Exactly. This is where traditional infernalists claim it’s all about the afterlife, which is nonsensical since Jesus Himself was quoted as referring to things like “this generation shall not pass away until…” etc
I have heard DBH expound his position that *appeasement of God* is not the purpose of Paul’s theology of Jesus’ death-as-atoning-sacrifice, but rather that the meaning of this theology is that God provides a means of offering freedom to humanity from the domain of sin and death, which God is not willfully enforcing upon humanity. But, if this were so, what are we to make of Paul’s phrase in Rom 3:25: “through [God’s] dismissal (or, passing over) of past sins”? What could the meaning of this phrase be if not that God had deliberately chosen not to impose the consequence that “past sins” deserved? And if God has such latitude to hold back in this way, then isn’t doing the opposite (i.e., imposing consequences) also God’s deliberate choice? Even if the system is not, as DBH refutes, the medieval notion that God had been appeasing his own offended glory/majesty by demanding consequences for sin - for which Jesus’ death is a stand-in - why, in the first place, is God beholden to work within a ‘system of consequences’ from which humankind could be saved? Oddly enough, this latter scenario is less offensive than the former, insofar as God would be heroically acting to do as much as can possibly be done, given the otherwise necessary circumstances of the power of sin and death, to obfuscate this system, being himself an outsider to it, by providing a loophole: the atoning death of Jesus. In accord with such a scenario, is it plausible that “God [presenting Christ] as a sacrifice of atonement” *is synonymous with* “[God’s] dismissal of past sins”? If not, if these are distinct acts conceived according to the typical interpretation of Romans 3:25, then I don’t know how God can be understood as anything other than: a) *the sustainer* of the system wherein sin is necessarily repaid by due consequences, but who arbitrarily chooses to halt it temporarily and, in the interim, establishes a new process (atonement by faith) within the system, effective thenceforth (b) *an instrument* within a larger system wherein sin is repaid by due consequences, who goes rogue by temporarily ceasing from meting out these consequences in order to buy time to make Jesus an eternal substitute for humans, thus thwarting the system
Can you clarify your comment a bit? It seems like you presented 3 options exploring the relationship to the law or retribution(retribution seems to be the item in focus). 1. Can your question be framed that Romans 3:25 should be understood as God dismissing retribution to the people who receive that atonement? 2. Option A and B, that God arbitrarily or roguely deviates from the system of retribution when He set forth atonement in Jesus. Your question about Romans 3:25 and your two alternate options all seemed to be synonymous unless I misunderstood.
Yes, I can clarify. Based on his writings, does Paul believe: A). that God is the sustainer of the system of consequences for sins or A.) that God is an instrument within the system of consequences for sin, who then acts to change that system by means of: 1.) A Single Act: * “[God’s] passing over of past sins” is the effect of “[God] putting forward [Christ Jesus] as a propitiation”. * Just as a person might say that a friend *effectively* killed his/her goldfish by forgetting to feed it, is it that God giving Jesus as a ritual offering (literally, a “hilasterion”, the cover of the Ark of the Covenant) is *effectively* the passing over of past sins. 2.) Two Acts: * “[God’s] passing over of past sins” is something that God did before “[giving] Jesus as a ritual offering,” and in preparation for it. So, based on his writing, does it seem that Paul believes of God that God is: (A1) A system-sustainer who then changes it by means of 1 act (A2) A system-sustainer who then changes it by means of 2 act (B1) An instrument in a system who then changes it by means of 1 act (B2) An instrument in a system who then changes it by means of 2 acts
@@Emcee0302 okay thanks. When you say that God deviated from the system of punishment or consequence with the propitiation, do you mean specifically for those in Christ, or in general? Because isn't the day of judgment for the world still a retribution for deeds and that is future? Personally out of your options, I choose B1, but the mechanics of it are not completely clear, so I'm not 100% confident with the way you worded it. Further, how exactly does the propitiation demonstrate God's righteousness and justice (verses 25 and 26)? But ultimately it seems to me that God is an instrument more than a sustainer, because ofcertain passages in the OT, particularly 73. God intentionally withheld consequences from the wicked that their fall would be greater in the end. And He intentionally brought punishment on his Israel sooner so that their end would be more blessed(also refer to 1 corimthians 5:3-5 & 11:32, judgment now, saved later). Then there's the story of Abimelech in judges 9 and the men of Shechem, where the conclusion is given at the end of the chapter, that God caused their evil to return on their own heads. And the way that their evil returned on their own heads seems to have been of the guidance of God and intentional rather than just a general "system" of actions and consequences.
As I understand it, God’s actions would have been understood by Paul as for everyone, although some, understandably, might not heed his message. So, those “in Christ” is likely a subset of those for whom God acted, although those “in Christ” could potentially become coextensive with all people, from Paul’s vantage point. My understanding of Paul’s thought is that the day of retribution is the time when the ultimate consequences of the *system of consequences* will come to pass. I say ‘ultimate’ because Paul writes of some ‘penultimate’ consequences already having come to pass (e.g., being given over to unnatural passions, in ch. 1). Your question about God’s righteousness is my own. What does Paul consider righteous behavior? What *is not* in question is that there has been a change in the system of consequences as a result of Jesus’ death. What *is* in question is God’s role in the system of consequences and how God went about changing it. I’ve framed the possible roles of God as A1, A2, B1, or B2 in my previous reply. A metaphor for the difference between A and B: A. A game-maker from the book series / movies “The Hunger Games”; one who has full control of what consequences result from which actions within the Hunger Games competition from year to year. B. A competitor within The Hunger Games competition who finds a way to bypass the rules of the competition and ultimately refashion it (or do away with them altogether, as in that series). A metaphor for the difference between 1 and 2: 1. Certain people in a town are being rounded up to be killed. A benevolent person immediately safely escorts the people to a safe-house, which they may enter if they so choose. 2. Certain people in a town are being rounded up to be killed. A benevolent person first hides these people in an alleyway overnight. The next day, the person safely escorts those same people to a safe-house, which they may enter if they so choose. The difference between 1 and 2 is that the second included an extra step. If God is like a game-maker, and Paul considers this righteous, I can’t agree morally with Paul. I find this even more reprehensible if God-as-game-maker acted according to a multi-step plan, going from not overlooking some generations’ sins to overlooking later generations’ sins as a preparation for completion by means of faith in Jesus-as-offering. And lastly, I agree that God is portrayed as acting rather capriciously throughout the great majority of the OT.
@@Emcee0302 Ah, okay, I see more of what you're doing now with A and B. In some sense I have to choose both A and B. I would choose A because God set up the particular system and sustained it, but also B because of the nature of sin. I mean because God cannot make sin into anything other than sin in the same sense that God cannot make a square circle. It's the nature of sin to be evil and He cannot make it good, so to deal sin He became an instrument rather than a game maker, in order to help deal with sin, because He could not make sin anything other than sin. But He is also the sustainer of the system of consequences because He established a system to deal with sin, which is a thing that He could not make to be anything other than it is. Now this takes me back to your first point about Paul's notion of God changing the system. I don't believe that's completely true. I think Paul's notion is that God delayed the system and made a way out. He said that God's patience is shown towards all people in hopes that they will repent and find grace, but if they will not repent it will turn out to greater condemnation in the day of judgment. This is the same as Jesus saying in John 12:47-48, that He doesn't judge anyone who hears His words and does not keep them, because He did not come to judge but rather to save. Then in verse 48, the person who hears and does not keep His words will be judged by those very words on the last day. Right now, God has reached out to them favorably, and His intention is favorable towards them, but only in the time of patience and grace. The system is only delayed in the day of grace. You also made a statement that God did not pass over people's sins in previous generations but He began doing so once Jesus-as-offering came. I think that is the reverse of what Paul is saying. In previous generations, God had overlooked sins because of His patience. At that time He had to look past their sins because they had not yet been dealt with. But when Christ came, He dealt with sins, (however the mechanics of that works), in such a way that God can now justify people because their sins are taken away. At the present, He doesn't have to just overlook sins, because now they are actually dealt with, so He can justify sinners and actually be just in doing so. Now let me ask you a few questions since you feel God acted capriciously in the OT. Capricious behavior is defined as unpredictable and erratic behavior. 1. Do you feel that it is capricious to give someone a punishment in like measure to their crime and/or state of corruption? 2. Do you feel that God acted over and above what was due in the OT? (Do ignorance and inability play a role in what you believe they were due?) 3. Do you believe sin is a single act (or mistake) that is an isolated choice, or that it is also a corruption that enters into a person and makes them different than they were? 4. If sin is a corruption that changes a person, does the system of retribution make sense to prevent sin from growing or becoming immortal? An analogy would be stopping a villain so he cannot receive power and immortality which is considered a bad thing. 5. Does one's personal view on how evil sin actually is contribute to how just they believe God is for inflicting retribution? For example, if we think sin is just a little evil, then God's judgment seems unjust. If we think sin is extremely evil, then God seems justified. And I don't mean the bare actions themselves, but in Paul's view, sin was a thing that crept inside and corrupted. He had an experience where he wanted to do what was right but sin deceived him and led him to do what was wrong. By this particular quality of sin, it showed itself to be more evil than it originally appeared to be. Another feature to Paul's thinking is that he thinks this corruption lives in the flesh, and that when Christ died, He "condemned sin in the flesh." (Romans 8:3) What does it mean to condemn sin, as though it's some kind of entity of itself? And do these parts of Paul's outlook, and if we were able to understand the nature of what sin is, would it make more sense out of the actions of God?
People who use very long sentences need to be more careful than those who use short ones. Near the beginning, DBH says correctly that there are many metaphors for judgement and hell in the Bible. But then, barely taking a breath, he says that not all of them are consistent if they are understood literally. Ummm, excuse me? If they are metaphors, obviously they should not be taken literally. So what is the point here? Metaphors are not literal. (The more interesting point is that literality is actually metaphoric but that is entirely different).
He's made this distinction before but if you aren't a big follower of his work I can see the confusion. In this context literally means prima facie. He goes over this in a talk about scripture and theology where he brings up Augustine's Genesis ad literam. It's anything but "literal" in the way we think of now. Literal just means what they seem to mean on the surface level and that inludes metaphorical interpretations.
@@epektasis_shunyata Thank you Tanner. 'Literally' has become a difficult term these days. When people want to use hyperbole, thus, to use figurative language, they often say 'literally', which is the opposite of what they seem to want to say:)
