell us what lutron means there.

According to my theological dictionary, in classical and OT Greek lutron denotes the means or money for a ransom. Are you saying that by dying for us Jesus performed no service for us?

[Apollos]

According to Wikipedia "propitiation" is associated with "expitiation" and "satisfaction" and the site does say something akin to God then becomes favorably disposed toward us if we accept the atonement. Expitiation seems to mean the removal of the sin problem. The question for me is why does God in effect sacrifice to himself to remove the sin problem of his creation and to satisfy either his wrath or IMO his righteous character.
Peter said that the sacrifice of Christ was determined before the world was created so again, why does God sacrifice to himself for his creation's sins?
I think if we really had "freewill" God would not be sacrificing to himself , i think the truth is somewhere between freewill and Calvinism.

I was reading something today which might (or might not!) be helpful from Margaret Barker:

The Jewish Encyclopaedia again: ‘In the prophetic language,
however, the original idea of the atonement offering had become lost, and instead of the
offended person (God) the offence or guilt became the object of atonement.19 The assumption
here is that the prophets altered the original meaning of atonement.

But what if they are both right, as Barker suggests (with the priest acting in the stead of God), and that making atonement is more about covering or removing guilt. If so, then it is the offence or the guilt which is expatiated by an offering. I think she might on the right tracks here.