Aspects of Atonement: What Did Jesus' Death on the Tree Accomplish?

[Paprika]

I don't do Hebrew parallelism, especially when I put things in a nutshell.

;)

Parallelism doesn't necessarily imply synonymity

[Obsidian]

I think 'the law and the prophets', which is subsumed in the witness of a singular participle, more likely represents a common collective reference to the Jewish scriptures, not to a specific set of laws pertaining to substitutionary sacrifice.

Well you can spin it however you feel like. But don't pretend that you're being more literal with the text.

If holding the correct doctrines of Christianity is what justifies us, then how are justified by a substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus?

Romans 4
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

[robrecht]

Well you can spin it however you feel like. But don't pretend that you're being more literal with the text.

Romans 4
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

I do not disagree with anything at all in Romans 4. I am certainly being more literal with the text, but I have not explained it very well. Give me some time and I will try to do better.

[footwasher]

Well you can spin it however you feel like. But don't pretend that you're being more literal with the text.



Romans 4
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Umm, a Sadducee would consider Law to mean the Pentateuch. The prophetic writings, if at all used, would be considered commentary. A Pharisee (and modern Judaism) would understand it as a collective reference, as mentioned, to mean ALL the OT canon, as well as Talmud.

Insisting on literalism is to miss out on the immense richness of the text.

[Obsidian]

So you disagree that the law testified about Christ?

[footwasher]

The rich meaning of the Law testifying about Christ

OT salvation:

Jew observes Torah properly, minor and weightier issues, and dies, is killed by the Law, like the Publican in the Temple, unlike the dodgers who fall back on a technicality, God's promise to Abraham's seed and only observe tithing of mint and cummin and avoid justice, mercy and faithfulness, like the self righteous Pharisee. (Paul trades technicality for technicality: Seed is singular and applies only to Christ, not all observers of Law, wrongly interpreted as distinct markers of Judaism, to be observed to identify who is a Jew, has Abraham as his father).

God hears the petition of righteous Jews like Zacharias and Elizabeth, and gives them peace. To Job, Abraham and David, God reveals His solution: He will send a Redeemer who will enable law keeping, remove sin. OT saints who believe will be happy because God assures them He will not hold their sins against them.

NT salvation:

NT saints like Zacharias and Cornelius are shown the actual Messiah.

So you disagree that the law testified about Christ?

[robrecht]

Aside from the other contexts and the grammatical difficulties here:

• verbal object of a nonactive noun?
• Paul uses a preposition for an objective sense even with an active noun
• εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας (3,22)

Glauben an JEsum Christum), is that:

• the righteousness of God (3,21)
• borne witness to by the law and the prophets (not by us)
• the righteousness of God (3,22)
• who justifies by his grace as a gift (3,24)
• through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus
• whom God put forward as a place of mercy (3,25)
• by his blood
• to make manifest his righteousness
• because of his passing over of sins
• by means of the patience of God (3,26)
• to manifest his righteousness at this time
• to be himself righteous
• the one who makes righteous
• for which we cannot boast (3,27)

• our

Does anyone else see how out of place this objective genitive interpretation is in this context that in so many ways suggests the simpler, more fundamental meaning of the more literal subjective genitive?

[Obsidian]

God's righteousness is made manifest by the fact that God can condemn sin through the sacrifice of Jesus, without condemning his own people.

The word "For" in the following section signifies that the next several verses are all going to combine to answer your confusion.

Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

The fact that you are seemingly scared of the substitution theory is what's holding you back from understanding the chapter.

[robrecht]

God's righteousness is made manifest by the fact that God can condemn sin through the sacrifice of Jesus, without condemning his own people.

The word "For" in the following section signifies that the next several verses are all going to combine to answer your confusion.

Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

The fact that you are seemingly scared of the substitution theory is what's holding you back from understanding the chapter.

I have no fear of the substitution theory. Perhaps you did not notice that my argument for translating with the more literal subjective genitive is completely independent of any interpretation for or against substitutionary atonement. Perhaps you could try and address the actual argument rather than trying to falsely portray me as fearful. Such ad hominem elements do not inspire confidence in the merits of your position.

[Obsidian]

I did address your argument. It doesn't say that God's righteousness is manifested by people's faith. It says that his righteousness is manifested by the sacrifice of Christ, coupled with the forgiveness of all who believe.

[robrecht]

I did address your argument. It doesn't say that God's righteousness is manifested by people's faith. It says that his righteousness is manifested by the sacrifice of Christ, coupled with the forgiveness of all who believe.

Oh, that was an argument? Actually, you said: "God's righteousness is made manifest by the fact that God can condemn sin through the sacrifice of Jesus, without condemning his own people." The only problem is that neither one of those statements is a possible translation of the Greek text and neither one even touches upon the question of subjective or objective genitive, which is what I addressed in my argument. Either respond to the argument that I made based upon the text or propose your own argument based on the actual text. I think that is a reasonable expectation from someone who claims to prefer a literal translation of the text. Fair enough?

But I congratulate you for not engaging in an ad hominem.

[Obsidian]

Are you blind? I specifically quoted four verses full of text to answer your question. Do you have an objection to the KJV? Will you be able to understand my argument if I start typing it in Greek?

[robrecht]

Are you blind? I specifically quoted four verses full of text to answer your question. Do you have an objection to the KJV? Will you be able to understand my argument if I start typing it in Greek?

The genitive in question appears in Romans 3,22. You cited the the KJV of Romans 3,23-26. Do you see why this does not address the issue?

[Obsidian]

Almost always, the word "For" will explain the previous verse(s). You posed a question. I answered it. I think you are not engaging this issue honestly. It's like you can only grasp concepts if they are couched in fancy linguistics terms.

[robrecht]

Almost always, the word "For" will explain the previous verse(s). You posed a question. I answered it. I think you are not engaging this issue honestly. It's like you can only grasp concepts if they are couched in fancy linguistics terms.

I am a very honest person. Sad that you make such an accusation. Which grammatical terms did you not understand? I will gladly explain. Which question of mine did you answer, the primary one about the objective genitive? The 'for'-clause does not relate to the subjective/objective genitive issue.