This is part 5 of a series on forgiveness. See the index here.
In our last post, we discussed how repentance differs from forgiveness, concluding:
There is no question that the Bible commands that we repent of our sins. But forgiveness is not dependent on repentance. That’s why lapsing—the failure to repent even after the confession of sin—is itself a sin subject to unconditional forgiveness. If repentance could save, then there would be no need for forgiveness. But repentance is utterly powerless to remove your sin-debt.
After posting that, Bruce Charlton posted an article where he discussed in his view of the role of repentance in the life and work of Jesus:
The most important thing in being a Christian is to want for oneself resurrected eternal life in Heaven. But maybe the second most important thing is repentance – because unless we repent our own “sins” – our own evil desires – then even one of these can block our desire for Heaven.
Now, you might be thinking:
“How can Charlton can say that repentance is most important while you are saying that sin, sin-debt, and forgiveness are most important?”
Yes, it does seem like that should be a hopeless contradiction. But, bear with me, and you’ll see that he is using terms in a different way from the way I am using them, yet we are almost entirely saying the same thing.
We’re going to need a lengthy post to go over the material and show how this is. But, bear with me until the end. We’ll get where we want to go. I believe you’ll appreciate the perspective that Charlton brings, which is why I’m going to spend so much time on it.
What is Repentance?
The Greek word for repentance in scripture is metanoeó, and it means to “change your mind,” but it is commonly understood to mean “to turn away from sin.” Strong’s describes it like this:
To many, it has a large behavioral component. It is a thing you do.
It has three major components: (1) identifying wrongful deeds; (2) expressing guilt, regret, and remorse; and (3) changing your behavior. The Roman Catholic has an even more ritualistic and sacramental view of repentance as a restorative, cooperative, communal, penitent process.
It is for this reason that I concluded that if repentance were a matter of salvation, then salvation would be works-based and not a matter of faith. But, in reality, repentance is utterly powerless to remove your sin-debt. That requires the work of Christ.
Jesus and Repentance
One commenter asked (with regards to Luke 17:3-4):
Why does Jesus there repeatedly drag repentance into a matter where it supposedly isn’t necessary?
It is, in fact, quite to the contrary. Given traditional Christianity’s view of repentance, one of the more remarkable things about the Bible is that Jesus hardly ever talked about repentance.
The Gospel of Matthew
When the Gospel of Matthew mentions repentance (3:2,8,11, 4:17, 11:20-21, 12:41), there is no talk of forgiveness at all. When Matthew does make explicit reference to the forgiveness of sin (9:2-6), Jesus says it is because of their faith.[1] There isn’t even a mention of repentance!
Matthew attributes the forgiveness of sins to Jesus’ blood poured out (26:28) to pay for the sin-debt of mankind. This theme runs throughout the New Testament (see this collection of citations).
While the Gospel of Matthew talks about repentance, it does not feature prominently in the life of Jesus.
The Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Mark mentions repentance just three times (1:4, 1:15, 6:12). The first reference refers only to John the Baptist’s baptism “for” the forgiveness of sins. Yet in the second reference—shortly after Jesus was baptized—Jesus was now preaching repentance and belief with no mention of forgiveness at all. In the third, Jesus had sent out the twelve to preach repentance. As before, there was no mention of forgiveness.
And that’s it entirely. The Gospel of Luke barely mentions repentance at all. Jesus only mentions it once.
The Gospel of John
Remarkably, the Gospel of John does not mention repentance at all. It mentions eternal life and forgiveness (in terms of lack of condemnation and judgment) as being the result of faith many different chapters. In fact, John mentions faith—pisteuō—around 100 times. Such an emphasis is astounding in its scope.
Faith is belief and it is trust. In the Bible, these three separate English terms are synonymous (see the discussion here and here).
In fact, as we’ll see later, faith (or belief; trust)—not repentance or even forgiveness—is the central focus of the New Testament. In scripture, the two concepts—repentance and forgiveness—often occur simultaneously together, but are nonetheless independent of each other. To use the language of statistics, they are “confounded” by faith or belief in Christ.
Faith is the cause of both forgiveness and repentance. As we’ll see as we examine Charlton’s comments on repentance, he is making this exact case, only he uses different words to describe it. If you are a traditional Christian, you may find my formulation of the concept to be easier to understand than his, as I will explain it using terminologies and definitions that you are likely more used to.
The Gospel of Luke
Now we come to the last remaining of the four gospels. The Gospel of Luke mentions repentance 14 different times, more than all the other gospels combined. It is for this reason that we saved it for last, because repentance seems to only be important to Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. On the surface, this seems very curious.
The reality is less exciting than you might think. Luke—which discusses repentance the most—is actually most similar to the Gospel of John—which doesn’t discuss repentance at all. See, in Luke, Jesus taught that the forgiveness of sins was associated with faith (e.g. 5:20-24, 6:37, 7:47-50, 11:4), just as in the Gospel of John.
There are a few verses in Luke that might seem to suggest otherwise. This is Luke 17:3-4—which we already discussed in Part 4—and the inconsistently translated Luke 24:47.
The inconsistency suggests that when Luke said “repent,” what he meant was “faith.” Or, put another way, he didn’t mean “repent” in the way that traditional Christians meant “repent”—as a work—he meant “repent” in the way that Bruce Charlton means it when he uses the word.
Charlton on Repentance
This is where things are going to start sounding a bit weird to anyone steeped in traditional Christianity. Here is what repentance isn’t:
What repentance is NOT includes the emotion of regret for what I have done, focused on wishing I had not done it; nor is it to apologize to someone for what I have done – nor is it to ask another person to forgive me – nor is repentance about trying to undo what I have done, to set things right or repair the damage, nor is it to striving to make amends for what I have done.
All these may be (and often are) good things to do in and of themselves, but they are not repentance.
Many readers have probably been taught that repentance is about many—if not all—of these things. But all of these are deeds—works—of repentance that stem from faith and forgiveness. They are the result of being redeemed, of having one’s sin-debts canceled.
And so when you read something like the Gospel of Luke…
…you might be tempted to think that Luke is describing the above conditions for the forgiveness of sins. But he is not. You are bringing your own baggage from how that term-of-art is used in traditional Christianity. That isn’t what Jesus was talking about in Luke. This may be the most difficult part of this discussion to accept, so I suggest taking a few minutes to fully understand and appreciate this.
Here is what repentance is:
Repentance is the acknowledgement that I have sinned; which includes understanding that what I have done is indeed a sin; and the asking of God’s forgiveness for my sins with a contrite and sorrowful heart.
This might not be completely clear, but we’ll share a few other quotations that clarify it further. Bear with me!
God cannot ever make it as if there never had been sin. But what God can and does do – what repentance can and does do – is to heal us from the effects of sin.
Charlton is absolutely correct that repentance cannot make it as if there had never been any sin. It cannot undo the sin-debt. Therefore, repentance cannot save. To wit:
If repentance could save, then there would be no need for forgiveness. But repentance is utterly powerless to remove your sin-debt.
Repentance—as defined by traditional Christianity—is part of the process of sanctification. This is a continual process by which men are made holy, or perfected. It does not remove the sin-debt, but it is part of the healing. We participate in this sanctifying process—it is, after all, a work—but it does not save.
But Charlton—who does not emphasize forgiveness—is absolutely wrong that God cannot make it be as if there had never been sin. Understand that we were enslaved due to sin. We were unable to pay back our sin-debt, and so were sold into slavery. But we could never work off our debt, which is why there was no escape from that slavery. It is why the Law could not save.
In the Old Testament, sin had to be atoned for, that is, covered over. This satisfied the sin-debt and temporarily freed us from slavery, but it did not remove sin. Sin had to be continuously atoned for lest humanity be stuck in debtors prison (one way to think of Hell).
But Jesus changed all that. By his blood on the cross, he redeemed us permanently. He bought our slave contract for all time. As the holder of that sin-debt, he retains the sole right to decide whether or not to cancel it, that is, forgive. Everything we’ve discussed throughout this series is the terms and conditions that Jesus has set for the remission of the sin-debt.
When Jesus forgives our debt, it is not merely covered over. It is gone from our account as if it never happened. The slate, where upon our sins had been recorded, has been washed clean and we are free. There is no longer a debt of any kind.
Christ’s Atonement was about repentance, rather than sin as such; and that Christ’s sufferings (in the Garden of Gethsemane and on The Cross) were a suffering of the agonies of repentance for Man – rather than a suffering of the sins of Man.
By his Atonement, therefore, Christ enabled all Men to repent and be saved – by the simple (and ‘easy’) act of accepting Christ’s supreme act of vicarious repentance – this replacing the ‘impossible’ demand of Men to repent each and every one of their sins individually and wholly.
…
So the divine Son of God was incarnated and died – and by this account Christ’s death was the single most important thing he did; but his death would not have been efficacious unless he had also performed the Atonement; and the Atonement must be about repentance.
Charlton does make a very important observation that it is impossible for men to fully repent of their sins. I recently said the same thing:
How many sins have you committed for which you failed to repent? How many have you forgotten or didn’t even know were sins? How many slights against others have they chosen to ignore simply because they love you? It is impossible for you to enumerate all of your sins, and yet God forgives you for all of them. And he does the same for your brothers and sisters.
…and Charlton confirms this…
If our individual salvation required recognition, acknowledgement and repentance of every single sin; then salvation would be a rare occurrence – perhaps nobody would ever be saved.
But, Charlton commits an error that derives from his misguided respect for Mormon theology and a faulty view of Atonement. Notice above how Charlton believes that Christ atoned for us, but not for the forgiveness of sin. He thinks it has to do with repentance, even though the forgiveness of sin is central to the Old and New Testaments and even though atonement isn’t even mentioned in the New Testament.[2] Charlton talks a lot about recognizing sin (e.g. his views on AI) and how this should be obvious and intuitive to Christians, but in this minimization of forgiveness his intuition of what sin is has failed him. And yet, recall what Charlton said above:
The most important thing in being a Christian is to want for oneself resurrected eternal life in Heaven.
What, exactly is “resurrected eternal life in Heaven?” It is, in reality, what forgiveness entails. Forgiveness means the sin-debt has been canceled. When the sin-debt is replaced, what you are left with is eternal life. Eternal life and the permanent forgiveness Jesus offers are just two sides of the same coin. Indeed, the Bible uses a variety of terms to describe the same thing: forgiveness of sins, salvation, healing, no condemnation, no judgment, peace with God, and eternal life.
The most important thing in being a Christian is to want to be forgiven of sin, the very thing that prevents you from experiencing resurrected eternal life. If you decide to say that the most important thing in being a Christian is to want salvation, healing, no condemnation, no judgment, or peace with God, you are saying the same thing in different terms, just as Jesus and the Apostles did.
But repentance is something different.
Thus, provision was made that mortal men should be saved by the vicarious Atonement of Jesus Christ – He would save us; and all that each of us would need to do would be freely to choose to to accept Christ’s act on our behalf.
…
Because the nature of repentance is recognition and acknowledgement – repentance is knowing that we have objectively sinned which is vital; and knowing how so many of our attitudes and actions are at-odds-with the divine plan.
…
So Christ’s Atonement made effective repentance possible – from this act, we may by a single choice accept that God loves us, that He is wholly good; and that God’s plans are for our benefit – and by repentance we permanently ally ourselves with these plans.
This is what Charlton refers to as repentance, but it isn’t repentance at all (in the traditional sense), it is faith (or belief). This is what is means to believe in Christ.
Why is Charlton using the term “repentance” when “faith” would be a better choice? Some of this is because the words for “faith” and “repentance” in traditional Christianity (and in the English language!) have deviated from the biblical terminology. But, for whatever reason, Charlton isn’t trying to use the terms as the Bible uses them, rather he is coming up with his own explanation. Here is an important comment that helps clarify why he is doing this:
What I am trying to get away from is the idea that repentance means a kind of re-run of our sinful lives, focusing on each sin serially and repenting each individually – rather like what happens in Charles Williams’s All Hallows Eve – when in addition forgiveness must be asked and received. Christ (obviously, I think) made salvation easier for us in some significant way – I have tried, but cannot understand what it means for him to take our sins on himself, so I have come to this idea that he takes our repentance on himself. I’m not yet sure whether I *really* understand this either, come to think of it…
Charlton is discontent with the traditional view of repentance—the one I have used throughout this series—because it doesn’t and can’t explain salvation (that is, forgiveness). He’s grasping for a term that explains this, but chooses instead to redefine repentance.
Unfortunately, Charlton isn’t focused on sin or forgiveness and so his attempts to try to understand what it means for Christ to take our sins onto himself has failed him.
(He failed to understand even though “taking our sins onto himself” means literally just that: to take our sins [sin-debt] onto himself [his own account or ledger]. The sins are assigned to him as if he had committed them instead of us, having fully transfered them away from us. That’s why he had to be punished for our—now his—sins[3]).
Because he had to come up with something, he concluded that repentance must be key. But this understanding of atonement is faulty. Even the fact that he calls it atonement at all is faulty.
Before Jesus, God had demanded blood to atone for—literally, cover over—sin. Yet, the blood of animals was insufficient and temporary. But, the blood of Jesus was different. It didn’t, strictly speaking, cover over sin: it obliterated it.
He entered once and for all into the Holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves, but by means of his own blood, thus obtaining everlasting redemption.
…
And for this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called will receive the promise of the inheritance in the age to come.
This is why the New Testament does not talk about atonement.[2] Jesus’ blood did not atone for our sins, it served as the means by which they were eradicated entirely, that is, it completely satisfied the debt.
To understand how Jesus made salvation easier, we have to use the same language that Jesus used to describe sin (i.e. in financial and material terms). Jesus purchased our slave contract with his blood and he forgave our debt. He vacated—by way of the Jubilee—our sins, loosing us from the shackles of bondage. His blood fully satisfied the blood price required.
Just as the bulls and goats did not repent for us, neither did Jesus repent for us. The sacrifice of Jesus was not about repentance, it was about faith and forgiveness of the sin-debt. Repentance—turning away from individual sins—is the result of faith (and being forgiven), not the cause.
Charlton wrote what he did in 2015. Since that time, he has slowly approached this reality.
A Man that wants to be a Christian, but cannot make the ‘leap of faith’ is already a Christian.
A Christian is defined by his ultimate conviction, by what he ultimately wants; not be what he achieves. We are all sinners -what is decisive is whether this is acknowledged; and what this means is that it is our conviction that counts, and not our behaviour.
Much of the problem here is that the English word for faith is different from the biblical word for faith (see the discussion here and here). When Charlton says that wanting to be Christian is enough, he’s describing biblical faith. Indeed, acknowledging that we are sinners is part of the “sinners prayer” in evangelical Christianity which teaches sola fide, or faith alone. It’s about conviction, not behavior. I suspect this is only a foreign concept to Charlton because he grew up Anglican and isn’t an American Evangelical, where such things are obvious and plain even to children.
There is a lot of irony in that article title. Charlton is trying to define repentance to the exclusion of faith, and ultimately ends up describing what biblical faith actually is. See, we’ve seen how Charlton has discovered the problem with combining (1) the idea of repentance as a behavior with (2) repentance as necessary for salvation. They do not go together. But instead of simply accepting the solution offered by sola fide—the rejection of works-based, behavioral repentance—he’s been pressing terminology into difficult roles for which it was never intended. It’s not wrong, exactly, because we can pull out what he means, but it makes understanding more difficult.
Faith is believing in your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord and that you are sinner in need of his forgiveness. In its simplest form, that is all repentance is. It is just faith or belief. The Gospels don’t talk about repentance all that much for the very simple reason that they mainly discuss faith/belief instead, which when it stands alone is repentance. It is the changing of allegiances from sin (and Satan) to Jesus Christ as your Lord. It is about whose side you are on, not about anything you have done, are doing, or will do. Being on Jesus’ side is why you are forgiven, why he has cancelled your sin-debt. You are his,[3] so of course he has cancelled your debt of slavery and emancipated you.
What Charlton describes is, in reality, the whole point of Evangelical Christianity. He’s just using unique, non-standard language. I’m not entirely sure why he doesn’t use the terminology that Evangelical Christians use. It would make discussing the topic quite a bit easier. For example, consider this article on Got Questions.
Many understand the term repentance to mean “a turning from sin.” Regretting sin and turning from it are related to repentance, but are not the precise meaning of the word. In the Bible, the word repent means “to change one’s mind.”
…
What, then, is the connection between repentance and salvation? The book of Acts especially focuses on repentance in regard to salvation. To repent, concerning salvation, is to change your mind regarding sin and Jesus Christ. In Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost, he concludes with a call for the people to repent. Repent from what? Peter calls the people who rejected Jesus to change their minds about that sin and to change their minds about Christ Himself, recognizing that He is indeed “Lord and Christ”. Peter calls the people to change their minds, to abhor their past rejection of Christ, and to embrace faith in Him as their Messiah and Savior.
…
Repentance and faith can be understood as two sides of the same coin. It is impossible to place your faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior without first changing your mind about your sin and about who Jesus is and what He has done. Whether it is repentance from willful rejection or repentance from ignorance or disinterest, it is a change of mind. Biblical repentance, in relation to salvation, is changing your mind from rejection of Christ to faith in Christ.
…
Repentance, properly defined, is necessary for salvation. Biblical repentance is changing your mind about your sin—no longer is sin something to toy with; it is something to be forsaken as you “flee from the coming wrath”. It is also changing your mind about Jesus Christ—no longer is He to be mocked, discounted, or ignored; He is the Savior to be clung to; He is the Lord to be worshiped and adored.
The article goes on to note that you cannot do any works to merit your salvation.
The article’s explanation is what I have been saying, except I mostly avoid using the term “repentance” to describe “faith” because it is a loaded term that is easily misunderstood. I follow the example of the New Testament writers, who spoke mostly of “faith” in this context, and spoke of “repentance” mainly about repudiating the actual individual sins one had committed (as in Matthew 18 and Luke 17).
The necessity is that immorality be repented – which entails inwardly affirming the truth of Christian morality.
That’s faith. That’s belief. That’s trust in Jesus to save.
Sins were conceptualized in terms of categorical lists of behaviours that would send someone to hell, unless he specifically repented each of them. Repentance was often understood as going through the entire list of one’s sins, and repenting them each and specifically – before being allowed-into Heaven.
Such a linear and sequential procedure of repentance might need to be done during mortal life (e.g. by confession and absolution) or afterwards (for instance in a Roman Catholic purgatory, or the “toll-booths” of Eastern Orthodoxy).
…
If we love and desire above all to follow Jesus Christ; if we take the side of God and divine creation in the spiritual war, and wish to participate in creation eternally – then quite naturally we will repent, shed, leave-behind any and all sins (named or unnamed) in order to attain our deepest desire.
If we desire to be re-made (i.e. resurrected) such that we become motivated only and always by love eternally – then sin is just the name for anything and everything which would prevent that process of re-making.
Repentance is the word for our agreement to having stripped-away and left-behind all that would otherwise prevent resurrection into Heaven.
That’s what faith is: to decide above all else to follow Jesus Christ, to “change your mind” about who or what you want to serve. That’s is all that is required for forgiveness. Forgiveness—salvation, eternal life—by faith does not involve any other explicit acts of repentance. Repenting of specific acts is a result of faith.
Now we are finally getting to Charlton’s recent post.
This seems to be why the Fourth Gospel more-or-less equates sin with death – because the salvation offered by Jesus Christ saves us from the situation that follows death of our mortal body.
…
It does not need to be a very “severe” sin (e.g. something like murder) to block salvation; it could be anything that is not-aligned with God and divine creation, hence incompatible with Heaven; and which we refuse to give-up, when the choice comes.
Sin is death because God demands a blood price for sin. While offences have earthly sin-debts that may be material, the debt for sin before God is death. It can only be paid for—removed—by a final and complete death without resurrection. No matter what the category or severity of sin is—whether lying, murder, adultery, thievery, etc., whether great or small—the debt to God always demanded death. That’s why Jesus’ death on the cross effectuated our redemption. Jesus literally paid the blood price for our sins. The bill of indebtedness was nailed to the cross.
This is not repentance, it is payment.
This salvation-blocking effect happens because any un-repented sin makes us Not Want Heaven.
Salvation-blocking happens because we do not have faith in Jesus, or in the Holy Spirit’s power to save, to forgive. Other than giving our allegiance to Christ in faith (as described above), it is not a matter of repentance at all. Thus, when Charlton says “repentance” he is describing the biblical concept of faith. Look at his definition:
Repentance = Know evil, then choose Good.
First we must know evil, which means recognize evil as evil, acknowledge that this is indeed evil.
Second – knowing this instance of evil, we must inwardly choose Good.
We need to realize there is a side that is Good (the side in harmony with the purposes of God and divine creation) and the choice is to affiliate with the side of Good.
(And to reject the side that is against-Good = the side of evil.)
That is repentance.
Christ is Good. To know Christ is to know Good. This requires nothing more than faith itself. It would be more accurate to say:
Faith in Christ = Knowing evil and choosing Good.
Althugh, as Got Questions notes, they are—when properly defined—two sides of the same coin.
We understand what Charlton means, and his arguments are strong! To wit:
The usual riposte is on the lines of “That’s all very well, but what are you actually going to Do about it?”
But that action-focused approach is a serious mistake, indeed it functions as a demonic snare. The real question is whose side we have chosen, not what we can or will do.
Or, more accurately, what we do must be Heaven-orientated, must primarily and essentially be spiritual in nature; and spiritual action does not necessarily nor always leading towards any particular this-worldly/ material outcome.
That’s right! Faith in Christ is not about what you do. It is not, as some say, based on works. Do you have faith in Christ? Nothing else matters more than that.
The point is not to “live without sinning”, nor even to try such an absurd impossibility.
(Jesus came to save sinners, after all – and did not require of disciples or followers that they cease from sinning, but that they “follow Him”.)
The point is to know evil, and repent sin by choosing the side of Good.
Repentance sounds simple and easy, maybe too easy? It is simple, but apparently it is not easy, or seldom so; since repentance is so rare.
This is why I have spent all this time discussing Charlton’s work in such detail. I hope you have stayed with me the whole way, because Charlton’s final point here is a very important observation. I’m not sure that even my regular readers have come to this conclusion. But it is the ultimate culmination of what I have written in this series.
Understand that Charlton is merely describing as “repentance” the standard biblical model of faith. Charlton’s “repentance” is just what we would normally call “faith in Christ.” Not the blind faith or understanding absent of evidence or proof, but a complete trust and confidence in what we know to be true.
The reason Evangelical Christianity grew so popular is because it was so easy and simple. All you had to do is choose Christ? All you had to do was become his follower? Absolutely. That’s the essence of the Gospel. It’s the recognition that we are all deeply fallen. Because no one can stop sinning, we need Christ to cancel our sin-debt—forgive us—in order that we might live eternally.
Full repentance—turning away from sinning—is not possible. This is why repentance, while a good thing to do, is never enough. It does not save. This is why Jesus did not demand that forgiveness was conditioned on repentance. Whether or not your brother repented did not actually matter. Only the reality that your brother was, in fact, your brother mattered. That is why forgiveness is (at the very least) mandatory for anyone who is not excommunicated: God has already forgiven everyone who has chosen his side, regardless of whether or not he has stopped sinning (and none have), and so you must also.
If we had to repent in order to be forgiven, no one would be saved.
If you’ve read all of Charlton’s posts that I cited in this article, then you’ll have a new perspective on this. He understands that Jesus had to come to offer a single, easy-to-make choice. It was, as he describes it, a single act of repentance. That’s what we call faith: trusting in Jesus to save us from our sins. Faith is, in a very real way, the only true and complete act of repentance.
Footnotes
[1] Jesus forgave sins on the basis of their faith. Most views of sin and salvation do not adequately explain how Jesus could forgive sin prior to his death and resurrection. When Jesus forgave sins, he was already moving their sin-debt from their ledger onto his own ledger. He was consenting to his own future death for their sins. The first time he forgave someone of their sins, he was obligating himself to ultimately pay the price. Jesus knew he had to die, and he told people that he had to die, but no one put the pieces together.
See: John 3:14-16 and John 8.
[2] The Greek words hilastérion, hilasmos, and hilaskomai all refer to propitiation—appeasement—but may also refer to atonement depending on the context. Thus, some argue that Jesus’ blood fully satisfied the requirements for sins committed while still under the First Covenant to be atoned for—covered over. Very little is said about this in the New Testament.
| Greek Word | Basic Meaning | NIV Translation | Verses |
|---|---|---|---|
| hilastérion | propitiation | “sacrifice of atonement” | Romans 3:25 |
| mercy seat of ark of covenant | “atonement cover” | Hebrews 9:5 | |
| hilasmos | atoning sacrifice propitiation |
“atoning sacrifice” | 1 John 2:2 |
| “atoning sacrifice” | 1 John 4:10 | ||
| hilaskomai | to make propitiation appease God |
“have mercy” | Luke 18:13 |
| “make atonement” | Hebrews 2:17 |
The Hebrew-specific meaning of “covering over” is not implied by the Greek word. Moreover, the form of the word found in the Septuagint—exhilaskomai—which is used to translate the Hebrew word for atonement (or covering over) is not found at all in the New Testament. Thus, it is not obvious that any of these—except Hebrews 9:5 due to its explicit context—should be translated as atonement. Propitiation, appeasement, reconciliation, or redemption (i.e. the satisfaction or payment of debt) are more literal translations.
The ESV does not use “atonement” anywhere in the New Testament. Other English translations may use it at most only a few times. There is no strong evidence that the New Testament is concerned with atonement at all, so having a theory of Christ’s atonement rather begs-the-question.
[3] This is the idea behind patriarchy. The patriarch has full agency and has the right to answer for anyone under his domain. This includes the right to take the punishment for an offence on behalf of those they “own” (or are responsible for).
@Derek – I’m afraid you make the error – understandable enough! – of assuming that what I wrote a decade or so ago is the same as what I believe now.
So when you combine views in posts written across may years, you will probably discover something that I not only disbelieve now, but have never believed!
For example, I now regard what I wrote about the Atonement (during my most Mormon phase) as completely wrong – because I do not believe there was any such thing as an Atonement, because there was no Original Sin – and because Jesus’s mode of dying (ie tormented and crucified in extreme pain) had no relevance At All to the success of his work at the cosmic and ultimate level.
If Jesus had died of an accident, illness, or in old age (or if he was not a Jew) – he would still have accomplished the salvific work that he did.
I think this may mean that our views are closer together than you though on this issue – since I no longer have any theory of Atonement of any kind (since it didn’t happen, there is no reason to explain it).
I think it probable that My understanding is that Christianity is probably MUCH simpler than yours is? The more I think about it, the simpler it gets.
For instance, forgiveness is very simple – at least in terms of what we ourselves need to do. We must forgive because forgiveness is entirely about us, and not at all about the person to be forgiven.
Failure to forgive doesn’t affect the other person – who has his own salvation to work out, and another person’s salvation does not depend on what we do (well, someone’s Attitude to salvation may be affected by us (albeit unpredictably); but the choice is theirs — and although we might deter, certainly we can do nothing at all to Prevent another person choosing salvation).
But failure to forgive is a sin because it is a failure to repent the sin of resentment. It is clinging to resentment – preferring the sin to Heaven.
I think this can easily be seen in real life, in that failure to forgive someone often survives without any knowledge of what happened to that person, where they now are, and even that person’s death.
I have known people who continue to resent someone because of things that happened during their early childhood, and long after everyone else involved has died. The failure to forgive/ holding-to resentment is hurting just one person, and that is the resenter.
This is shown well in CS Lewis’s account – in the Great Divorce – of the man who refuses to forgive a repentant murderer; and who therefore refuses to enter a Heaven in which a repentant murderer has been forgiven. The man who will not forgive, prefers his own state of resentment to Heaven.
Failure to forgive seems often associated with people who are in-denial at their own multiple and frequent sinning; or who think that their own sins are trivial compared with those of others.
What Jesus did for us is so simple and radical and achievable by anybody at any time; that people still cannot believe it even after (or especially after!) 2000 years.
Bruce,
Thank you for your comments.
This is a bit ironic and funny because you cited those posts in your article! It is a wonder to me that you would reference your views when they no longer apply.
That said, I did notice that you had changed, which is why I said this in the OP:
It was rather obvious that your views had shifted over the subsequent decade, but it was not exactly clear by how much. I tend to go back and edit or delete posts that reflect large shifts in my understanding, while you leave them untouched. Thus, you can read my posts from 5 years ago and the shift in my beliefs will not be as significant as (apparently) with you.
In fact, after writing this series, I found my writings from 2019 which contain mostly (but not entirely) the same beliefs I am only now describing here.
That is more-or-less correct. I also have no theory of atonement, other than that Jesus atoned for sins committed under the First Covenant. Jesus’ “atoning” work does not apply to Christians.
You’ve said in the past that you mostly disregard the Old Testament, and so your perspective is less nuanced and more simplistic than mine. But it is not appreciably different. Speaking of that…
This would be absolutely true if not for God the Father having chosen Israel to be his people in the Old Testament and promising them that the Messiah would be a Jew. As God cannot lie, Jesus had to be a Jew. Other Old Testament prophecies and Laws had to be fulfilled for the same reason.
But, as you note, his identity as a Jew was not in isolation essential to his saving work.
I’ve not fully compared notes, but I also believe it is simple and have for a least a decade or two longer than you have. I’ve had a sizable head-start in simplifying theology (e.g. here in 2016) going back to the 80s and 90s. You might say some of my views are more complex, while I might say they are more developed and that some of your views are a bit simplistic (as opposed to simple).
But I’ve read your works for years precisely because of the similarity of your views to my own, just from quite a different perspective. We approach things quite differently, and that makes it challenging to find the commonality and coherence.
I think the important difference between us is not in who has the more simple theology, but that I am like a mathematician (my views are precise and ordered) and you are like a poet. Neither of us have a monopoly on insight or intuition.
Failure to forgive doesn’t affect the other person – who has his own salvation to work out, and another person’s salvation does not depend on what we do (well, someone’s Attitude to salvation may be affected by us (albeit unpredictably); but the choice is theirs — and although we might deter, certainly we can do nothing at all to Prevent another person choosing salvation).
But failure to forgive is a sin because it is a failure to repent the sin of resentment. It is clinging to resentment – preferring the sin to Heaven.
I think this can easily be seen in real life, in that failure to forgive someone often survives without any knowledge of what happened to that person, where they now are, and even that person’s death.
…
Failure to forgive seems often associated with people who are in-denial at their own multiple and frequent sinning; or who think that their own sins are trivial compared with those of others.
I agree. This is my view as well.
It is insights like this that are the reason I think what you have write is so generally useful.
You might appreciate my article from 2016. In particular:
Peace,
DR
@Derek – I read the article, and the conclusions seem fine by me – but I don’t regard that kind of Biblical verse as compelling evidence (given all my uncertainties of its historical status, and the need for interpretation)
wrt my blog – it is a record of my notions, as these develop. It’s a kind of workbook, or journal.
I have no interest in trying to make it coherent across the past 15 years. If I did so, I would simply delete everything after a short while.
It’s up to any readers to make of it what they will!
When I provide a “reference” (i.e. a word search link) this is to show where and how I have tackled the subject before – not usually to provide “evidence”. Insofar as evidence is implied, readers would need to look at the date of blog posts to infer whether they ought to seek consistency.
I’m not writing a monograph with the blog. When I have made blog posts into a book, I do try to make them internally coherent – they are then a snapshot of my developing notions, but do not fix them.
So if someone wants my Mormon perspective, they could read the Mormon mini-book from a decade ago – but that doesn’t necessarily apply now.
That explains a bit. I guess that should have been rather obvious, but to hear it stated so plainly does help.