No*s
Captain Obvious
I'm continuing a topic in another thread that would be off-topic.
No offense taken, but I ask it in return. I am certain of my interpretation. I ask the same question to you, because nobody really held substitutionary atonement until Augustine, and even then the theology wasn't really flushed out until the time of Anslem of Canterbury. That would raise qustions about it to me (well has). [/quote]
Before I go too much further, let me explain what I believe about the work of Christ. When Adam and Eve sinned, they distorted and corrupted the image of God within them, and they were then subject to corruption. The results of this aren't God's punishing them for their sins, because that would be easy, but instead He cast them out of the Garden in an act of mercy.
This transgression sold us into bondage to Satan, and the powers of corruption and death are his tools. These powers are Satanic, and with them he enslaves the whole human race. Christ came to heal our broken nature, break the power of corruption, and take death by death that we could live. Christ is a ransom to Satan and death. If Christ were taking our punishment, then He would be a ransom to the Father and thus make God the enemy of humanity.
I know that's a brief explanation, but it's necessary to explain my responses to the Scriptures below.
That's a good description of the situation. He "took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows." He was "stricken," "smitten," and "afflicted" on the cross and that taken by His contemporaries as if it were a curse from God. We are led astry by our transgression in the Garden and our personal transgressions, and they also enslave us to sin and inflict corruption on us. This is a punishment of nature for our sins, and the next phrase makes that clear. It says "by his wounds we are healed."
Here's a translation that shows how I view it:
Notice how different the translations are. Notice how your translation translates δικαιοσύνη as "righteousness" once, but nowhere else in the immediate context. If it were translated as "righteousness" in every case, this verse wouldn't say anything about justification. The other words with the δικαι root also mean something to do with "righteous."
I think it's safe to say that this verse doesn't say anything about "justifying" us, because that requrires the arbitrary changing of definitions in the middle of a passage. Without it those words, it simply cannot be used to say that Christ has taken God's punishment for our sins. Rather, God delayed any punishment because of His righteoussness so taht we could become righteous and to show this righteousness.
The sacrifice here is one of redemption, of "buying" us. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross bought us from the power of sin and the devil. This act then reconciled us to God, because we no longer are opposed to Him simply on account of who we are. I don't see any substitutionary atonement in this verse.
No, it is a central theme in Protestant Christianity. Eastern Christianity doesn't have this theme and never has even though it has existed for 2000 years. We have something similar in that God does become a sacrifice for our sakes. However it breaks down at that point. Jesus sacrifice enables us to become righteous. It isn't just Christ's righteousness imputed to us, but it becomes our righteousness as well and we are made to conform to it. As 2 Peter 1.3-4 says, Christ called us "unto His own glory."
This is one of the great divides between my tradition and your tradition, and they aren't compatible.
Steve said:No*s said:Christianity wasn't about Christ taking our punishment on the cross that the Law had prescribed to us.
Really? Im actually surprised you would say that! From other posts you have made you often seem to know alot about the bible but (no offence intended ) do you actually understand its message? Why do you think Christ was punished on the cross?
No offense taken, but I ask it in return. I am certain of my interpretation. I ask the same question to you, because nobody really held substitutionary atonement until Augustine, and even then the theology wasn't really flushed out until the time of Anslem of Canterbury. That would raise qustions about it to me (well has). [/quote]
Before I go too much further, let me explain what I believe about the work of Christ. When Adam and Eve sinned, they distorted and corrupted the image of God within them, and they were then subject to corruption. The results of this aren't God's punishing them for their sins, because that would be easy, but instead He cast them out of the Garden in an act of mercy.
This transgression sold us into bondage to Satan, and the powers of corruption and death are his tools. These powers are Satanic, and with them he enslaves the whole human race. Christ came to heal our broken nature, break the power of corruption, and take death by death that we could live. Christ is a ransom to Satan and death. If Christ were taking our punishment, then He would be a ransom to the Father and thus make God the enemy of humanity.
I know that's a brief explanation, but it's necessary to explain my responses to the Scriptures below.
Steve said:What do you make of verses like these?
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:4-6
That's a good description of the situation. He "took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows." He was "stricken," "smitten," and "afflicted" on the cross and that taken by His contemporaries as if it were a curse from God. We are led astry by our transgression in the Garden and our personal transgressions, and they also enslave us to sin and inflict corruption on us. This is a punishment of nature for our sins, and the next phrase makes that clear. It says "by his wounds we are healed."
Steve said:This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Romans 3:22-26
Here's a translation that shows how I view it:
But the righteousness (δικαιοσύνη of God is through faith in Jesus Christ in for all those who believe. For there is no distinction. Everyone was sinning and falls short of the glory of God and are being made righteous (δικαιούμενοι, a participle from δικαιόω ) by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, that God presented as an atonement through faith in His blood to show the His righteousness (δικαιοσύνη again) by through the act of passing by our sins that were committed beforehand, by God's delay, to showHis righteousness (δικαιοσύνη at this very time, in order to be righteous (δίκαιον and the one who makes righteous (δικαιοῦνδτα, another participle of δικαιόω them out of faith in Jesus.
Notice how different the translations are. Notice how your translation translates δικαιοσύνη as "righteousness" once, but nowhere else in the immediate context. If it were translated as "righteousness" in every case, this verse wouldn't say anything about justification. The other words with the δικαι root also mean something to do with "righteous."
I think it's safe to say that this verse doesn't say anything about "justifying" us, because that requrires the arbitrary changing of definitions in the middle of a passage. Without it those words, it simply cannot be used to say that Christ has taken God's punishment for our sins. Rather, God delayed any punishment because of His righteoussness so taht we could become righteous and to show this righteousness.
The sacrifice here is one of redemption, of "buying" us. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross bought us from the power of sin and the devil. This act then reconciled us to God, because we no longer are opposed to Him simply on account of who we are. I don't see any substitutionary atonement in this verse.
Steve said:This is a central theme to Christianity, Jesus the unblemished lamb of God becoming a sacrifice for our sake. When you stand befor God is it your own righteousness thats going to let you to avoid Gods judgement? Or is it righteousness from God that comes through faith in Jesus Christ because Jesus has taken your sins upon himself when he was tortured and crucified on the cross?
No, it is a central theme in Protestant Christianity. Eastern Christianity doesn't have this theme and never has even though it has existed for 2000 years. We have something similar in that God does become a sacrifice for our sakes. However it breaks down at that point. Jesus sacrifice enables us to become righteous. It isn't just Christ's righteousness imputed to us, but it becomes our righteousness as well and we are made to conform to it. As 2 Peter 1.3-4 says, Christ called us "unto His own glory."
This is one of the great divides between my tradition and your tradition, and they aren't compatible.