Tag: Atonement

Posted on

Justification changes the person; it is not a mere legal process.

Summary

To be “justified” means to be right with God. Justified people have “peace with God” (Rom 5:1).

The controversy in Paul’s day

That controversy was about how Gentiles are justified. Some Jewish Christians maintained that Christians are justified “by the works of the Law” (Gal 2:16; 5:4). This means to be put right with God through the rituals of the Law of Moses, irrespective of whether you are a changed person.

Paul opposed this view and said that God justifies sinners “through faith” (Gal 2:16). To have faith means to be a changed person; one that trusts God to have mercy.

The Forensic View of Justification

We agree today that sinners are justified by grace through faith but we disagree about what that means. For some, the word “justified” implies some kind of legal process in the courtroom of heaven in which a person is put right with God irrespective of whether he or she is a changed person. In this regard, this view is similar to the Jewish view of 2000 years ago. The following are objections to this view:

Firstly, “justification” is one of several metaphors of salvation and must not be interpreted literally.

Secondly, the Imputation of Righteousness is just one of several Theories of the Atonement and not necessarily the right one.

Thirdly, in the Bible, to be justified means to be a changed person. For example:

        • “The doers of the Law will be justified” (Rom 2:13).
        • People are “justified by faith” (e.g., Gal 3:24).

A justified person, therefore, is a new creation (Gal 6:15) with “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6).

– END OF SUMMARY – 

Introduction

To be “justified” means to be right with God.

JustifiedStrong’s concordance defines the Greek word, which is translated as “justified,” as:

‘To show or regard as just or innocent’.

“Justified,” therefore, means that sinners are accepted and regarded by God as just. Justified people are described as:

“Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:29; cf. 3:7, 9, 14; 4:7),

“Sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26; cf. 4:5), and as

Having “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1).

The Controversy on Paul’s Day

The Jews thought that people are put right with God through the rituals of the Law.

The great controversy in Paul’s day was about how Gentiles are justified. This controversy is particularly described in the letter to the Galatians. In it, Paul uses the words “justified” and “justify” several times (e.g., Gal 2:16-17, 3:8, 11, 24, and 5:4).

The Galatians were trying to be “perfected by the flesh” (Gal 3:3), meaning to work for salvation in your own power. More specifically, some Jewish Christians maintained that Christians are justified “by the works of the Law” (Gal 2:16; 5:4). This does not mean to try to be good. It means to be put right with God through the rituals and ceremonies of the Law of Moses, irrespective of what kind of person you are. Circumcision was the first of such rituals because it was the door to Judaism. 

Paul opposed this view and said that God justifies sinners “through faith” (Gal 2:16)

To have faith means to be a changed person. The word “faith” can also be understood as “trust.” To be justified by grace through faith is to trust God for what He can and will do for you, as opposed to trusting in what you can do for yourself through the “works of the Law:”

“God … will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith” (Rom 3:30).

“God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (Gal 3:8).

Paul taught a different law and a different means of justification.

The article – By Grace through Faith – discusses the Galatian controversy in more detail. In contrast to some Jewish Christians who were adamant that man is “justified by the works of the Law” (of Moses), Paul taught:

    • A different law (the Law of Christ) and
    • A different means of justification (by grace through faith).

The Forensic View of Justification

In the Forensic View, justification is a technical legal process.

We agree today that sinners are justified by grace through faith but we disagree about what that means.

For some, the word “justified” implies some kind of legal process in the courtrooms of heaven. Therefore, they use such legal undertones to explain how people are put right with God. They explain “justification’ as a technical legal process whereby Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers. In this way, a person is put right with God irrespective of whether he or she is a changed person.

In this view, God has no option but the punish sin. However, Christ took our punishment so that we do not have to be punished.

This view is similar to the Jewish view of 2000 years ago because in both the person is ‘justified’ without being changed. 

But “justification” is one of several metaphors and must not be interpreted literally.

One objection to the Forensic View is that “justified” is only one of several different Metaphors of Salvation that Paul used to describe how sinners are put right with God. For example, another vital metaphor explains justification as reconciliation:

“Were reconciled to God through the death of His Son” (Rom 5:10; cf. 2 Cor 5:18, 20; Col. 1:20, 22). 

Paul drew these metaphors from different spheres of human experience. While the term “justified” may be used in a courtroom setting, Paul derived other metaphors from other parts of human life:

      • “Ransomed” implies that the sinner was held hostage.
      • “Redeemed” emphasizes our guilt before God.
      • “Reconciled” suggests that the sinner was estranged from God.
      • “Propitiation” implies that God was angry with the sinner.
      • Adopted as “sons of God” (Gal 3:26; 4:5-7) is a metaphor from human relations.

These metaphors are different ways of saying the same thing and we should not interpret them literally. Nor should we emphasize “justify” over the other metaphors. See the article Metaphors of Salvation for a discussion of these metaphors.

And Imputation of Righteousness is just one of several Theories of the Atonement.

A second objection to the forensic view is that several atonement theories have been proposed over the centuries. The idea that people are justified by imputing Jesus’ righteousness to them is only one of such theories and not necessarily the right one. The article Atonement Theories provides an overview of these theories and also suggests further arguments against the forensic view. See the articles:

for the explanation of atonement which, in my view, best fits the data from the Bible.

A Changed Person

In the Bible, to be justified means to be a changed person.

People with faith are justified.

Firstly, Paul said that nobody will be justified by the works of the Law but that people are “justified by faith” (e.g., Gal 2:16; 3:11, 24). Faith is not a legal technicality. Faith means that the person trusts God. Paul, therefore, did not think of justification as a legal process, irrespective of whether it is a changed person.

Doers are justified.

Secondly, Paul taught that “the doers of the Law will be justified” (Rom 2:13). This also does NOT mean that a person is “justified” on some technical legal basis. It means that God judges people by their deeds.

Man does not justify himself. God justifies people through His Spirit. 

Thirdly, Paul added that justification is something that God does: “God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (Gal 3:8). Justification, therefore, is not some legal technicality that justifies us before God. It is not something that I do myself or that Christ did to justify us before God. Rather, God Himself justifies people by changing them through His Spirit:

“God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts” (Gal 4:6). The Spirit is a power that is able to change us:

“Walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Gal 5:16).

“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness …” (Gal 5:22-23).

“The one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Gal 6:6).

Conclusion – A justified person is a new creation

If “justified” meant that our sins are forgiven through some legal technicality, God will be populating heaven with pardoned criminals. But to be justified means to be changed. It means to be “a new creation” (Gal 6:15) with “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6).

A False Picture of God

The Forensic view presents a false picture of God.

Many theologians today still describe salvation as a legal process. They no longer propose that people are justified by the rituals of the Law of Moses. They now say that God demands that somebody had to suffer for our sins, and Christ suffered in our place. That theology presents God as an arbitrary tyrant. That view is inconsistent with the Bible. God does not need some legal technicality to save people:

Christ “gave Himself for our sins … according to the will of our God and father” (Gal 1:4). 

Or, stated even stronger, “God sent forth His Son” (4:4).

Christ’s death, therefore, did not make the Father willing to forgive or to be gracious. People who think that God needs a technical legal process to forgive people do not really worship the God of the Bible: They worship something created in their own image.

Key Conclusions

      • “Justified” means to be right with God.
      • Justification is not a legal process: A justified person is a “new creation.”

Other Articles

Listen to Graham Maxwell, a well-known preacher, as he explains, from the letter to the Galatians, his view of the Atonement and of Justification.

Posted on

Theories of Atonement: Did Christ die to pacify God’s wrath?

This is an article in the series on the atonement.

What problem did His death solve? Was it God’s anger, or the demands of Justice or was it sin that gave Satan ownership of this world?

Summary

If Jesus did not die, we could not be saved. On this, we agree, but there are different Theories of Atonement that attempt to explain HOW His death atoned for the sins of God’s people. 

One horrible distortion of the gospel is that God was angry and that Christ died to pacify His anger. According to the Bible, Christ was the Means of reconciliation but it was God that took the initiative to save us.

A softer variation of this theory is that sin distorts Justice, that Justice demands that someone must suffer and that Jesus died to restore the equilibrium of Justice. However, how can it be just to torture an innocent Person for the sins of other people? 

Another variation on the theme is that Jesus lived a sinless life and that His righteousness is imputed to sinners. This is better than the previous versions because it takes the focus away from God’s wrath. However, this theory is based on a literal interpretation of and emphasis on the word “justified,” which is only one of several Metaphors for Salvation.

People sometimes say that God was reconciled to His creatures as if God was changed by Christ’s death. However, Paul always wrote that people are reconciled to God; never the other way round.  In other words, Christ’s death did not change the Father. 

A very different explanation is that sin gave Satan ownership of this world. He held humanity captive. However, became part of humanity and His death triumphed over the evil spiritual forces. 

The moral influence theories of atonement suggest that believers are moved to repent and reunite with God when they see God’s love expressed through Jesus’ life and death.  This is certainly true but does not explain why Jesus had to die.

Theories of Atonement

It is generally accepted that, if Jesus did not die, we could not be saved:

God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. (Rom 5:6-8, NRSV)

The difficulty is to explain HOW His death atoned for the sins of God’s people. There are many different explanations for this:

Paid the Required Price

Some say that Christ, by His death, paid the required price, but to whom was the price paid?  It was not paid to God, for we were held prisoner by Satan.  Neither was it paid to Satan, for what could God owe to Satan?

God was angry.

Others propose that God was angry and that Christ died to pacify God’s anger. However:

(1) Man is hostile.

Firstly, it is not God that was hostile to man; we were hostile to Him:

“You were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds” (Col 1:21). (This implies that “evil deeds” are acts of aggression against God.)

We previously “were enemies” (Rom 5:10).

Belonging to the race of Adam, we are born alienated from God. People are angry with Him. They try to exclude Him from their lives in all possible ways. A common method is to insult God by using His name in vain and even to use His name as a swear word.

(2) God took the initiative.

Secondly, the Father is not angry with His enemies. rather, it was God that took the initiative to save man (Col 1:22); not the other way round.  For example:

God so loved the world that He gave His only Son (John 3:16). See also Romans 5:6-8, quoted above.

Colossians 1:20-22 uses the word “through” four times, explaining what God did through Christ.  “The Father … made peace through the blood of His cross” (Col. 1:19-20). The Father “has now reconciled you in His (Christ’s) fleshly body through death” (v22). Christ was the Means of reconciliation, but it was the Father who redeemed us.

It is the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints (Col. 1:12), who delivered us from the power of darkness, and who transferred us into the kingdom of the Son (Col. 1:13).

To say that sin made God angry and that He was eager to punish us, but that Christ took our punishment and pacified God is a blatant contradiction of the Bible, for God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son.

Reconciled to His Creatures

People sometimes say that God was reconciled to His creatures as if God was changed by Christ’s death on the cross, but the word translated reconcile is used a number of times in Paul’s writings, and it always says that people are reconciled to God; never the other way round.

“To reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross” (Col 1:20)

“Reconcile them both (Gentiles and Israel) in one body to God through the cross” (Eph 2:16)

“While we were enemies we were reconciled to God” (Rom 5:10)

“God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ” (2 Cor 5:18)

“We beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5:20)

In other words, Christ’s death did not change the Father’s attitude towards people; it is man that changed. 

Justice demands that someone must suffer.

As a child, growing up in reformed circles, I often heard that sin perverts justice, insults God’s honor, and that God’s righteousness or justice demands that someone had to suffer. Therefore, Jesus suffered what we deserve so that we receive what He deserves: Jesus died to restore the equilibrium of Justice in the universe. 

This formulation is a bit softer than saying that God was angry, but it still is a horrible perversion of the grand Bible message. It presents God as subject to Justice. And how can it be just to torture an innocent Person for the sins of another? 

The most important message of the Bible is that God so loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son to redeem us. That is the foundation of every other doctrine. To corrupt the doctrine of God’s love is to corrupt the entire Bible, for it permits man to justify and continue his own mad anger and cruelty.

The Bible reveals the infinite God as wise, loving, and just. The concepts in the Bible are infinitely high above the thoughts of man, and continually elevate man’s mind.  To say that the suffering of an innocent person would satisfy God’s justice seems utterly inconsistent with His character.

Christ’s Righteousness Imputed to Sinners

Another variation on this theme is that Jesus lived a sinless life and that His righteousness is imputed to sinners. This is better than the previous versions because it takes the focus away from God’s anger or justice and focuses on the wonderful message that Jesus remained without sin even when subjected to the greatest possible temptation and torture. 

However, this theory presents salvation as a mechanical process, similar to the Jewish system where they thought that they are justified by the ceremonies and rituals of the Mosaic Law. See the article Justified! for a further discussion of this view:

That article asserts that “justified” is only one of several Metaphors of Salvation, and we should not, therefore, interpret the word ‘justify’ literally and emphasize it over the other metaphors when trying to explain how a person is put right with God.

Triumph Over Evil Spiritual Forces

A very different explanation is that sin gave Satan ownership of this world. Humanity was his captive. However, Christ’s death was a triumph over evil spiritual forces which “disarmed” Satan and his followers (Col 2:15), rendered them “powerless” (Heb 2:14), and threw them “down to the earth” (Rev 12:9).  In this explanation, that which prevented man’s salvation was not with God – His anger or His justice – but sin.

This was the view held by the church until Anselm confused the matter in the 11th century. It is also the explanation which I prefer. In the following articles I explain how it is that Satan has any right if God is almighty, and how Christ destroyed Satan’s rights:

(a) Christ’s death proved that God judges rightly.
(b) Why Jesus had to die

Moral Influence

A still further alternative explanation is that believers are moved to repent and reunite with God when they see God’s love expressed through Jesus’ life and death.  This is called the ‘moral influence theory’.  This is certainly true but does not explain why Jesus had to die.

Conclusion

Granted, this is a rather superficial discussion of the Theories of Atonement.  I hope to study this subject in more detail in the future.  Other useful resources that the reader may consult include the following:

Joshua Thurow surveys the various ways Christians have thought about Jesus’s unique atonement through his death.

Noah Worcester does not find any reason to accept the “penal substitution” theories of atonement, on which God’s holiness requires him to punish someone in order to forgive, so that Jesus takes the punishment due us, cooling off God’s wrath, enabling him to forgive. But he does find evidence that according to the New Testament, Jesus’ sacrifice was a demonstration of God’s love for us.