Jesus Canceled Your Debt!
By Pastor Jon D. Buchholz
X In nomine Jesu X
Objective justification under attack
A dispute has arisen among Lutheran theologians regarding the doctrine of justification. The specific question deals with the completeness of justification at Christ’s cross and empty tomb, as well as the role of faith in justification. Did God justify the world objectively, apart from the faith that receives it subjectively? Or is God’s justification only effected when an individual trusts the promise of forgiveness? Is there only one justification—that which is a completed reality by the work of Christ and received by faith? Or is the distinction between objective and subjective justification practically teaching two justifications which are separate and distinct from one another? Is justification complete apart from faith? Or is justification only completed when faith is added?
We maintain:
- God forgave the sin of the world by removing the sin of the world and placing it upon Christ. The world’s debt has been paid in full and canceled by Christ (universal forgiveness).
- In the cross and empty tomb of Christ, God really has acquitted the world of sin, so that in Christ Jesus the world’s status has been changed to “justified” before God (universal justification). On this basis, real reconciliation has been effected between God and the world (universal acquittal, universal reconciliation).
- Through the means of grace, these completed realities are proclaimed and distributed wherever the gospel goes out into the world.
- Through Spirit-worked faith, these completed realities are appropriated and received through faith, so that the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of Christ become the possession of individual sinners (individual justification).
We understand the word “justification” to be defined according to a broader sense of the term, so that it is used in reference to the substitution of the righteousness of Christ for the world’s sin; the universal verdict of “not-guilty” pronounced upon Christ as the world’s substitute; the achievement of the forgiveness of sins for all people; and the personal attribution of forgiveness and imputation of the righteousness of Christ through faith.
This is the position articulated by theologians of the former Synodical Conference. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS), and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod are heirs of this doctrinal position. Advocates of this position see the substance of this doctrine (if not its terminology, which arose later) taught by Luther, the Lutheran reformers, the Lutheran Confessions, and early Lutheran dogmaticians.
For the Wisconsin Synod and member churches of the former Synodical Conference it is a question whose answer has already been determined through comprehensive exegesis of Scripture, study of the Lutheran Confessions, and careful attention to the voices of orthodox Lutheran theologians. Justification is both objective and subjective, yet it is not two doctrines or two justifications, but rather one justification that is accomplished objectively and universally and distributed and appropriated subjectively and individually.
We do not separate the doctrine of justification into two separate species, one which is apart from faith (“faithless justification”), and the other that includes faith. The distinction of universal and individual within the doctrine of justification is a distinction within one substance. Because we are confronting an assertion today that the concept of universal objective justification is a later theological development, I have, for the most part, refrained from quoting authors from the 19th century forward. In some respects this is unfortunate, because there are some beautifully clear studies and expositions of the doctrine that have been produced in the last 150 years. Nevertheless, the primary focus in this paper is showing that the basis for the doctrine is Scripture itself. Additionally helpful in treating the subject, the writings of church fathers, Lutheran dogmaticians, the Lutheran Confessions, and Luther himself, speak in harmony with Scripture in teaching that the whole world was forgiven and acquitted in Christ at the cross and empty tomb.
The terms objective and universal are not synonymous. When we speak of justification as objective we mean that it happens outside of the realm of someone’s personal experience. Justification is objective, in the sense that it takes place in the sphere of God’s activity, apart from any cooperation on the part of the person justified.
1 When we speak of justification being universal we speak of its applicability to all people. In this study, for the sake of simplicity and commonly accepted usage, the terms objective, universal, and general justification are used virtually interchangeably, and the terms subjective, individual, and personal justification are similarly used.
Understand justification exegetically
The doctrine of justification is drawn first and above all from the Word of God. The Lutheran Confessions rightly expound the Word of God, and theologians comment on the Word of God, but Holy Scripture is the only norma normans and the sole fount and source of doctrine. Because the discussions in our circles have been primarily about objective justification (and personal justification through faith alone is not in dispute), the selections expounded here are generally passages that teach the doctrine of justification as a completed, objective, and universal reality. We agree that a poor sinner is personally justified through faith alone.
You will note that not every passage uses the word “justify” or “justification.” Many of the passages teach the universality of the work of Christ using different terms. All of them, however, tie the concepts of justification, atonement, removal of sin, forgiveness, and reconciliation between God and the world, to the once-for-all work completed by Jesus at the cross and empty tomb. All of them connect these accomplished realities to the finished work of Jesus on earth, not to his ongoing work of mediation or to the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit.
Romans 3:22-24 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. 23There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus (NIV).”
22δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή. 23πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ, 24δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·
Romans 3:22-24 may find a place as one of the sedes doctrinae for objective justification, but we readily acknowledge that the passage can be understood both universally and individually.
One explanation of the passage is as follows:
- Verse 22 says that “righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.”
- “All have sinned” in verse 23 means “all [who believe] have sinned.” “All have sinned” does not, in this context, refer to the whole world, but is specifically referring only to believers.
- As a corollary, “[all] are justified freely by his grace . . .” refers also in this context specifically only to believers.
The word in Romans 3:24 is “δικαιούμενοι,” literally “being justified,” or simply “justified.” It is a present passive participle.2
A problem with this explanation is that in this understanding Romans 3:23 does not refer to the world. Normally, whenever we say “all have sinned,” we are expressing a universal truth, and Romans 3:23 is used extensively with that understanding. But the explanation above limits “all have sinned” only to believers. The explanation doesn’t preclude or overtly deny universal sinfulness, but with this interpretation it cannot be used to teach universal sinfulness. The Christian church has, however, used Romans 3:23 for millennia to support the doctrine of universal sin. The Lutheran Confessions use Romans 3:23 to teach universal sin,3 so the explanation for Romans 3:23 given above, limiting “all” to only believers, is a novelty. R. C. H. Lenski—himself no proponent of objective justification—expounds, then rejects, this interpretation.4
1 In this sense, even faith is an objective act of the Holy Spirit, since faith is not worked collaboratively with the will of the sinner.
2 In English a participle is a verbal adjective; the verb is used as a descriptor to modify a noun or a pronoun. Examples of participles in English include: a walking stick (present active participle); a closed door (perfect passive participle). English also has the gerund, which is a verbal noun; the action of the verb is used as a substantive: “Walking is fun,” or “I like swimming.” In Greek, the participle has multiple functions. It can be a verbal adjective or a verbal noun (other uses include circumstantial and supplemental). Here the participle δικαιούμενοι is adjectival, modifying πάντες.
3 Apology, Art. IV, 32. 3
Another possible explanation to the present passive participle “δικαιούμενοι,” “being justified,” is to understand it in the ongoing, potential sense. This understanding favors the subjective interpretation, as well. It would see “all have sinned” as referring to the entire world (consistent with historical understanding), but it would see “being justified” as an ongoing descriptor of those who are “being justified [as they come to faith].” In other words, all have sinned, but they are “being justified” as they believe in Jesus (and not before). The grammar of the text allows for this understanding.
Romans 3:22-24 supports universal justification when we understand the verses as follows:
- As verse 22 says, the “righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” Only those who believe have the righteousness of God in Christ imputed or credited to them individually. Only believers are “clothed in Christ” (Galatians 3:27). This is personal justification.
- “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” refers to the whole world. The passage is understood in a manner consistent with its historical and confessional use to show that all human beings are sinful and in need of redemption.
- “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” describes the state or status that “all” are now in through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. This is general justification.
This third explanation is consistent both with the historical and confessional understanding of Romans 3:23. It also points to redemption as being the source or cause of the new status that the world has in and through Christ. It is grammatically consistent in that the πάντες, “all,” of Romans 3:23 is modified by the participle “δικαιούμενοι.” It is consistent with other passages that support general justification. This explanation of the passage sees both personal justification (v. 22) and general justification (v. 24) taught in harmony with the rest of Scripture.
John 1:29b
29b“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (NIV).
29bἼδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου.
John the Baptist pointed to Jesus as the Lamb of God, the one removing the world’s sin. For his mostly Jewish audience John called to mind a powerful picture of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement. The sin of the Israelite community was laid upon the victim, and the victim carried all of the sin away.5
The verb αἴρω means to “lift up,” “remove,” “take away,” or even “blot out.” Here the present active participle ὁ αἴρων with the definite article is substantive. Jesus is the “one who is removing” the sin of the world. With the singular τὴν ἁμαρτίαν the emphasis is on the quality (the guilt) of the sin and even the totality of the sin, not on individual sins particularly.
What does it mean to take away the sin of the world? If the sin of the world is laid upon Jesus and taken away, then it is removed completely. The transfer of the world’s guilt onto the Lamb of God indicates complete, objective, universal forgiveness accomplished by Christ, the world’s sin-bearer.
Of this passage Luther says:
How amazing it is that the Son of God becomes my servant, that He humbles Himself so, that He cumbers Himself with my misery and sin, yes, with the sin and the death of the entire world! He says to me: “You are no longer a sinner, but I am. I am your substitute. You have not sinned, but I have. The entire world is in sin. However, you are not in sin; but I am. All your sins are to rest on me and not on you.” The Son of Man performs the basest and filthiest work. He does not don some beggar’s torn garment or old trousers, nor does He wash us as a mother washes a child; but He bears our sin, death, and hell, our misery of body and soul. Whenever the devil declares: “You are a sinner!” Christ interposes: “I will reverse the order; I will be a sinner, and you are to go scot-free.” Who can thank our God enough for this mercy?6
4 Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg Press, 1945) p. 253.
5 See Leviticus 16:20-22.
6 Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works: American Edition, Vol. 22 (Saint Louis: Concordia, 1957) p. 166.
2 Corinthians 5:14b
14bOne died for all, and therefore all died (NIV).
14bεἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν· ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον·
This passage highlights the substitutionary nature of Jesus’ work. We describe Jesus’ work as “vicarious.” Everything Jesus did he did as the world’s substitute. He did not come to be a new lawgiver or a teacher of morality; he came to live, die and rise again as our substitute. All of his active obedience is the substitute for the world’s disobedience. He was not just the substitute for those who are finally saved; he is the stand-in for the entire human race.
Jesus, as the substitute for the world, died for the world’s sin. Jesus’ death was ὑπὲρ πάντων. The preposition ὑπὲρ means more than “on behalf of.” Jesus’ death was “in the place of” all. These words absolutely preclude any possibility of limited atonement. What follows proclaims the effective outcome of Jesus’ death: ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον, “Therefore, all died.” Christ died for the world, therefore every sinner died in and through Christ, as every sinner’s substitute. The death of all flows consequentially from the death of Christ, that is, in the person and body of Christ, God condemned and put to death all sinners, attributing the just punishment for sin—death—to Christ, the world’s substitute.
It is objective and universal to say that all people were put to death in Christ. But Scripture also speaks of an individual “putting to death,” followed by an individual “raising to life” in Baptism:
We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.7
The point here is that Scripture uses the picture of dying and rising in Christ in both a universal and in an individual way. On the one hand, Jesus’ death and resurrection were the punishment and the vindication of the world in him. This is an objective, universal truth that was completed and accomplished two millennia ago. On the other hand, an individual sinner only participates in the death and resurrection of Jesus, along with all of the benefits that accompany them, through personal application and appropriation of Jesus’ death and resurrection through the means of grace, that is, through Baptism, through the preaching of repentance and forgiveness. The universal passage does not nullify or disprove the individual passage, and the individual passage does not nullify the universal reality.
Romans 4:25
25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification (NIV).
25ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν.
The picture of the death and resurrection of the world in Christ, the world’s substitute, is powerfully taught in Romans 4:25. Jesus’ death was the death of the world for its sin. His resurrection from the dead was the vindication or the justification of everything he accomplished. It is the proof that his work was complete and acceptable to God the Father.8
But Paul says that Jesus’ resurrection is more than just the justification of Jesus. He says Christ was raised to life διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν, for our justification. διὰ plus the accusative indicates cause. The prepositional phrase is rightly translated “because of our justification.”
Paul ties justification, as an accomplished fact, to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Justification happened when Jesus died and was raised to life again.
Paul says that Jesus was handed over for our sins and raised for our justification; who is the antecedent of the possessive pronoun ἡμῶν? Throughout Romans 4 Paul speaks repeatedly of righteousness being credited through faith. Immediately preceding this passage, in Romans 4:23, 24, Paul writes, “23The words ‘it was credited to him’ were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (NIV). The ἡμῶν fits perfectly with “for us who believe in him.” Understood this way, our sins mean the sins of believers and our justification means the justification of believers.
7 Romans 6:2b-7.
8 Romans 1:4 also teaches the importance of the resurrection as vindication of everything that Jesus is and everything he accomplished: “Who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord” (NIV).
Yet throughout Scripture the Word teaches consistently that Jesus died for the sin of the world. Why would Paul limit Jesus’ death in this context only to believers? If we understand παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν to refer only to “us who believe,” Paul would be speaking of the death and atonement of Jesus in terms of its applicability to only a limited group. Granted, saying here that Jesus died for “our [believers’] sins” need not negate universal atonement, but if everywhere else Scripture refers to Jesus’ death as being for all human beings, why would Paul not speak in consonance with the rest of Scripture?9 Since Scripture speaks elsewhere of Jesus’ death being for all, it is harmonious with all of the testimony of God’s Word to understand this passage in the same way. It follows then that if ἡμῶν in the first clause refers ultimately to all people, then the ἡμῶν in the second, parallel clause also refers to all people: Jesus was given over to death for all; he was raised to life for the justification of all. Grammatically, either understanding of ἡμῶν (as referring only to “us who believe” or to all people) is possible.
In our Lutheran Confessions, the Smalcald Articles use Romans 4:25 in the universal sense.10 In his brief commentary on this verse in his lectures on Romans, Luther expounds it in both the universal and the individual sense:
The death of Christ is the death of sin, and His resurrection is the life of righteousness, because through His death He has made satisfaction for sin, and through His resurrection he has brought us righteousness. And thus His death not only signifies but actually effects the remission of sin as a most sufficient satisfaction. And his resurrection is not only a sign or a sacrament of our righteousness, but it also produces it in us, if we believe it, and it is also the cause of it [italics mine].11
We must also look closely at διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν. The phrase can be understood retrospectively or prospectively. If we understand it retrospectively we are looking back on a completed justification: Jesus was handed over to death because of (διὰ) our transgressions, and he was raised to life because of (διὰ) our [completed] justification. If we understand it prospectively, we are looking forward to a future justification: Jesus was handed over to death for our transgressions, and he was raised to life for our [potential, to be completed in the future] justification. Grammatically, however, a prospective understanding of this passage is much weaker, due to Paul’s use of διὰ plus the accusative. Since διὰ plus the accusative denotes the cause of something or points to one thing as causing the result, the forward-looking interpretation of δικαίωσιν as a future potentiality is weakened. διὰ plus the accusative does not normally indicate purpose, but cause.
If one wants to limit the justification here only to a limited group, a much stronger case can be made grammatically for limiting ἡμῶν to believers than can be made for understanding διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν as referring to a future, incomplete potentiality. I will readily concede the former on a grammatical basis, while I see the latter as less likely by analysis of the text. However, even if ἡμῶν were to refer only to believers, Paul still ties justification to Jesus’ death and resurrection as an accomplished fact. Regardless of whom he’s specifically referring to here as the antecedent of ἡμῶν, he’s still saying that justification happened when Jesus died and was raised to life again.
Johann Gerhard, who after the two Martins—Luther and Chemnitz—is numbered among the greatest theologians of the orthodox Lutheran church, saw the death of Jesus as the damnation of our sin in Christ, and he saw the resurrection of Jesus as our absolution in Christ. He writes in his commentary on Romans 4:25:
9 When we ask someone the question, “Whom did Jesus die for?” frequently we will get the answer, “For us.” We will then follow up with the question, “Who is us?” to which we expect the answer, “For everyone.” We would not allow the answer, “For everyone who believes.”
10 Smalcald Articles, I. In this section of the Smalcald Articles Luther uses Romans 4:24-25 together with John 1:29, Isaiah 53:6, and Romans 3:23-25, clearly in a universal sense, as applicable to all the human race.
11 Luther, Martin. Commentary on Romans. Trans. Theodore Mueller (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954) p. 87. Note that Luther here equates remission of sin and most sufficient satisfaction. If we say that Christ has made satisfaction for the world’s sin, then we cannot refuse to say that God has remitted the sin of the world in Christ. Of course the remission of sins is only appropriated “if we believe it.”
As God punished our sins in Christ, because they were laid on him and imputed to Him as our Substitute, so in the same manner He, by raising Him from the dead, absolved Him by this very act of our sins which had been imputed to Him, and thereby He absolved in Him also us.”12
Because Lenski had an unfavorable view of objective justification, he tied the resurrection of Christ to the reconciliation of the world, but not its justification. In his commentary on Romans he writes:
This reconciliation embraced the whole world of sinners and was thus “without faith, prior to and apart from faith.” When Christ died on the cross he cried: Τετέλεσται, “It has been finished!” Then and there the whole world of men was reconciled to God by Christ. The resurrection of Christ only corroborated the tremendous fact of the world’s reconciliation. The Scripture term for this is καταλλαγή, “reconciliation,” the whole world of sinners was made completely other. Christ’s resurrection shows that God accepted Christ’s sacrifice for the world, that Christ’s blood had, indeed, reconciled the whole world to God.
One may call God’s raising up of Christ God’s declaration to this effect, and, because it is such a declaration, one may call it “the universal justification of the whole world.” Yet to use the word “justification” in this way is not a gain, for it is liable to confuse the ordinary man; we are fully satisfied with the Scriptural word “reconciliation.”13
What’s curious about Lenski’s treatment of the subject is how he clearly and correctly ties the reconciliation of the world to Jesus’ resurrection but then discourages speaking of “the universal justification of the whole world,” when the word that’s tied to Jesus’ resurrection in Romans 4:25 is not καταλλαγή, “reconciliation,” but δικαίωσις, “justification”!
We have no problem seeing Jesus’ resurrection as the justification of the world in him. When we understand this passage in a universal, completed sense, such an understanding fits perfectly with the rest of Scripture. By raising Jesus to life, God declared the world’s sin paid for, he declared Christ to be absolved (justified) of the world’s sin that had been charged to him, and he declared the world to be justified in Christ as the world’s substitute. In Christ as its stand-in, the world has been justified before God through and because of its resurrected substitute, Christ Jesus.
2 Corinthians 5:19a
19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them (NIV).
19ὡς ὅτι θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ, μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν
Scripture speaks here of a reconciliation (καταλλαγή) effected between God and man. The Greek word ἄλλος means “other.” The verb ἀλλάσσω means to “make other” or “change.” When combined with the perfective prefix κατα, the word καταλλάσσω means to “reconcile,” with the underlying sense that something has finally and perfectly changed. For there to be reconciliation, something has to change. God does not change; he is immutable.14 His attitude toward sin does not change, and his justice and mercy do not change. The change that brings about reconciliation must either be in man or between God and man. We know that man remains sinful and corrupt in his natural self, even after the completed work of Christ, and that man’s sinful nature remains hostile and unreconciled toward God, so the change that brings reconciliation cannot be in man. The change that brings about reconciliation must be in the status or the relationship between God and mankind.
Paul uses the imperfect ἦν periphrastically with the present participle καταλλάσσων to communicate the sense of a past progressive or simple imperfect: “God was reconciling.” This reconciliation was brought about ἐν Χριστῷ. Jesus is God’s instrument through whom he achieves reconciliation. The object of the act of reconciliation is κόσμον. The term κόσμον is universal. Nobody is excluded from the reconciliation that God was bringing about in Christ.
The phrase that follows explains how this reconciliation in Christ came about: God was μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν. The word λογίζoμαι means to “reckon,” “account,” “attribute,” or “impute.” The present participle λογιζόμενος indicates action contemporaneous to καταλλάσσων. The pronouns αὐτοῖς and αὐτῶν refer back to the collective κόσμον. Paul explains how reconciliation was achieved: God was no longer counting “their” (the world’s) transgressions “to them.” Here the plural τὰ παραπτώματα denotes not the quality, nature, or guilt of sin (as in John 1:29), but specific transgressions. These transgressions were not attributed to the world, because they were attributed to Christ. “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.”15
12 Marquart, Kurt, translator. Justification—Objective and Subjective: A Translation (Concordia Theological Seminary Press: Fort Wayne, Indiana), p. 21. Gerhard is quoted in the essay delivered at the opening convention of the Synodical Conference in 1872. The original citation is written in Gerhard’s Adnotationes in Epistolam ad Romanos (Erfurt: Christiani von Saher, 1655) p.155.
13 Lenski, p. 84.
14 Malachi 3:6.
Opponents of universal justification may object to the absence of any justifying terminology in this passage (any form of δικαίωσις or δικαίωμα). The point is conceded, but it is irrelevant. For there to be universal reconciliation there must be a change in status. For there to be a change in status, the sin that bars access to God and prevents reconciliation with God must be removed. All of this has been completed in Christ. In Christ its substitute the world has now been declared sin-free, and since the barrier to peace with God has been removed from the world and laid upon Christ, reconciliation has been achieved.
1 John 2:2
2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but for the sins of the whole world (NIV).
2καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου.
St. John the Apostle calls Jesus the ἱλασμός for our sins and for the whole world. An ἱλασμός is a “sin-offering,” an “expiation” or “propitiation.” The word indicates not only an offering that is presented, but an offering that is actually accepted and is the real satisfaction that expiates sin. It’s well translated by the NIV as “atoning sacrifice.”
The word that John uses here is different from the ἱλαστήριον that Paul uses in Romans 3:25. Both ἱλασμός and ἱλαστήριον can mean “sin-offering,” but ἱλαστήριον is used also as the place where atonement happens. The ἱλαστήριον is equated with the sacrifice itself by metonymy. In the Septuagint, the word ἱλαστήριον is used to translate the Hebrew (hakapporet), the cover of the Ark of the Covenant, the mercy seat, where the blood of the sacrificial animal was sprinkled for the cleansing of the people’s sin. The distinction is important. Jesus is not only the source of atonement. He is not only the place we go to find or grasp atonement, the ἱλαστήριον. Jesus is the very atonement (ἱλασμός) for our sin. He is the propitiation, the payment, the sacrificial substitute. His blood is the offering. His impeccable human nature, his perfect life of obedience, and his innocent body were tendered as the propitiation for all sinners.
In confirmation class we treat rather lightly the word “atonement” by telling our students that the word means “at-one-ment.” While this is a helpful mnemonic device, it doesn’t do justice to the real meaning of the word. The root meaning of the Hebrew word (kafar) is “to cover.”16 On the great Day of Atonement (yom hakippurim) Aaron went into the Most Holy Place “to make atonement for” (lekapper) the sin of the people. The translators of the Septuagint used the word ἱλασμός to translate “atonement,” rendering the Day of Atonement as ἡμέρα ἐξιλασμοῦ. Carrying the thought of the Hebrew, the ἱλασμός is the covering for sin. When an ἱλασμός is made, sin is covered over and hidden from view.
John says explicitly that Jesus is the ἱλασμός . . . περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. The preposition περὶ with the genitive means “for” in the substitutionary sense. Jesus is the covering for the sin of the world.
Since Jesus atoned for the sin of the world, the world’s sin is covered and goes unseen. It is not possible to teach universal atonement, universal payment, and universal covering of sin as accomplished realities without also teaching universal forgiveness as an accomplished reality in the sacrificed body of Christ. The sin of the world really was covered by Jesus’ propitiation. It is a false dichotomy to say, “The sin of the world was covered by Christ,” or “The sin of the world was paid for by Christ,” but to be unwilling to say, “The sin of the world was forgiven by Christ.” How can sin be covered, paid for, borne away and removed, but not forgiven?
15 1 Peter 2:24.
16 As an example, is the word used in Genesis 6:14, where God instructs Noah to cover the outside of the ark with pitch.
Colossians 2:13, 14
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross (NIV).
13καὶ ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς σὺν αὐτῷ· χαρισάμενος ἡμῖν πάντα τὰ παραπτώματα, 14 ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ’ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ·
This passage teaches both subjective and objective justification. It teaches subjective justification in personal regeneration: “When you were dead in your sins . . . God made you alive with Christ.” The whole world has not been made alive in Christ. There is no universal regeneration or universal quickening to salvation. Paul is referring to the conversion of the Colossians and speaking specifically to believers.
But when Paul speaks of forgiveness he ties it not to the personal regeneration or quickening that a believer has experienced but to the once-for-all act of Jesus on the cross, by which he canceled the condemnation of the law for all mankind, “nailing it to the cross.” Here Scripture identifies forgiveness with the cross, not with faith.
The present middle participle χαρισάμενος means to “freely give,” “remit,” “pardon.” St. Ambrose of Milan, quoted favorably in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, uses this passage for support of his statement, “But when the Lord Jesus Christ came, he forgave to all people the sin, which no one could avoid.”17 A notable shift is the move from ὑμᾶς, “you,” as Paul addresses the Colossians and their conversion, to ἡμῖν, “to us,” as he speaks of the remission of sins. Paul includes himself with the Colossians, not only as a fellow believer, but as part of the world of sinners for whom Christ canceled the written code and against whom Christ blotted out the handwriting of the law.
Luke 23:34a
34aJesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (NIV).
34aὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν· Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν.
This may not be a commonly used proof passage for objective justification, but it does illustrate the completely one-sided, objective nature of God’s forgiveness. The word used here is ἄφες, from ἀφίημι, translated “forgive.” It’s the same word that Jesus uses in Matthew 18:27 in the narrative of the king who forgave the unmerciful servant’s debt. It paints the picture of canceling something or casting something away completely.
As they crucified him, Jesus interceded to his Father for his enemies. His enemies were not penitent. They did not trust in Jesus as the Messiah. They were completely without remorse, repentance, or saving faith of any kind. Yet Jesus asked that his Father forgive them, even though Jesus knew their darkened hearts perfectly.
What are we to make of this plea from the cross? Is it possible that Jesus’ intercession fell on deaf ears, and that in spite of Jesus’ pleading, the Father refused to forgive? Was it the ignorance of the soldiers in carrying out the crucifixion that made them candidates for forgiveness, in spite of their unbelief? Was it because “they were just doing their job”? Was this some special dispensation of forgiveness just for the soldiers on that day? Was Jesus merely using this phrase as a demonstration of his perfect magnanimity, as he sought forgiveness for the unworthy? If we deny the objective and universal nature of God’s forgiveness in Christ, we have to come up with some creative explanation for this remarkable word from the cross, in which Jesus asks that the impenitent, unbelieving, evildoing enemies of the gospel be forgiven!
Jesus’ words of intercession underscore the truth that forgiveness was for them! God’s forgiveness is for the wicked, for the undeserving, for the ignorant, for blasphemers, for the cruelest, coldest and most heartless evildoer. Whether they finally received or rejected it, Jesus’ blood was shed for them, and forgiveness was complete for them. The debt of the soldiers who crucified Jesus was paid and canceled at the cross.
17 Apology IV, 103, selections printed below.
1 Timothy 4:10
10That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe (NIV).
10εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ κοπιῶμεν καὶ ὀνειδιζόμεθα, ὅτι ἠλπίκαμεν ἐπὶ θεῷ ζῶντι, ὅς ἐστιν σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, μάλιστα πιστῶν.
The words “salvation,” “save,” and “Savior” are words that are used in Scripture in both a universal and an individual sense. Here Paul states clearly that Jesus is σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, “the Savior of all men.” He then goes on to expound it further, pointing out the special relationship that believers have with their God, with the words μάλιστα πιστῶν, “even more so of the faithful.” The genitive could indicate possession (“all men’s Savior, and especially believers’”), but since the emphasis in the verse is on θεῷ ζῶντι, and the subject of the clause is σωτὴρ, the context favors an objective genitive. All people are the objects of the Savior’s work, especially believers. We love to say, “Jesus is my Savior.”
God is not merely the potential Savior of all people; he is the Savior of all people. If God is the Savior of all people, and Christ’s redemptive work is complete, then we can say that God saved all people in Christ. To say that God did not save all people in Christ would be to say that Jesus’ work was incomplete or not for all. Consider these parallels in the way we speak:
Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the world: Christ atoned for the world.
Christ is the world’s Redeemer: Christ redeemed the world.
Christ is the world’s Savior: Christ saved the world.
Paul’s inclusion of the words μάλιστα πιστῶν emphasizes that the benefit of God’s saving work, final entrance into the kingdom of heaven, is only realized by those who have faith in Christ.
Thinking people recognize that words are used in different ways. So it is with the words “saved” and “salvation”:
(1) All people were saved at the cross.
(2) “Brother, are you saved?”
(3) Not all people will be saved.
This isn’t paradoxical; it’s simply using the word “saved” in three different ways. In the first sentence it refers to the once-for-all, completed work of Christ at Calvary, through which the Savior of the world really did save the world through the shedding of his own blood and his glorious resurrection to life. In the second sentence, saved is used as a descriptor for a person who stands presently in a state of grace through faith (for reasons that should be obvious to Lutherans, we don’t customarily use the word saved in this way, preferring different terminology to describe believers in Jesus). In the third sentence it refers to the final result of his work, namely achievement of the eternal bliss that the Savior is even now preparing for his faithful believers when we are finally saved with him in heaven. We’ll see more of how words are used differently in different contexts and with different absolute meanings in the third section of this paper, when we address the issue of technical precision in speaking and writing about justification.
Ephesians 1:7
7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace (NIV).
7 ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων, κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ
There is no question that this whole section of Ephesians is referring specifically to believers. The whole context, in which Paul speaks of the predestination of the saints, is intended for the joy, amazement and comfort of God’s people in Christ. Continuing our study on proper use of terminology, however, the point of interest in this passage is how Paul equates “redemption through his blood” with “the forgiveness of sins.”
The equation of the two terms “redemption” and “forgiveness” here illustrates that they are interchangeable. Just as we can say, “God redeemed the world in Christ,” so we can say, “God forgave the world its sins in Christ.” The point in this passage is not to teach the universality of redemption or forgiveness; this passage does not specifically teach universal redemption or forgiveness in this context. But it does show us that the two terms are equivalents. If the terms are interchangeable, then to deny one is to deny the other. It is then impossible to say, “I believe in universal redemption through his blood,” but then to say, “I reject universal forgiveness of sins.”
The context here is specifically subjective: Only believers take possession of these universal realities through faith. Only we believers have (ἔχομεν) redemption through his blood, and this only ἐν ᾧ, that is, in Christ. In the same way we can say that only we believers have or possess the forgiveness of sins, and this only in Christ.
1 Timothy 3:16
16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory (NIV).
16καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
Paul is writing to Timothy about the work of Christ. Of Jesus he says, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. The NIV translates this, “He was vindicated by the Spirit.” A preferable translation is, “He was justified in the Spirit.” The word Paul is inspired to use here is ἐδικαιώθη. How was Jesus justified? He had no sins of his own for which he had to be declared righteous or found “not-guilty.” The reference is to Jesus’ resurrection. Just as we see in Romans 1:1-4 and in Romans 4:25, the resurrection of Jesus is the justification of Jesus as the world’s sin-bearer, and the justification of the world is completed in Jesus.
Johann Gerhard saw in this passage testimony that Christ was absolved for the sin of the world that was laid upon him. Gerhard inferred that in the absolution of Christ, the world itself is absolved in him:
Because Christ arose, we are therefore no longer in sins, since most assuredly full and perfect satisfaction has been made for them, and because in the resurrection of Christ we are absolved of our sins, so that they no longer can condemn us before the judgment bar of God . . .
This power of the resurrection of Christ includes not only the application of the righteousness that avails before God, but also the actual absolution from sins, and even the blessed resurrection to life, since by virtue of the resurrection of Christ we are freed from the corporal and spiritual death of sins. Some bring in here the apostolic teaching in 1 Timothy 3:16, God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit (namely through the resurrection by God the Father) that is, he was absolved of the sins of the whole world, which he as Sponsor took upon himself, so that he might make perfect satisfaction for them to God the Father. Moreover in rising from the dead he showed by this very fact that satisfaction has been made by him for these sins, and all of the same have been expiated by the sacrifice of his death.18
Romans 5:18
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men (NIV).
18Ἄρα οὖν ὡς δι’ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτως καὶ δι’ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς·
This whole section of Romans from 5:12 through 5:21 lays out the stark and simple contrast between the effect of the action of the first Adam and the effect of the action of the second Adam, namely Christ. Adam sinned and brought condemnation. Christ was obedient and brought justification. Romans 5:18 most clearly lays out the contrast between the results of Adam’s sin and the results of Christ’s righteousness.
18 Gerhard, Johann. Disputationes Theologicae (Jena, 1656) p. 1450. Quia Christus resurrexit, ideo non amplius sumus in absoluti, ut non amplius coram Dei judicio nos condemnare possint . . . Haec vis resurrectionis Christi complectitur non solum justitiae coram Deo valentis applicationem, sed etiam actualem a peccatis absolutionem, ac tandem beatam ad vitam resurrectionem, quia virtute resurrectionis Christi a morte spirituali peccatorum et corporali liberamur. Quidam huc accommodant locum Apostolicum 1 Tim. 3. v 16. Deus manifestatus est in carne, justificatus Spiritu, videl. per resurrectionem a Deo Patre, hoc est, absolutus a peccatis totius mundi, quae ipse ut Sponsor in se receperat, ut pro illis perfectam satisfactionem Deo Patri praestaret, resurgendo enim ex morte ipso facto demonstravit, pro peccatis illis a se esse satisfactum, eaque omnia sacrificio mortis suae fuisse expiate peccatis, quia scilicet praestita est pro illis plena et perfecta satisfactio, et quia in Christi resurrectione a peccatis nostris sumus
The result of ἑνὸς παραπτώματος, “one transgression,” was κατάκριμα, “a verdict of condemnation,” upon all men. The word κατάκριμα denotes a verdict or judgment, not a process.19 All people were found universally guilty because of Adam’s one rebellion against God’s command. In the same way also (οὕτως καὶ draws the parallel contrast), through the ἑνὸς δικαιώματος, “one declaration of righteousness,” comes εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, “upon all people,” for the action of δικαίωσιν ζωῆς, “justification of life.”
We cannot help but be struck by the parallel structure of Paul’s sentence. He lays out side by side the condemnation of all through the transgression of Adam and the justification of all through the work of Christ. The judgment in each case is both objective and universal. Whether a sinner acknowledges it, or not, he stands condemned through Adam’s sin; the sin and condemnation are an objective and universal reality, regardless of personal perception. Whether a sinner acknowledges it, or not, he was acquitted through Christ’s work; the atonement and accompanying not-guilty verdict are an objective and universal reality, regardless of personal perception.
Adam ⇒ Transgression of the command ⇒ Verdict of condemnation upon all ⇒ Final result for the impenitent and unbelieving Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ ⇒ Obedience to every command ⇒ Verdict of justification upon all ⇒ Final result for the penitent and believing
Conclusion from Scripture
We could continue with many other passages from Scripture that reinforce the same truths. As I noted above, the overriding emphasis with the passages I selected for close study is on the universal, objective aspect of justification, since that’s largely the point of contention today. When we teach universal objective justification we are not denying justification by faith. None of these passages deny justification by faith. There is only one justification. There is only one forgiveness of sins. The point supported by these and other passages is that justification is both general and personal. If we say that justification is only personal we teach justification narrowly, incompletely and incorrectly, and we end up ascribing an efficient role to faith. If we say that justification is exclusively general and universal, we end up teaching universalism or, a step short of that, Huberism (see below). The doctrine of justification must be taught completely in all its aspects.
Passages from Scripture or the Book of Concord that speak of justification in subjective, personal terms cannot be used to refute objective justification. In the same way, passages that speak of justification in general, objective, or universal terms cannot be used to refute subjective justification. The reinforcement of one does not undercut the other. Passages that teach objective justification are used to teach objective justification, while passages that teach subjective justification are used to teach subjective justification.20
Above I have noted the following errors:
|
Ro 3:22ff. · “are justified” is understood as a perf. pass. part., which distorts the Greek present passive participle · “through faith in his blood” is separated by punctuation from “justified” NB: confessions John 1:29 · The aspect of airwn (pres. part.) is ongoing throughout history—applies to Abraham and me – not completed in the past 2 Corinthians 5:14b · Does Jesus substitute for us in his exaltation? · Doesn’t “for us” = “for our benefit” (eiV) not “in our place” (uper) · People in general did not participate in Christ’s death Romans 4:25 · It is improper to quote this subordinate clause out of context. · Paul clearly indicates that “believers” is the antecedent of the pronouns (“our”). · It is improper exegesis to insert the word “only.” · It is blatantly false to state that the redemption is uniformly predicated of all people and therefore the pronoun must be changed to “all people.” Cf. 2Co 5:15; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13-14; Eph 1:7a; 5:2; 5:25 (church = us who believe) Tit 2:14; 1Pe 1:18-19; 1Jn 2:2; 1Jn 4:10; Ro 5:8 – all these passages apply the redemption to some segment of the “all” who are redeemed. 2 Corinthians 5:19a · The aspect of the Greek imperfect is ongoing. With no time delineator, the action continues to the present. · V17 states that anyone “In Christ” is a new creature, a believer. God has been reconciling by making new creatures in Christ.. 1 John 2:2 · “Atoning sacrifice” = redemption · A clear example that the redemption can be predicated of “all people,” but also of a segment: “our sins” · It is improper to switch from the noun “cover” of the ark of the covenant to “cover” as a verb · For the sin and guilt offerings in Leviticus the Lord separates the offering as an expression of faith from the forgiving. Colossians 2:13, 14 · The main sentence in Greek is: “God made you alive with Christ” · Three participles carry on the thought · “nailing it to the cross” points to the redemptive act to which believers look and through which they are made alive. Luke 23:34a · In his humiliation Jesus presented requests to his Father in prayer, here even for his enemies · There are times when, as Son of God in omniscience, he said, “Your sins are forgiven.” · Here, since he is redeeming them also, he prays for repentance and faith for all involved, i.e., this was not an unforgivable sin 1 Timothy 4:10 · Jesus is indeed the “Savior of all people,” even though many do not repent and believe · Being “Savior of all people” does not mean he distributed salvation to all people Ephesians 1:7 (there is a similar situation in Colossians) · I suggest this is asyndeton, caused by the doxologic nature of the context—NOT appositive 1 Timothy 3:16 · Masculine sing. subject; six 3rd sing verbs—How can the subject of the 2nd verb be anything but “Christ” · Because Christ’s resurrection shows that the redemptive sacrifice was completed perfectly, Christ is justified. Romans 5:18 · Literal: “The sinful act of one man (is) unto condemnation for all men; the righteous act of one man (is) unto justifying characterized by life unto all men. (Note the telic content of the four uses of eiV.) · eiV + acc of person is regularly used in Greek when the author wants to make it clear that he is communicating a dative of advantage/disadvantage. · The lack of a transitive verb in these two statements precludes parsing an indirect object. · eiV does not mean “upon”
|
MY CLOSING COMMENTS—THESE QUESTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED
(ACTUALLY AVOIDED BY THOSE WHO DEALT WITH ME)
Ro 4:23-25 (Especially v25)
Grammar points: 1. Vv23-25 comprise a single sentence In the Greek.
2. Grammars unanimously agree that pronouns refer to the antecedent that the author has designated.
Key Question: What grammar reference can be offered to justify changing the personal pronouns in v25 (the 2 ‘our’s’) from the antecedent that the author defines earlier in the sentence, i.e., “us who believe”?
Key Question: In the CW liturgy, a pastor urges the people in the congregation to join in confessing “our” sins. After the confession, pastors regularly say: “God … has been merciful to us and has given his only Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” The “our” is clearly specific to the people in the congregation. Can’t the apostle use “our” in the same way? OR, must we choose between the horns of the false dilemma?
1Tim 3:16
Key Question: What legitimate basis is there for changing the subject of the second statement in this series?
Key Question: Was Jesus substituting for us (uper) in his exaltation? E.g. Does he take our place in the resurrection (so that we don’t have to rise), as he took our place under the punishment for sin?
Ro 5:16-21 (Especially v18)
Grammar point: Wallace: p.140, “1. Dative Indirect Object, a. Definition – The dative substantive is that to or for which the action of the verb is performed. The indirect object will only occur with a transitive verb.” (Italics are his.)
Key Question: On what basis can “eiV pantaV anqrwpouV” be parsed as an indirect object?
Key question: How can an indirect object be assumed, when there is no transitive verb.
(Observation: The difference between dative of advantage and indirect object can be illustrated in this way: “Today I purchased the medications for you [dative of advantage]. When you drop by tomorrow, I will give them to you [indirect object].” The difference is significant!
2Co 5:15-21 (Especially v19)
Grammar point: The Greek imperfect is chosen to indicate precisely that a person is viewing the action from within the action, considering neither beginning nor end; A time marker in the context must define the end. In itself an imperfect could go on and on. Cp. 1Jn 1:1; Rev 1:8 et alii. The German has no form for this and communicates a wrong sense when it uses the past tense, which communicates completed action.
Key Question: What grammar rule allows the exegetes to interpret an imperfect verb as completed past action, when there is no time marker? Isn’t such ongoing reconciling God’s ‘follow through’ on the fact that He “would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth?”
Key Question: Is the glitch in German an originating cause of “objective justification?” Doesn’t this glitch lead German theologians to interpret incorrectly the imperfect forms of justify and reconcile as completed past action? Or, have people with a textbook knowledge of German missed the nuances of the German in translations?
Ro 3:23-28 (Especially v23-24)
Please, see Wallace on the gnomic present (p. 523). Please, note especially his points that 1) a substantivized adjective is used as the subject, and that 2) the present participle is often used to express a gnomic thought (“what does happen”). Both characteristics are present in v24.
Key Question #1: The English form “are justified” is ambiguous: 1) present passive: “are being justified” or 2) linking verb + perfect passive participle: “are (already) justified.” Isn’t it really exegizing the English according to #2), when interpreters explain “all … are justified” as the completed act of Objective Justification?
Key Question #2: If we accept the punctuation, do we teach that our faith influenced God in presenting Christ as the sacrifice of atonement? That doesn’t compute! (Cf. Ro 11:33-36.) So, how does “through faith in his blood” fit into the 69-word Greek sentence that begins at v23 and ends at v28?