Board index ‹ Assorted Bible Questions

[Dennis Jensen]

Reply
@dexterslab

Sorry I missed some of your points that answered or anticipated some of my last questions and critiques. Maybe we’ll reach more clarity if we just discuss it a little more. I also may have repeated myself somewhat in the following. Thank you for your patience.

In my thinking, the big question involves the issue of the necessity of different posited means of atonement. PSA says that God had to do it this way or we could not be reconciled to God. God’s nature is such that he would have done anything that had to be done to bring us back to himself and keep us from the hell which is alienation from God. This shows us how incomprehensibly great is the Love of God. (Please remember, whenever I speak of PSA, I do not mean that God has someone else suffer for God; God endures this pain himself. If you want to critique the whipping boy brand of PSA, I will agree with most everything you say. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all endured the same suffering which was so great and so other than anything we endure that only God could endure it.)

But if Jesus’ death was just an example to motivate us to self-sacrifice and obedience unto death, this hardly seems worth the price God had to pay. God could motivate us in other ways. Whatever other possible view of atonement we might imagine, only PSA says that this is the only way atonement can be achieved. And this also seems to me to be clearly what Paul is saying in Galatians. If there were any other possible way, God would have taken it. Jesus pleaded with his Father to take this cup from him. Wouldn’t the Father have done this if there were any other possible way to bring about reconciliation with God?

PSA fits so perfectly with so much of the scriptural teaching of forgiveness of sin. Animal sacrifice is so easily explained by a PSA view and it is so difficult to understand given any other view. Phrases like dying or our sins and becoming a curse can easily have a PSA meaning, but it is difficult to see any other meaning that can feasibly be attached to them. If Luther became a curse for the Catholic Church, it was not in any way that provided salvation for them. He was willing to die for a cause, but neither did that cause bring salvation. His willingness stemmed from his obedience to Christ since Christ commanded him to be willing to give up his life rather than deny the truth he learned from God.

I don’t see how Luther being a representative rather than a substitute for his cause affects the argument. I’m not even sure what you mean by that. If you are saying Jesus is more of a representative than a substitute, then I would say a representative is a kind of substitute. If Jesus died as my representative, he still died in my place. If you mean representative in some other sense, please clarify.

My accusation about God being a moral monster in a nonPSA view stems from the notion that on any nonPSA view, Jesus need not have died. God could have brought about reconciliation by some other means and yet he did not. He brought about a needless agonizing suffering and death which was not the only way the greatest good God desired could be achieved. A good God would have chosen another way if it were available to him.

The moral monster accusation does not apply to the PSA view I presented because in this view it was God himself who chose to suffer and die. The accusation only applies to what I called a “whipping boy” PSA view. God chose an innocent one, Jesus, to suffer and die; Jesus did not want to but only obeyed out of obedience to the Father. If there were any other way salvation could be attained without a greater evil occurring, God should have chosen that way. Not taking that alternate route would have made God evil. But if the Father and Son are one in their Godhead, they both had eternally chosen the same thing; they both determined that it would be necessary to endure this pain should humankind fall. And they both determined that it would be worth creating a human race, and endure this pain they, the Godhead, did not want to endure, given the possibility that humankind would fall.

While on earth Jesus had his divine wisdom and power reduced such that he had now only the power and knowledge of an ordinary man. This we call the kenosis. All of his power to work miracles and his divine knowledge were given him by the Spirit when he needed it. When Jesus pleaded with God to take this cup from him, he no longer had the full knowledge of the eternal decision he had made in the depths of the Godhead, his decision to endure this pain. In the garden he knew only the part about not wanting to endure this pain. (Remember that the Father didn’t want to endure this pain either but he knew that he had to in order to attain salvation for the world.) With his limited knowledge while on earth, Jesus accepted this fate only out of obedience to the Father. He knew that though he couldn’t yet understand why the Father required this of him, his Father knew and would require only that which was absolutely necessary.

You say, “You asked why Jesus had to die. I gave a few answers and I don’t see how they make God a moral monster.”

I searched through your previous comments to find the reasons you gave that Jesus had to die. In fact I couldn’t find anything which couldn’t be shown to be completely unnecessary. Under any nonPSA view you presented, it can be shown that Jesus did not need to die. I did find you saying “Does God need the death of Jesus to be able to forgive? To me this doesn’t even sound like the God that Jesus revealed. . . . I think we only need to look at the Gospels to see this isn’t true.” So it sounds as though you are saying that Jesus did not need to die to bring atonement. If this is so, then God brought on Jesus unnecessary suffering and is a moral monster. I know God allows suffering to humanity, but as I pointed out earlier, God has reason for doing so that would not apply to Jesus.

In the case of Jonah preaching to the Ninevites, this gets into a new but related issue of how Gentiles living before the time of Christ were made righteous or acceptable before God. For that matter, were all people necessarily lost who lived before the crucifixion simply because the atonement had not yet been made? Some past theologians have considered this a serious problem especially given that the Scripture seems very clear that the OT saints are accepted by God.

My view is, first that the OT saints were accepted by God through animal sacrifice which anticipated Christ’s atonement. I don’t think there is really any problem that they might not accept that atonement once they find out what the animal sacrifice pointed to. The OT saints were accepted by God because they submitted completely to all that God asked of them and because of the objective means of reconciliation that the atonement would bring. They aren’t going to say to God, I’ve obeyed you all my life but now I won’t because I know what the sacrifices typify. They will obviously accept whatever means of atonement God tells them they must accept.

But what about the Gentiles living before Jesus? Paul said God overlooked or “winked at” (KJV) their ignorance but now calls all people to repent and that God left them witness of his existence (Ac 17.30; cf. 14.16-17). He said that God acted so as to draw people to seek him and find him (17.27-28). The implication seems very clear to me that they could find God even though they might still lack even the knowledge of the sacrifices which the Jews possessed. In Acts 10.34-35 Peter said that God accepts all people who fear or honor God and seek to do what is right. So those who seek God and those who honor God who know that God is there, so long as they follow the moral law that is written in their hearts, are accepted by God. Like the OT saints, they too must after death accept the atonement God has provided though, from the choices they had made before death, it is hardly conceivable that they will not.

So without taking this any further and getting into exclusivist/inclusivist controversies which could fill up numerous pages, let me just say that BC Gentiles, if I might call them that, could be accepted by God without knowing about or (for the time being) having Christ’s atonement. That does not mean that they can be saved without the atonement. It is the metaphysical work that the atonement accomplishes that saves anyone who is saved, and one must accept that atonement once God gives one this knowledge. Until one has this knowledge, God accepts the righteous BC Gentile because of their obedience and submission to God and because of the objective work the atonement will bring. If one is obedient before death, one will be obedient to God’s will after death when God reveals his will that one accept the atoning death of Jesus.

Likewise for the Ninevites, their repentance brought them forgiveness or atonement for their wickedness because of the future work Christ would accomplish by his death. Just because sacrifice was not mentioned in this case or in several other OT instances in which forgiveness is given does not mean it is not needed. Leviticus 17.11 makes it clear that it is always needed. If something is so categorically stated even just once, it should be obvious that when forgiveness is mentioned elsewhere, the writer will not need to repeat the fact that blood atonement is also needed.

You quote me as saying “God could have just told us to obey and repent.” Then you say that “God did, and in fact that is pretty much the entire Old Testament.”

But if that’s all there is to it, then Jesus didn’t need to come at all and die. Or he could have come and just preached obedience and repentance like any other prophet without dying an atoning death. He could have even claimed to be God incarnate and verified his claim by some other means than death and resurrection. Jesus and the apostles said more than just obey and repent; they said believe and trust in Jesus because of his atoning death. His blood is shed for the remission of sins (Mt 26.28); we are justified, accepted by God with our sins not counted against us, by his blood (Rm 5. 8-9); Messiah would have to suffer and rise from the dead (Ac 20.28); he died for our sins according to Scripture (1 Cor 15.3); we have redemption, forgiveness of sins, though his blood (Eph 1.7; Col 1.14, 20; 1 Pet 1.18-19); he was a sacrifice to God (5.2); he bore our sins in his body (2.24); he suffered for sins, the just for the unjust (3.18); he gave himself a ransom for us (1Tim 2.6); his blood cleanses us from all sin and is a propitiation for our sins (1Jn 1.7; 2.2; 4.10); he washed us of our sin and redeemed us to God by his blood (Rv 1.5; 5.9).

You say God didn’t want Jesus to suffer but it happened because of our sin. But you still cannot say that it had to happen. You haven’t shown that in your view God could not and would not have stopped it. God could have shown us our “system” was “broken” in some other way if he didn’t want Jesus to die. God gave Cain the power to “master” the sin which was “crouching at the door” seeking to have him. But once he sinned, only sacrifice could cover his sin.

You say, “I don’t think God used Jesus for ‘bringing about unnecessary and gratuitous suffering.’ I think suffering happened as a result of our sin, and Jesus died on behalf of our sins.”

But what does it mean to die “on behalf of our sins” if not to be a substitute who takes our sins upon himself on our behalf? If Jesus did not die as our substitute, then I just cannot see that God could not and would not have chosen another way to bring us salvation than to have him die this gruesome death. If God could have chosen another way to reconcile us to God which did not result in some greater evil and if God did not do so, then God was causing unnecessary and gratuitous suffering to Jesus.

I agree with much that you say. Atonement is more than just the death of Jesus, though I’m not sure how one might justify the claim that, say, the spreading of the Kingdom of God is part of the atonement.

Yes, the church often falls into an easy-believism in which one may simply say a sinner’s prayer and then go on with life as though nothing has happened. This is parallel to the Israelite sin of making animal sacrifice without true repentance and then continuing to do evil. I mentioned last time that Christians do need to become different than they were before; that they need to walk in holiness and that sin in their lives will bring judgment. Whether or not it is, as you say, a part of the atonement which brings the power to overcome sin, it is at least a special power or grace from God.

I hope you take my critique of your views as the searchings of a fellow believer simply seeking to understand the Scripture. I hope my thoughts will help to add some rational and biblical ideas to your pool of thinking as you seek to come to a more complete biblical theology. The problems with the nonPSA views you suggest make them just too difficult to accept in my view. A PSA view which sees the full Godhead as willingly enduring a suffering only God could endure because this was the only way we could be reconciled to God seems to me to answer the problems you see in PSA.

[dexterslab1976]

You asked several times, “If the Father could have done it any other way wouldn’t he have?” and most of your comments seem to be centered on this question. I can’t answer that. I don’t know what God could have done or should have done. I don’t think anyone can really answer this kind of question. The way you ask the question and define PSA, it seems you are suggesting that God has to obey some standard of justice that is outside of God. I hope that isn’t what you are suggesting. It just seems that way. All I’m doing is just trying to understand the language that was used to describe exactly what happened.

When phrases like “dying for our sins” or “becoming a curse” are used, I can easily take them to mean something different than the definition you use. I used Luther as an example to show how a slightly different angle could give a very different meaning. You asked was Luther able to provide salvation. Well, if you look at what he was trying to do the answer is yes. Salvation doesn’t have to mean to die on the cross. It also means to save from harm or ruin. We can see that what Luther was trying to do by breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church was prevent our ruin. He was trying to liberate us, and was willing to die for his cause. He became the representative of the Protestant movement, was willing to suffer for that cause, and others would not have to suffer because of what he did. He not only opened the way for others to follow in his footsteps, he was willing to take the persecution(give up his life, shed his blood) as the leader of this movement, face the wrath of the Roman Catholic Church, so others would be able to worship in freedom and not face the wrath he faced. (I know it can be argued that Luther didn’t really do all of this, but this is just an example and it can be applied to others) You may not agree this is what Paul meant by using this type of language, but there are other theories of atonement that believe this is what Paul was trying to express.

A representative just means a representative figure. As Adam is representative, so Jesus is representative. It doesn’t mean that Jesus took our place so God could finally forgive us. This representative idea is new to me, so I would rather you read what others have to say about it. I could be explaining it wrong. I think the example I used with Luther might help show what I mean by representative.

You also have to keep in mind how I use “wrath.” I don’t use it as some physical punishment that we can see at the moment. I think the best way to explain it is to say we are all in a current state of wrath. When I gave the example of Adam and Eve, I said wrath was what resulted from their disobedience. They were cut off and no longer able to commune with God. Their relationship was broken. This is the wrath of God as I understand it. Until that relationship is restored we are in a constant state of wrath. God cannot commune with sin, so there is a separation. God’s anger towards our sin causes us to be cast out until redemption.

Was the suffering of Jesus unnecessary? I would have to answer that with a yes and no. A soldier who joins a war to stop an evil dictator was necessary to stop the spread of the dictator’s power but it was unnecessary if the dictator would have never started it in the first place. The soldier joined the effort because of the sin of the dictator and to stop his broken system. The sufferings of those like Bonhoeffer were necessary from the point of view of Bonhoeffer to stop Hitler. They were unnecessary looking at it years later from an outside point of view, if only Hitler would not have become a dictator or if the treaty that lead to the rise of Hitler was never put into place. Sometimes a broken system or sin has necessary results.

You assume the Ninevites were forgiven because of the future work of Jesus but you are not really basing it on anything. All we know is that forgiveness was given based on what the people did. We also know that Jesus went around forgiving the people of Israel before his death. As I mentioned in the Gospel according to Matthew, Jesus bore their diseases and took their infirmities before his death. This means what Isaiah mentioned was being fulfilled. God was establishing his Kingdom through Jesus. People were being redeemed, and forgiven. This is one of the reasons why I stated that the spread of the Kingdom was part of atonement. Jesus was announcing salvation before he was announcing the cross.

You gave many verses to back up what you believe, which is great, but I have given examples as to why these verses don’t have to point to PSA. You are asked, “But what does it mean to die on behalf of our sins if not to substitute who takes our sins upon himself on our behalf,” and I have already given another idea as to what this might mean. Even the Greek word for “bore” can mean to “lift up” or “carry to off” which shows this also doesn’t have to point to PSA. I have also shown that God didn’t need the death of Jesus to be able to forgive, which is a major hole in the definition of PSA. Even when Jesus said he has come to give his life “as a ransom for many” doesn’t have to point towards PSA. The Greek word for ransom is lytron and is used for redemption, and points more towards the liberating or redemption of Israel. My point for this short summary of these phrases is they don’t have to point towards the definition of PSA, and actually seem to fit better with what I stated about atonement. If an atonement doctrine does not include his life, death, resurrection, accession, and the spread of the Kingdom it is inadequate. It not only ignores a major focus of the Gospels but also it leaves a Church that produces inadequate Christians.

[Dennis Jensen]

Just a few thoughts for now. Possibly more later.

I definitely do not see the principle of justice as something outside of God. It’s at the core of God’s very being and nature.

I cannot demonstrate that all possible nonPSA views cannot be necessary, that only a PSA view gives us a reason that God had to incarnate and suffer and die to bring us back to God. Yet when I look at all of the possible nonPSA views, they all seem so unnecessary. I talked with a Muslim scholar once. His view, which reflects the view of many Muslims and other theists, was that there is something presumptuous about telling God that he can’t do something. God has all power, absolutely and unconditionally. That means God can just tell someone that they are forgiven and that’s it. The Christian view is, or implies, that sin is a reality that cannot be removed by merely saying it is gone, even if it is God who says it is gone. In the garden, when Jesus was begging his Father to take this cup from him, wouldn’t the Father have done so if he could have? It’s not so much that God cannot do some things, it’s rather that he can do them but to do them he may have to use certain means. God couldn’t bring us salvation without Jesus dying.

If the Ninevites had been forgiven by something other than Jesus’ death as you claim, then again, it was not necessary for Jesus to die. Everyone could be saved that way and God would have chosen not to incarnate and die.

[Dennis Jensen]

Hey Dexterslab! I just noticed William Lane Craig made some comments on his question of the week email/web post. It's at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-dyi ... -sins-mean. (I'd sign up for his emailed question of the week if I were you. He has some great insights and powerful apologetic arguments.) You may find this informative; do take a look. I'm sorry I still haven't been able to give the time to focus on any more of the details of your arguments. Just too much going on for me this month. So this might be my last response unless I get a windfall of extra free time. Do spend time in prayer asking God's Spirit to lead you to a fuller understanding of just what the biblical teaching about atonement really means. How can anyone go wrong if they do that? Say, just out of curiosity, does the moniker dexterslab refer to something like Dexter's lab? Our prayers are with you as you continue to seek the fullness of God's truth. Keep Jim Walton's web site here in prayer too, if you get a chance. He's doing a great work helping Christians and non-Christians grow closer to Christ.

[dexterslab1976]

@Dennis
Dexterslab1976 comes from the great cartoon Dexter’s laboratory, and 1976 is my birth year. I have been using that name for a very long time.

I read the article you posted by William lane Craig. I have read a good bit of his stuff. He is great with apologetics, philosophy, and we are both molinist. Well, I don’t try to classify myself like that but molinism seems to be the closest to what I believe when dealing with free will vs predestined. When it comes to theology I tend to read others. He used the idea of being “imputed” to help prove his point and most of the time I feel that “imputed” tends to be read back into the Bible because of a preconceived belief. For instance even though it isn’t in the Bible, some people believe that Adam’s sin is imputed to everyone through birth this leads to the idea that we are all born with a sin against us making us totally depraved or if a baby dies before being baptized that baby could end up in Limbo. I think N.T. Wright does a good job dealing with the “imputed” righteousness of Christ and the same principle can be applied when dealing with God imputing to Jesus our sin and guilt. So, I don’t agree with Craig that our sin is imputed into Christ. The explanations that I have given for the phrases found in the New Testament can show that atonement has already been made without the idea that our sin is imputed into Christ on the cross.

I will admit there is one verse that gave me trouble. Mark 10:45 “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” The question that comes up is who Jesus is paying the ransom too. I have heard he is paying a ransom to God, the Devil, sin, or death. I want to say, but I’m not 100% sure, that PSA states Jesus pays the ransom to God.

I have mentioned earlier the Greek word for ransom, lytron, is used in the context of redemption, and after looking into it more I found a good verse that will help explain ransom a little more. Isaiah 51:11 “Then let those ransomed by the Lord return and come to Zion with singing and with everlasting joy overwhelm them; let grief and groaning flee.” There are a few other times in the Old Testament where ransom is being used as a way to save someone from death, or paying a ransom for someone’s life. Hosea 13:14 says that God will ransom them from the grave. Going by Isaiah 51 and Hosea 13 I don’t think God can be paying a ransom to God, this can also apply if we believe Jesus is the incarnate of God. God is paying a ransom but to who? To be ransomed is to be released from some sort of prison or bondage. It does seem that God is paying a ransom to death, but I don’t think that is possible since death is really just a state and not a being of some sort. I don’t think God owes to anyone, except to fulfill the promise of the covenant. My conclusion would be that when Jesus, like in the Old Testament, used the word “ransom” he was using a metaphor to describe what was happening in Isaiah 51. He was redeeming his people from bondage, and restoring paradise. This also meant they were being granted salvation. If we look before verse 11 we will see that the Lord is going to comfort Zion, make her wilderness like Eden, her desert like a garden, and there will be joy. This restoration the Lord is bringing is the salvation of Zion, as mentioned a few times in this same chapter. When his people are being redeemed they are receiving salvation. To ransom seems to be part of the process of salvation. Ransom is just another way of saying we are free from the world and we know belong to Christ. As I have shown before all of this was taking place before his death.