The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ

Post by **_Christopher** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:41 am

Hi Paidion,

I agree with you that Christ frees us from (not in) our sins that we may be empowered to live righteous lives as God wants us to. That can hardly be denied when you read the bible. But the doctrine that Christ died to pay for our sins (including past sins), is pretty central to the gospel message as well (at least in most peoples' understanding). It's very hard to miss. Paul wrote:

Rom 3:21-26
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
NKJV

justified means to render (i.e. show or regard as) just or innocent:

propitiation means an expiatory (place or thing), i.e. (concretely) an atoning victim

God is the "just" (because transgressions were paid for), and the "justifier" (because He's the One who paid for them with His own Son). I don't think of the atonement so much as appeasing an "angry" God as you say, but rather paying retribution to a just God who cannot violate His just and Holy nature by overlooking sin. Most sin is not only against God, but also against others.

"being witnessed by the law and the prophets" sounds a lot like what Jesus said:

Matt 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
NKJV

I recently heard an excellent teaching by Steve on this idea of "fulfilling" the Law. Laws are kept, or adhered to, not "fulfilled". The Levitical law could be fulfilled though because it had prophetic types and shadows, including blood sacrifices for atonement. Jesus fulfilled those types and shadows with His own blood, did He not?

You wrote:

But notice verse 9:2. Jesus said to the paralytic, "...your sins are forgiven". Jesus hadn't died yet. So forgiveness of sin was possible without His death. Thus his death could not have been for the purpose of forgiveness of sins.

I don't see why not. Jesus death was going to happen and He knew it. It's not unreasonable to say that God extended credit to those who were faithful before the cross. Paul belabored that point about Abraham.

I'd hate for us to miss the forest for the trees here. Your knowledge of the greek is very commendable, to say the least. But I have a hard time believing that all the expert greek translators up to this point missed such an obvious thing as what you're suggesting. They would have all have had to be extremely biased or naive to miss that IMO.

I could be wrong, and my atonement lenses may be very thick, but I'm going to have to default with the traditional view on this one. I haven't seen enough evidence to the contrary to even question it at this point.

Post by **_Homer** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:24 am

Paidion,

I'm trying to understand your position. I understand you to be saying that we are not justified by faith in Jesus' death for us but rather His death provides for our empowerment by His spirit so that we can progress in sanctification (righteousness) to perfection by which we attain justification.

A related question would be: How sanctified must we be to be justified?

If this is not your position please correct my misunderstanding.

Homer

Post by **_Steve** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:43 am

My reason for not posting here previously has been a combination of busy-ness and an inability to understand fully what Paidion's position is. I am still not sure I fully grasp what is being suggested in the original essay.

On the one hand, I sense the frustration with the prevalence of easy-believism, and a type of gospel preaching that neglects the urgency of repentance, baptism and lordship. With these sentiments, I think, many of us at this forum sympathize.

On the other hand, there seems to be a denial of the efficacy of the death of Christ to atone for sin, to bring justification and forgiveness to the repentant sinner.

The emphasis on deliverance from the power of sin and the call to live a holy life is refreshing enough, but it seems that the essay insists on an "either/or" stance. A great effort is made (apparently) to deny that forgiveness of sins is contingent upon, or was made possible by the sufferings of Christ. This denial, I think, does not do justice to many of the scriptural passages—including many of those brought up by Chris and others, above.

The essay seems to proceed from the assumption that true holiness, hatred for sin, and zeal for obedience are compromised by the acknowledgement of the availability of forgiveness of sins and justification by faith. This may not be Paidion's view, but it is the impression I can't help taking away from it.

Word studies about "forgiveness" may point out that several occurrences of the word would better be translated as "deliverance," but there are limits to what insights can legitimately be derived from the roots of words and their cognates. Two words with identical roots can have very different meanings. Contemporary usage is a most important consideration when determining the best translation of a word.

Even if doubt may be raised about the exact meaning of the Greek word translated as "forgiveness," there remain the many associated words, like "remission," "justification," "propitiation," "reconciliation," "not counting their sins against them," and such, which are found in relevant passages. The frequent demand placed by Jesus upon us to forgive so that we may be forgiven does not allow for a very different definition of "forgiveness" than that which most commonly comes to mind.

The aversion to the concept of an atoning sacrifice, exhibited in the essay, seems to be uncalled-for, since such sacrifices were at the core of the Mosaic cultus, and are clearly declared to have foreshadowed Christ's death. The scriptures cited about God's detesting the Jews' sacrifices, in context, are not a decrying of the sacrificial system, as such, but of the fact that those in Isaiah's time, who were continuing to observe the required rituals of sacrifice, were nonetheless living in ways abominable to God—rendering their worship hypocritical and nauseating:

"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord" (Prov.15:8/ 21:27/ 28:9).

The idea that the sacrifice of Christ saves us from wrath (Rom.3:24-26; 5:9/ 1 Thess.1:10) can hardly be alluding to the power given to us through His self-sacrifice to stop sinning (and thereby to stop incurring wrath), since, as Homer pointed out, the ability to live an exemplary life existed and was seen in some who lived prior to that sacrifice. Whatever power led such people as Job, Zecharias and Elizabeth to live righteously might well be credited with saving them, quite apart from Chris's sacrifice, if the salvation He brought us is merely the ability to live a holy life, and nothing more.

Over the years, in my many conversations with Christians who deny the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement—whether they take the Christus Victor view or the exemplar view—I have never been able to get a straight answer from them as to how, in their understanding, the sacrifice of Christ accomplished the thing they say it accomplished. Paidion suggested the beginnings of an answer with his reference to "identification," and perhaps he will be explaining it further. However, I do not believe that the satisfaction view of the atonement has been devastated by what has been presented thus far.

In short, I (mostly) agree with what he affirms, but disagree with what he seems to deny.

Post by **_Paidion** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:25 pm

Thank you for all of your questions. I trust that some of them will be answered in my Chapters 2 and 3. But first there are a few which I would like to address now. My next post, I hope, will be Chapter 2.

Todd
Are you saying that this [Jesus doing away with sin] is accomplished through the changed lives of the saints? or will He completely remove sin from existence at some point?

Yes, Jesus is eliminating sin in the lives of His disciples. This salvation from sin is a process. The process will be complete some day, when we will have been totally conformed to the image of Christ.

And yes, the total elimination of sin will take place at "some point". That total elimination will have occured when "all His enemies have been put under His feet", when all things will have been reconciled to Christ (Col 1:20)

The prophet Isaiah described that day in poetic language:

Isaiah 45:8 "Shower, O heavens, from above, and let the skies rain down righteousness; let the earth open, that salvation may sprout forth, and let it cause righteousness to spring up also; I, Yahweh, have created it.

Homer
If Jesus is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world", according to your view He isn't a very effective sacrifice for "we all stumble in many ways".

It's a very effective sacrifice, but the process of salvation from sin takes place throughout our lives. It seems Jesus will put the finishing touches on that process when He raises the overcomers from death at the time of His coming, those who are privileged to be in the first resurrection.

A related question would be: How sanctified must we be to be justified?

That's an excellent and important question, Homer. The Greek word translated "justified" seems to have two disctinct meanings. One is "righteousified" (a word I just coined, but it expresses one of the meanings). The other meaning is the same as is used today in ordinary speech. If I, as a teacher, attempted to justify my instruction to the pupils, I would attempt to show that that instruction conformed to the aims and objectives of the school board and department of education.
When we start on the road of salvation, God justifies us now. That is, He now regards us as if the process were finished, for "He who began a good work in you will continue to complete it until the day of Jesus Christ." If God is about to do a thing it's as good as done. In the book of Hebrews we read a quote from the Old Testament, "You have put all things in subjection under his feet", and two sentences later, the author states, "But we do not yet see all things subjected to him." It's not a contradiction. When God intends to do a thing it's as good as done NOW. Thus in the book of Ephesians we read "you HAVE BEEN saved" even though no one has yet been completely saved from sin. But since God is going to complete the process, we may as well say we have already been saved.

Steve
The scriptures cited about God's detesting the Jews' sacrifices, in context, are not a decrying of the sacrificial system, as such, but of the fact that those in Isaiah's time, who were continuing to observe the required rituals of sacrifice, were nonetheless living in ways abominable to God—rendering their worship hypocritical and nauseating

One could interpret the scripture I quoted from Isaiah in that way. But I think He was showing His displeasure with sacrifices per se, for this reason. The following words were obviously prayed by a righteous person. Yet that person states that Yahweh does not requre sacrifice and offering, but open ears that will hear His voice, and to obey His will.
Psalm 40:6-0 Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have opened; Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required. Then I said, "Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart. I have proclaimed glad tidings of righteousness in the great congregation; Behold, I will not restrain my lips, O Yahweh, You know. I have not hidden Your righteousness within my heart; I have spoken of Your faithfulness and Your salvation; I have not concealed Your lovingkindness and Your truth from the great congregation.

The idea that the sacrifice of Christ saves us from wrath (Rom.3:24-26; 5:9/ 1 Thess.1:10) can hardly be alluding to the power given to us through His self-sacrifice to stop sinning (and thereby to stop incurring wrath), since, as Homer pointed out, the ability to live an exemplary life existed and was seen in some who lived prior to that sacrifice. Whatever power led such people as Job, Zecharias and Elizabeth to live righteously might well be credited with saving them, quite apart from Christ's sacrifice, if the salvation He brought us is merely the ability to live a holy life, and nothing more.

As I have indicated in a previous post, exactly the same reasoning can be used to show that Jesus did not die to forgive people's sins. For Jesus said to the paralytic, "...your sins are forgiven". Jesus hadn't died yet. So forgiveness of sin was possible without His death. Thus his death could not have been for the purpose of forgiveness of sins.

It simply does not follow that those righteous people of old did not live righteously because of Christ's sacrifice. Could not His sacrifice have effected righteousness even before the event took place?
The scriptures I have quoted in Chapter One of my booklet clearly give the reason for Christ's death as being for the purpose of enabling us to live righteously. I believe that whether or not I can explain how the OT saints could have been righteous.

Over the years, in my many conversations with Christians who deny the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement—whether they take the Christus Victor view or the exemplar view—I have never been able to get a straight answer from them as to how, in their understanding, the sacrifice of Christ accomplished the thing they say it accomplished.

Perhaps it is not possible for a mere human being to understand or explain how the sacrifice of Christ accomplished deliverance from the practice of sinning and into the practice of righteousness. But is it any easier to understand how putting to death an innocent Victim would "satisfy" the Father's sense of justice? To most people's minds, this would be a prime example of injustice. For clarification of this point, I recommend reading George MacDonald's chapter "Justice" from his Unspoken Sermons, Book 3.

Or what satisfaction would the people of a country get when an innocent person was put to death as a substitute for a vicious rapist and murderer of little girls? Would they feel that justice had been done?

In my opinion the substitutionary theory of atonement, and particularily when it is combined with the "propitiation or appeasement of an angry God" poses far more problems that the theory I espouse.
The term "propitiation" is found in the King James Bible. Recent translators of the bible appear to have recognized that "propitiation" is not the correct translation of "hilasmos," though some still have it as "propitation", including the NKJV and the NASB.

Post by **_Roger** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:19 am

Eph. 1:7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace."

Heb. 9:22 ""without shedding of blood there is no remission."

IF Jesus had not died.......there would be no blood .......and there would be no remission. We have redemption....through His blood......THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS."

These verses do not seem to support what you are presenting here in your booklet.

Post by **_Paidion** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:34 pm

Chapter Two

The means of Mercy

The Substitutionary Theory of Atonement
Is “the atonement” the supreme sacrifice offered to appease an angry God, a means of covering our sin so that God who is holy and cannot tolerate sin does not see our sins but Christ's righteousness? Was Christ a substitute for us who took upon Himself the punishment which we deserve, so that we won't have to go to hell? Is the atonement the means by which to get to heaven in spite of our sinful human natures, in spite of our tendency to go on sinning throughout this brief span of life lived in a fallen world? Are these ideas consistent with the divine attributes of the Creator of the Universe? How can His love and His justice be reconciled while subscribing to this concept of the atonement?

The notion of the death of Christ being a means of appeasing a just God has led to the concept of Christ offered to God as our substitute, so that we would not have to take the punishment we deserve, eternal hell, but Jesus, the infinite God was able to take that infinite punishment on Himself in a finite period of time. There are some questions we might ask the proponents of this theory. Does the atonement, cover us all automatically, or is there something we must do to appropriate it? Most who espouse the substitutionary theory of atonement hold that there is indeed something we must do, although there is no "work" which we can do that will help us at all. Subscribers to this theory define "works" to be "good deeds which we have done in hopes that they will in some way make up for our wrongdoing, and balance the scale of justice in our favour". Eph 2:8 is usually quoted at this point:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. KJV

The verse immediately following is seldom quoted. That verse reads,

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. KJV

There is some variation in opinion as to what we actually must do to appropriate the “covering” so that we can get to heaven in spite of our sin, but there a common thread seems to run through the teaching as to what we must do. Usually it is taught that we must first recognize a number of facts:

What follows are the supposed facts:

1. We are indeed sinners.
2. Christ has died in our place.
3. We need to be saved (This is understood as the necessity of being saved from hell).
4. We are helpless to save ourselves.
5. We can be saved only by grace (This is understood to be the unmerited favour of God).
Now having recognized these facts, what we must do is :

1. Call upon Jesus to save us by His grace or in virtue of His shed blood.
and/or
2. Believe (or trust) in the finished work of Christ to save us.

If we have done one or both of these two things, we are considered to be "justified" ( a word understood to mean "just as if I'd never sinned", and saved from hell, for "God said it; I believe it; that settles it." In teaching this way to be saved, usually repentance is not mentioned at all, but if it is, it is thought to mean "feeling sorry for our sin" and then being ready to "accept Christ" as our "personal Saviour". "Accepting Christ" seems to mean recognizing Christ's "atoning work" and calling upon Him for salvation from hell.

Imagine two men, Jack, and Chris. Both have lived selfish, useless lives. Each has lived as a drunkard, as a thief, and as an adulterer. Each has continued in that way of life until death. Both appear before God to be assigned to their destiny. God says, "Jack, I see by the records that on October 12, 1978, you accepted my son Jesus as your personal Saviour. Okay, you're covered. I’m not mad at you anymore. You can go to heaven forever. Chris, I cannot find any record of your having accepted Jesus as your Saviour. I am utterly enraged at you. To hell with you forever!"

Most people would see in this scenario the action of a unfair and unloving God. But many who subscribe to the substitutionary theory of atonement would have no difficulty whatever! He would say that God's words to Jack demonstrates His love and mercy, and His words to Chris demonstrates His justice. How astonishing - that God is considered to exhibit two contradictory characteristics, love towards the less than 1% of mankind who “accept Christ as their personal Saviour” to whom He extends His mercy, but hate toward over 99% of humanity to whom he wreaks his vengeance through His judgment of everlasting torment! And that even where there is no difference in the life styles of the two groups!

As far as reality is concerned, what people think on any topic is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what God has revealed. In this booklet, it is my purpose to show what is found in the Bible concerning Christ’s sacrifice and its purpose.

At this point I want to emphasize that the substitutionary theory of atonement is just that --- a theory of atonement. Any reputable theology text book will present several other theories on the subject. But the substitutionary theory has so permeated every aspect of Christian teaching today that it is difficult for us to conceive of the sacrifice of Christ in any other way. Was Christ’s sacrifice a way of appeasing a God who was angry about sin? Does Christ's death meet some "legal demand" which requires the death of a sinless person? Is God "satisfied" with the excruciating death of His sinless Son? How does the death of an innocent victim "satisfy" God's justice? Is God bound by the spiritual legalities which He Himself has established?

In considering the various elements of the substitutionary theory let's first look at the "sacrifice" aspect. Does the living God require sacrifices to appease His wrath? Someone will say, "Oh no. Not any more. Christ was the supreme sacrifice to God. But under the old covenant He required them." REALLY? What good do they do Him? Is it not the heathen religions of the world that try to appease their gods with sacrifice, try to keep them from getting angry, try to avoid their wrath? Does the Creator of the Universe require this kind of appeasement? How did He feel about the Israelites trying to appease Him in this way? Through Isaiah, Yahweh spoke, calling the people “rulers of Sodom” and “people of Gomorrah”

Isaiah 1:10-20 Hear the word of Yahweh, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah!
“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says Yahweh; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he_goats. When you come to appear before me, who requires of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies-I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.”
“Come now, let us reason together,” says Yahweh: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.

As always, Yahweh, the great Creator, wanted righteousness. He wanted the Israelites to clean themselves from their evil ways. He wanted them to learn to do good, and He gave concrete of examples of what that meant. He wanted obedience from them.

But some claim that in this passage, it was not sacrifices per se with which Yahweh was displeased. It was sacrifices offered in unrighteousness. But no evidence of this can be given. It makes equally good sense to say that Yahweh did not want sacrifice at all, but a cleansing of their evil ways.

A well-known passage from Psalm 40 confirms the latter view:

Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have opened; Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.Then I said, "Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me.I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart. Psalm 40:6-8

Obviously the speaker is a worker of righteousness. He delights to do the will of God, which is written in his heart. Yet, God does not desire sacrifice and mean offering from him.4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Indeed, according to Hebrews 10, the speaker is Christ Himself!

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Hebrews 10:5-6

So clearly, God does not require sacrifices, but righteousness.

What does the word “atonement” mean?
In the King James Version of the New Testament, the word "atonement" occurs only once.

Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Oddly enough, it ought not to be so translated! The Greek word katallagā from which it is translated means not "atonement" but "reconciliation". The previous verse reads:

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

The King James translators rendered the verbal form of katallagā as “reconciled” in verse 10! Why not the nominal form as “reconciliation” in verse 11? Oh the wonders of translation! It is only in the sense that katallagā has been mistranslated “atonement” that we can correctly affirm that the breakdown “at-one-ment” expresses the meaning of “atonement.”

The Revised Standard Version and other modern versions are consistent in their translation of these verses:

Romans 5:10,11
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation.

It is wonderful to be reconciled to God! We can indeed rejoice that this has been made possible through our Lord Jesus Christ, through His precious blood, through His death on our behalf!

The Greek Words "hilasmos" and hilastārion

The words used in the Greek New Testament and rendered as “atonement” or “atoning sacrifice in some modern translations are "hilasmos" (1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10) and hilastārion Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5). Both are derived from the verbal form "hilaskomai". The Hebrew word translated as "atonement" is "kippur" and is usually rendered as "exilastārion" 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 "ex". The verbal form of the Hebrew word “kippur” is "kaphar".

In the King James Version, "hilasmos" is translated as “propitiation”, that is, an appeasement or conciliation of an offended power. It is so translated also by Darby, in the Douay, in the KJV, and in Young’s Literal Translation.

The translators of the Revised Standard Version render "hilasmos" 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 "hilasmos" is translated as “atoning sacrifice.”

The translators of the KJV and the Douay also render "hilastārion" 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 in Darby, and in the RSV, the NRSV, and Young’s Literal Translation. Mercy seat! The meaning seems 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 "hilasmos" and "hilastārion":

hilaskomai [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 "hilaskomai" as "be merciful". is derived from the adjectival form hileōs ,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:

hilasmos [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.

hilastārion [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 "hilastārion" and "hilasmos" 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.

Post by **_Christopher** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:18 am

Hi Paidion,

In your view, what was Jesus' point when He talked about the Father forgiving our debts?

Matt 6:9-13
Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
13 And do not lead us into temptation,
But deliver us from the evil one.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
NKJV

Luke 11:4
4 And forgive us our sins,
For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
NKJV

And what was the point of Jesus' parable:

Matt 18:21-35
21 Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" 22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, 'Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.' 27 "Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. 28 But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!' 29 "So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.' 30 "And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?' 34 "And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses."
NKJV

Post by **_Anonymous** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:43 am

Paidion,

Thank you so much for making me think and look up verses on a quiet Saturday!

I have a couple of questions.

1.) Why do you think that God required sacrifices in the Old Testament? Do you think he required sacrifices that he didn't want, or, well, require?

2.) Ok, maybe this isn't so much of a question. I read Psalm 40, a psalm of David. You say he was a worker of righteousness, yet in verse 12 it says:

12 For innumerable evils have surrounded me;
My iniquities have overtaken me, so that I am not able to look up;
They are more than the hairs of my head;
Therefore my heart fails me.

Then I was going to make a sarcastic comment about his adultry/murder, but thought better of it.

So instead I read Psalm 51 and it said:

16 For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;
You do not delight in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
A broken and a contrite heart--
These, O God, You will not despise.

Huh. Yet another verse about God not desiring sacrifice.

Now I do have a question after all. What do you make of the verses that follow?

18 Do good in Your good pleasure to Zion;
Build the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness,
With burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then they shall offer bulls on Your altar.

Do the 'sacrifices of righteousness' mean a broken and contrite heart? What about the burnt offerings in the next verse?

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:59 am

Thank you, Michelle, for your reponse to Chapter 2, and for your perceptive questions.

When I post Chapter 3, entitled "Offerings and Sacrifices", you may find answers to your question concerning offerings and sacrifices in the Old Testament.

Actually, I didn't say that David was a worker of righteousness (although God said he was a "man after His heart" which always puzzled me for the reasons you gave). I said that "the speaker" was a worker of righteousness, and according to Hebrews 10, that speaker was Christ Himself!

Your final question about Psalm 51:19 is a challenging one, and I intend to study and think about that one. Thank you!

Post by **_Paidion** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:41 am

In your view, what was Jesus' point when He talked about the Father forgiving our debts?
Matt 6:9-13 NKJV [some quotes removed]

Luke 11:4
4 And forgive us our sins,
For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
NKJV

And what was the point of Jesus' parable:

Matt 18:21-35
21 Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" 22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven [some quotes removed]....And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses."
NKJV

Dear Christopher,
I doubt that my view of Jesus’ “point” differs much, if any, from your own.
But I do wonder what your point is, in asking this question.
Do you believe that I am denying God’s forgiveness? Not once have I suggested such a thing.
What I did state was that the purpose of Jesus’ death was not to forgive us our sin, but so that we could, by His grace, overcome sin in our lives. Every New Testament passage which gives the reason for Jesus’ death states this reason in one form or another.

Indeed, if Jesus died to forgive us our sin, past, present, and future, as many believe, then it would be meaningless to pray, “And forgive us our sins. For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.” For we would already have been forgiven.

Also, if Jesus died to forgive us our sin, past, present, and future, as many believe, then how could we accept the words of Jesus, “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses”? For the heavenly Father would do nothing to us, since we would have been already forgiven.