Chapter 4: The problem of forgiveness (pp.103–130)
But why can’t God just forgive us? Why should our pardon depend on the death of Christ? This is the problem which the author tackles in this chapter. The answer lies in our having a better understanding of the seriousness of sin and the majesty of God.
What do you understand by the word ‘sin’? According to the Bible (e.g. Romans 8:7; 1 John 3:4), what is the essence of sin (pp.106f.)?
‘But how can we be held responsible for our sin? After all, we can’t help it!’ How would you answer this (pp.108ff.)?
‘If human beings have sinned (which they have), and if they are responsible for their sins (which they are), then they are guilty before God’ (p.114). How would you answer someone who complained that talking about guilt in this way was unduly morbid (pp.114ff.)?
‘A full acknowledgment of human responsibility, and therefore guilt, far from diminishing the dignity of human beings, actually enhances it’ (p.119). How is this the case?
Many people find it difficult to think of God being angry and punishing sin. How would you answer the following ways of getting round the problem:
‘The God of wrath belongs to the Old Testament, while the God of the New Testament is love’ (p.122).
‘God’s wrath is an inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe, not the personal attitude of God to man’ (pp.122ff.).
What differences are there between God’s wrath and human anger?
The author quotes five metaphors used in the Bible to illustrate the fact that God’s holiness cannot co-exist with human sin (pp.125ff.). What does the perspective given by these pictures say to your life and that of your church?
‘It must even be said that our evangelical emphasis on the atonement is dangerous if we come to it too quickly’ (p.128). Why is this?
Session Five
Chapter 5:Satisfaction for sin (pp.131–156)
The last chapter concluded that the gravity of sin and the character of God make it impossible for God simply to forgive us. We turn now to the concept of ‘satisfaction’ and the question ‘Who needs to be satisfied?’
In the early church, many held that Jesus’ death was the compensation which God was obliged to pay to the devil in order to secure mankind’s freedom from his power. How did this view come about (pp. 132ff.)? What is wrong with it?
Another view is that God is in a similar dilemma to that faced by Darius in Daniel 6 (see especially verses 13–17) and that the death of Jesus was necessary in order to secure our freedom from the penalty demanded by the law. Why is this view inadequate (pp.135ff.)?
Three other suggestions have been made since: Anselm held that it was God’shonour that, having been offended by sin, needed to be satisfied (pp.139ff.). The Reformers, with their emphasis on justification, stressed the need for the way of salvation to satisfy God’s justice (pp.142f.). Grotius developed the view that God cannot simply forgive sins because he must satisfy the moral order of the world he governs (pp.143ff.). Discuss the advantages and drawbacks of each view. What limitation do they all share (p.145)?
God judges sinners ‘because he must, if he is to remain true to himself’ (p.146). The author mentions four ways in which the Bible describes this (pp.146ff.). Read the following passages and discuss how they help our understanding of divine anger and the need for satisfaction: Judges 2:12–13; 2 Kings 22:13,17; Hosea 8:5; Ezekiel 5:13; Ezekiel 20:44.
The author quotes Emil Brunner: ‘The cross is the only place where the loving, forgiving, merciful God is revealed in such a way that we perceive that his holiness and his love are equally infinite’ (p.154). What distortions occur when either one of these attributes is ignored? In what ways is your thinking distorted?
Session Six
Chapter 6: The self-substitution of God (pp.157–192)
We have seen that the solution to the problem of human sin must take full account of God’s holiness. ‘How then could God express simultaneously his holiness in judgment and his love in pardon?’ (p.158). The answer lies in God’s substitution of himself in our place.
Old Testament sacrifices ‘were the God-intended preparation for the sacrifice of Christ’ (p.158). What two basic ideas lay behind the Old Testament sacrifices (p.159)? How was the idea of substitution expressed?
Read Leviticus 17:11. What does this verse teach about blood and atonement (p.163)?
We saw in an earlier study that the death of Christ (the ‘Lamb of God’) is seen by New Testament writers as the fulfilment of the Passover. What does the Passover story in Exodus 11 – 13 reveal about God and his way of dealing with human sin (pp.165ff.)?
Another illustration of the principle of substitution is seen in the New Testament’s use of ‘sin-bearing’. Here we face two important questions. First, does ‘bearing sin’ always mean receiving the penalty of sin? Secondly, does ‘bearing sin’ necessarily imply substitution, with the innocent party taking the place of the guilty and enduring his penalty?
What objections have been raised to the notion of ‘penal substitution’ as the description of what Jesus achieved through his death on the cross (pp.166ff.)? How does the Bible help to answer them (pp.168ff.)?
Read through Isaiah 53. The author quotes Jeremias: ‘No other passage from the Old Testament was as important to the Church as Isaiah 53’ (p.171). Why is this (pp.171ff.)? Look at Mark 10:45 and 14:24. What light do these verses shed on Jesus’ own understanding of the significance of his death?
Read 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13–14. What do these verses add to what we have already seen (pp.175f.)?
A further question concerns how we are to think of the One who ‘took our place, bore our sin, became our curse, endured our penalty, died our death’ (p.176). There are three possibilities: a) Jesus was just a man; b) Jesus was simply God and only appeared to be a man; c) Jesus was (and is) the unique God-man.
What problems arise when we think of the Jesus who died on the cross as merely a man (pp.176f.)?
‘We must not...speak of God punishing Jesus or of Jesus persuading God...’ (p.178). Why not? How then should we speak of the relationship between God and Jesus on the cross?
What are the apparent advantages in thinking of the Jesus who died on the cross as God alone (pp.179ff.)?
But despite this, ‘it is misleading to say that “God died”’ (p.182). Why is this the case?
We are left with the third alternative: our substitute was ‘neither Christ alone (since that would make him a third party thrust in between us and God), nor God alone (since that would undermine the historical incarnation), but God in Christ, who was truly and fully both God and man, and who on that account was uniquely qualified to represent both God and man and to mediate between them’ (p.184). List some of the biblical evidence for this statement (pp.185f.).
‘At the root of every caricature of the cross there lies a distorted Christology’ (i.e. a distorted view of who Jesus is) (p.189). Why is this the case?
On the basis of this chapter, what might you say to someone who said that they were doing their best to get to heaven and that they hoped God would overlook their minor failings?
