The standard of readers’ contributions over the past week has been quite amazing and I personally have benefited from them.
In addition to my Editorial, I will attempt to give a few brief responses to some of the excellent comments that have been posted to my ‘Savage Christians’ article. I apologise in advance for what I know to be inadequate replies, but time and space do not allow for more.
Plain straightforward Scriptures
Looking through the various comments and emails, a number of scriptural references crop up, with concerned individuals asking how I would explain them. One such is 1 Peter 3:17-18, which connects the ideas of Christ's suffering and ours:
“For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.”
Another is Hebrews 9:27-28:
“Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”
Both 1 Peter 3:17-18 and Hebrews 9:27-28 comprise a basic belief in Christianity which I fully accept.
Both these passages are plain straightforward statements, and fundamental to Christianity – that Jesus died for our sins. They comprise a basic belief in Christianity which I fully accept.
Suffering servant & propitiation
Another biblical passage that has been oft-quoted is Isaiah 53:5:
“But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed’’.
There has been a lot of discussion among biblical scholars as to whether the ‘Servant’ in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah is the nation of Israel that has suffered immensely for their faith, or whether this statement refers to an individual. I believe it refers to an individual messiah and that this prophecy was fulfilled through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.
It was indeed the weight of our sins that Jesus took upon himself, through the cruelty inflicted upon him, which brought us peace. But the penal substitution explanation of how this works is a simplistic attempt to explain a deep and profound mystery, in the Western manner of wishing to have everything packaged into neat boxes – which was not the Hebraic way – and one which I fear has done a lot of damage. Christians of the Early Church knew that they could not explain everything logically and they were happy to leave loose ends.
... the penal substitution explanation of how this works is a simplistic attempt to explain a deep and profound mystery.
And what about 1 John 4:10, where we see both love and a wrath turned away:
“This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (NIV).
John’s reference to “atoning sacrifice for our sins” is a reflection of Paul’s teaching in Romans 3:23-25:
“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.”
Substitutionary atonement
One or two readers insist that the Apostle Paul taught curse substitutionary atonement when he stated in Galatians 3:10-14:
“For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them' ... Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree’ – that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Paul’s use of the Greek word ‘nomos’ (law) is entirely different from our understanding of the word ‘law’ in English. We think of law as being a legal system, but Paul is speaking about the Torah.
However, Paul’s use of the Greek word ‘nomos’ (law) is entirely different from our understanding of the word ‘law’ in English. We think of law as being a legal system, but Paul is speaking about the Torah – the teaching of the word of God given by God to Moses at Mount Sinai. Paul knew that the teaching of the Pharisees was that anyone who broke the Torah was under a curse.
Matthew’s Gospel, which was written for Jews, carefully protects Jesus from the charge of breaking the Torah. John’s gospel, which was written for Gentiles, openly speaks of Jesus as a Torah breaker – John 5:16 states “Because Jesus was doing these things on the sabbath, the Jews persecuted him.” They said, “we have a law which, if someone breaks it, they deserve death”. This was why Jesus was crucified.
Hebrew and Greek mistranslation
One reader wrote: “Certainly, God is not capricious, but His attributes include wrath, hatred, vengeance and anger. They exist alongside His love, mercy and grace, without contradiction and are summed up in His righteousness and holiness”.
The difficulty with these statements lies in their translation into English from the original Hebrew and Greek, where they have quite different meanings. For example: ‘righteousness’ comes from the Hebrew word ‘tsadaq’, which is usually better translated as ‘justice’, but the way it is used by the Hebrew prophets is quite different when referring to the justice of God. Holiness in the Hebrew word ‘qodesh’ means ‘separation’ and has no moral content as it does in English.
‘righteousness’ comes from the Hebrew word ‘tsadaq’, which is usually better translated as ‘justice’, but the way it is used by the Hebrew prophets is quite different when referring to the justice of God.
Another reader remarked: “The Orthodox Protestant position is really very straightforward: It says that Jesus died for me, in my place, taking my sins and bearing them for me. It says that in bearing my sin He also bore the punishment for my sin and set me free from the punishment demanded by the law. The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are thus satisfied by this substitution.”
This is a series of statements all based upon faulty translation of the Hebrew and Greek terms ‘righteousness’, ‘law’, ‘holiness’. All three have a very different understanding in the original language from that given in most English translations. The basic concept here I hope will be answered in an upcoming article (if the editors will allow me!).
Hebrew understanding of ‘Justice’.
Finally, a reader wrote: “The justice of God was fully satisfied by the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Father raised him from the dead in total confirmation of this fact.”
The whole concept of justice in the Bible is complex because the Hebraic understanding and use of the word ‘justice’ is quite different from our understanding of justice in the Western world. I will also be dealing with this in my proposed article to be published soon. I hope that it will give a satisfactory answer to this and various further matters.
The whole concept of justice in the Bible is complex because the Hebraic understanding and use of the word ‘justice’ is quite different from our understanding of justice in the Western world.
We close with the comments of a regular contributor to PT articles who wrote to us, saying “It strikes me that Dr Hill should … know a bit of encouragement in the present circumstances. If anything, his article has enabled some of the most thoughtful and interactive responses in the comments section, and I for one find such a community an opportunity to be strengthened in my faith”.
In all honesty, this is exactly what I hoped for – to see a truly serious discussion among our readers. I truly praise the Lord that this is happening and we want to encourage it in every possible way.
