GOD IS NOT JUST: ATONEMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT*

If by “just” one means a forensic, abstraction in which every crime/sin must receive appropriate punishment, then God is not just.  [This post follows up on my post of 8/25/23 in which I looked at some of the justice vocabulary in the Bible.]  Moreover, much of what people presume is atonement language about Jesus in the NT, particularly in Paul’s writings, is not atonement language.  It is not drawing on the atonement language and concepts used by ancient Israel in the OT, but on later foreign concepts (e.g. by Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Bede.)  And, it matters.  What is often lost as people conflate God’s gracious offer of salvation with the more specific category of atonement is the order, the sequence, of God’s outreach of reconciliation.

The sequence in the OT is this.  First, God condescends in grace and mercy to offer relationship to Abraham, to Moses, to the people of Israel.  There is nothing said about those people being righteously qualified, and there is no atonement for their previous sin/s.#  In fact, Moses tells the people that they were chosen NOT because they were more righteous or powerful or numerous – in fact, they are “stiff-necked” (Deut 9:1-6).  God offered a covenant relationship with them simply because God was faithful to the promise he made to Abraham.

Second, when Abraham entrusted himself to God, God reckoned that response as righteousness (Gen 16:5); that is, a right relationship.  There is absolutely nothing in God’s dealings with Abraham, Moses, or Israel in which God responds as a courtroom judge who must first exact punishment for sin in order to make things “just.”#  That forensic concept is not there and should not be projected into the NT!

The third step takes us into atonement language proper.  As people in relationship with the Holy God, they are called to be holy as well, but they, like us all, fail.  So, God established the symbolic atonement system.  This system was basically adopted from the sacrificial symbolism of the surrounding cultures, BUT was changed to remove polytheistic, magical, and nature-god elements.  In brief, the atonement system attempted to convey the seriousness of intangible realities such as sin and forgiveness through dramatic rituals.  The seriousness of sin, disobedience to God, was portrayed as a kind of miasma that polluted God’s dwelling place, the temple, and was such an impediment, if not removed, that God’s Presence would depart.  Blood, represented life and was manipulated around altars to symbolically overcome and remove the filth of sin.  This system symbolized God’s mercy and grace to forgive and to reconcile.  Of course, those making sin offerings were to be repentant, to desire reconciliation, and to want to be obedient in the future.
Here are a couple of key corrective thoughts about the sin offerings and scapegoat rituals for atonement:

·        Sins were not transferred or “imputed” from the person to the animal; that would involve forbidden magical thinking.  [To follow in a later post: This is why, for example, Paul does not say that Jesus became sin, but rather that Jesus became the “sin offering” in 2Cor 5:21 (see Rom 8:3) and why a common assumption that our sin could be imputed onto Jesus would be a foreign concept to Paul and other Jews.]

·        The death of the sin-offering animal is not key; the blood is.  The “life” in the blood (see Lev17:11) was greater than the deadly effects of sin.  Jesus provided the blood of a spotlessly pure sacrifice.  [Again, for a later post:  The actual death of Jesus is key symbolically for other reasons, but not as being punished for our sins to satisfy a god who is bound to an abstract system of forensic justice.]

Note: In Rom 4:18-25, Paul includes Gentiles in the “hope” of Abraham (18) and applies atonement language to all “who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered over on account of our sins [understood as the sin offering] and was raised for the sake of our righteousness/justification” (24-25).

Application: The order, the sequence, of God’s outreach of reconciliation always demonstrates the grace and mercy of God who does NOT execute abstract justice on people (or on Jesus) but, rather, who lifts/cleanses/buries/casts into the sea, etc. the sin of those who entrust themselves, who repent and seek forgiveness, who walk in obedience with God.

Lord, help me to always cherish your unfathomable mercy and grace such that you would allow me to abide in your Presence.  Help me to show that mercy to others.  Amen.

#Some interpreters and translators misunderstand a reference in Rom 3:25 to God “passing over” sins of the past as leaving “unpunished” (see NIV Original, but rendered better in the later version).  The term paresin used here is about remitting a debt rather than negligently forgetting it.  It is another image of God’s offer of forgiveness.  Actually, anyone who has really forgiven another person knows what it is like not to exact punishment, but to “pass over” the transgression.

*I have a detailed exegetical treatment of some of the key statements of Romans 3 in Part 2 of “Hope for the Future of New Testament Theology,” in Religions 2021, 12(11), 975; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12110975

RIGHTLY UNDERSTANDING: JUSTICE, JUDGMENT, RIGHTEOUSNESS, LAW

The biblical word groups involving justice, judgment, righteousness, law, etc. are frequently misunderstood.*  Pop-Christianity influenced by Reformed theology and Western individualism have led readers, including NT theologians, to view these word groups from a limited forensic and individualized perspective.  What is typically lost is the broader context of relational order.  Examples:

The Hebrew word mishpat, “justice,” can be used narrowly in the sense of criminal justice, but more broadly, it is about equitable and harmonious social order.  Justice is ultimately about creating an orderly societal relationships.

The Greek word krino, “to judge” is broadly about distinguishing between order and chaos, right and wrong, etc. although it can be used specifically about a court-setting decision.  A person must understand the context in order to understand when one not to judge (condemn) (Matt 7:1) and when one is to judge (discern/distinguish) (1Cor 2:15; Luke 12:57).

The Hebrew word tzedakah and the Greek word dikaiosune, both usually translated “righteousness” (or poorly, “justified”) are not foremost a forensic evaluation of a person’s abstract legal status.  These are relational, behavioral terms.  The “righteousness of God” refers to the integrity of God in God’s dealings with people.  When Abraham entrusts himself to God, and God considers/reckons his commitment as “righteousness,” the point is that Abraham’s faith (entrustment) is judged by God as establishing a “right” relationship (Gen 15:6).  Paul relies heavily on this model in Romans 4 to explain the nature of faith and being declared righteous by the righteous God (see, too 3:26).

The Hebrew torah, “law,” (translated in Greek by nomos), again, is not narrowly forensic.  “Torah” (etymologically having the sense of propelling something in a direction) is used throughout the OT wisdom literature for directional guidance, teaching, but it also can be applied to genres of history, regulations, and exhortations.
When the people of Israel entrusted themselves to God in a covenant relationship, the Torah/Law that was given to them was primarily to guide them to righteous behavior.#  It is vital to note that covenant (relational commitment) precedes law!  For Paul, the Torah/Law was never bad.  However, by pointing to righteous practices, Torah also reveals what is sin (Rom 3:20).  For example, Jesus’ parable-like story of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31-46; see Isaiah 58:6-10) makes it clear that the failure to practice righteous behavior is a sinful rejection of the Lord.  Still, true righteous behavior is a reflection of the heart.  Even Gentiles, who do not have the Law, may have it on their hearts (Rom 2:14-15; see, too 28-29).  Obviously, of course, simply outwardly doing right things (works of the Law) does not mean that a person has entrusted themselves to God.  No, covenantal commitment/entrusting/faith comes before law! Moreover, for Paul, “believing into” (pisteo eis) Christ" establishes a relationship that empowers a person by the Spirit to desire and practice righteousness.  The Law itself cannot so empower a person.  First, is the restored relationship by the grace of God through faith/entrustment.

(I would encourage people to read passages such as Roman 1-4 with these broader definitions in mind.)

Application: Good Israelite/Jewish religion starts with a heart that entrusts itself to God and desires to walk in righteousness, to which the Law in part guided them.  “Fruits of righteous” were/are expected from such a person.  A person was not “declared righteous” (in right relationship with God) by going through the motions of the Law.  This relational understanding of justice, righteousness, and law applies to the extension of the divine promises to Gentiles, to all those “believing into” Christ.  Popular Bible interpretations of “getting saved” by some outward act (coming to the altar, saying “the” prayer, being baptized, etc.) so that forensically one’s sins are “imputed” onto Jesus and Jesus’ righteousness is “imputed” onto the person, resulting in a “get-out-of-jail/hell card” are terribly shallow and misleading.  Through Christ, we are called into a restored, right, relationship with our Creator.

Lord, as I seek to entrust myself to you, purify my heart and lead me in righteousness for your glory.  Amen.

*My devotional studies got me sidetracked from Psalm 24.  I will come back to it sometime as well as with follow-up posts to this one.
#Of course the Law does much more.  For example, the dress and eating codes were primarily ways of reminding Israelites of their call to by holy (set apart) as God’s people.  Much of the symbolism behind those laws involved cultural symbols of chaos vs. order.  They had many daily reminders that they were called to align themselves with order, God’s order.

PSALM 24, PT 1: SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

Psalm 24 reminds me that reflecting on God’s sovereignty sets me straight.
Overview: Ps 24 consists of three movements: 1) An opening reflection on the sovereignty of God (1-2), 2) A “catechism” about who is qualified to draw near to such a God (3-6), and 3) a processional litany, probably of the Ark of the Covenant being brought into Jerusalem (7-10).*
Verse 1 uses three literary devices that emphasis its teaching: parallelism, ballast, and a merism (use of two opposites to indicate a whole, such as, “I cried DAY and NIGHT).
    To Yahweh belongs the earth and its fullness,
    [To Yahweh belongs] the world and all who dwell in it;

The color coding shows the parallel word play.  “To Yahweh belongs” in brackets indicates how the audience is led to fill in this “ballast” that balances the two lines.  [Note: "Yahweh" is an approximation of the proper name Israel used for God, often translated as "LORD."]  The merism is that the Hebrew word of “earth” refers primarily to its physical features, and the word for “world” refers to living creatures, as can be seen by the two following phrases.  Together, they express the totality of the structures and living beings of creation.

Verse 2 uses similar devices in the same pattern, creating the sense of a stanza or unit of thought.

    for He founded it upon the seas
     and [for He] established it upon the rivers.

“Seas” and “rivers” here are meant to evoke destructive forces of chaos, reminding the audience of the creation imagery of Genesis 1 in which God speaks order into chaos (watery deep) and makes the creation fit to receive life.

Reflection:  These verses remind me to “open my eyes” (something I rarely do) and to see the whole world around me as a testimony to the sovereignty of God, who overcomes chaos and establishes all forms and life.  The world belongs to God, and I am an infinitesimally small part in it.  In Romans 1:18-23, Paul speaks about the glory of God being revealed to people and the consequences of people not glorifying and thanking God.

Lord, forgive me for my tunnel vision on myself and “my” world.  Help me each day to "see" and to  marvel in your greatness to your glory.  Amen.

*Psalms, as they were used in the Temple, were not merely poems or songs.  They were part of dramatic rituals that help to make tangible the matters of God which are essentially intangible.  They helped Israelites to see, hear, smell, and sometimes even taste the reality of abstractions such as sin, grace, mercy, and fellowship with God.  They provided words and actions for thanking, lamenting, and petitioning.  Ps 24 was a celebration, possibly commemorated annually, of an event of the Presence of God, probably symbolized by the Ark of the Covenant, entering their presence, probably the Temple gates or gates of Jerusalem.  (Jews today sometimes use it in a procession of the Torah scroll.  Christians have tended to use verses 7-10 to think about how the gates of Hades could not hold Jesus.)