A new book on the history of PSA
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
civic
Active Member
So what Luther rejected James therefor reject everything he taught and stood for.And now we have an entire chapter pasted in from someone who thinks Paul was a Universalist and rejects three of Paul's letters.
Next fallacy
Anja
Active Member
PSA is not a New Testament teaching. Quite the opposite: Christ didn’t suffer and die so that we don’t have to; rather Christ enacted radical solidarity with us in our suffering and death.
PSA states that Jesus, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished, penalized through death in place of sinners. That He was a substitution satisfying the demands of God’s justice, that forces God to punish sinners so that He can justly forgive the sins of those who place their faith in Jesus.
PSA states that Jesus, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished, penalized through death in place of sinners. That He was a substitution satisfying the demands of God’s justice, that forces God to punish sinners so that He can justly forgive the sins of those who place their faith in Jesus.
civic
Active Member
Ditto
Wholeheart
Active Member
How could any right mind view the punishment of an innocent person in place of the guilty except with righteous and burning indignation?
Jay
Active Member
I now believe that there is no atonement theory in Romans and that Paul had a different, and fairly clear, theory of how Jesus saves us. Lest one hear this as more extreme than it is, let me say emphatically that there is no question but that Paul thought that Jesus' death on the cross was central to human redemption. Furthermore, he believed that Jesus had died for the sake of sinners, including those in Rome whom he addressed. These ideas are central to Paul's teaching.And now we have an entire chapter pasted in from someone who thinks Paul was a Universalist and rejects three of Paul's letters.
The question is whether Paul thought that God sacrificed Jesus to atone for human sins. During the past thousand years, this idea has often been viewed in the Western church as at the heart of Christianity, and many of those who uphold it have appealed to Paul as its basis. Accordingly, the question of whether Paul actually thought in this way is of some theological importance. On the other hand, many have found this idea repulsive and have blamed Paul for imposing it on the Christian imagination. Accordingly, there is also some importance in deciding whether the imposition was by Paul or on him.
Those persuaded that Paul did not think that God offered Jesus as an atoning sacrifice could simply shorten their list of models suggested by Paul about the way Jesus' death has functioned redemptively. But in the process of re-interpreting the text, an alternative emerges that seems to be quite consistently in Paul's mind. It is as important to spell out this alternative as to show that the atonement model is not Paul's.
If Paul had frequently imaged Jesus' death in terms of temple sacrifice and the Day of Atonement elsewhere, or if he had elaborated this idea in Romans, seeking an alternative interpretation of his teaching would be a waste of time. But this is emphatically not the case. Apart from one passage in Romans, 3:21-26, there would be no grounds for attributing this thinking to him. The impression that he taught this idea frequently grows out of traditional interpretations of this one passage and then reading other passages in light of this interpretation. But none of the other verses would by themselves lead to this doctrine if interpreters did not bring it to them. They can be understood more naturally and plausibly in another way.
The case for Paul's teaching the doctrine of the atonement actually rests, not on this whole passage, but on one part of one verse, Romans 3:25. Interpreting this one clause involves decisions on some very technical matters, but since I cannot deal with those, I will describe the issue in more general terms.
Many scholars have believed that this clause does use the temple sacrifice on the Day of Atonement as an image of what Jesus' death accomplished. The New Revised Standard Version makes the connection quite explicit. "whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood effective through faith." This translation is allowed by the Greek text, but it is not the only possible one.
In fact, the word "atonement" is lacking in many standard translations. The King James Translation uses "propitiation", and the Revised Standard Version uses "expiation." The American Translation reads: "For God showed him publicly dying as a sacrifice of reconciliation to be taken advantage of through faith." The Good News Bible renders the meaning as: "God offered him, so that by his sacrificial death he should become the means by which people's sins are forgiven through their faith in him."
Despite this variety, and the common avoidance of the word "atonement," all these translations agree with the New Revised Standard Version in suggesting that God sacrificed Jesus so that people could be reconciled to God through faith. All thereby support the idea that is most directly formulated by the use of the word "atonement."
Recently, however, several scholars have looked at the text without this idea of atonement in mind and have read it quite differently. To understand this new interpretation requires a detour focusing on the Greek word usually translated as "faith," the word pistis. All the translators of this passage assume that this pistis is that of those sinners for whom Jesus died. But the Greek reads as easily, some say more naturally, if the reference is to the pistis of Jesus rather than to the pistis of others directed toward Jesus. It has been widely assumed that Paul was not interested in Jesus, except for his death and resurrection, certainly not in his subjective states. Hence, despite the openness of the Greek to this reading, it never appears in most translations. In the NRSV, however, it sometimes appears in the footnotes as an alternate reading.
The resistance to reading the Greek in terms of the pistis of Jesus has been partly the result of the translation of pistis as "faith," This is a valid translation and richly suggestive word. In English, "faith" includes trust, belief, and assurance, all of which are also suggested by the Greek pistis. But pistis is even broader in its meaning. A number of Greek scholars have suggested that "faithfulness" captures this wider range of meanings better than "faith." This does not mean that there are not occasions when the focus is on trusting, believing, or being assured, so that translation with words such as these is also possible, and "faith" sometimes is best. But there are other times, when "faithfulness" helps us to understand Paul's intention better.
The main difference is that "faith" focuses attention on inner subjective states of being. These were important to Paul, and in some passages they are certainly in the foreground. But pistis was not limited to them. It is a way of being in the world. It expresses itself in the total relation to another, in Paul's case, often, to God.
If we think of "faithfulness" when Paul speaks of pistis, our reading of Paul changes significantly. For example, the contrast between pistis and "works," so important for the Reformers, is moderated. One cannot be faithful apart from action. The contrast of pistis and reason, which has also played a large a role in the history of Christian theology, does not come so sharply into view. Being faithful is not in opposition to being influenced by rational thought.
Recent scholarly interpreters of Romans have persuaded me that, whereas Paul may not have been interested in the pure subjectivity of Jesus, highlighted by the English word "faith," there is no reason to suppose that he was not interested in Jesus' faithfulness. I believe, therefore, that where the Greek is most naturally read as speaking of the pistis of Jesus, we should understand it to mean "the faithfulness of Jesus." Once this is established as important to Paul, this translation should be tried out even in passages that can be read equally well as attributing pistis to Jesus or to his followers. The choice in these cases will ultimately be theological. Which reading makes the meaning fit better with Paul's views as expressed elsewhere?
This experiment will be particularly important when we undertake to unpack the passage crucial to our topic: Romans 3:21-26. Let's begin with the New Revised Standard Version and then engage in a process of re-translation.
"But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove in the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus."
Now consider a change in the last part of the first sentence. The NRSV itself indicates in a footnote that the Greek can be read as "the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who believe." This removes the puzzle of two successive references to faith in Jesus in the NRSV translation; "faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe." According to the Harper Collins Study Bible, which is based on the NRSV, this "alternate translation … is closer to the Greek and is gaining acceptance. . ."
One remaining problem with making this change is that it is hard to see how Jesus' faith reveals the righteousness of God. However, if we translate pistis as faithfulness, this problem disappears. The righteousness of God has been revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. This is effective for all who have pistis. This is translated as "for all who believe." But it makes more sense if we do not focus on the beliefs entertained but on faithfulness.
The beginning of the sentence in the NRSV is also puzzling to the reader. The translation is correct, but confusing. It says that what is disclosed apart from the law is attested in the law. Paul uses "law" in two ways. Sometimes it means all the laws that the good Jew was taught to follow. Sometimes it means what we call the Pentateuch. Paul believed that the Pentateuch and the books of the prophets teach that people are saved by pistis in a way that makes obeying laws unnecessary. The meaning of what is given in the NRSV as the first sentence of the passage can be more clearly, and more accurately, if not quite so literally, rendered in English, therefore, as "Apart from the law the righteousness of God has now been disclosed to all who are faithful in the faithfulness of Jesus. This is attested by the Jewish scriptures."
I propose one more change. The primary advantage of this change does not appear until we get to the end of the passage. The Greek word dikaiosyne that here, and generally elsewhere, is translated as "righteousness" can equally well be translated "justice." Indeed, when translating non-Jewish Greek texts, this is standard practice. The reason that most translators of Paul usually use "righteousness" is that the Hebrew words replaced by this Greek word have a broader meaning than the Greek word had elsewhere. "Righteousness," in English is also more inclusive that justice.
I do not question that when Paul used the word it had a richer meaning than was borne by its usual Greek usage. Nevertheless, he was writing chiefly to Gentiles for whom it would probably connote much of what "justice" connotes to us. Further, Paul's paradoxical point is heard more sharply in English if we translate dikaiosyne as "justice." What is disclosed in Jesus' faithfulness is that God's justice is very different from the Wrath that had previously been associated with it. The meaning of true justice in human affairs is also quite different from the ordinary understanding.
Furthermore, the same root underlies the word that is regularly translated as "justification." Some have suggested that this could be replaced by something such as "rightwising," in order to bring out the close connection in Paul's mind between the character of God and the way God regards those who are faithful. This remains awkward. The simpler solution is to use "just" in both cases. I am not alone in preferring this translation. It is adopted in the New English Bible and also the NIV.
Accordingly, we now read: "Apart from the law the justice of God has now been disclosed to all who are faithful in the faithfulness of Jesus."
by John B. Cobb, Jr.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
This author is overstating the facts in "loaded" fashion to sell his perspective. Who cares what his assessment of "scholars" has to do with anything. If they all get it wrong, what does it mean? It simply means they are wrong. Consensus is a such a loaded and bogus means to establish Truth. God alone does such.
Jesus was never a priest after the order of Aaron. The appeal to the Levitical priestly order "nuance" is rather poor methodology.
Pharisees are concerned with contrived order of services and Gentiles never knew such things. Such was only really relevant to the priests themselves.
How is the suffering of the sinner in their own sin? Have they paid anything themselves? Paul basically speaks of this when he relates to Timothy that we often "pierce ourselves through with many sorrows".
Fact is, evil doesn't work. It is a natural order that leaves men empty. Alone. Forsaken in their own delusions. Such is full of suffering in and of itself.
"pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
And here is where I can't ever fit in with liberal commentators seeking to down play the impact of sin upon sinners and those they affect around them.
There is more to suffering in an emotional delusion than being confined in some prison somewhere. Men are in a prison of their own minds.
Justice must first be understood in what is "just". Punish of sin itself is not often just but it is necessary. Even God "scourgeth" every son He receives. Chastening is necessary but never joyous.
Heb 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
The appeal to Hebrew here is meaningless. The first appearances of "kipper" are found relative to the ark of the flood. It simply represents a "covering". "Pitch" in the KJV. Most modern translations from the MT use the word "cover" in English to represent the first origins of "kipper". In the Greek OT it is basically the origins of what we would say in English is "asphalt".
I say this to make the point that Hebrew has changed significantly throughout human history. This is a prime example of this very fact.
This author is right about "katallassō". Yet, it is more complicated than a single word that appears less than two dozen times in the entirety of the Greek OT and NT.
I'll add more later.
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Active Member
Many people believe this. Not that I do. I find myself in the middle of many many things. It is good to engage on the subject and be challenged in your beliefs.
It is interesting that anyone would claim atonement for their sins while denying it to everyone else.
I mean what is really different about any of us? This is a common approach to apologetics.
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Active Member
PSA exalts the value of sin to the level of Divinity. It allows men to find value in their sin.
civic
Active Member
I
It also diverts personal responsibility with dying to self, sin and being crucified with Christ. It removes from the believer, the participation in the sufferings of Christ. The cost of discipleship is removed
praise_yeshua
Active Member
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Most every translation across centuries of "Bible Translation"......translates κατακρίνω (katakrinō) in these verses as condemnation. The use of κατακρίνω (katakrinō) is limited in the NT but is practically non existent in the OT. The etymology of κρίνω (krinō) into κατακρίνω (katakrinō) is meaningful.
κατακρίνω (katakrinō)
κρίνω (krinō)
I asked grok to explain the historical development of κατακρίνω (katakrinō) and here was the response.
Grok >>>
"Etymology of κατακρίνω
κατακρίνω (katakrinō) is a compound verb in Ancient Greek, formed from the prefix κατά- (kata-, meaning "down," "against," or "thoroughly") and the base verb κρίνω (krinō, meaning "to separate," "judge," or "decide"). This combination intensifies the action of judging, shifting it toward a negative connotation of condemnation or decisive rejection.- Historical Development:
- κρίνω originates from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) *krei- ("to sieve" or "distinguish"), reflecting an idea of sorting or separating elements. In early Greek (Homeric era, ~8th century BCE), it broadly meant "to distinguish" or "pick out," as in separating wheat from chaff (e.g., Iliad 11.690).
- By Classical Greek (5th–4th centuries BCE), κρίνω evolved to denote judicial judgment (e.g., in legal contexts like trials) and discernment (e.g., in philosophy, as in Plato's Republic for evaluating forms of government).
- κατάκρίνω appears later in Classical texts, emphasizing finality or opposition. It first gains prominence in Koine Greek (Hellenistic period, ~3rd century BCE onward), where it often implies a verdict of guilt or doom. For instance, in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), it's used for divine or legal condemnation (e.g., Psalm 78:45 for God's judgments).
- Semantic Shift:
- The prefix κατά- adds a downward or adversarial force, transforming neutral judgment into adverse judgment. This mirrors patterns in other Greek compounds like καταλύω (katalyō, "to dissolve" from λύω, "loosen").
- In the New Testament (1st century CE), κατακρίνω frequently appears in theological contexts (e.g., Matthew 12:7: "I will have mercy, and not [sacrifice], lest ye... condemn [κατακρίνητε]"), underscoring moral or eternal condemnation.
Usage and Examples
| Context | Example | Translation/Note |
|---|---|---|
| Classical Greek | Thucydides, History 1.77: οἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ κατακρίνουσιν (hoi de en tō polēmō katakrinousin) | "And those in the war condemn [them]." – Refers to decisive blame in wartime decisions. |
| Septuagint | Exodus 22:9: κατακρίνει Κύριος (katakrinei Kyrios) | "The Lord will condemn [the thief]." – Divine judgment theme. |
| New Testament | Romans 8:34: ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ... ὁ καὶ ἐντυγχάνων ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (hos estin en dexia tou Theou... ho kai entynchanōn hyper hēmōn) – but crucially, "who is... condemning? It is Christ Jesus who died" (implying no κατακρίνω for believers). | Highlights acquittal vs. condemnation in Christian soteriology. |
This evolution from κρίνω's neutral discernment to κατακρίνω's condemnatory force illustrates how Greek prefixes often sharpen ethical or judicial nuances, influencing later languages (e.g., English "critic" from κρίνω via Latin)." <<< Grok
I mention this because of what you said above. I do agree with you that the context of being "free" from the law of sin and death removes the condemnation that sin brings upon us and enables us to serve and share in Christ's suffering.
Thusly, condemnation that our own sin brings is not just about our failures/sins in our actions alone but our lack of good in our actions.
I do believe this is missing almost completely in PSA.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
I could wish that Cobb was still here with us to discuss his commentary above.
I do believe there is a aspect of the "atonement" that is lacking in most every response to PSA I've seen.
I'd like see more reflection upon the concept of "Guilt" that already exists upon all of humanity.
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
