The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

This is kind of a spin off of the atonement thread that I have been pondering for a while. I've always assumed that the fire of hell is a literal fire. Then I started studying 2 Cor. 5:21 and the atonement, and Jesus becoming our sin. So, the basic foundation of Jesus' atonement is that he took our place and our punishment and gave us his righteousness. Therefore, if he "became" our sins and experienced God's wrath, as in Isaiah 53, didn't he experience the exact punishment we would have experienced?

The stance I have been leaning towards is the separation that Jesus experienced is the separation that we would have experienced. So he experienced, briefly, what hell is going to be like. I base this on the premise that God is just and he would have justly punished Jesus the same way he will punish human sin. Because Jesus "became" sin.

So to sum up: Sin must be punished because God is just. Jesus experienced the punishment for sin from a just God, therefore he had to experience the punishment that we would have experienced.

Now as far as I know, Jesus didn't experience a literal fire, but he did experience separation. (I don't believe Jesus literally descended to hell, as in Peter, but proclaimed Victory to the souls.) Therefore those that are not in Christ will experience a separation, eternally, from God. So the fire that Jesus mentions is a metaphor of the anguish of this separation. Please correct me if Im wrong, and maybe I am elevating logic above Scripture. But this seems to make sense to me. Can others tell me how they have reconciled this?

I believe that hell is not just eternal separation from God, but also physical suffering.

Though I don't agree with the typical Medieval view of hell where the unredeemed are put in a pit of literal unending fire roasting for eternity, I do believe that the Bible speaks of hell as a place where the lost exist in literal bodies forever (Matt 5:29-30; 10:28; Rev 20:5, 11-15). Thus, hell is not just spiritual and mental anguish with the knowledge that the sinner will spend eternity away from the love and goodness of God, but also a place where the lost suffer active corporeal punishment in the body.

If I reject the Medieval view of hell as a literal pit of eternal flames, what do I believe hell will be like? Though the Bible does not give us great details on hell's physical abode (unlike heaven), I can surmise to guess it will be a very awful place where all your horrors will be realized. The best way to describe it is thinking about all the earthly curses and punishments found in the Old Testament and eternalizing it and making it much worse.

Also, you have to remember that you will be spending eternity with a group of unredeemable sinners and demons who truly hate humankind. Now, you get the idea of what kind of a horrible place hell will be. It will be a trillion times worse than the most frightening horror movie you ever watched here on earth.

I believe that as well. I dont think hell is just a place for souls, but I think its pretty clear we all will have resurrected bodies. Im just curious if the punishment looks like what Jesus felt.

And to hijack my own thread, when did his punishment from God start? Was the entire crucifixion process (flogging, hanging, etc.) part of God's wrath or just the separation ("My God, My God.....")? I guess it's all speculative because the Bible doesn't clearly say huh?

Personally, I don't think we can know with certainty whether the fire of hell (or the lake of fire) is a literal fire. I don't think it matters. Whatever the nature of God's judgment, we can be certain it will be just.

I don't agree with your reasoning that Jesus had to suffer the same punishment for our sins that we, apart from him, would suffer. Nor do I think that God's wrath was poured out on him. I believe the Son of God's death was sufficient to atone for our sins, and I don't see anything in Scripture that says otherwise.

As an aside, I think that the second occurrence of hamartia (sin) in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is better understood as "a sin offering" or "an offering for sin." That is the sense attributed to it in the NLT and it's clearly the sense of the word as it's used in Hebrews 10:6 and Hebrews 10:8.

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Thanks for your response Gideon. I see it as an issue that's not crucial also, just was curious what other's take on this was.

As for God's wrath, what was going on up on the cross if God's wrath wasn't being poured out on him? I don't think I quite understand your argument. You say he was the atonement of our sins but God's wrath wasn't poured out on him. What was being atoned or satisified? Doesn't it have to be his wrath? That seems like it is a foundational issue of the gospel; Sin must be judged, so it was either judged on christ or remains on us.

Also, in regards to 2 Cor. 5:21, most every common translation (NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET) has "became" sin. So how do you determine when a certain translation fits? And even if it did mean a "sin offering", the whole point of the OT offerings was to appease his wrath so that the Israelites could come and worship a holy God. So the offerings represented sin, even if they weren't literal sin. They were a foreshadowing of Christ. Sorry for all the questions, I just have not heard that God's wrath was not poured out on Jesus. For me, that is what makes the gospel even more beautiful (not that being beautiful makes it any more right though).

What was going on while Jesus was on the cross? Jesus was laying down is life as our representative head and as an acceptable sacrifice for our sins so that God could both forgive us and remain just. The wages of sin is death, and Jesus met death for us. If you can show me anywhere in Scripture where God poured out his wrath on the Son, or for that matter on any sin offering, I would be happy to look at it. But so far as I know, it's not there.

I think it makes sense to understand 2 Corinthians 5:21 as saying that Christ became "a sin offering" because he certainly did become that on our behalf and because I think it is problematic to say that the second person of the Trinity literally became "sin," which would be utterly antithetical to the nature of God. The Son did not cease to be divine when he became a man or at any time thereafter. So to say that he became "sin" could only be understood in some metaphorical sense. That Jesus became "an offering for sin" is supported elsewhere in Scripture, but I'm not aware of any other scriptures which support the idea that Jesus actually became "sin." Therefore I think the options are to read the verse in question as either saying that Jesus became "sin" in some metaphorical sense that is not made clear and that does not seem to be supported elsewhere, or to read it as saying that he became "an offering for sin," which is supported elsewhere. To me, the latter seems simpler and preferable. Additionally, I think the verse itself makes much more sense when read that way.

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

In regards to scripture, these come to kind for me:
Galatians 3:13 says he became a curse for us. If God can become a curse, why can he not become sin? They seem to be one in the same, he became a curse because he became sin.

I go back to 2 Cor. 5:21 as support of his wrath. I have never heard this taught differently than he became sin.

Then Isaiah 53 specifically 6 and 8 talk about him ,Jesus, being crushed for our iniquities. And that he was crushed by God. That seems to point to the Messiah experiencing God's wrath.

If he was a propitiation (1 Jn 2:2) for our sins, what was he satisfying if not God's wrath? I don't understand what he would be satisfying other than God's wrath.

Sorry, I don't have time to expound but hopefully this helps show where I'm coming from.

JS, I would ask what does it mean to say that Christ became a curse for us? Certainly he did not become a curse in the sense that he invoked or caused misfortune for us. The verse itself offers the explanation: because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”. What is meant, therefore, seems to be that Christ was accursed for our sake. And as a sin offering for our sake, that would surely be true.

Paul does not say in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that God poured out is wrath on the Son, and citing that verse as support for the view that the same verse teaches such an interaction is a circular argument.

Surely Jesus was crushed according to God's plan. He bore the burden of our sins and he was nailed to a cross where he died in our place. But you have to infer that God's wrath was poured out on him there. The text neither says that nor demands that inference.

Why not say rather that Jesus was satisfying God's righteousness so that he could justify us (sinners) and remain just in doing so?

I understand where you're coming from, JS. Most people see it the way you do because that's how they've been taught. But as I said before, the Greek hamartia can mean "sin" and it can also mean "a sin offering." It is translated both ways in all English versions of the Bible I've checked, and the way that various translators render the word is interpretive. For one reason or another, most translators seem to prefer using the same English "sin" for both iterations of hamartia in 2 Corinthians 5:21. I think it's easier for a translator to consistently translate the same word in the same way within the same sentence. But when people say that Jesus became "sin," I have no idea what that actually means. Certainly I've read explanations, but they appear to me nothing more than opinions and I see no solid foundation for that interpretation of the text.

The text says that God's purpose in making the sinless Christ to be hamartia for our sake was so that in Christ we might become the righteousness of God. But if hamartia means "sin" here, the logic would be that we could become the righteousness of God by virtue of our being united with sin! That makes no sense to me. But if hamartia means "sin offering" here, the logic would be that we can become the righteousness of God by virtue of our union with the "sinless" Christ who died on our behalf and for our sins. That makes perfect sense to me.

We can agree to disagree.

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Gideon,
Thanks for the in depth responses. I believe we will have to agree to disagree as well.

JS,
If you look at the footnote in the NIV (both the 1984 and 2011 versions) on 2 Cor 5:21 you will noted it reads "Or be a sin offering". The NLT, TNIV actually read "sin offering" in the text itself; and "a victim for sin" is what the NJB reads which is comparable. So in other words, there are a number of translations that have this explicitly stated as a possible (even likely) translation.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

I believe hell WILL be 'fire', in fact the "lake of fire" that will bring the era of sin to an end.

But before that end, to my mind, Revelation 14 its ending, also promises "FIRE" in any form imaginable; which will INCLUDE the 'fire' of the Seven Last Plagues. The Seven Last Plagues in other words, are also, 'hell'.

Yea, I even understand the resurrection of damnation of the wicked, and their advance against the New Jerusalem, and their visible annihilation before the righteous saved, by the Sword of the One on the White Horse, to be 'hell'.

Sorry to bring this up again, but was watching this excellent interview w John Piper and Rick Warren. They address the issue of propitiation beginning at 51:30. Take a look and let me know what you think.

Link: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/j ... n-doctrine