Evangelicals are often accused of "proof-texting" - quoting a single verse to prove something, often without considering the context. In my experience, while evangelicals are sometimes guilty of it, it's often non-evangelicals who do it more dangerously, to the extent in some extreme situations of building entire systems of doctrine on one verse (e.g. "God is love") without considering how it fits into the theology of the rest of the Bible.
Someone (it may have been David Jackman) once cleverly said:
A text without a context is a pretext for a subtext.
When we cite verses, it's really important that we understand how they fit into their context - that often makes it much easier to see how we should understand them.
I recently received a comment on this post, which raises several interesting issues about how we understand the Bible and so on, so I thought I'd respond to it here rather than in situ.
"The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son (Jesus) to suffer instead of us the death, punishment, and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin."
Hmmmm........ if your idea is true the crucifixion of Jesus would have been the resolving end of all issues between you and God. However Jesus says that the issue of guilt relative to sin remains as the outstanding issue between you and God AFTER his crucifixion. What have you to say about Jesus' statement in Jn. 16:8?
God says in Gen. 9:5 NIV (the NIV being about the clearest on this point) that whenever any man looses his life by bloodshed God demands (requires) an accounting. What would you think the required accounting might be?
There is at least one sin that must be repented of to obey the Acts 2:38 command. What do you think think this sin might be relative to the outstanding issue in Jn. 16:8?
Heb. 7:12 says that a change has been made to the law of God and Rom. 5:20 says a law has been added. What law?
My Response
First up, it's not my idea. The idea of Penal Substitutionary Atonement dates back at the absolute latest to the letter to the Hebrews (1st century AD), and I'd argue it was actually God's idea before the universe began. But anyway...
As far as I can see, John 16:8 doesn't bear much relevance to the discussion at all:
But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgement: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgement, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
John 16:7-11, NIV
Verse 8 says that the Holy Spirit, when he comes, will convict the world of guilt. In John, the world "world" (κοσμος) refers either to the world in rebellion against God (e.g. 1:10, 7:7) or to the world as the scope of Jesus' salvation. In Jesus' long discourse which contains John 16, "world" almost always means the world as opposed to Christians (e.g. 15:19 - "If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.").
So the Holy Spirit convicting the world of sin is telling those who are not disciples - i.e. are not followers of Jesus, that they are sinners. There's a strong world / disciples distinction in this passage.
Next, the commenter writes that "if your idea is true the crucifixion of Jesus would have been the resolving end of all issues between you and God". That simply isn't true. My appropriation of the benefits of the crucifixion would be the resolving end of all issues between me and God, rather than the crucifixion itself.
Simple analogy - suppose that someone invents an armour that is completely impervious to bullets. Does that mean the end of all deaths from bullets from that time onwards? No - it requires the use of that armour rather than just its invention, which is precisely what Acts 2:38 talks about.
And in a sense, we never get to fully appropriate the benefits of the crucifixion until we have reached full union with Christ by our own participation in his death by our death...
Genesis 9:5 is an interesting verse to cite. God says, speaking to Noah after the flood, that he holds people responsible for each others' lives - that he will "demand an accounting". (ESV is "require a reckoning", which is much the same). So God holds us accountable for each other's lives. Which is precisely why we need someone to take the punishment demanded by that accounting. We are all guilty and complicit of abusing others - not speaking out (lovingly) against abortion or unjust war, exploitation of child labour and death, living off the profits from exploiting others, hatred, using other people for our own selfish ends. Genesis 9:5 says God will hold us accountable. So we all need someone to take the penalty that we deserve.
Romans 5:20 (in context) is quite clearly talking about the role of the Mosaic Law given to Israel in the wilderness to show them how to respond to God's salvation of them in the Exodus. It served largely to show that they were sinners and needed an even better salvation. Hebrews 7:12 (in context) clearly speaks about the removal of that covenant because of Jesus' death. I've written more about the whole issue of Christians and the Old Testament Law, but I fail to see the relevance of these verses if they are understood in context.
13 comments:
According to Jesus it is only a few that find the only small narrow gate for escaping from death which has been perfected by his crucifixion.
There cannot be any reason for a conviction without there also having been a prior offense. Since the crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed it is the action of taking his life by bloodshed that is accountable directly to God as he demands. In order to make the sin of Jesus' crucifixion a required accounting for all men the law of God was changed. God loves obedience rather than sacrifice, most men hate even the thought of having to obey God. If the death of Jesus would not have caused a human male to loose his life by bloodshed accountability for his death has no basis.
The gospel proposal of penal substitutionary atonement must, in order to be creditable, modify the offense of Jesus' crucifixion into a benefit. So then if Jesus' crucifixion is a death caused by bloodshed in place of your death, why is it that Jesus teaches in the parable of the "Tenants" that God has no intention of allowing anyone who took Jesus' life to escape death? If only by Jesus' crucifixion you are escaping death, as you surmise, why hasn't this same benefit been granted to those people too?
Maybe you also think God respects persons.
Theodore A. Jones
(Could someone who can write in clear and logical English please translate the above? I'm not sure I understand it fully...)
From what I do understand of it, Stott's famous words that we cannot understand the crucifixion as done for us until we understand it as done by us are apposite. So had I been there, in all probability I would have been one of the crowd calling for his crucifixion, and so would you.
So yes, all humankind is guilty because of the crucifixion of Jesus (I think that's what the first paragraph is saying). And yet his death itself bears the penalty merited by those who were complicit in his death yet came to trust him.
The Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-46) is in context again clearly about the Jewish religious authorities and their rejection of Jesus, leading to God stripping them of their status as being God's people. Jesus doesn't actually say anything about God punishing all of those individuals responsible for crucifying him - Tenants is talking about them as a group and saying that they are rejected as the people of God.
The parable of the "Tenants" is found in Mt. 21:33-44, Mk. 12:1-11, and Lk. 20:9-18. In no case does Jesus say anyone is exonerated of anything by crucifying God's only begotten son. There is also the story about the wise builder and the builders which are foolish. So hold your breath and test their theory. For they thought it was a good idea for a man to die and save the people. However God mandates that you account to him for taking the life of his only begotten son by bloodshed. See Gen. 9:5b NIV. "EACH man, if you are one, too. God does not respect persons.
Theodore A. Jones
1) No-one is saying that anyone is exonerated by crucifying God's Son. People are exonerated by faith in God's crucified Son, despite the fact that they crucified him.
2) What have the wise and foolish builders got to do with this?
3) I agree that we are all responsible for killing Jesus. Isn't it interesting that as he died, Jesus asked for forgiveness for those who killed him?
4) The fact that the Parable of the Tenants does not speak explicitly of the possibility of forgiveness for individual tenants if they repent is irrelevant. That is not the point of the parable. Furthermore, Exodus 20 does not speak of the possibility of forgiveness for anyone breaking the 10 Commandments, but that does not mean that that possibility exists.
5) Sometimes you seem to be "too cunning to be understood". If things are as you seem to be saying, there is no possibility of forgiveness for anyone, which clearly goes against Scripture.
As to 5, thanks for the compliment.
However when you get to the other side say to God. "God I'm am so very very thankful you sent Jesus and he died in my place." But the gate into the kingdom of God is very small and narrow and no man will be allowed to enter this gate by reliance on a sin.
So like I said test your faith. At least for my self I have explained to you the only Way you will be allowed entry. One of the obvious symptoms with your faith is too many gates.
By the way Stott does not trump Jesus relative to "you shall no other gods beside me."
Have a good day.
Theodore A. Jones
I've tried to get my head around the convoluted grammar and logic, and I'll give my best shot at responding.
Theodore seems to be asking "how can we be forgiven through Jesus' crucifixion, if killing Jesus on the cross was itself a sin?"
Basically, through Jesus' self-sacrifice on the cross, all our guilt can be taken away, including our guilt for Jesus' death.
We receive the benefits of what Jesus achieved through his death and resurrection, including this forgiveness, through faith.
Theodore also seems to think that PSA teaches that we are forgiven by killing Jesus, which is a fundamental misunderstanding.
People aren't forgiven by crucifying Jesus, but are forgiven by being united through faith with the one who bore God's wrath, undergoing death, and who rose again breaking free of the dominion of sin and death.
Crucifying Jesus was a sin, but through that, God was making possible something wonderful. What men meant for evil, God meant for good.
Salvation comes not by relying on the human sin of men crucifying Jesus, but on the divine grace of Jesus sacrificing himself. It is faith in what Christ has done on the Cross that saves.
In which case surely something like Genesis 50:20 would apply, after one of the great OT types of the cross:
You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.
Good to have you join Mr. Woodbridge and thanks for the attempt at clarification, but I see that I need to restate some things.
1. The theory of penal substitutionary atonement/substitutionary atonement has the base element of prior thought of expecting a direct benefit from the commission of a sin. However since the sin of Jesus' includes the action of taking a man's life by bloodshed the actual true result is the requirement that God MUST be given an accounting for taking a man's life by bloodshed.
Custard identifies this expected benefit by saying "People are exonerated by faith in God's crucified son, despite the fact that they crucified him." One may have his cake in thought, but one may not even mix the ingredients of substitutionary atonement's cake and obtain a clear conscience.
For malice aforethought is just as much a sin as Jesus' crucifixion. The theory of a human's death caused by bloodshed in place of your death cannot be a positive resolution. For this theory cannot have the extenuating circumstance of it being the fact that God must be given the correct answer to account for the sin his son's crucifixion AFTER the fact.
Theodore A. Jones
Are you then saying that Jesus and/or God was at fault for Jesus' death and hence that it was a sin for them to commit?
If so, how would you deal with John 10:17-18?
"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement or substitutionary atonement is an error because the expected benefit of obtaining a remission from the penalty of sins cannot be obtained as a direct benefit if a human male's life is taken by bloodshed.
The only Way Jesus' crucifixion can be a benefit is BY having a lawful procedure of resolving that sin AFTER the fact of him having been crucified not BEFORE as the doctrine of substitutionary atonement proposes. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement offers way too many gates for obtaining a benefit from Jesus' crucifixion. And none of the gates offered by this theory result in accounting directly to God for the crucifixion of Jesus as a sin caused by bloodshed. Jesus was not crucified to perfect or complete OT covenants since animal sacrifices are not capable of leaving a residual of guilt relative to sin. His crucifixion is according to God 's set purpose for making a new covenant that grants the individual who is willing believe Jesus must be obeyed exactly for salvation by the faith of repenting of his crucifixion to be saved from the wrath of God which will cause your death to become permanent. The only narrow gate to escape from your fortuitous outlook of experiencing God's wrath is by the faith of repenting of the one sin of Jesus' murder in order to be forgiven of ALL sins. You either by faith use this gate for escape or enjoy the wrath of God for the disobedience of his son's last command.
Theodore A. Jones
The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement or substitutionary atonement is an error because the expected benefit of obtaining a remission from the penalty of sins cannot be obtained as a direct benefit if a human male's life is taken by bloodshed.
Why not?
The only Way Jesus' crucifixion can be a benefit is BY having a lawful procedure of resolving that sin AFTER the fact of him having been crucified not BEFORE as the doctrine of substitutionary atonement proposes.
Why?
Given that God doesn't worry too much about time and all.
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement offers way too many gates for obtaining a benefit from Jesus' crucifixion.
Precisely one as far as I'm aware.
And none of the gates offered by this theory result in accounting directly to God for the crucifixion of Jesus as a sin caused by bloodshed.
Depends what you mean by accounting. Taking this point to its logical conclusion also leads to the belief that we're all dooooomed.
Jesus was not crucified to perfect or complete OT covenants since animal sacrifices are not capable of leaving a residual of guilt relative to sin.
I really don't get this sentence. Please explain.
His crucifixion is according to God 's set purpose for making a new covenant that grants the individual who is willing believe Jesus must be obeyed exactly for salvation by the faith of repenting of his crucifixion to be saved from the wrath of God which will cause your death to become permanent.
That "sentence" doesn't make any kind of sense.
The only narrow gate to escape from your fortuitous outlook of experiencing God's wrath is by the faith of repenting of the one sin of Jesus' murder in order to be forgiven of ALL sins. You either by faith use this gate for escape or enjoy the wrath of God for the disobedience of his son's last command.
I've already quoted Stott on the necessity of that, and you argued with it.
As to "Why not?"
If Jesus' crucifixion was for the cause of God to exercise his wrath against one individual to satisfy himself and excuse all other persons from death the result is a blanket pardon for all others. This idea is expressed by Caiaphas. "It is a good idea that one man die to save the people." or nation.
But the truth is even after one man has been crucified to save all the other people the man who was crucified states that guilt relative to sin is the remaining issue. Your answer to "Why not?" is guilt in regard to what sin?
As to "Why?" #2
True God does not concern himself considering time, but for you man, are you god? Don't all at some point in time die with or without the law? So do you speculate that you may have some time to waste because God does not have a time limit placed on him?
As to 2a. Why is it necessary for a relevant judicial procedure, only relative to the sin of Jesus' crucifixion, for it to be beneficial to all? A law is only relative to the offense of that law AFTER the fact of committing that sin. "Take this book of the law and place it inside the ark. There it shall remain AS A WITNESS AGAINST YOU." As you have acknowledged the crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed. Many sins were committed before the law was given but by the law sins became accountable. But only unintentional sins are afforded the probability of due process. There must be tangible evidence of guilt in place BEFORE the process of judgment or there cannot be any collateral presented to the court for mitigation or relief from the law's penalty.
Now let's take a look at the process in Gen.50:15-21, since you have used it to defend your position. Isn't the brother's bargaining chip a trespass? For this reason the crucifixion is an offense by bloodshed, Gal. 5:11, against God by persons known or unknown so that anyone by faith to obey may confess sorrow for one sin in order to be forgiven of all sins. So then it is necessary for the trespass to come first then the law, Repent is added, to make all men accountable for one sin making it easy to keep the law with your mouth.
By the way did you use this small narrow gate?
Sadly, those don't actually answer the questions.
As to whether the effect of Jesus' guilt-bearing apply more widely - surely it depends on whether the people want to lose their guilt. If people refuse to acknowledge that guilt, then it remains. If they are willing to acknowledge it and let it rest on Jesus, it can be forgiven...
Post a Comment