The sin-based problem and the cross-based solution

In my previous article (Why Christ became Lord of all), I shared my understanding of why Christ became (and needed to become) Lord of the dead and of the living, and why God is going to save all mankind through Christ (rather than directly). In this article I want to elaborate on some of the points made in the concluding section of the last article.

The sin-based problem

According to what we read in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, the evangel that Paul heralded among the nations (Gal. 2:2, 7) – i.e., “the evangel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24) – consists of the following two essential facts: (1) “Christ died for our sins” and (2) “He has been roused the third day.”

As I’ve argued elsewhere (see, for example, here and here), one cannot believe that Christ died and was roused while, at the same time, believing that Christ is the same uncreated, immortal divine being as his God and Father (or that Christ is one of two or three divine persons who, together, “constitute” the one uncreated, immortal divine being who is God). That is, one cannot believe the evangel that was heralded by Paul and believe in the so-called “deity of Christ.” These beliefs are mutually exclusive (such that believing the latter prevents one from believing the former). 

Now, it’s implied by the words “Christ died for our sins” that “our sins” – i.e., the sins of everyone for whom Christ died – are the problem to which Christ’s death is the solution. But what is the nature of the problem of sin? How, exactly, is sin a problem?

Paul’s next reference to “sins” is found in 1 Cor. 15:17-18, and can provide us with a springboard for answering these questions. In these verses we read the following:

“Now, if Christ has not been roused, vain is your faith -- you are still in your sins! Consequently those also, who are put to repose in Christ, perished.”

The implication of Paul’s argument here is that those to whom he wrote (and, by extension, all who are in the body of Christ) are not “still in [their] sins.” But if that’s the case, then we can reasonably conclude that unbelievers – i.e., those who haven’t been given the faith to believe the evangel that Paul heralded among the nations (and of which Christ's resurrection is an essential element) – are still in their sins.

In accord with this point, we read in John 8:21-24 that Christ told a group of unbelieving Pharisees that, if they remained in unbelief concerning the truth of his Messianic identity, they would be “dying in [their] sins.” That this fate was equivalent to (or inseparably connected with) “perishing” is clear from what we read in John 3:16 and elsewhere (cf. John 10:28, where “perishing” is said to be “for the eon”). 

But what, exactly, does it mean to be in one’s sins, or to die in one’s sins? 

Answer: It means to be in a state in which one’s sins haven’t been forgiven, and to thus be liable to the penalty of which one’s sins make one deserving. In Hebrews 10:11, the author of this letter told his readers that, in contrast with Christ's sacrifice, the daily sacrifices offered by the chief priest were unable to ”take sins from about us.” The idea being expressed here is of people being encompassed by (or being “in”) their sins. And the implication is that, when our sins are forgiven by God, we’re no longer “in” our sins. We also know that to be justified (or declared just/righteous) by God is to be one “to whom the Lord by no means should be reckoning sin” (Rom. 4:7-8). That is, when God justifies sinners, he regards them as no longer deserving of, or liable to, the penalty of which they were formerly deserving/liable. 

We can thus conclude that to still be “in” our sins means that God is (or will be) reckoning our sins to us. That this is the case is evident from the fact that, in 1 Cor. 15:18, it’s implied that those who have died while still being “in their sins” have “perished.” Since the saints to whom Paul was referring in this verse were already dead at the time he was writing, we can conclude that Paul was not using the word “perished” to simply mean “died.” Rather, the word “perished” here communicates the idea of dying in one’s sins, and thus dying in a condemned state. Since dying in one’s sins means dying in a condemned state, we can conclude that being “still in your sins” means remaining in a state of condemnation.

By “condemnation” I mean an adverse judgment from God. This is often represented as God’s “indignation” (or “wrath”). For example, Paul wrote that unjustified sinners are storing up for themselves “indignation in the day of indignation and revelation of the just judgment of God” (Rom. 2:5, 8; cf. 9:22). Unjustified sinners are thus referred to as being, “in [their] nature, children of indignation” on whom “the indignation of God is coming” (Eph. 2:3; 5:6; Col. 3:6).[i] And in John 3:36, we read the following:

“He who is believing in the Son has life eonian, yet he who is stubborn as to the Son shall not be seeing life, but the indignation of God is remaining on him.”

In accord with this point, Paul declared in Rom. 3:19 that “both Jews and Greeks” are “all under sin,” and are thus “subject to the just verdict of God.” Since Paul had in view those who haven’t yet been “justified gratuitously in [God’s] grace” (Rom. 3:24), the “just verdict of God” to which Paul was referring here is condemnation. Moreover – and as verses such as Revelation 16:4-7 make clear – the condemnation (or adverse judgment) of sinners isn’t meant to reform them and improve their conduct. Rather, it’s in accord with what sinners deserve (hence the words of the messenger of the waters after the third bowl is poured out: “..and Thou does give them blood to drink, even what they are deserving!”). [ii]

Now, it should be noted that the nature and severity of the various adverse judgments about which we read in Scripture (both past and future) depend on the nature and number of the sins committed (as well as who sinned). God does not (and will not, in the future) deal with all unjustified sinners in the exact same way. At the same time, it seems clear that there is one penalty of which every sin makes one deserving (and of which every human becomes deserving when they first begin to sin). The penalty that I have in mind here is death. For example, in Romans 1:32 we read that it’s a “just statute of God” that those who are guilty of “committing such things” as we find described in 1:26-32 (and which nearly every sinner is guilty of having committed) are “deserving of death.” Death, then, can be considered the general, and most basic, penalty of sin. It’s the penalty of which every unjustified sinner is deserving.

What Paul referred to as a “just statute” in Romans 1:32 is later referred to as “the law of sin and death” in Romans 8:1-2. In these verses we read the following: 

“Nothing, consequently, is now condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. Not according to flesh are they walking, but according to spirit, for the spirit's law of life in Christ Jesus frees you from the law of sin and death.”

This “law of sin and death” is the established rule of action according to which sin makes one deserving of (and will thus result in) death. It’s only “those in Christ Jesus” – i.e., those who’ve been justified by God, and who’ve thus been spiritually baptized into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-13) – to whom “nothing…is now condemnation.” Those who aren’t “in Christ Jesus” – and who, therefore, haven’t yet been justified by God – remain subject to “the law of sin and death.” This in accord with Paul’s affirmation in 1 Cor. 15:56 that “the sting of Death is sin” (i.e., sin is what gives death its ability to injure mankind).

We go on to read in Romans 5:20-21 that, for those not yet justified, “Sin reigns in death.” Similarly, in Rom. 6:22 we read that death is “the consummation” of the things committed by those who are “slaves to Sin.” And in v. 23, we’re told that “the ration of Sin is death” (that is, the “ration” that those who are “slaves to Sin” receive from Sin is death). In light of what we read in these verses, we can conclude the following: those for whom “the ration of Sin is death” and over whom “Sin reigns in death” are those who, because of their sins, are “deserving of death.” 

But what is death? Answer: When considered as a state or condition, it’s the opposite of life. Thus, to die is to become lifeless, and to be dead is to be lifeless (no longer alive). That life and death are two opposite states or conditions is evident throughout Scripture (see, for example, Deut. 30:15, 19; Judges 16:20; 2 Sam. 15:21; Psalm 56:13; Prov. 12:28; Eccl. 9:3; Isaiah 26:14; John 5:24; Rom. 6:10; 7:10; 14:9; 2 Cor. 2:16; 2 Tim. 2:10; Rev. 1:17-18). Since death is simply the opposite of life (and being dead the opposite of being alive), we can understand what death is by considering what it means to be alive, or to have life.

A scripturally-informed definition of “life” could be stated as follows: the activity of spirit as manifested in an active, sentient being. To put it another way, to be alive is to be that in which spirit is active and manifesting itself (hence we read in James 2:26 that “the body apart from spirit is dead”). For humans, having a spirit (and thus being alive) means we have a capacity for self-awareness, rational thought, volitional activity and/or certain functional activities that are purely biological in nature (for there are, of course, some humans whose body/brain can no longer functionally support conscious, volitional activity). In contrast, to be dead – i.e., to be without spirit – means that one has completely lost the capacity for all functional activity (including consciousness).

Not only is this understanding of life and consciousness reasonable, but it’s an experientially-known truth. Every human being who knows himself or herself to be alive intuitively understands that consciousness and life always occur together. No one has ever experienced a single moment in which this is not the case. Thus, in light of the fact that death is simply the absence of life, we can conclude that those who are dead are not involved in any kind of conscious activity.

The most well-known examples of living beings are humans and animals. However, life is not limited to organic, flesh-and-blood beings. For we also know that God – who is frequently referred to as “the living God” – is alive. Not only does God exist necessarily, but his very nature – which, according to Christ, is spirit (John 4:24) – is the source of his life. Thus, God is essentially alive (hence we’re told by Christ in John 5:26 that “the Father has life in Himself”). And when we consider God as the absolute and ultimate standard by which we can know what it means to be alive, we can conclude that consciousness – which God necessarily has – is inseparable from being alive, and that anything with consciousness has it by virtue of having spirit and thus being alive. Thus, to die – i.e., to become lifeless – necessarily involves a loss of consciousness.

Since being alive entails having a capacity for consciousness, death necessarily entails a loss of this capacity. And Scripture confirms this understanding: those who are dead are said to be unable to engage in the sort of conscious, functional activities that the living are able to engage in – activities such as thinking, remembering and worshiping God (Eccl. 9:5-6, 10; Psalm 6:5; 30:9; 88:10-12; 115:17). 

Now, Paul’s understanding of the connection between sin and death was undoubtedly informed by the inspired historical record concerning Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2:16-17 we read that death was the penalty with which God threatened Adam for disobeying his command to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

“From every tree of the garden you may eat, yea eat. But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you must not eat from it; for on the day you eat from it, to die, you shall be dying.” 

We go on to read in Gen. 3:17-19 that God declared the following to Adam after he did what God instructed him not to do:

“As you hearken to the voice of your wife, and are eating from the tree of which alone I instruct you, saying not eat shall you from it, cursed shall be the ground when you serve it, for your sakes. In grief shall you eat of it all the days of your lives. And thorns and weeds shall it sprout for you, and you shall eat the herbage of the field. In the sweat of your face shall you eat your bread, till your return to the ground, for from it are you taken, for soil you are, and to soil are you returning.”

God’s revelation of (and emphasis on) the inevitability of Adam’s death when pronouncing the negative consequences resulting from Adam’s disobedience implies that this is the same death with which he threatened Adam earlier. That the death with which God threatened Adam was literal death – i.e., the termination of Adam’s life – is further evident from what we go on to read in verses 22-24 (where it’s revealed how God made Adam’s death inevitable):

And saying is Yahweh Elohim, “Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!” And Yahweh Elohim is sending him away from the garden of Eden to serve the ground whence he is taken. And He is driving out the human, and is causing him to tabernacle at the east of the garden of Eden. And He set the cherubim, and a flaming sword turning itself, to keep the way of the tree of the living.

In these verses we find that, on the very day that Adam sinned, both Adam and his wife Eve – and, by extension, all of their future posterity – were banished from the garden of Eden, and thereby denied access to the tree of life (vv. 22-24). Humanity was, in other words, excluded from the only means by which we could’ve lived indefinitely on the earth without the inevitability of death.

Now, it’s commonly believed that the death with which God threatened Adam was something other than literal death (since Adam’s life didn’t end on the day that he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). However, based on the above considerations, I think we can reasonably conclude the following: When God spoke the words that are translated above as “on the day you eat from it, to die, you shall be dying,” he wasn’t saying that Adam would die on the day that he disobeyed. Rather, God was saying that, on the day that Adam disobeyed, his death would become a certainty (rather than something that was merely possible, and which could be avoided). That is, the words translated as “to die, you shall be dying” basically mean, “You shall be condemned to die.”

In accord with this understanding of what took place on the day that Adam sinned are the following words of Paul from Romans 5:12-19:

Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed through into all mankind, on which all sinned -- for until law sin was in the world, yet sin is not being taken into account when there is no law; nevertheless death reigns from Adam unto Moses, over those also who do not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him Who is about to be.

But not as the offense, thus also the grace. For if, by the offense of the one, the many died, much rather the grace of God and the gratuity in grace, which is of the One Man, Jesus Christ, to the many super-abounds.

And not as through one act of sinning is the gratuity. For, indeed, the judgment is out of one into condemnation, yet the grace is out of many offenses into a just award. For if, by the offense of the one, death reigns through the one, much rather, those obtaining the superabundance of grace and the gratuity of righteousness shall be reigning in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just award for all mankind for life’s justifying. For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just.

The sense in which “death passed through into all mankind” (and “the many died”) because of Adam’s sin is this: Because of his sin, both Adam and all of his (natural) descendants were excluded from access to the tree of life. This adverse judgment from God not only guaranteed Adam’s eventual death, but it guaranteed the inevitable death of all mankind (thus making Adam’s offense “for all mankind for condemnation”). The same adverse judgment that affected him (and which was the direct consequence of his offense) affects us as well. However, this isn’t because God “imputed” Adam’s sin to all mankind (or because God “regards” all mankind as having committed the same sin that Adam committed). Rather, all mankind “died” (i.e., were doomed to die) because of the nature of the adverse judgment through which Adam’s death was made certain.

Thus, the fact that all mankind suffers the consequence of Adam’s sin doesn’t mean we're born deserving of death. Nevertheless, the dying condition with which we come into the world (as a result of Adam’s sin) means that we will inevitably sin (a fact which explains the words of v. 19 [“through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners”]). And when we do inevitably sin, we become just as deserving of death as Adam was when he disobeyed God’s command.

It’s also evident that, apart from the change in status that occurs when one is justified by God (and one’s sins are thus forgiven by God), all who are deserving of death must, after dying, either remain dead or – if restored to life – ultimately must die again. That those who’ve sinned and become deserving of death don’t cease to be deserving of death when they die (and must, therefore, remain deserving of death until they’re justified by God) can be inferred from what’s revealed in Revelation 20:11-15. Here’s how these verses read in the English Standard Version:

Then I saw a large white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then books were opened, and another book was opened—the book of life. So the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds. 

The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged according to his deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death—the lake of fire. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.

The people who are referred to as “the dead” in these verses are those whom John referred to a few verses earlier as follows: “The rest of the dead do not live until the thousand years should be finished” (Rev. 20:5). It’s these people who will be restored to life (and thus “live”) at this time in order to be judged.[iii] Their resurrection is what will enable them to stand before the throne to be judged, and is expressed in the words, “Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them” (for “death” is simply a state of lifelessness, and “Hades” refers to the domain of those who are dead – i.e., wherever the dead reside). It’s this later resurrection for “the rest of the dead” – which will be occurring sometime after “the thousand years should be finished” – that’s being implicitly contrasted with what John referred to as “the first resurrection” (or “the former resurrection”) in Rev. 20:5-6.

Now, as revealed in the above verses, anyone whose name will not be “found written in the book of life” is going to be “thrown into the lake of fire.” We have good reason to believe that being cast into a lake of fire would bring about the death of anyone who is mortal. And for those who will have already died once (which will be the case for everyone who will be resurrected to be judged at the “great white throne”), being cast into a lake of fire would bring about their second death. Thus, the lake of fire is referred to as “the second death” when human beings are in view (Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 13-15; 21:8). The lake of fire is clearly not a place that will be intended to keep those whose names aren’t found in the book of life alive for any period of time. We can thus conclude that those who are going to be cast into the lake of fire will be mortal when they’re cast into it, and that being cast into the lake of fire will result in them dying a second time (i.e., it will result in them being returned to a state of lifelessness). And I believe that, apart from Christ’s death for our sins, death would be the final state for them (and not only for them, but for every sinner).

The cross-based solution to the problem

As I noted at the beginning of this article, the evangel that Paul heralded among the nations consists of two essential truths: (1) “that Christ died for our sins” and (2) “that He has been roused the third day.” Unlike the “gospel” in which most Christians believe (according to which sin and/or its consequence will remain in existence “for all eternity”), the true gospel – i.e., “the evangel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24) – reveals that, because of Christ’s death and resurrection, both sin and its negative consequences (whether “natural” or legal/judicial) will, ultimately, be completely removed from human experience (thus making God’s solution to the problem of sin an actual solution). If Christ hadn't died for our sins, no sinner would be saved. But because Christ died for our sins, every sinner will be saved. 

But what does it mean for Christ to have “died for our sins”? Answer: The word translated “for” in the statement “Christ died for our sins” (i.e., “huper”) simply means “concerning” (https://biblehub.com/greek/5228.htm). And in the letter to the Hebrews, there are a number of verses in which we find the word “for” (huper) used in connection with sins (see Heb. 5:1, 3; 7:27; 9:7; 10:12). In all of these verses, the inspired author had a “sin offering” in view. With regard to what this particular sacrifice accomplished, consider the following verses from Leviticus:

Lev. 4:26

And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings. So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven.

Lev. 4:35

And all its fat he shall remove as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar, on top of Yahweh’s food offerings. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.

Lev. 5:10

Then he shall offer the second for a burnt offering according to the rule. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.

When those on whose behalf a sin offering was sacrificed were forgiven, it meant that God would not be reckoning their sins to them (and that their sins would thus not be a source of condemnation for them). Thus, in those verses where we find the expression “for sins” being used in connection with a sin offering, it essentially means, “so that the sin(s) would be forgiven.” It should also be emphasized that, when the priest completed the atoning work on behalf of the one for whom the sin offering was sacrificed, their sin was forgiven.

Now, in accord with this understanding of the words “Christ died for our sins,” we read in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that God made Christ a sin offering for our sakes. Here’s how this verse reads in the CLNT:

“For the One not knowing sin, [God] makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God’s righteousness in Him.” 

The word translated “a sin offering” in this verse is ἁμαρτίαν (harmartia). This word is simply the standard word that’s most often translated “sin” in the Bible. However, the word “sin” – i.e., that which Paul had in mind when he previously wrote, “For the One not knowing sin” – literally denotes a failure to keep God’s precepts. That is, “sin” literally refers to any violation/transgression of God’s law (whether intentional or unintentional). Hence, we read in 1 John 3:4 that “sin is lawlessness.”

Now, I think it’s clear that Paul was using the word “sin” according to its literal meaning when he wrote “For the One not knowing sin…” That is, the first use of the word “sin” in this verse refers to a failure to keep God’s precepts, or a violation of God’s law. However, if Paul was referring to the same thing when he used the word harmartia again in this verse, then he was saying that God made Christ “a violation of God’s law for our sakes,” or “a failure to keep God’s precepts for our sakes.” But that would make no sense. It’s for this reason that many Christians understand the words commonly translated as “made sin” in this verse to mean something like, “regarded as sinful,” or “made guilty of our sins.” However, there’s no need to understand what Paul wrote in this way. For we know that, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the word “sin” was sometimes used to refer to a “sin offering” (Strong's Hebrew: 2403. חַטָּאָה (chatta'ah) -- Sin, sin offering). Consider, for example, Leviticus 4:3:

If the anointed priest should sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then he shall bring near for his sin (chatta’ath) with which he has sinned a flawless young bull calf of the herd, to Yahweh as a sin offering (chatta’ath).

In fact, in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., the Septuagint, or LXX), we find the exact word used by Paul in 2 Cor. 5:21 (harmartia) being used to mean “a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:21, 24; 5:12).[iv] And Paul was, of course, well aware of the fact that the word “sin” could be used in this way (both in the original Hebrew Scriptures and in the LXX).

As noted earlier, the sin offering was a sacrifice that resulted in the sins of those for whom it was offered being forgiven. In Leviticus 4:31 we read the following concerning the purpose of this offering:

“…and the priest shall offer it up in smoke on the altar for a soothing aroma to Yahweh. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.”

The burning of the sacrifice – which was essential to the completion of the sacrificial ritual – represented the giving of the sacrifice to God (whose acceptance of it resulted in the forgiveness that the sacrifice was intended to secure), and the words “for a soothing aroma to Yahweh” express the fact that the sacrifice was pleasing to, and accepted by, God. It was in response to their offering to God something that was of (relatively) great value – i.e., an unblemished animal (the blood of which was considered sacred and precious to God, the Creator of the animal) – that God mercifully forgave the sins of those for whom the animal was offered.

The idea that sacrifices were expressions of devotion to God (and thus were well pleasing to God) is also implied in several verses from the Greek Scriptures in which we read of believers being exhorted to perform actions that are figuratively referred to as sacrifices:

Rom 12:1

I am entreating you, then, brethren, by the pities of God, to present your bodies a sacrifice, living, holy, well pleasing to God, your logical divine service…

Phil 4:18

I have been filled full, receiving from Epaphroditus the things from you, an odor fragrant, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.

Heb 13:16

Now of well doing and contributing be not forgetful, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

We can thus understand the sin offering as involving the giving up of something to God that was considered valuable/precious (an unblemished animal), as an expression of obedience and devotion to God. In response to this sacrifice, God mercifully forgives the sin of the one for whom the animal was offered.

But do we have evidence to believe that Christ was a sacrifice offered to God that results in the forgiveness of sins? Yes. In Ephesians 1:7-8 and 5:2 we read the following:

“…in [Christ] we are having the deliverance through His blood, the forgiveness of offenses in accord with the riches of [God’s] grace, which He lavishes on us…”

“…be walking in love, according as Christ also loves you, and gives Himself up for us, an approach present and a sacrifice to God, for a fragrant odor.”

From these verses we can conclude that Christ’s death was sacrificial in nature, and that it’s because/by means of Christ’s sacrificial death (“through his blood”) that we can receive the forgiveness of our offenses. It’s also evident that Christ’s sacrifice was greatly pleasing to God (hence the words, “for a fragrant odor,” which bring to mind the words used to express God’s acceptance of a sacrifice when the priest completed his work). 

Now, we know that, when Christ became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” he was doing what is pleasing to his God and Father. As we read in John 8:29, Christ always did what is pleasing to God:

“And He Who sends Me is with Me. He does not leave Me alone, for what is pleasing to Him am I doing always.”

That Christ’s sacrifice (i.e., when he gave himself up for us as “an approach present and a sacrifice to God”) was greatly pleasing to God is further evident from Paul’s use of the words, “for a fragrant odor.” The pleasing nature of Christ’s sacrifice is also evident from the fact that Christ was subsequently roused from among the dead by God, given all authority in heaven and on earth, and exalted by God far above all other created beings, and graced with “the name that is above every name” (Eph. 1:20-22; Phil. 2:8-11; Heb. 1:2, 4; 2:8-9). See my last article (Why Christ became Lord of all) for a more in-depth examination and defense of this important truth.

At this point it should be emphasized that it wasn’t the death of Christ in itself that pleased God. There is nothing about either death or suffering that is inherently pleasing to God. Instead, we have good reason to believe that death and suffering are inherently displeasing to God (in Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11, for example, it’s clear that even the death of the wicked – i.e., those who are deserving of death – is not something in which God takes any pleasure). If it weren’t for Christ’s active and willing involvement in his crucifixion and death (and the events that led up to it), there would be nothing pleasing to God about what took place on Golgotha nearly 2,000 years ago. It would simply be the greatest injustice to have ever taken place in history. However, Christ’s death was far more than the unjust execution of a perfectly innocent and righteous man. It was an act of perfect obedience to and faith in (and thus love for) his God and Father (John 10:17-18; Matthew 26:36-44, 52-54; Phil. 2:7-8). 

There has never been a greater act of faith and obedience than Christ’s death on the cross (and there never will be). Christ’s death was not only an act of supreme love for God, but it was also an act of supreme love for sinners. For Christ knew that it was only by doing what was prophesied concerning him – i.e., allowing himself to be crucified – that all sinners would be saved. Thus, Christ’s death was an act of perfect love for every sinner for whom he died (a truth of which Paul was very much aware; see, for example, Romans 5:6-8 and Galatians 2:20). Thus, through his death, Christ perfectly fulfilled the two greatest precepts of God’s law: ”You shall be loving the Lord God out of your whole heart, and out of your whole soul, and out of your whole comprehension, and out of your whole strength” and, “You shall be loving your associate as yourself” (Matt. 22:36-40). And it’s this fact that makes Christ’s death so pleasing to God (and makes Christ so worthy of his preeminent status as “Lord of all”).

In light of these considerations, we can understand the words “Christ died for our sins” to mean, “Christ died so that our sins would be forgiven” (or, “Christ died so that our sins would cease to be reckoned to us by God”). And since the priestly work involving sin offerings resulted in the forgiveness of the sins of those whom the sin offering was sacrificed (hence the words, “and he shall be forgiven”), we can conclude that the sins for which Christ died shall be forgiven (and not just that the sins “can be forgiven,” or “may be forgiven”). The forgiveness of the sins of everyone for whom Christ died was secured when he died.

Moreover (and as I’ve argued in a number of articles on this blog), we know that Christ died for the sins of all mankind. This means that one cannot believe the evangel that Paul heralded among the nations without believing that every human who’s ever lived (or ever will live) is ultimately going to be saved and reconciled to God. That is, one cannot believe that “Christ died for our sins” while, at the same time, believing that some human beings (whether the majority or just a few) will never be saved.

Christ our “Propitiatory”

In further support of the view that the sins of all mankind are going to be forgiven because of Christ’s death, let’s now consider what Paul wrote in Romans 3:20-26. Here’s how these verses read in the CLNT (as recently updated and shared in Volume 114 of Unsearchable Riches magazine; see page 134):

Yet now, apart from law, God’s righteousness has been made manifested (being attested by the law and the prophets), yet God’s righteousness through Jesus Christ’s faith for all (and on all who are believing it), for there is no distinction, for all sin and are wanting of the glory of God, being justified gratuitously in His grace, through the deliverance, the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus (Whom God purposes for a Propitiatory through His faith, by means of 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 righteous and to be justifying the human out of Jesus’ faith.

The righteousness of God that is “through Jesus Christ’s faith for all” is likely the righteousness that is from God (Phil. 3:9) – i.e., the righteousness that God “reckons” to sinners when he justifies them (Rom. 4:6). However, the righteousness of which we go on to read in verses 25-26 (in the expression “a display of His righteousness”) likely refers to the righteousness that inherently belongs to God (i.e., the divine attribute according to which God is righteous). That is, Paul was likely referring to the same divine righteousness of which he wrote in Romans 3:5. But what does it mean for God to be “righteous” (or “just”)?

Answer: Based on what we read in Leviticus 19:35-36 and Proverbs 11:1, it’s reasonable to conclude that God’s being “righteous” or “just” means that he’s conformed to truth (and that he therefore always acts in accord with truth):

“You shall not do iniquity in judgment of standards in measure, in weight or in quantity. Just scales, just stone weights, a just ephah and a just hin shall you come to have: I, Yahweh, am your Elohim Who brought you forth from the land of Egypt.”

Deceitful scales are an abhorrence to Yahweh, Yet an equitable standard weight is acceptable to Him.”

In accord with this point, the implication of what we read in Rom. 2:2, 5-6 is that a “just judgment” is a judgment that is in accord with truth:

Now we are aware that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who are committing such things…Yet, in accord with your hardness and unrepentant heart you are hoarding for yourself indignation in the day of indignation and revelation of the just judgment of God, Who will be paying each one in accord with his acts.

That is, what makes God’s judgment “just” is that it’s “according to truth.” Thus, for God to be “righteous” is for him to be conformed to, and to always act in accord with, truth.

With this understanding of what Paul had in mind when he referred to God’s righteousness in Romans 3:25-26, let’s now consider the reason that Paul provides as to why God displayed it. According to Paul, it was “…because of the passing over of the penalties of sins which occurred before in the forbearance of God.” That is, the reason God displayed his righteousness by purposing Christ “for a Propitiatory through His faith, by means of His blood” is because he had passed over “the penalties of sins which occurred before in [his] forbearance.” This suggests that what God had been doing in the past (i.e., “passing over the penalties of sins”) seemed to be contrary to his righteousness. That is, by doing this, God seemed to be acting contrary to the truth. For, as we’ve seen, sinners are justly deserving of death. Thus, for God to act in accord with this truth, he would need to condemn all sinners, sentencing them to death (rather than forgiving their sins).

Of course, God wasn’t unrighteous for doing what he did. But it is only because of what God knew would take place later (in fulfillment of his divine purpose concerning Christ) that his merciful actions in relation to sinners were righteous. His mercy toward sinners (as manifested in the forgiveness of their sins) only appeared to be unjust because the truth according to which he was acting when he forgave their sins was not yet known. But by purposing Christ “for a Propitiatory through His faith, by means of His blood,” God vindicated himself, and showed that he was, in fact, righteous (conformed to truth) for doing what he’d been doing in the past. But what, exactly, does it mean for Christ to have been made “a Propitiatory through His faith, by means of His blood”?

The word translated “Propitiatory” in this verse is “hilasterion” (ἱλαστήριον). According to HELPS Word-studies, this word is “a substantival adjective” (i.e., an adjective that functions as a noun or noun equivalent, rather than modifying a noun). It refers to that which results in God being “propitious” (or “favorably inclined”) to sinners. That is, it refers to that which results in God being merciful to sinners by forgiving their sins. The verb from which ἱλαστήριον is derived (ἱλάσκομαι) means “to be propitious” (favorably inclined), and occurs in Luke 18:13 and Hebrews 2:17. The related word ἱλασμός – which is used only in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 – is also derived from this verb.[v] The adjective form of this verb (ἵλεως) means “propitious” (see Matthew 16:22 and Hebrews 8:12).

The basic idea underlying all of these related words is that of God being merciful to sinners by forgiving their sins/justifying them. This fact is especially evident from Christ’s words in Luke 18:13-14. Here’s how these verses read in the ESV:

“But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other.”

As noted earlier, the expression translated “be merciful” here is ἱλάσθητί, and means “to be propitious” (or “to be favorably inclined”). As is evident from how this word is translated in the ESV, this word communicates the idea of being merciful. In accord with this fact, the implication of what we read in v. 14 is that God responded to the tax collector’s humility and repentance by justifying him (which, as I’ve argued elsewhere, is a judicial act of God that is inseparable from the forgiveness of sins; one cannot be justified by God without having one’s sins forgiven, and vice-versa).

Now, in an earlier article that I wrote on Romans 3:25-26 (https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/11/for-him-to-be-just-study-on-romans-321.html), I noted that the word ἱλαστήριον was often used in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint or “LXX”) to refer to the golden lid that covered the “ark of the covenant” (we find this usage of the word in Hebrews 9:4-5 as well). The reason the cover of the ark of the covenant was referred to as a “propitiatory [cover]” is because, once a year (on the “Day of Atonement”), the chief priest of Israel entered “the holy of holies” with the blood of a sin offering, and sprinkled the blood seven times on the cover of the ark. This resulted in the (unintentional) sins of the nation being forgiven by God.

Although the view that Paul was likening Christ to the cover of the ark of the covenant in Rom. 3:25 is consistent with the position being defended in this study, I’m no longer convinced that this is what Paul had in mind here. As noted in my 2019 article, the word ἱλαστήριον does not, by itself, refer to the cover of the ark of the covenant. Even in the LXX, the word ἱλαστήριον was used on a few occasions to refer to something other than the cover of the ark of the covenant. And whenever this word was used to refer to the cover of the ark, it’s the context that makes it clear that this is the case. And not only this, but whenever we find the word ἱλαστήριον used to refer to the cover of the ark, the word “cover” is implied (this is evident from the LXX translation of Exodus 25:17, where we find the word ἐπίθεμα [“cover”] used in connection with ἱλαστήριον).

Thus, the fact that the word was used to refer to the cover of the ark of the covenant (both in the LXX and in Heb. 9:5) doesn’t necessarily mean that Paul had this in mind when he used the word in Romans 3:25. But if Paul wasn’t referring to the cover of the ark of the covenant by his use of the word ἱλαστήριον in Rom. 3:25, then what did he have in mind here?

Answer: Keeping in mind the fact that ἱλαστήριον refers to that which results in God being merciful to sinners (by forgiving their sins), I think it’s more likely that Paul was expressing the same basic idea as that found in 2 Cor. 5:21. That is, I believe Paul was referring to the fact that God made Christ a sin offering (i.e., a sacrifice because of which the sins of those for whom it’s offered – i.e., all mankind – shall be forgiven).[vi] We can thus conclude that, by purposing Christ “for a Propitiatory through His faith, by means of His blood,” God displayed that he is, in fact, righteous (conformed to truth) when he forgives sins and justifies sinners.

How Christ’s death is the solution to the problem of sin

But why did Christ have to die so that our sins would be forgiven by God? That is, what’s the connection between Christ’s death as a sin offering and the justification of all mankind? How is it that, “through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just” (as we read in Rom. 5:19)?

As noted in my last article, it wouldn’t be just for God to save sinners from death – i.e., vivify them/make them immortal – directly. For that would be contrary to the truth that they’re deserving of death, and that God has no obligation to save those deserving of death (God could only be obligated to do this if someone with greater authority than himself willed that he do it, and that is an impossible state of affairs). However, we also know that God loves all mankind, and that his love motivated him to do what needed to be done to bring about the salvation of all. In order to save us justly, God wills that all mankind be saved through Christ. 

When Christ died, he became worthy of the authority to save all sinners (and when he was roused, he was given this authority and made “Lord of all”). And since God wills that Christ use his authority to save all sinners (1 Tim. 2:4), it is just for Christ to use his God-given authority in this way. And we know that Christ – in obedience to God’s will – is going to use his authority as Lord of all to save all sinners. And this means that the sins of all mankind must – and thus shall – be forgiven. Thus, when God forgives sins and justifies sinners, he’s doing so in accord with the truth that Christ is going to use his authority to save them (as we’re told Christ came into the world to do [1 Tim. 1:15]) and thereby accomplish God’s will.

Since it was by dying in obedience to God that Christ became worthy of the authority to save all (and thus secured the salvation of all), it is through/by means of the death of Christ that God is able to justly forgive sins and justify sinners. It is in this sense that Christ died as “a sin offering for our sakes” (and was thus purposed “for a Propitiatory through His faith, by means of His blood”). Christ’s death is thus the only act of obedience on which our justification depends (or ever could depend).

---

[i] When Paul referred to unbelievers as being in their “nature, children of indignation,” he wasn’t saying that it’s the nature of humans to sin; rather, he was expressing the fact that it’s the nature of those who behave themselves “in the lusts of the flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension” to be deserving of divine indignation. 

[ii] In accord with this understanding of what condemnation involves, Paul referred to the judgment of the believers in Corinth as discipline from the Lord (which is always beneficial, and involves correction and improvement) while stating that “the world” would be “condemned” (1 Cor. 11:32).  

By “the world,” Paul was referring to those outside the body of Christ (and of whom human society is primarily comprised; see, for example, 1 Cor. 2: 12; 5:9-13; 6:2; cf. Phil. 2:15; Col. 2:20). The fact that the saints to whom Paul wrote were “being disciplined by the Lord” whenever they were being judged was, for Paul, proof that their judgment didn’t involve condemnation (which is what divine judgment for “the world” involves). And the fact that Paul contrasted disciplinary judgment from God with condemnation here indicates that the purpose of condemnation is not to reform sinners and improve/correct their behavior (at least, not directly). Rather, condemnation has to do with what sinners justly deserve because of their sins/offenses. It’s an expression of God’s disapproval of sin. Thus, it is condemnation from which those who have been justified have been freed. 

[iii] By referring to those who will be standing before the great white throne as “the dead” in Rev. 20:12, John was using a figure of speech according to which an epithet is used to refer to people that was literally true of them only in the past. Another example of this figure of speech being used is when those healed by Jesus of blindness or muteness are referred to as “blind” or “mute” (Matt. 9:33, 11:5, 12:22, 15:31). 

[iv] Here’s every verse from the Hebrew Scriptures where, in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), the exact word used by Paul in 2 Cor. 5:21 (ἁμαρτίαν, or “hamartia”) was used to refer to a “sin offering”:  

Ex 29:14, Ex 29:36; Lev 4:3, Lev 4:8, Lev 4:20, Lev 4:21, Lev 4:24, Lev 4:25, Lev 4:29, Lev 4:32-34; Lev 5:6, Lev 5:7, Lev 5:8, Lev 5:9, Lev 5:11, Lev 5:12; Lev 6:17, Lev 6:25, Lev 6:30; Lev 7:7, Lev 7:37; Lev 8:2, Lev 8:14; Lev 9:2, Lev 9:3, Lev 9:7, Lev 9:8, Lev 9:10, Lev 9:15, Lev 9:22; Lev 10:16, Lev 10:17, Lev 10:19; Lev 12:6, Lev 12:8; Lev 14:13, Lev 14:19, Lev 14:22, Lev 14:31; Lev 15:15, Lev 15:30; Lev 16:3, Lev 16:5, Lev 16:6, Lev 16:9, Lev 16:11, Lev 16:15, Lev 16:25, Lev 16:27; Lev 23:19; Num 6:11, Num 6:14, Num 6:16; Num 7:16, Num 7:22, Num 7:28, Num 7:34, Num 7:40, Num 7:46, Num 7:52, Num 7:58, Num 7:70, Num 7:76, Num 7:82, Num 7:87; Num 8:8, Num 8:12; Num 15:24, Num 15:25, Num 15:27; Num 18:9; Num 28:15, Num 28:22; Num 29:5, Num 29:11, Num 29:16, Num 29:22, Num 29:25, Num 29:28, Num 29:31, Num 29:34, Num 29:38; 2Ch 29:21, 2Ch 29:23, 2Ch 29:24; Ezr 6:17; Ezr 8:35; Neh 10:33; Job 1:5; Eze 43:19, Eze 43:22, Eze 43:25; Eze 44:27, Eze 44:29; Eze 45:17, Eze 45:19, Eze 45:22, Eze 45:23, Eze 45:25.  

[v] This word is used in the LXX in the following verses: Ezekiel 44:27 (“sin offering”), 2 Maccabbees 3:33 (“sacrifice for health”), Psalm 130:4 (“forgiveness”), Leviticus 25:9 (“atonement”), Numbers 5:8 (“guilt offering”), Amos 8:14 (“guilt or trespass offering”), Daniel 9:9 (“forgiveness”).   

[vi] Interestingly, in 4 Maccabees 17:22 – a non-canonical book of Jewish history which, although not inspired, was likely familiar to Paul (and which can inform our understanding of how certain words were used in the Greek Scriptures) – we read the following: 

“And through the blood of those pious ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated.” (4 Maccabees 17:22 NRSVUE - Bible Gateway) 

The word translated “an atoning sacrifice” is the same word used by Paul in Rom. 3:25 (hilastērion). And we have no reason to think that the author had in mind the lid of the ark of the covenant (or any “place of atonement”). Instead, the term hilastērion was used to refer to a sacrifice by means of which God was merciful to Israel. 

But even if Paul was using the word ἱλαστήριον to refer to the cover of the ark of the covenant in Rom. 3:25, it’s reasonable to conclude that he was expressing the idea that God purposed Christ to be the means through which he could justly forgive sins and justify sinners (and that it was through Christ’s faith – as manifested in his sacrificial death – that he became “a Propitiatory”). Nevertheless, the “sacrifice” view strikes me as more likely.