|
|
| |
 - Endorsed - Indifferent - Contested
|
| |
| The Nashville Statement
|
| |
|
|
| |
Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
|
| |
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
|
| |
|
email
|
|
| The Mercy Seat. |
The mercy seat was fashioned to sit on top of the ark of the covenant. While it is a common enough error to imagine that the mercy seat was just the "lid" of the ark of the covenant, it actually was a separate piece. It was placed atop the open ark, but it was not a part of the ark, not simply a fancy lid with a name.
The primary purpose of the ark was to hold the tablets of the covenant. Eventually the staff of Aaron was also placed in the ark, to testify to the fact that God chose Aaron and his descendants to be the priests to Him. Likewise a pot of manna was placed in the ark to testify to God's provision for Israel while they were in the wilderness. The ark therefore held both the promise and the testimony of God's provision for Israel and was set apart (made holy) for this purpose.
The primary purpose of the mercy seat was to act as the seat of God's presence on earth - the "place" where God would meet with Moses "in person" as it were - and this meeting place was intentionally supposed to reside above the artifacts of God's testimony - artifacts that were to reside in the ark of the testimony (i.e. ark of the covenant).
In Hebrew, the mercy seat is called the kapporeth. The word itself favors a translation of "to cover" over a translation of "to expiate" though both translations are possible. The Greek term, hilasterion, in the Septuagint, arguably favors the notion of propitiation/expiation.
Both expiation and propitiation deal with settling the debt of an offence. Consider an innocent person who is randomly attacked by some angry offender. The person is doused in some flammable liquid and set afire so that they experience third degree burns to, let's say, 90% of their body. The perpetrator is caught, and the victim of this act of senseless violence is now in a state of having been "offended" by an "offender" such that until the offence is expiated/propitiated, the victim will continue to be offended.
If it were possible for the victim to be restored to full and perfect health, and even to have all memory of the offence removed; that is, if it were possible to entirely remove all those consequences of the original offence from the victim so that experientially speaking, the offence was entirely removed from the victim - this "cleansing" if you will, would be described as "expiation".
Expiation then overcomes an offence, not by satisfying justice, but rather by cleansing or removing that which was originally offensive.
On the other hand, if victim's memory was not erased, and the damage was not repaired, the offence against the victim (as opposed to the consequences of that offence) could also be satisfied by appropriately punishing the offender. This will satisfy the just outrage of the crime, though not necessarily removing the effects of the crime. This overcoming animosity by appeasing a breach of justice is more rightly called propitiation.
Propitiation then overcomes an offence by satisfying the demands that justice makes when an offence occurs.
To be sure, the notion of expiation as it pertains to scripture, is favored by those who reject the notion that Jesus was bearing any kind of punishment on Calvary. These argue that the idea of "appeasing" a "just" God concerning the offence of sin is pagan in origin and only portrays God as a divine Tyrant.
Likewise, the notion of propitiation, as it pertains to scripture, is favored by those who do not reject the notion that Christ bore some sort of punishment on Calvary. Propitiation here, however, includes the original notion of expiation, that is, they would say that God is propitiated by the death of Christ which is the means by which we are expiated (cleansed) and made acceptable to God.
When the Septuagint calls the mercy seat that sits atop the ark of the covenant the "hilasterion epithema" ( the mercy seat handpiece), it implies that the seat itself is an agent in the process by which expiation/propitiation is being made.
Once each year, on the day of atonement, the high priest came into the Holy of Holies bearing the blood of the sacrificed atonement offering. It was his sacred duty to sprinkle that blood on and before the mercy seat of God. That makes for quite a picture. God's holy presence was so pungent in that place that the slightest infraction in ceremony would result in the immediate death of the high priest. He came into God's presence, as it were, with only God's promises, testimony, and the blood of a sacrifice between himself and God's wrath. If one stops to think about all that had to meet in the holy of holies on the day of atonement we have God on the one side, the sins of Israel coming in through the door, and between the two we have God's promises and testimony concerning those promises, and the blood of the atoning sacrifice. It seems to me, at least, that this is not a picture of expiation, but of propitiation - not a picture of God setting aside justice and offering cleansing, for the justice is answered by the blood of the sacrifice - and it is through this sacrifice that God is appeased, and sin is expiated.
But is this the picture we see in the New Testament?
When Paul uses the term hilasterion in Romans 3:25, most translations do not use the word "mercy seat", though some do (see below):
"sacrifice of atonement" (NIV),
"sacrifice for sin" (NLT),
"propitiation" (ESV, NASB, KJV, AKJV, ASV, ERV, WNT, Geneva)
"atonement" (ISV)
"throne of mercy" (God's Word translation)
"sign of His mercy" (BBE)
"mercy seat" (Darby, YLT, NET)
"atoning sacrifice" (WEB)
The text itself reads (NASB), as follows: "[Jesus Christ] ...whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;"
The only intellectually honest conclusion I can come to is that Paul is portraying Jesus Christ as being whatever it was that the mercy seat in the O.T. pictured. The mercy seat in the Holy of Holies was the only "place" in all the O.T. that God could be satisfied (concerning the sins of Israel). "At" this mercy seat, and only at this seat of God's mercy, sinful Israel was reconciled to God. What Paul is explaining in Romans 3:25 is that Jesus Christ is the only "place" where sinful man can be reconciled to God - the only place where God can be propitiated.
The blood of Christ is not brought before God through the a physical doorway as it was in the OT, but now, Paul writes, this blood is set before God by faith. I will not hesitate at this point, to note that when we speak of blood, we are talking about the life that was spent in its shedding, and not about the fluid itself. That is what scripture means when it says that the life is in the blood. The blood itself has no magical properties, but testifies to the life that was spent.
In this way, therefore, Paul teaches that sinful men are reconciled to God by trusting in God's promises concerning the pouring out of the life of Christ as the only means by which God's righteous wrath against that man's sin can be appeased.
When we speak of the atonement, if we are speaking biblically at least, we are speaking about what it is that accomplished the feat of reconciliation. We are talking about how a sinful man is reconciled to God.
Now there are a few things we need to mention to guard against going all airy-fairy in our theology...
First we need to understand that under the OT system, the high priest was not atoning for the sins of every person in the world. He was -only- atoning for the sins of Israel.
Even that has to be qualified, since Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, makes it plain that not everyone who was born and circumcised as a Jew was considered (by God) to be a *real* Israelite. As far as God was concerned, an Israelite was someone who shared a faith like Abraham's, whether they were born an Israelite, or had joined themselves to the nation of Israel.
So when the high priest went into the holy of holies on the day of atonement, it was to make atonement for the sins of those Israelites whose faith was of the same substance as the faith of Abraham.
To deny that is to invent or revise the very history of redemption. Salvation, we are told, is of the Jews. The O. T. imagery did not save anyone, but pictured a reality that wouldn't be fully articulated until the Messiah came.
Many however have come to interpret the O. T. imagery concerning the atonement as though it were a very hazy, and ill fitting picture. They do not like the idea that the atonement, under the O. T. system, was not made for all of mankind, but only for Israel, and only for the true Israelites. They prefer to think of the atonement in terms of potentiality or provision. They want to see the high priest offer up the blood of the atonement sacrifice in order to generate a sort of indiscriminating potential reconciliation, an avenue made available to all men everywhere, by and through which any person could be atoned for, if that person exercised faith.
The problem I have with that notion is that the only way I have ever seen these ideas in the text or the context is when I first presume them to be there. I believe the emperor has new clothes, and so I see them when I look for them. Once I project the idea onto the text, I can not only interpret this text or that text to mean something other than what it plainly says, I can use that to bolster similar interpretations into subsequent texts.
There is a lot of debate today about the scope of the atonement. People have strong opinions about whether Jesus died for everyone that was ever born, or whether Jesus died only for those who would eventually be saved.
I regard this debate as largely a red herring, since most of the people I have heard argue one way or the other in this debate couldn't give a biblically solid definition of what the atonement actually is. They have a sort of general or indistinct understanding, they know that Jesus died for sin, and they know that God saves sinners, and that God loves the world, and they toss it all into their own theological stew, give it a stir, and then argue zealously from a position which for themselves is actually resting on an inarticulate hodgepodge of settled, but vague ideas.
When I first began to study biblical Greek, I remember shaking my head over a sudden, clarifying reality. I had heard, or read, just as you all have, how godly and apparently learned men argued on both sides of a debate about which translation was better/best. When I began to study Greek, I found that while the arguments were more erudite and high falutin, they were otherwise no better than those same arguments amongst less godly/learned men.
In fact, one of the things I hear often enough to gall me, is the old stand by that godly men on both sides of an issue have debated such and such a point, and are still debating that point today. I suppose that I am supposed to infer from this that it is pointless to discuss anything that men disagree on, because, apparently, there will never be any resolution.
I say it galls me because it is clearly a demonic wisdom. It may be that both sides in any debate or argument are wrong in whole or in part, but it cannot be that both parties are right in things that they disagree about. If one party is defending a truth, and the other a lie or a deception, it is never okay to set aside discussion in the matter on the grounds that you probably won't resolve it because men godlier and more learned than yourself have failed to resolve it.
First of all, iron only sharpens the iron it is being used against. The purpose of discussing things you disagree about is not to bring the entire world into an universally harmonious opinion that flows from one side or the other. It is to sharpen one another, and to correct wooden-headed thinking. Godly and learned men have this in common with less godly and less learned men - they are sinners, and owe anything they rightly understand, not to their godliness or learning, but to God who has shown them mercy. Thus I couldn't give a donkey's ear if someone more godly or more learned than myself has debated an issue, since it is neither godliness nor learning that opens our eyes, but the grace of God in the person of the Holy Spirit. How many fools, and I use the word with all terrible intent, have stumbled at this idea that they must not discuss theologically difficult ideas because other men have failed to find resolution in the matter? Good gravy!
So just as I found the same kind of arguments that riddled the debate over English translations reborn in more erudite dress amongst those who studied the Greek, I likewise find that those who have the presence of mind to step above the arguments concerning the scope of the atonement, to examine the atonement itself, bring the same arguments along with them.
For though I labor to explain what the atonement is, I do not doubt that there are some who do not see it as I have laid it out, and would argue passionately to say that I am mistaken and in error, and teaching the fruit that rises thereof.
I am speaking now, not of the scope of the atonement, but of its nature. Did the blood of the atonement offering in the Old Testament make people right with God, or was the blood only a necessary piece of a greater, atonement puzzle?
You see, some might argue that the blood of the atonement offering was only "effective" for those whose faith was like the faith of Abraham. They would write that atonement happens according to the formula: Faith + Blood = Atonement. Thus this shed blood was applied to (and available for) all of mankind, but only became effective in producing actual atonement when it was applied by and through faith.
I remember, in my childhood, mashing together pieces from a puzzle that didn't quite fit. It wasn't that I was malevolently trying to ruin the puzzle, rather I just thought this was the right piece and that the only reason it was not fitting easily and cleanly was because of some imperfection in the original cutting of the pieces. In the same way, when I hear that kind of understanding of the atonement - that it is some universal thing offered up to all, and pregnant with potential, though impotent unless applied through some other means - I am reminded of those puzzle pieces that almost fit, but don't really belong there.
First of all, what the high priest did on the day of atonement is never, ever described in scripture as providing a means of, or opportunity for, atonement. It is always described as "making atonement" - or said in less ambiguous language "accomplishing" atonement. When Jesus cried out, "It is finished!" was He referring to His own suffering ("My suffering is over!")? Was He referring to providing the world with a potential benefit ("I have finished bringing a potential reconciliation into the world!")? Again, the idea isn't that something had merely ended, but that something was accomplished.
The idea that what was accomplished on Calvary was the instantiation of a potential/conditional solution to sin - the opening of an indiscriminating and impersonal avenue, if you will, by which any person could be reconciled to God, if they so desired, is actually more than just popular, it is the majority opinion.
Most Christians think of the atonement in this way - Jesus' death atoned for all the sins of the world, but that atoning work is only applied to those who by faith and repentance, are reconciled to God.
According to this view, the benefits of Jesus's death are available to every man woman and child who was ever, and will ever be, born, because Jesus "died for" every man woman and child. Many, though not all, in this camp would argue that Jesus' death likewise makes it possible for any sinner to seek God without God first enabling them personally to do so, in this way, salvation is made "possible" for as many people as hear the gospel. They would argue that the death of Christ "pays for sins" but even though the death is applied to all men, women, and children, it is only effective (legally speaking) for those who believe on Jesus.
I have a few problems with the notion that "Jesus died for everyone".
Under this scheme justice is being satisfied through adequate compensation. That kind of thinking works fine in a situation where the debt is impersonal and justice itself is not an issue. If a car is stolen, and the owner is financially reimbursed, as long as the owner feels that the compensation was sufficient, the owner will be "satisfied". That kind of system falls apart when the crime is say, the brutal murder and rape of a daughter. What parent will be pacified by having their murdered daughter "replaced" by a new daughter of equal value? Here we see the truth of sin's debt - for it cannot be made impersonal. Nothing but the restored life of the daughter will satisfy as compensation - and even if that compensation were possible, the outrage over the act of violence will not be overcome by mere compensational equity.
The idea that Jesus death provides a kind of universal currency comes about when people have to deal with a passage like 1 John 2:2. There we read this of Jesus, "...He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."
Doesn't it seem to say, reading it plainly and literally, that Jesus is the propitiation for everyone's sins? Anyone who understands what propitiation means, understands that propitiation and atonement are one and the same, here then the text seems to plainly say that Jesus is the "propitiation" of the sins of everyone in the world.
Some would argue that the "whole world" here is an hyperbole. They would say that this is just a colourful exaggeration intended to signify many people, but not all people. They would point to examples like when the high priest Caiaphas said that all the world had gone after Christ. Since not every man, woman, and child had gone after Christ, we understand it as an hyperbolic expression. Some would argue that way I suppose, and not without merit. This sort of language is almost always hyperbolic, and any argument in that direction has quite a head start when given an honest hearing. What John wrote here can easily fits the hyperbole mold. John, they would argue, simply means to say that Jesus is not only the propitiation for the sins of those whom John denotes by the word "our" but is also the propitiation for everyone else who ever happens to be saved etc.
I think that is certainly possible, and may even be the intended meaning. But it isn't really necessary to make an argument about the intended scope of the phrase "also for those [sins] of the whole world" - since we have the word propitiation to guide us.
The word used here is not the same as is found in Romans 3:25, though they do share a common ancestry. Here the word is hilasmos, and it refers specifically to the removal of guilt, and in the context, the removal of guilt that is directly associated with those who are confessing their sin, as we read in 1 John 1:8. John is not abandoning what he just said in favor of introducing something new. When John talks about Jesus being the propitiation for sin, he is explaining why God is just in forgiving the sins of those who confess their sins - God is just because Jesus =is= the propitiation for our sins, and not ours only, but also for the sins of everyone in the whole world who likewise confesses their sins. That is the only consistent way to understand this passage.
I don't marvel that some people miss it at first, but I do marvel when those people who do miss it, replace it with something that totally misses the boat; and worse, go on to interpret other passages according to this same, confused (and wrong) understanding.
In summary, the mercy seat in the old testament was something God provided, and was intended as the "place" where men could be reconciled to God through means of a propitiating sacrifice. That sacrifice, ultimately was the life of Jesus Christ, and the propitiation itself was not universal in scope, but peculiar to those who were of a like faith to Abraham's, that is, peculiar to those who confessed themselves sinners and placed their faith in the promises of God as demonstrated through and by the provision of God, most notably, in Christ.
The atonement is an accomplished work of propitiation, such that every person who was ever atoned for, has had God's wrath against their sin satisfied on account of their having become partakers in the death and resurrection of Christ. God's righteous wrath has already been spent, once and for all time, on the sins of those who are in Christ, and that pouring out of wrath happened 2000 years ago on Calvary.
Those who are not in Christ when they die (or are alive when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead) will themselves propitiate God's wrath by personally receiving the wages of their sin - a pouring out of God's wrath upon themselves - condemnation that is described in scripture as the second death. This will not gain these same an entrance into heaven because, while their eternal suffering will satisfy God's wrath, they will not have the sinless life of Christ applied to themselves by which a man is reconciled to God. That is, they will make their own propitiation to satisfy God's wrath concerning their sin - but this will by no means reconcile them to God, it will only appease God's wrath.
The atonement was not and is not a universally supplied, "infinite" bucket out of which some grab their atonement, and others let theirs go to waste. It is rather an accomplished propitiation that forever reconciles a sinner to God. Only those who are in Christ are atoned for. Those who are not in Christ were not atoned for.
This doesn't mean that we have to change our gospel (unless, of course, you are telling unregenerate sinners that Jesus died for them). If you preach that Jesus died to reconcile penitent sinners to God through faith, keep on keeping on. If you preach that Jesus will save whosoever will come - keep on preaching it. But if you preach that Jesus has already paid for your sins, you are preaching something that isn't found in scripture. The gospel is not, "Jesus died for you" it is, "Repent and believe, and you will be saved!"
Having said all that, people who don't rightly understand the atonement can still be ardent, godly, kingdom minded believers. That is, however, no excuse for allowing confusion and wrong-headed theology to continue. If a person is a godly soul and clinging to wrong-headed theology - imagine how they might shine if they had their thinking straight!Labels: atonement; theology, expiation, mercy seat, propitiation, the atonement. |
posted by Daniel @
2:57 PM
9 comment(s)
 
|
|
|
|
| Scripture Interprets Scripture. |
The Apostle John wrote in 1 John 2:2, "2He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
Most of us understand that when the bible uses the word "world" it doesn't necessarily mean every last person that was ever born.
We typically recognize the broad semantic range of the word in the original language (and even in our own) and how it was commonly used (and is commonly used), and for this reason (and also because we would be hard pressed to find -any- verse in the whole of scripture where the word "world" means every last person), I say: for this reason we want to be careful as we examine the phrase in this text. We must note therefore, in the course of our examination, how often we see this word used as hyperbole; is it not easier for Caiaphas to say that the whole world has gone after Christ, than to say (more accurately) that some percentage of the population was being (and coming to be) influenced by Christ? Of course it is easier. That's why we have hyperbole - to say in a fewer words what ought to be obvious by our usage.
When we read 1 John 2:2, we see the adjective "whole" is modifying the noun "world" and some of us are emboldened to conclude because of this that the adjective modifying the noun must be indicating an all inclusiveness state. When we say "whole world" some conclude therefore that it must mean every last person.
However, that conclusion loses a great deal of luster if we actually do a word search in scripture to see how the phrase "whole world" is used. More often than not, the NT used the phrase just like any five year old would, that is, to describe an unspecific but large number, that is, the word is used in hyperbole.
Furthermore, the word is often speaking more about geography than people. In fact, it is interesting to note that while the word "kosmos" can be extended to mean "humankind" - it typically speaks of the globe itself as a source of population - and often, if we translated kosmos as "earth" we would not lose any meaning in doing so - for God so (i.e. in this way) loved the earth (i.e. people on the earth) that... etc. When we see this word used to describe people, we must be on guard against inflating the meaning to match a predetermined interpretation.
That's the grammar of it, but in the same way we want our interpretation to be rational; I mean, at least I do.
I have a presupposition that I take with me to scripture - I am convinced that truth is not self defeating, that is, I am convicted that a right understanding of scripture will not contradict reason nor will it contradict any other truth whether in or out of scripture. My firm conviction is that scripture is going to support both reason and truth, and will contradict neither.
I am likewise persuaded that truth is objective and knowable, for we shall know the truth, says the Son, and the truth shall set us free. Yes, Christ also said that He was the Truth - and we can mesh those verses together so that we understand that it is also saying that we shall know the Son and the Son shall make us free - but that juxtaposition does not replace the original meaning (you shall know the truth), it adds more meaning to it (when you know the truth, you know Christ).
Thus if Jesus is the propitiation for every last person - that makes Jesus the propitiation for everyone in hell also - which would renders propitiation pretty much "worthless" in every practical sense - since if Christ "covered" the sins of all men (the word translated as propitiate means to "cover over"), and yet some of these people still go to hell, then the propitiation doesn't do what it says it is doing.
I want to drill down here a bit. Propitiation is something that happens between Christ and God. Christ covers our sin, it isn't that he gives us the ability to cover our own sin in Him, so that we (ourselves) can uncover it someday by something we do or fail to do... propitiation is done on our behalf and once it is done it cannot be undone for it is an eternal thing.
I want to be clear as glass here - propitiation is not merely a possibility that our sins may be covered, nor is it merely a provision that if we do such and such our sins will be covered nor is it some offer that our sins can be covered etc. etc. It is the actual covering of our sins - and it is the means by which God declares a guilty sinner to be righteous. Make no mistake, if propitiation is made, it means, and can only mean - justification for the one who is propitiated (covered).
Think this through: the transaction is a heavenly, spiritual one, not a worldly carnal one. -Christ- appeases -God's- wrath. That is what propitiation means - it isn't satisfying a parking ticket.
I want to explain why we shouldn't think of our sin debt in terms of a monetary debt. First monetary debts are impersonal. The creditor is owed some currency from the debtor, and so long as the creditor receives the required currency, the debt is legally canceled. That's because monetary debt can be satisfied by money, anyone's money. The debt isn't personal.
The convicted murderer cannot appeal to someone else to serve his sentence because the sentence is not like a monetary debt - it must be satisfied by the offender - the debt is personal, in that only the offender can rightly satisfy justice in being punished for his crime.
Propitiation is not required for a parking ticket - all that is required for the parking ticket is that the debt be satisfied by someone paying it. Thus when we talk of propitiation, we are immediately speaking, not in terms of some debt that anyone can pay - as though Christ by his death, provided enough "divine currency" to souse all of sin's debt - rather we are talking about Christ's death "covering over" the sin - not satisfying a debt, but satisfying wrath.
When we reduce Christ's sacrifice to the notion that the giving over of his life produced some kind of impersonal, but glorious currency by which God was paid off, we demonstrate that we haven't understood what propitiation is all about.
Christ "covered" our sin by placing us within Himself so that God could pour out His wrath upon us. That union with Christ is the foundation of our propitiation - the foundation of our atonement. We who are in Christ, died with Christ - in fact, that is why we were put into Christ in the first place - so that God could reward our sin with death - and we =did= die, in Christ, so that God's wrath was rightly satisfied. It was this union that allowed God to kill His Son Jesus - because our sin demanded the just wrath it received on Calvary - and Christ was made to partake of it because He voluntarily united Himself to us, so that when we were dead on account of our sin, He could raise us up on account of how unrighteous it would have been to allow Christ who never sinned to remain in the grave. The same strong, union by which His life was forfeit - this union was the bond that caused us to be raised with Christ and in Christ when God raised Him from the dead.
God poured His wrath out on the sin of those who were in Christ on Calvary, and only those who were in Christ on Calvary. Only those who were in Christ on Calvary were "covered by the blood" if you will, that is, Christ only covered those who were in Him on Calvary -- said in theological language, Christ made propitiation only for the elect.
Just in case someone is missing the point...
Propitiation is -NOT- Jesus dying for every last person's sin, and taking all the sins committed by everyone for all time into Himself to provide the "means by which" those who come to God can be saved. That idea misrepresents propitiation because it is theologically charged (beforehand) with the notion that in order for God to give everyone a "chance" at salvation, He must provide the means beforehand for everyone to be saved.
There are so many wrong-headed notions in that thought, I doubt I can untangle the knots all at once, but let me address a few major points.
Problem One: God isn't trying to save anyone; that is, God is not involved in some attempt to save people as though the outcome were uncertain. God -is- relentlessly, and without fail, saving those whom He has chosen beforehand to "cover" (i.e. make propitiation for). The notion that God is trying to save everyone, but only succeeding in saving some suggests that God is not sovereign when it comes to salvation, but that man (in fact) is sovereign.
Problem Two: The idea that God must make propitiation for everyone or else he is "not fair" is not divine wisdom, but carnal corruption. When my siblings receive a gift from my father the carnal part of me demands that I too receive a like gift. Shouldn't I? I mean, they didn't deserve the gift, and neither do I, so shouldn't it be split up between us? Wouldn't that be the most fair? You see how the carnal heart works. It doesn't deserve a gift, but the moment someone else receives one, the greed within demands that we receive the same gift as a matter of obligation from the giver - that they would be unjust unless their act of grace attends to all equally. It is not justice that demands we be compensated the moment another receives something they do not deserve - it is greed. We don't deserve things just because others receive them freely. Until a person can grasp that truth, they will never understand that God doesn't have to make propitiation for everyone.
Problem Three: Is an inescapable conclusion we draw from Problem One - if God has to provide the means by which all men can be saved, and all men are not saved, that means that God is either [1] failing to save everyone (God is not omnipotent) or [2]God does not actually save anyone, but men save themselves through God's provision.
If God is trying (and therefore failing) to save all people, then God is not in complete control, and if not in complete control. In reality, either God is in complete control, or He is not in control at all. He either ordains all things, or He lets things run wild. If we say that God "allows" this or that and by that we mean God relinquishes control of reality - we are saying that God either cannot exercise perfect stewardship, or we are saying that perfect stewardship requires the perfect God to keep his nose out of it. Either way, we are painting God in colors that are less than true. God is either perfect or not. There is no way that a perfect God could "allow" corrupt men any sovereignty in any act for to do so would either be imperfect, or prove that something was more perfect that God.
If God doesn't save people, but merely provides the means by which men save themselves - then God is just a tool by which men bring their own will about. Those who desire to be saved exercise their will, and will be able to boast on that last day against those who failed to exercise their will - in choosing the right religion, and choosing to believe etc. God and Christ are reduced in this scenario to holy tools by which these men bring their own will about, and anyone who doesn't will to save themselves, only has themselves to blame!
There is a part of us that harmonizes with the thought that whatever we think of propitiation, we want this as our end result: we want those who reject God to not only get what they deserve, but we want to be convinced that they have only themselves to blame for their punishment.
Yet one needn't do injury to their understanding of propitiation, or maintain a blind eye to the truth in order to continue to grasp that final just thought. One need only understand propitiation right, and one will conclude that those who receive God's wrath have only themselves to blame for it.
But the main problem with the notion that propitiation is a provision God makes for everyone, is that it depends upon man and not God as the author of faith. If propitiation is simply a provision, what of the people who die every year who have never heard the name of Christ? What of the peoples in North and South America prior to Columbus? What of the ancient Orient? etc. If God made provision for all these people and yet failed to give them the gospel, or some instruction - what does that say about God? He provided the means but failed to provide the opportunity?
Do you see the problem with that? If propitiation means that God has made provision for every man, then that same principle ought to apply to opportunity - or God's provision is flawed.
When we understand propitiation as being inescapably linked to justification; as being the means by which God justifies a sinner; as being the very person of Christ covering the sinner who is united to Him by faith not only on Calvary, but in the grave, and again at the right hand of the Power on high - when we see that propitiation is not a possibility, but a certainty - that only those who are in Christ are covered, and that no one else is covered - it straightens out the whole mess.
What of the people who do not have the opportunity to hear the gospel? Is it fair that they should receive wrath? The answer is, "Only if they are sinners." Did you catch that. Sinners deserve wrath. Why do all those people who haven't heard about Jesus receive wrath? Because they deserve wrath. Anyone who doesn't really believe that he or she deserves God's wrath, is going to have a hard time swallowing that. They will squirm under it because they believe that God is obligated to save everyone - that is, they believe that everyone deserves to be saved - Do you not see it?
They believe that God is unjust in condemning everyone, so that in order for God to be "good" he must trying to save everyone, because His "justice" is so unjust even He is trying to help men escape from it.
No, a right understanding of propitiation leaves no room for the idea of a universal covering. Only those who are in Christ are in Christ, the rest are not. Only those who are in Christ are atoned for - the word atonement is just another word for covering - only those who were in Christ on Calvary are atoned for. Period. If anyone is in Christ, there is no longer any condemnation for them, because every last ounce of it was poured out on them already when they were in Christ on Calvary; there is no more condemnation for that person - it was -all- spent there.
For this reason I say, (i.e. for the reason of maintaining a consistent and rational understanding of the atonement) we ought to outright reject the notion that Jesus made propitiation for every last person - if that were the case, there could be no such thing as election, or even sovereignty - in fact, much of scripture would have to be held together in the sort of vague mists of "I don't know how it works together, but I believe it does".
We see that from time to time, even in well meaning men - they hide behind these kinds of phrases because they don't know their own hearts as they ought. If they could articulate what was true of themselves they might say something like, "I know that it is utterly inconsistent to hold contrary 'truths' as both being true - and yet, because I am unwilling to let go of either, I will regard my hedging theology as a most pious act of faith - since I can write off my inconsistencies as humility"
Don't laugh. People do that. They consider there to be something humble about celebrating their decision to remain in ignorance. It is not humble but arrogant and prideful to reason that because we lack wisdom we are excused from pursuing a rational faith. If we find something irrational about what we believe, we cannot imagine it a humble thing to allow it to continue. Lazy, sloppy, indifferent - sure, but not humble.
Likewise, confusing a willful ignorance with pious faith is intellectually dishonest in the least, and simply confused at best. There really is no room in a right faith for holding mutually exclusive 'truths', or excusing the practice as humble or pious. If we don't "get it", there is nothing pious about that.
I want to add a final note to that string of thought - this is not to say that an enlarged intellectual capacity is more godly than a diminished one. God forbid! I am not talking about one's ability to understand the truth, for the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God -- they are spiritually discerned, and if spiritually discerned then we conclude that we are not the ones who open our understanding, but that God does so. What I am on about is not ignorance, but rather the heart that is satisfied in holding contrary thoughts as both being true - and imagines there to be something pious about doing so. There is nothing pious about a sloppy theology. Truth exalts God, and sloppy theology benefits no one, and can hinder many. Do the math.
I know that some consider it inappropriate to mix religion with reason - as they have some figment in their thinking that causes them to imagine that the one must by necessity be pitted against the other. Some conclude therefore, with holy zeal, that irrational faith is therefore of a superior cut if they can maintain in spite of their God given ability to reason.
So, carrying on; even if the grammar in 1 John 2:2 doesn't actually say that Jesus is the propitiation for every last person who was ever born - Some conclude that it is (more or less) linguistically "okay" to read that inference into the phrase "whole world". We therefore have the duty to answer the question: Is this a fair inference?
I personally think the inference is not a fair one, I would consider it a strained one given just the grammar, and I would consider it quite strained given the grammar coupled with reason; but we have more to consider than just the grammar and reason.
Our best tool is, by far, scripture itself. We should always check scripture when a verse is in dispute. Is the thought echoed elsewhere in scripture? How clear is it stated there? In this case, we want to look and see if scripture elsewhere speaks of Christ making propitiation using the same "not just for X... but for Y" formula, so that we can understand if the "but for Y" means "but for every last person who was ever born".
Thankfully, and fittingly, the same apostle (John) also wrote in John 11:51-52 the prophesy spoken by Caiaphas, "51He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."
This is the same thought.
I mean read it a few times if you don't see it, but I see that the same thought in both passages being expressed by the same author (John). That suggests to me that either [1] John was schizophrenic, or [2] that John changed his doctrine at some point in life, or [3] that John isn't talking about the same thing, and we are comparing apples and oranges, or [4] that John means the same thing in both passages.
I outright dismiss the idea that John was schizophrenic or flip-flopping doctrinally, which leaves only that I am mistaken in equating the two passages, or that John is discussing the same thoughts in both passages. Examining both passages I see John explaining how Christ is dying not only for one group, but for another. That Christ (at the very least) is doing something for one group, and to be more precise, for some other group of which the first group is obviously a subset.
In the latter the high priest Caiaphas, even while seeking to unjustly put Christ to death, spoke prophetically of who Christ would die for: [1] the nation (of Israel), and more poignantly, [2] the children of God who are scattered abroad.
Remember John is commenting on what Caiaphas said - explaining how what Caiaphas said was prophetic. John shows that it was prophetic because (according to John's doctrine) that Jesus was not only going to die for the nation of Israel, but also for those children of God scattered abroad. John could have rightly said that Christ was going to die "for the nation and for the whole world" - but had he said that, we would have nothing more illuminating than we have in 1 John 2:2, that is, we would still be wondering whether Christ died for everyone inclusive or not. But here in this verse (Thank God) we have some light to shine back on 1 John 2:2. John is more precise here (John 11:51-52) than he was there (1 John 2:2) - Jesus died not only for Israel, but also for His people who were scattered abroad. John is not all inclusive here, and he is not schizophrenic or changing his doctrine - and he -is- discussing the same matter - which leaves us to conclude that in 1 John 2:2, when John writes that Christ is the propitiation for "our sins" he is referring to some group, and when he says, "and not only ours but for the sins of the whole world" he means to emphasize that the propitiation is not limited to this group, and is using hyperbole to stress that.
This agrees with what Matthew said of Christ (Matthew 1:21) - He will save His people from their sin, not He will save "all people" from their sin.
We want to remember also that Christ's death atoned for sin. That is, His death covered over sin. When we say that Christ atoned for someone, we are saying that Christ died for someone. One cannot divest the one thought from the other. Christ cannot, for instance, die for someone he is not making atonement for. The atonement is either in the death, or it is not - it is not a possibility, it is a transaction that either happens or it does not happen - it is not a pending operation. Either Christ makes atonement or he does not - his death cannot be divided into the atoning and non-atoning parts, nor can be applied after the fact as though it simply a well from which atonement could be drawn - such a picture, I reiterate - misrepresents and misunderstand what atonement is. The covering over of sin. Either one's sin is covered or it is not covered - and the cover is the death of Christ - so that when we speak of Christ making propitiation or Christ "dying for" someone we are speaking of the exact same thing.
Thus, we conclude that if the grammar in 1 John 2:2 allows suggests hyperbole, and if reason demands hyperbole, and if clearer passages in scripture demonstrate that the "whole world" reference in 1 John 2:2 must be hyperbole - we are not straining when we conclude that 1 John 2:2 does not teach universal atonement.
When we read 1 John 2:2, we are not reading that Jesus died for everyone in the whole world, what we are seeing is the author use hyperbole to stress the notion that Jesus didn't just die for this one little group. That is the point of the hyperbole in the verse. We are not reading something that contradicts John 11:51-52 - as though Jesus died for everyone that ever lived in the one verse, but only died for the elect in another. We understand that Jesus died for people from all over the whole world, and not just from the group being addressed in 1 John 2:2. This is a perfectly reasonable way of interpreting the grammar - that is, we are not putting a strain on the interpretation of 1 John 2:2 by [1] recognizing hyperbole when we see it, and [2] interpreting the force of the verse ("not just us") through the lens of the hyperbole, rather than squeezing a universal inclusiveness by ignoring the hyperbole and stressing an inference that can be derived from the text by ignoring all else.
It is important to me that my interpretation of scripture begins and remains reasonable, I want my understanding to make sense grammatically, and I want it to do no injury to the remainder of scripture. If 1 John 2:2 is teaching us that Jesus atoned for everyone that ever lived, but John 11:51-52 tells us that Jesus died only for those who were His - I either conclude that my understanding of one of these verses is incorrect, or that scripture has real and deep contradictions.
I personally am inclined to the former: these texts describe the same thing, and as such I am convinced that in spite of the apparent ambiguity of 1 John 2:2, it is not teaching that Jesus made propitiation for everyone. It -is- merely stressing that the propitiation Christ achieved was by no means restricted to the group John was writing to.Labels: atonement; theology, Scripture interprets scripture |
|
posted by Daniel @
6:49 AM
4 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| The Atonement Seems To Be A Hot Topic Lately... |
The various, competing atonement models all attempt to answer the same question: "How can a just God forgive a guilty sinner without compromising Himself in doing so?"
I believe the answer is simple, and because it is simple, many people miss it. I present it here, for your consideration. Feel free to correct me or raise any objections.
Perhaps the best place to start would be in James 5:4, "Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts."
Here is a truth that is clearly taught - it is fraudulent to withhold wages. If I agree to pay so much for the labor, and you perform the labor, I must pay what I have promised or I am a liar, a fraud, and unjust.
Now let's look at the other side of the same principle: for that I take you to the end of Romans 6 where we read, "the wages of sin is death."
You see, death is something we earn by sinning, and if God doesn't pay us our wage, that makes Him just as much a Liar and a Fraud, as He would be were He withholding some desirable wage. God cannot simply overlook sin for this reason: sin has a wage associated with it, and God must pay that wage or He is not just.
Likewise, it would be just as unjust to pay a man a wage he didn't earn.
In this same way we understand that Christ cannot receive the wage of death if He hasn't earned death by personally sinning. When David prophesies of Christ in Psalm 16 he says it this way: God will not allow His Holy One to see corruption. That is, God cannot pay Christ a wage he did not earn. Christ mentions the same sort of thing in John 10:18, namely that when He lays down his life He will be able to take it up again.
I see these biblical truths as foundational in my understanding of the atonement: God must pay the sinner the wage He has earned, and likewise, Christ cannot keep a wage He hasn't earned!
The problem is how can God pay the sinner his just wage and redeem the same sinner at the same time?
I believe the answer is found in our union with Christ (see Romans 6).
We were joined to Christ for this reason: so that when God justly poured out his wrath on us (on the cross) He would provide a means to justly raise us from the dead afterwards.
We have said that God could not keep Christ in the grave, and this is the key. The way in which we are atoned for is simple: a guilty sinner is united to Christ by faith alone, such that Christ joins that believer to Himself so that they are united on the cross where God punishes the believer.
I pause here to highlight what I think is a common misconception about what happened on the cross. If your understanding of the atonement is that God poured out His wrath on Jesus instead of on you, I think you have it wrong.
Now hear me out here:
I think what happened on Calvary was that I was joined to Christ (spiritually not physically) and that God poured His wrath out upon my spirit which was joined to Christ's. God wasn't punishing Jesus instead of me, He was punishing me and because I was joined to Christ, Christ received my condemnation. That was always the plan.
If the law required all convicted criminals to receive a lethal injection, and simultaneously required that no innocent man be put to death, then it would be as if Christ knew I was condemned, and in order to save me He made Himself my Siamese twin so that when I received the lethal injection that was due me, it killed both of us, but because the law required that no innocent man be put to death, Christ would have to be "raised up" - but since we were co-joined as siamese twins - Christ could not be raised apart from raising me, and in this way, according to Christ's plan - I was redeemed. I suffered the death, due me so the law was satisfied, it was not some pretend death - I really died, but because I was joined to Christ, I was raised again. Not that Christ was my substitute, but that Christ was in me and I was in Him so that just as my punishment slew us both, so his resurrection raised us both.
This is what scripture means when it says that love is as strong as death (SoS 8:6) My union with Christ could not be broken -- even by death. No one ascends into heaven who did not descend from heaven - no one goes to heaven except that they are united with Christ - He is the only Way and the only truth and the only life - the door of the shepfold.
God could not justly allow Christ to remain in the grave. Christ was innocent, and God -had- to raise Christ if He was going to remain just. But since we were still united together with Christ, in order to raise Christ God had to raise us too.
We were united together with Christ for this very reason - so that when God could not keep him in the grave, we could be justly raised with Him. That was always the plan - Christ would received our "old self" into Himself, and take it to the cross where God would execute His judgment upon it - this union however destroyed not only us, but Christ. But because Christ was innocent God gave him to power to take up his life again - and because of our union, when Christ took up His life, we were raised with Him!
THAT is the atonement.
Those who are united together with Christ are united in His death and in His resurrection - it is more than some stodgy old theology about how many people Jesus died for - it is the foundation upon which the Christian rests all hope of deliverance from sin's power - we died with Christ - literally - and when we begin to see this truth, we begin to understand that when Paul says that we are no longer slaves of sin because we were crucified with Christ, it starts to mean something!
Are you starting to see it?
The cross is where I died in Christ. Not metaphorically: literally. I willLabels: atonement; theology, union with christ |
|
posted by Daniel @
5:41 PM
26 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Are You Having a Hectic Day Christian? |
 When scripture tells us that we do not walk by sight but by faith, it means that the Christian part of everything we do is not what is seen with the eyes, but what is done through faith.
If today my littlest girl insists at some time that I serve her momentary whim, and if I should say "no" to such a request, and if she therefore begins to fuss so that I am in danger of compromising behavioral boundaries that I am are trying to set for her, and if I am leaning towards giving in to her and casting my boundaries aside for no other reason than because I am growing weary of maintaining those boundaries against her full frontal "fussing" assault - that is, if I find maintaining those boundaries "not worth it" because I loathe the hassle... or if I find myself driven in a situation by some emotional charge (in one direction or the other) - it is time for me to step aside from myself and remember that whatever I do in whatever situation I find myself (regardless of how difficult or easy the situation is) I can either walk one way (by faith) or the other (by sight), and the choice I make defines what kind of Christian I am - a (morally superior but ultimately) carnal Christian, or a spiritual Christian.
Oh, I may perform all the "right" actions in any given situation - that is, to the outside observer, whichever path I choose it will look the same: I will be going through the correct external motions, doing what ought to be done. My actions can be genuine and even rise up from a "righteous" disposition - but however morally superior any action on my part might end up being, proper (or even superior) "conduct" is not unique to Christianity. In fact, most world religions share on one level or another, the same moral high ground (conduct-wise). To the outside observer, the paid nurse who reads the book to the sick child is performing the same "good" deed as the mother who reads the book to her sick child - but internally - where it counts - the deeds are as different as night and day. The one is doing a "good deed" for which she is being compensated both financially, and also (perhaps) by keeping her "coincidentally" busy during the time that one of the nurses has to sponge bath that creepy old guy in bed six ~ that is, her good deed can be both self serving/advantageous, and also entirely compensated from beginning to end. The mother however, is acting purely and only out of concern for the child and her efforts are not going to be done in order to avoid something more unpleasant or in order to justify a paycheque.
You see, if you are a genuine Christian you have something that no other religion has, that is, if you have indeed come into union with Christ by grace through faith and in this way you have Christ Himself within you, and not only that - you yourself have been crucified with Christ - and that for a reason: so that sin will no longer have dominion over your mortal life in the here and now.
In Romans eight we read about how the law of the spirit of life has set us free from the law of the sin and death.
What is the law of sin and death?
That is the bondage to sin that Paul describes in Romans 7 - (you know, the whole -what I want to do I don't do, and what I don't want to do I do- thing. Paul describes it as a law that he finds in his flesh, but here in chapter 8 he says that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus sets (those who are united with Christ in His death and resurrection) free from that bondage - not later on, but now, and not metaphorically, but literally.
If you find that the Romans 7 experience describes your walk, then (frankly) you are not walking by faith, for when you walk by faith you are made free, and when I say free, I don't mean free from sin's penalty since we were freed from that the moment we were put into Christ - I mean free from the bondage to sin described in Romans 7. If Romans 7 is your experience, even though by grace you have been set free from sin's dominion - yet if you are still living out your faith practically as one who is under the law (that is, if you are not applying the gospel to free you from your sin, but are instead simply resisting sin as "best you can" - then even though you have been set free, you are still in bondage on a practical level. Paul describes that as being carnal in his letter to the Corinthians, and he uses that term correctly - you are not walking in the spirit but in the flesh, not by faith, but by sight.
True, it is the Spirit who motivates us to flee sin, but if we are not fleeing sin through faith, but rather are trying to flee the desires of the flesh in the power of the flesh - we are not going to succeed because, frankly, our flesh is not really on God's side, but is in fact not subject to God's law and never will be, and is described in scripture as being enmity (hatred) against God - our flesh =hates= to be ruled by God.
It is easy to describe doing things "in the flesh" because that is the default way in which a man tries to live righteously (regardless of his religion). But how do we battle sin in the Spirit? How do we get out from under sin's bondage if we find ourselves thus bound? How do we get victory over sin in the Spirit?
First of all we need to ditch our "cause and effect" mindset; our salvation from sin has already happened if we are in Christ, and we cannot make it happen or make it "real" by "doing" anything. The battle isn't fought there - it is fought in the arena of faith. There is a world of difference between trusting that Christ has saved us from sin's dominion and trying to get suddenly spiritual when we are tempted. Anyone can keep a commandment superficially (The Pharisees were experts at this), but no one can really keep Christ's commandments unless (until) they genuinely love Christ more than they love their own sin.
But how can we love Christ more than we love sin? Not by gritting our teeth and trying to love more - that doesn't work. By faith. We need to settle it in our heart that God is for us, and not against us. We need to settle it in our heart that Christ is going to save us from sin not by making us stronger and better able to suppress our nature, but rather that God has done so already, and that because he loved us already, with a love that will not be augmented by our own efforts. Our death in/with Christ satisfied God's wrath toward us, and our having been raised in/with Christ demonstrates that we are eternally acceptable to God in His Beloved. We must let this truth penetrate our thinking - we must trust that God hasn't left us orphans but is working even this very moment to change us from glory to glory, and that it is only when we doubt this that we go about trying to make it happen by other means - the greatest hindrance to genuine holiness is self effort - for self effort springs from UNBELIEF. Who sanctifies? Christ sanctifies, not in response to me, but in spite of me. The only thing that hinders this is unbelief, remember, we are saved from sin by faith - not by works.
My wife likes me to keep it practical, so I will try and wrap up with a practical application of this truth:
If we are sanctified by the same kind of faith that saved us, a faith that came simply by believing that God will do what He said (save those who turn to Him), then we must trust God to save us from sin in the same way - by turning away from it in faith - but our faith is not in the vague goodness of God, but in truths that are as specific as the gospel - in this case the truth is that we are dead to sin and alive to God in Christ, and that it is trusting that when the Holy Spirit through Paul said that it is this union with Christ that is going to save you from sin's power - that God wasn't lying. Take that cheque to the bank and cash it.
We are not set free by our strength, but by the truth and when we are set free, we are set free indeed! Meditate on these truths now, don't wait till you are tempted - choose for yourself today to trust God to do what you have failed to do these long years...Labels: atonement; theology, sanctification, union with christ |
|
posted by Daniel @
10:43 AM
4 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
|
|
