According
to A.E. Knoch (and those students of Scripture who have adopted his view on
this subject), the word aphesis (“pardon”
or “forgiveness”) and the word dikaiósis
(“justification”) have mutually exclusive meanings, and refer to two incompatible states or conditions.
According to Knoch, “forgiveness” or “pardon” involves a blessing that is
exclusively for saints outside of the body of Christ (e.g., those who
constitute the “Israel of God”), while justification is a blessing that is
exclusively for the saints in the body of Christ (at least, until the
consummation, when all mankind will be justified). Although I do think there is an important
difference between the pardon/forgiveness that is for believing Israelites and
the justification of those in the body of Christ, I don’t think the difference is found in the inherent meaning of the
word translated “pardon” and “forgiveness.”
Knoch
seemed to assume that, because a believing Israelite could lose his or her
“forgiveness” or “pardon” through unfaithfulness, the word aphesis must inherently
refer to “a temporary respite which may be forfeited or withdrawn” (see, for
example, Knoch’s remarks on Acts 13:38 on page 200 of his Concordant Commentary on the New Testament). Similarly, on pages
257-258 of The First Idiot in Heaven,
Martin Zender contrasts pardon/forgiveness with justification by stating that,
unlike justification, “pardon can be revoked” and “withdrawn,” and that its
permanence “depends on the conduct of the one receiving it.”
Although I think there is some truth to what both Knoch and Zender have
written concerning the pardon/forgiveness of believing Israelites and the justification
of those in the body of Christ, I also think they have erred in seeing “pardon”
and “justification” as mutually exclusive in meaning. I also believe that their
understanding of “pardon”/“forgiveness” becomes highly problematic when we come
to certain verses in which these words are applied to the saints in the body of
Christ.
The
main verses I have in mind as being especially problematic for the view
referred to above are Acts 26:18, Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14. In each of
these verses we find the word aphesis
being used (which, again, is the same word used when the “pardon” or
“forgiveness” of Israelites is in view). However, it is also clear that the
sins and offenses which are said to be “pardoned” or “forgiven” in these verses
are those which have been committed by saints in the body of Christ.
Let’s
consider Acts 26:18 first (for context I’ll include the three verses preceding
it).
Acts 26:15-18
Now the Lord said, “I
am Jesus, Whom you are persecuting.But rise and stand on your feet, for I was
seen by you for this, to fix upon you before for a deputy and a witness both of
what you have perceived and that in which I will be seen by you, extricating
you from the people and from the nations, to whom I am commissioning you, to
open their eyes, to turn them about from darkness to light and from the
authority of Satan to God, for them to
get a pardon of sins and an
allotment among those who have been hallowed by faith that is in Me.”
Notice
that the “pardon of sins” is spoken of by Christ as something which would be
received by those among the nations who would be saved through Paul’s apostolic
ministry (i.e., those destined to be in the body of Christ). Either Christ
understood what he was saying and spoke truthfully when he declared these words
to Paul, or he didn’t. If he did, then it follows that those to whom Christ
commissioned Paul (i.e., the nations) did, in fact, receive the “pardon of sins”
by their faith in the evangel which Paul heralded to them. And if that’s the case, then the “pardon of
sins” that Christ declared would be received by believing gentiles as a result
of Paul’s commission is perfectly consistent with their being justified by
faith. Any perceived inconsistency or contradiction must, therefore, be due to
a misunderstanding of what “pardon of sins” actually means. In A.E. Knoch’s
remarks on Christ’s words here (see page 221 of his commentary), we find no
explanation as to how Christ’s use of the word “pardon” in Acts 26:18 can be
reconciled with Knoch’s understanding of the meaning of the word “pardon.”
Let’s
now consider Paul’s words in Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 (as with Acts
26:18, I’ve included some preceding verses for the sake of context):
Ephesians 1:3-8
“Blessed be the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who blesses us with every spiritual
blessing among the celestials, in Christ, according as He chooses us in Him
before the disruption of the world, we to be holy and flawless in His sight, in
love designating us beforehand for the place of a son for Him through Christ
Jesus; in accord with the delight of His will, for the laud of the glory of His
grace, which graces us in the Beloved: in
Whom we are having the deliverance through His blood, the forgiveness of
offenses in accord with the riches of His grace, which He lavishes on us;
in all wisdom and prudence…”
Colossians
1:12-14
“…at the same time
giving thanks to the Father, Who makes you competent for a part of the
allotment of the saints, in light, Who rescues us out of the jurisdiction of
Darkness, and transports us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in Whom we are having the deliverance, the
pardon of sins…”
What’s
interesting is that, in the immediate context of both Eph. 1:7 and Col. 1:14,
Paul used two Greek words that were also
used by Christ in Acts 26:15-18: the word translated “forgiveness”/“pardon” and
the word translated “allotment” (see Col. 1:12 and Eph. 1:18). I strongly doubt
that this is a mere coincidence, but I won’t press the issue here. What I do
want to emphasize is that Paul used the word aphesis not once but twice
in his “later epistles” in reference to the saints in the body of Christ. If
the word aphesis really has the
meaning that Mr. Knoch and others have claimed that it has, why would Paul so
freely use it to refer to the present status of those who are in the body of
Christ?
Knoch
seems to be aware of there being at least a potential problem with Paul’s use
of aphesis in Eph. 1:7, but I’m not
entirely sure of what to make of his remarks on this verse. On page 289 of his
commentary we read, “’Pardon’ of sins
becomes forgiveness when associated
with offenses” (emphasis his). It
would appear that Knoch interpreted aphesis
as meaning something different than “pardon” when associated with the word
“offenses” (rather than “sins”) in Eph. 1:7. Elsewhere, however, Paul seemed to use the words
interchangeably (see, for example, Romans 5:12-21). So it's at least possible that it was for the sake of emphasis only that Paul used one word rather than the other. And even if one were to argue that not every “sin” is an “offense” (in the scriptural sense of the word), it could still be the case (and, I think, is the case) that every “offense” is a “sin.”
Thus, for Knoch
to try and give aphesis a different
shade of meaning in Eph. 1:7 (by translating it “forgiveness” rather than
“pardon”) simply because Paul used the word “offenses” rather than “sins” is, I
believe, somewhat dubious and unhelpful (it's certainly not as "concordant" as it could've been!). Regardless
of whether one wants to translate the word as “forgiveness” or “pardon,” the fact remains that Paul clearly had no
problem with using the word aphesis
in reference to those in the body of Christ.
Things
get a little more complicated (unnecessarily so, I believe) when we come to
Knoch’s comments on Colossians 1:13-14. Rather than taking the words of Paul at
face-value (and then simply reconsidering the meaning of aphesis in accord with its inspired usage by Christ and
Paul), Knoch – working under the assumption that aphesis inherently and necessarily referred to a state that was
“temporary” and which could be “withdrawn” – was forced to ascribe a figurative meaning to what Paul wrote. In
his commentary on Col. 1:13-14 (see page 303), Knoch remarks as follows:
“The
kingdom of His Son is a figurative allusion to the kingdom of Christ. Messiah’s
kingdom is literal and future and destroys and displaces earth’s kingdoms (Dan.
2:44). The kingdom of the Son here spoken of is a present spiritual power. We
are not rescued from earth’s governments but from the powers of Darkness which
direct and dominate them. The term “pardon” is borrowed from the kingdom
phraseology to accord with this figure.”
In
other words, Knoch believed that Paul’s use of aphesis in
Col. 1:14 was “figurative,” and simply an extension of his “figurative” usage
of the word “kingdom” in verse 13. However, it’s simply not the case
that, when understood literally, the expression “kingdom of the Son of His
love” (along with the expression “kingdom of God,” which refers to the same
future kingdom during the eons to come) refers exclusively to Christ’s kingdom on the earth (i.e., the kingdom that we’re told will be restored to Israel). Scripture is clear that, in
addition to being on the earth, Christ’s kingdom will be established in the
heavens and among the celestials as well (Rev. 12:9-12), thus making the
“kingdom of God” a future reality that pertains to the body of Christ just as
much as it pertains to Israel (1 Cor. 6:9-10; 15:50; Eph. 5:5; Col. 4:11; 1
Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:18). For a defense of the view that Paul had in mind the kingdom of God in its celestial location in 1 Cor. 15:50, see the following article: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/03/clearing-up-some-confusion-concerning_7.html.
Since those in the body of Christ will, in fact, be enjoying an
allotment in the kingdom of God (which, again, is the “kingdom of the Son of
His love” during the eons), there is no reason to believe that Paul had in
mind the kingdom of God on earth in Col. 1:13. This means that there's no
reason to think that Paul's use of the word aphesis in Col. 1:13 has anything at all to do with Israel or Israel’s “salvation program.” And this fact alone completely
undermines Knoch’s reason for ascribing a figurative meaning to Paul’s use of
the word “pardon” in v. 14.
The fact is that we have no good reason to think that Paul
understood the word aphesis to mean what Knoch understood it
to mean. Instead, the meaning of the word aphesis is
simply neutral with regards to whether one’s deliverance from
the consequences of one’s sins/offenses is to be understood as conditional and
“probationary” in nature, or as unconditional and permanent. But if that’s the
case, then what is the meaning of the word?
Answer: The word from which aphesis (FROM-LETTING) is derived is aphiemi (FROM-LET). Like aphiemi, the word aphesis expresses the idea of a person’s sins or offenses being “sent away” from them, and of God’s no longer reckoning their sins and offenses to them. Thus, for people’s sins/offenses to be “pardoned” or “forgiven” by God can be understood to mean that God is not reckoning their sins/offenses to them. He is, in other words, relating to them as
if they’d never committed them.
In support of this understanding of what it means to be “pardoned,” consider David’s words in Psalm 32:1-2:
“Happy he whose transgression is lifted away, whose sin is
covered over! Happy the human to whom Yahweh is not reckoning depravity, in
whose spirit there is no deceit!”[1]
When,
in Romans 4:7-8, Paul quoted these verses from Psalm 32, he was following the
Septuagint (LXX) and translated the Hebrew nâśâ' nâsâh (“lifted
away”) with the word aphesis. It’s
evident, then, that these verses refer to David’s happiness following the
pardoning, or forgiveness, of his transgressions by God. What, exactly, this
pardoned status involved is clear from the ideas that David linked together. It
involved (1) a person’s transgressions being “lifted away” or “pardoned”; (2) their
sin being “covered over”; and (3) Yahweh’s not reckoning depravity to a person.[2]
We
find the same general idea expressed by David in Psalm 103:8-14:
Yahweh is merciful
and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. He will not always
chide, nor will he keep his anger forever. He does
not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our
iniquities.
For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is
his steadfast love toward those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our
transgressions from us. As a father shows compassion to his children,
so the Lord shows
compassion to those who fear him. For he knows our frame;
he remembers that we are dust.
Psalm
85:2-3 also seems to covey the idea that the pardon of sins involves God’s
ceasing to reckon a person’s sins to them, and his ceasing to relate to them as
if they had sinned:
“You forgave the iniquity of your people;
you covered all their sin. Selah You withdrew all your indignation; you turned from your
hot anger.”
It’s
clear from other verses that for God to pardon/forgive someone’s sins involved
his “blotting out” their sins from his sight (Neh. 4:5; Ps. 51:1, 9; Jer.
18:23; Isa. 43:25; 44:22; Acts 3:19) and his no longer remembering their sins
(Jer. 31:34; Isa. 43:25; Ez. 33:16; Heb. 8:12). And this, I believe, involves
nothing less than a deliverance from the negative consequences of
one’s sins/offenses (which, as I’ve argued
elsewhere, is ultimately death).
The pardoning or forgiveness of sins has
nothing inherently to do with a conditional state or status that can be
“revoked” or “withdrawn” based on one’s conduct. The word aphesis does not, in itself, tell us why God is not reckoning one’s sin and offenses to a person, or
whether or not there are any conditions that must be met by the one pardoned in
order for them to stay pardoned. When
used in reference to a believing Israelite (whose salvation is conditional, and
depends on their present perseverance in faith and good works),
“pardon”/”forgiveness” is a conditional state that's dependent on their own faithful conduct
(at least, relatively speaking). However, when used in reference to those in
the body of Christ, “pardon” or “forgiveness” is to be understood as
unconditional and permanent, and as having nothing to do with our conduct. Our
pardon/forgiveness takes place when we believe Paul’s evangel, and (like our
justification) is a “once for all time” deal.
When
we understand the word aphesis as
being inherently “neutral” with regard to the conditional or unconditional
nature of a believer’s deliverance from sin’s penalty, it does not need to be
understood as being in conflict with the meaning of “justification.”
Being pardoned and being justified need not be understood as mutually exclusive
states or conditions, but rather as “two sides of the same coin.” As noted
earlier, David described the state of those who have been pardoned as one in
which God is not “reckoning depravity” to them
(Ps. 32:2).
Moreover,
there is indisputable scriptural evidence that justification is
just as “neutral” in meaning as is the word “pardon,” and that it can apply to
both saints in the body of Christ and
to saints outside of the body of Christ (I go into more depth on this subject
in my study on justification). Many who see justification and pardon as
mutually exclusive terms seem to forget the fact that Paul was not the only inspired author to use the word
“justified” when writing to a group of saints! In his letter to the
twelve tribes, James used the word three times (2:21, 24, 25). However, the
justification he had in view was a declared righteous status that is based on
the faith and conduct of those to whom
he wrote, and was something that could be lost if one’s conduct ceased to
involve the faith and works that are necessary to receiving eonian life in the
kingdom of God. In contrast to this, the justification of which Paul wrote is a
declared righteous status that is based solely on the faith of our Lord Jesus
Christ (Rom. 3:24; Gal. 2:15-17).
For
one to be “justified” simply means that one has been declared “just” or
righteous by God. The word “justification” does not, in itself, tell us why (i.e., on what basis) a person has
been declared “just” or righteous by God, or whether or not there are any
conditions that must be met in order for someone to stay justified. Like the word “pardoned,” the word “justified” is
neutral in this regard. For saints outside of the body of Christ (e.g., those
constituting the “Israel of God”), both pardon and justification are conditional blessings that are based on one’s
own faith and works (and which can be forfeited and lost if one does not
continue to meet the requirements that must be met in order to be saved).
However,
for those in the body of Christ (and, eventually, for all mankind at the consummation),
pardon and justification are unconditional blessings based on God's super-abundant grace (and, as such, can never be lost or forfeited).
Unlike the present justification of believing Israelites, our justification
does not involve our own faith and our own works; rather, our justification is
“through the faith of Christ.” And insofar as our “pardon” or “forgiveness” is also based on this fact, it is just as
unconditional in nature. The sins and offenses of those in the body of Christ
will never (and could never) cease to be pardoned by God; there is nothing we
could ever do or not do that could ever result in our sins and offenses being
reckoned to us by God.
[1] By referring
to a pardoned individual as one “in whose spirit there is no deceit,” David was
not claiming to be (or implying that others were) without sin, or absolutely
pure and righteous. Rather, he had in mind those who refused to deny or hide
their sins, and who honestly confessed their sins to God (see verses 3-5).
[2] Some have
argued that the way in which Paul quotes Psalm 32:1-2 in Romans 4:8 conveys a
stronger idea than that of “mere” pardon. Paul’s quotation of this verse reads,
“Happy they whose
lawlessnesses were pardoned and whose sins were covered over! Happy the man to
whom the Lord by no means should be
reckoning sin!” It is the words “by no means”
that some point to as evidence that Paul had in mind something distinct from
(and greater than) the idea of “pardon.” However, this presupposes that pardon
could never be (or refer to) a permanent state, and thus begs the question against
the position for which I’m arguing in this article.
As argued above, the
“pardoning” of one’s sins/offenses can be either conditional (and thus possibly lost) or unconditional (and thus permanent in nature). Whether “pardon” is
to be understood as conditional or unconditional simply depends on whom it is
being pardoned, and the basis on which their pardon rests (the word “pardon”
is, in itself, neutral in this regard). The context in which the word appears
is, therefore, of the utmost importance in determining the exact nature of the
“pardon” in view. Thus, insofar as the words “by no means” in Rom. 4:8 are to
be understood as referring to a permanent, unvarying state, it simply follows
that the “pardon” that Paul had in view here is not something that he believed
could ever be revoked or withdrawn.
I entirely agree that Knoch [and probably Martin as well] doesn't really have a very strong defense of his interpretation against these verses that seem to be a problem. That said, I still think their position is correct, it's just their defense of it which is lacking, and I don't think the towel should be thrown in just yet on this point! It's too important.
ReplyDeleteThat is, I think that their division of justification and pardon, in spite of the words occasionally finding their way in the other gospel, is the correct understanding of the evangels and without which we get the wrong idea about how God sees the body vs. seeing believers within the covenant. [and both pardon, for the body, and justification, for the covenant saints, can have their place understood without creating a admixture of doctrine]
There are a couple of verses that I think are worth consideration, to this point of the role that pardon and forgiveness have for the member of the body of Christ. The first is Romans 3, another oddball verse for the point of the article, which wasn't included here, I assume, because it doesn't include the word pardon anywhere, but which is nonetheless still very Old Covenant in language:
"Being justified gratuitously in His grace, through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus (Whom God purposed for a Propitiatory shelter, through faith in His blood, for a display of His righteousness because of the passing over of the penalties of sins which occurred before in the forbearance of God), toward the display of His righteousness in the current era, for Him to be just and a Justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus."
It's my belief that it is inaccurate to understand the relationship between the body and their sins/offenses is that we are under a "Propitiatory shelter"; that is not what our walk is, since we have been declared just, we do not find ourselves needing a shelter for supposed sins which are not placed on our account anyway. So then why is Christ a propitiatory shelter for us in any sense?
Before I clarify on that, I want to bring up my other verse. In the same letter that Paul wrote Eph. 1:7, he would go on to say this in chapter 2:
"And you, being dead to your offenses and sins, in which once you walked, in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with the chief of the jurisdiction of the air, the spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness (among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest), yet God, being rich in mercy, because of His vast love with which He loves us (we also being dead to the offenses and the lusts), vivifies us together in Christ (in grace are you saved!)"
Here, Paul pairs both offenses and sins and places them, time-wise, as that in which we *once* walked and behaved ourselves *once*, but not actively so! This is certainly consistent with Pauline justification. And it is here that we find contextualized what Paul had in mind while writing what he wrote in 1:7.
The same is happening over here in Romans 3. "the passing over of the penalties of sins *which occurred before* in the forbearance of God"
(2/2)
ReplyDeleteSo, is this verse and its relationship to our active walk really all that confusing? Paul says here that it is not the passing over of the penalties of sins that we slip into even today, but of the sins which occurred before. When? Back when we did not live in accord with an understanding of our justification through the blood of the stake.
There were, of course, Jews in the body. These men have been living their lives in an administration of condemnation up to this point, with sin in their lives. Paul himself included. Their understanding of that justification doesn't mean that their justification retroactively applies to when they were walking "in accord with the eon of this world" up to that point, and for those sins, they are still in need of pardon, just as everyone that has ever lived has, for God has locked all into stubbornness.
And for those outside of Israel, these men too fell short of what their conscience told them was right, and they too needed a pardon for those offenses and sin.
But is pardon the active administration that the body of Christ walks in? No. We can certainly say that we have a pardon for our deeds prior to walking in justification, but to say that we still do walk in pardon and forgiveness is to spit on the complete work of our justification.
Hi Respect,
DeleteThanks for commenting on my article. Since you don’t define the word aphesis (translated “pardon” or “forgiveness”) in your response, I can only assume that you agree with Knoch that the word means – or at least includes the idea of – “a temporary respite which may be forfeited or withdrawn.” However, I deny that the term aphesis carries this meaning, and I don’t think either Knoch or MZ have demonstrated that it should be understood in this way. However, Knoch’s position REQUIRES that aphesis have this meaning, and that it refer to a status that is inherently inferior to “justification” (since a more NEUTRAL definition of aphesis doesn’t allow for the word to be contrasted with “justification”). In contrast with Knoch’s understanding, I believe that the status to which aphesis refers (i.e., that of being “forgiven”) presupposes that one is “justified” (and vice-versa). In other words, there isn’t anyone who is “forgiven” who isn’t ALSO “justified,” and there isn’t anyone who is “justified” who isn’t ALSO “forgiven.”
As noted in my article, the word from which aphesis is derived is aphiemi. Like aphiemi, the word aphesis conveys the idea of a person’s sins or offenses being “sent away” from them, and of God’s no longer reckoning their sins and offenses to them. Thus, when people’s sins/offenses have been “pardoned” or “forgiven” by God, it simply means that God has ceased reckoning their sins/offenses to them. He is, in other words, relating to them as if they’d never committed them. The forgiveness of sins has nothing inherently to do with a conditional state or status that can be “revoked” or “withdrawn” based on one’s conduct. Similarly, to be “justified” simply means that one has been declared “just” or “righteous” by God (and thus undeserving of death). If God is not reckoning sins to a person, then they are “just” or “righteous” (and thus can be referred to as “justified”). The difference between the saints in the body of Christ and those outside the body of Christ isn’t that the former are justified and the latter aren’t (what James wrote SHOULD make this abundantly clear); the difference is the BASIS of our justification.
For the saints outside of the body of Christ, justification is a conditional blessing (being based, in part, on their own faith and works); for those in the body of Christ, however, it’s an unconditional blessings (being based entirely on the faith of Christ, and not our own faith and works). So contrary to what your second paragraph could be understood as implying, I don’t, in fact, believe that God sees the justification (and forgiveness) of the body of Christ in the same way that he sees the justification (and forgiveness) of believers within the covenant. Our justification and forgiveness has a different basis, and is not affected by anything we do or don’t do. But this distinction has nothing to do with the inherent meaning of the words “aphesis” or “dikaioó,” and any belief to the contrary requires “explaining away” verses like Eph. 1:7 or James 2:24.
(continued)
DeleteWith regard to Eph. 1:7 and Col. 1:14, I think your view is undermined by the fact that Paul wrote that the “forgiveness of offenses/sins” is something that “we are having.” The verb translated “we are having” (echomen) is, in both Eph. 1:7 and Col. 1:14, in the PRESENT INDICATIVE ACTIVE tense. This means that the forgiveness of our offenses/sins is a status that we are presently and actively enjoying in Christ. And not only this, but Paul went on to write in Eph. 1:7-8 that the forgiveness of our offenses is “in accord with the RICHES of [God’s] GRACE, which He LAVISHES on us”! I’m honestly not sure how anyone can read these words and still believe that Paul was referring to a status that is somehow inferior to justification, or that the forgiveness of our offenses/sins refers to “a temporary respite which may be forfeited or withdrawn” (as Knoch defined it). Why would Paul have emphasized the forgiveness of our offenses/sins in Ephesians and Colossians but NOT our justification if he was referring to a status that is inferior to justification? It makes no sense (however, it WOULD be correct to say that the status to which Paul referred in Eph. 1:7 and Col. 1:14 as the “forgiveness of our offenses/sins” is SUPERIOR to the justified status to which James referred in his letters).
As far as Eph. 2:1-5, what Paul wrote here is perfectly consistent with the fact that, in Christ, we are presently enjoying the forgiveness of our offenses and sins. In fact, our having this present status is precisely WHY Paul could go on to write that we are (presently) “dead to” the offenses and sins in which we once walked. As far as what you wrote about justification not “retroactively” applying to the sins in which we once walked, I’m not sure why you believe this. Justification is just as applicable to past sins/offenses as forgiveness is. When we were justified, our past sins were just as much included among the sins that God is no longer reckoning to us as any sins we’ve committed since we were justified. Being justified means that we’re no longer condemned, and that – in contrast with those not yet justified – God no longer considers us deserving of death because of our sins (Rom. 1:32; 5:15-19).
With regard to Rom. 3:25-26, I've provided some comments on these verses elsewhere; here's part one of a study I did in 2019: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/11/for-him-to-be-just-study-on-romans-321.html. In this study I argue that, when Paul referred to certain people’s sins as being passed over, he was referring to those whose sins had been forgiven by God before Christ’s death, and whom God had justified – i.e., declared righteous – during this time (such as, for example, Abraham). I also argued that the term translated “Propitiatory shelter” in v. 25 (hilasterion) literally denotes a place where, through the blood of a sin-offering, God is able to justly exercise mercy toward sinners by ceasing to reckon their sins to them. Thus, to understand Christ as a hilasterion or “Propitiatory shelter” is to understand him as the one by whom God is able to cease reckoning sins to sinners without ceasing to be righteous. That is, because Christ was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” God is able to righteously do what he has always been willing and disposed to do – i.e., cease reckoning sins to sinners. By purposing Christ “for a Propitiatory shelter,” God simply did that which rendered it consistent for him to exercise his mercy towards sinners (which he was already willing to do) while remaining righteous.
Interestingly, in Luke 18:13, we read that the tribute collector prayed, “God make a propitiatory shelter for me, the sinner!” We then read that “this man descended to his home justified.” Clearly, Christ believed that the forgiveness of this man’s sins by God resulted in the un-condemned status that the word “justified” denotes.
Before digging in a little more, I want to put out a short, more informal reply here, with the intention of responding more fully at a later time. [when it isn't as late, pardon the pun]
ReplyDeleteI do not have an issue with seeing no inferiority between pardon/forgiveness vs. justification, and only treating as such in the context of the gospel they're appearing in. [can they be revoked vs. cannot be revoked]
However, I do not agree with placing Pauline justification in the same time-frame as in which we are pardoned. We have the freedom we have because God has loosened us from having our actions even being seen as sin. To then say we are pardoned asserts that there is some sin for us to be seen as needing forgiveness for.
Why then, does Paul say 'we are having' forgiveness? The answer is that he didn't. The word ἔχομεν is present, indicative, active, as you point out, but this word is used, at times, for things which are an inherent possession, and not something which is continually given to have. The Jews "are having" (ἔχομεν) Abraham as a father, [Matthew 3 and Luke 3] but they aren't constantly being begotten to have that sonship as a possession!
In both Matthew 3 and Luke 3, Knoch translates ἔχομεν as "We have", not "We are having", and should have done so here in Ephesians and Colossians, I content. The Dabhar Literal [F.H. Baader's translation] uses "we have", rather than "we are having". At the very least, the usage of ἔχομεν does not contradict my case in of itself.
In English, if someone says "I am having", then it's understood to be a continual thing, as it's only said to make the distinction from regular ole "I have". But it is evident that Greek does not do the same; and so "We are having" can refer to the possession of forgiveness for past transgressions, but which does not carry us into the future. The context of Paul's evangel as a whole must decide in which sense he means ἔχομεν with respect to offenses and sins.
"As far as what you wrote about justification not “retroactively” applying to the sins in which we once walked, I’m not sure why you believe this. Justification is just as applicable to past sins/offenses as forgiveness is."
This is the heart of my point, so I apologize that it was not understandable.
What I was trying to convey is that the Pauline justification, which we possess, does not leave a wake of "pardoned sins" [at least, not from what I see in his epistles] but actions which are just, and not accounted for as sin even if they do break the law, in the same way that a man not under law, even prior to Paul, did not have sin placed upon their account. This is, at least, what I understand Paul to be conveying in Romans 5:13.
And yet, we still have a pardon. For what sins? What offenses? Again, it is for those in which we walked, as I quoted Ephesians 2 to the effect of.
(2/2), of first response
ReplyDelete"As far as Eph. 2:1-5, what Paul wrote here is perfectly consistent with the fact that, in Christ, we are presently enjoying the forgiveness of our offenses and sins. In fact, our having this present status is precisely WHY Paul could go on to write that we are (presently) “dead to” the offenses and sins in which we once walked."
I agree entirely! Presently enjoying the forgiveness of past transgression was *certainly* something that Paul lavished in, with this morally crippled past. No man needed his past pardoned for more than him, perhaps.
Except if you mean that it's "perfectly consistent" with the position that we are still walking in accord with pardon, then I strongly disagree; I cannot see how this is so. In the quoted Eph. 2, Paul makes it very clear to place our sins and offenses with that which we are no longer walking. But we did once walk in them, and so we receive a pardon for the sin which stood on our account at the moment we became aware of the sacrifice that Christ made for us. [how can it be said that we are dead to them because of pardon (instead of because of justification) and yet still commit them to need pardon for?]
I hope that clears up why I said what I said about our Pauline justification, as something that we walk in, not retroactively applying to our previous lives, which were in stubbornness. I concede that I may be wrong, generally, about the uniformity of meaning of justification and pardon by various authors of scripture, but I would still take the position that this understanding of pardon within the context of Paul's letters is the only consistent position with which to approach the sense that he applies them: that we have a pardon for the distant past, and have justification for the present and the future.
I do not understand the assessment of my understanding of the very rare usage of ἄφεσιν in the epistles + Paul's section of Acts as being an "explaining away". The interpretation I give is entirely viable and one which fits into the puzzle both of the entirety of Paul's epistles, but even into the understanding of Ephesians in particular, and should therefore be a position regarded highly, and which needs a strong defense to reject — the apostle Paul's very high opinion of ἄφεσιν in Ephesians 1:7-8 notwithstanding. If there's a man that could have been so joyful over the sending away of past transgressions, it would be Saul!
Well shoot, I didn't really keep my promise about being short. But it was informal, so I'll take batting .500. That'd get me into the postseason, at least. ;)
Grace to you and peace from God,
Respect.
Hi Respect,
DeleteYou wrote: “We have the freedom we have because God has loosened us from having our actions even being seen as sin.”
I see no scriptural justification for the view that God does not recognize any action of those whom he has justified as a sin. Being justified means we are no longer condemned (deserving of death and God’s indignation) because of our sins and offenses. It does not mean we no longer sin, or that God no longer “sees” any of our actions as sins. For God to be no longer reckoning an individual’s sins to them (which is what is involved in justification; Rom. 4:4-8) is NOT the same thing as God no longer recognizing the sinful actions of an individual as sins. Paul is clear that believers can and do still sin (Rom. 6:1, 12-15; 14:23; 1 Cor. 6:18; 8:12; 15:34; 2 Cor. 12:21; 1 Tim. 5:20; etc.), and gives us no reason to believe that God no longer “sees” these sins as sins. God doesn’t have to see us as sinless (and no longer “see our sins”) in order to no longer regard us as deserving of death because of our sins (which, again, is the status of all who are justified). So I believe this is a misunderstanding on your part, and that this misunderstanding has contributed to what I believe to be your erroneous understanding of what it means for us to have the forgiveness of our offenses and sins.
No longer walking in the offenses and sins to which we are now dead does not mean we no longer sin, or that God does not “see” any of our actions as sins or offenses; again, being justified means that God no longer regards us as being deserving of death. Notice that, in Eph. 2:3, Paul went on to say that, at the time when those to whom he wrote once walked in their offenses and sins, “we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of the flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest…” (v. 3). The implication here is that those to whom Paul wrote were no longer behaving in this way. And THAT’S why Paul could imply that they were no longer “walking” in their offenses and sins. In other words, not “walking” in sins and offenses has everything to do with the improved conduct of the saints to whom Paul wrote (cf. Eph. 4:1-2, 17-25; 5:9-21, etc.), and nothing to do with God no longer “seeing” certain wicked actions as sins and offenses.
With regard to Matt 3:9, “having” Abraham as a father refers to an ongoing status/condition of being the natural descendents of Abraham. Likewise, having the forgiveness of offenses/sins refers to an ongoing status/condition for all in the body of Christ. So I suppose the question that gets at the heart of our disagreement is this: are the sins and offenses of which we are “having the forgiveness” limited to the past? You assume that they are, but I see no scriptural reason to believe this. Since we still sin, the forgiveness that we “are having” applies to all present and future sins, as well (and, I should add, this forgiveness is NOT something we have to do anything to maintain or “keep up”). And the same can be said with regard to the un-condemned status that is denoted by the term “justified.” The problem with your view (at least, insofar as I understand it) is that you see justification as not applying to past sins and offenses. According to your view (again, as I understand it), it is only forgiveness that applies to past sins and offenses. But when we’re justified, the righteous, un-condemned status we receive applies to all of our past sins and offenses, and not just our future conduct. I believe Romans 4:1-8 makes this clear.
(Continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote: “What I was trying to convey is that the Pauline justification, which we possess, does not leave a wake of "pardoned sins" [at least, not from what I see in his epistles] but actions which are just, and not accounted for as sin even if they do break the law, in the same way that a man not under law, even prior to Paul, did not have sin placed upon their account. This is, at least, what I understand Paul to be conveying in Romans 5:13.”
I do not at all believe that our justification results in God seeing our sins as “just” actions. That would involve God believing what isn’t true (i.e., believing that our sins are not sins, and that people who are still sinning are sinless). No; justification results in God no longer seeing us as condemned/deserving of death because of our sins. It is this lack of condemnation (and not a supposed sinlessness from God’s perspective that you think we have) that is being expressed by the words, “reckoning righteousness apart from acts” and “by no means should be reckoning sin.”
You wrote: “Except if you mean that it's "perfectly consistent" with the position that we are still walking in accord with pardon, then I strongly disagree; I cannot see how this is so. In the quoted Eph. 2, Paul makes it very clear to place our sins and offenses with that which we are no longer walking. But we did once walk in them, and so we receive a pardon for the sin which stood on our account at the moment we became aware of the sacrifice that Christ made for us. [how can it be said that we are dead to them because of pardon (instead of because of justification) and yet still commit them to need pardon for?]”
No longer walking in offenses and sins does not mean a believer no longer commits sins and offenses. It means one’s conduct is no longer characterized by the conduct that Paul had in mind when he referred to behaving “in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension” (Eph. 2:3), and no longer walking as those of the nations who “in greed give themselves up with wantonness to all uncleanness as a vocation” (Eph. 4:17-19).
As far as what it means to be dead to the sins and offenses in which we once walked, I think Paul explains this in Romans 6. There it’s clear that being dead to sin does not mean we no longer commit sins (or that God believes we can no longer sin); rather, it means we have been freed from sin as a source of condemnation and an enslaving power, and are no longer “slaving for sin.” It no longer reigns over us. Similarly, in Eph. 2:1 (and Col. 2:13), I believe Paul was simply expressing the fact that we are free from our sins and offenses as a source of condemnation and an enslaving power.
I’ll close this response by suggesting that, in addition to speaking of our justification as “Pauline justification” (to distinguish it from the justification of which Christ and James spoke), we can ALSO speak of the forgiveness that we are presently having as members of the body of Christ as “Pauline forgiveness” (to distinguish it from the forgiveness that’s available to those outside the body of Christ). For I think we have just as much reason to believe that the forgiveness of our sins and offenses is just as much an expression of the riches of God’s grace as is our justification (and that, like our justification, it applies to all of our past, present and future sins).
Aaron