PENEBUSAN KRISTUS: PELUNASAN KEADILAN TUHAN YANG SUNGGUH MENYELAMATKAN

Petikan dari artikel Keropok Lekor di Cahayanusantara:

Alkitab mengatakan bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Penebus kita. Dia adalah Anak Domba yang tidak bercela yang digiring ke Kalvari untuk menutupi dosa kita dengan darah-Nya. Kematian Yesus tidak terjadi karena Dia melakukan tindak kriminal. Yesus mati sebagai penanggung dosa kita. Dia mengambil dosa-dosa kita dan menjadi bersalah karena dosa-dosa kita. Dan oleh karena hal ini, Dia menanggung murka Tuhan.



Dengan kematian-Nya, Kristus juga menghapus murka Tuhan. Dia melakukan ini untuk memenuhi semua persyaratan yang Tuhantetapkan untuk seorang pendosa kembali kepada-Nya. Tuhanitu adil. Keadilan-Nya menuntut dua hal dari pendosa agar dapat diperdamaikan dengan TuhanPertama, semua pendosa harus mati untuk dosanya. Tuhan tidak main-main dengan dosa. Dia menghukum semua pendosa dengan maut. Kedua, pendosa yang ingin diselamatkan dari murka-Nya harus memenuhi semua perintah hukum Tuhanyang benar. Dosa adalah suatu pelanggaran terhadap hukum TuhanDan untuk diperdamaikan dengan Tuhan, seseorang harus menaati semua perintah-perintah TuhanJika kita dapat memenuhi dua persyaratan tersebut, Tuhan akan mencabut murka-Nya atas kita.

Masalahnya sudah jelas. Semua orang telah berdosa. Tidak ada satu orang pun yang dapat memenuhi persyaratan Tuhanyang sempurna. Manusia harus menemukan penggantinya. Pengganti kita adalah Yesus Kristus.

Yesus Kristus pergi ke Kalvari untuk memenuhi tuntutan kebenaran Tuhandan untuk menarik murka-Nya atas kita. Yesus Kristus sangat cocok untuk melakukan penebusan ini karena Dia adalah Manusia yang sempurna, Manusia tak berdosa. Pada saat Yesus Kristus menawarkan diri-Nya sebagai Penebus kita, Dia melakukannya sebagai Seseorang yang menanggung dosa-dosa kita. Jadi, Yesus menggantikan kita menanggung maut. Selain itu, saat Dia memberikan diri-Nya sendiri kepada Tuhansebagai Penebus dosa-dosa kita, Dia menampilkan diri-Nya sendiri sebagai Seseorang yang telah memenuhi tuntutan kebenaran Tuhandemi kita.

Tuhan dipuaskan dengan kematian Yesus. Di sepanjang hidup-Nya, Yesus menaati mandat Bapa untuk menderita bagi umat-Nya dan menaati hukum atas nama mereka. Dia tidak menyerah terhadap tekanan yang mendesak-Nya untuk meninggalkan tugas-Nya. Dia memenuhi misi-Nya, bahkan saat Dia mengetahui bahwa misi tersebut mengharuskan-Nya untuk menanggung murka Bapa. Yesus berhasil menuntaskan misi tersebut. Di kayu salib, Dia berteriak, "Sudah selesai." Penebusan telah terpenuhi. Arti sesungguhnya dari hal ini adalah bahwa Yesus sungguh dan secara efektif menghapuskan murka Tuhandan membawa perdamaian antara Tuhandan manusia. Di kematian-Nya, Dia telah mencurahkan darah-Nya untuk menutupi dosa-dosa kita sehingga Tuhantidak lagi menghukum kita dengan maut. Dalam kematian Kristus, kita sungguh-sungguh dibebaskan. Kita dapat mengatakan bahwa penebusan-Nya efektif; yakni, penebusan ini sungguh menyelamatkan kita dari murka Tuhan, karena kalau tidak, kita pasti sudah masuk neraka.

Bahkan sebelum kita menjawab pertanyaan tentang arti luas penebusan, yakni, "Untuk siapa Kristus mati?", kita harus yakin pada fakta bahwa Kristus, dengan kematian-Nya, sesungguhnya memenuhi keadilan Tuhanyang sempurna, dan akhirnya menebus kita dari kutuk maut. Bukti dari hal ini adalah di Ibrani 9:12: "dan Ia telah masuk satu kali untuk selama-lamanya ke dalam tempat yang kudus bukan dengan membawa darah domba jantan dan darah anak lembu, tetapi dengan membawa darah-Nya sendiri. Dan dengan itu Ia telah mendapat kelepasan yang kekal."

Lessons from Gethsemane

GRACE@WORK MAIL 15/09 (April 10th, 2009 Edition)

This ecommentary is sent out free but your donations help this ministry in its commitment to bring truth to life. Details below.
(Grace@Work Mail is a ministry of Graceworks: www.graceworks.com.sg)

By Soo-Inn Tan

I have been revisiting Gethsemane in preparation for Maundy Thursday. I am struck afresh by the prophetic force of Jesus' travail in the dark. Jesus is no eager suicide bomber rushing to his martyrdom. Instead He wrestles with His Father to see if there was anyway He could get out of going to the Cross. Here are His words as recorded for us by Matthew:

[Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My
Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but
as you will." (Matthew 26:39 TNIV)]

As D. A. Carson reminds us, Jesus did not suffer martyrdom. His was a unique death and a unique anguish.

[Jesus did not suffer martyrdom. Can anyone imagine the words of (Matthew) 26:53 on the lips of a Maccabean martyr? ... Jesus went to his death knowing that it was his father's will that he face death, completely alone (27:46) as the sacrificial, wrath-averting Passover Lamb. As his death was unique, so also his anguish; and our best response to it is hushed worship ... ("Matthew," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 8, Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, 543)]

Nevertheless, there was a choice to be made. There is no indication that Jesus would disobey the Father. He was asking if there was any other way. Once it was established that the Cross was the only way, Jesus embraced it. In doing so Jesus was practising what He had taught His disciples in the model prayer, in Matthew 6:10. This then is one key lesson from
Gethsemane: followers of Jesus are to obey God even when it is difficult. The lesson is clear but hard to hear in the din of today's consumerism dominated world.

Consumerism tells us daily and in many creative ways that the customer is king. You do what you like to do. And often we are encouraged to make choices that make us feel good. As Benjamin R. Barber points out, the modern consumer society has infantilised us, training us to choose the easy over the hard.

[Ours (society) rewards the easy and penalizes the hard. It promises profits for life to those who cut corners and simplify the complex at every turn. Weight loss without exercise, marriage without commitment, painting or piano by the numbers without practice or discipline, internet "college degrees" without course work or learning, athletic success through steroids and showboating ... morality without sacrifice, and virtue without effort.
(Consumed, New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007, 87-88)]

To Barber's list, we could add, salvation without the cross, which interestingly, was the devil's offer (Matthew 4: 8-11).

Thank God Jesus made the right choice. His obedience would lead to the Cross and the undoing of the disobedience of Adam. His obedience unto death opened the way for life and the birth of God's new humanity.

As members of this humanity we too are confronted by choices. Once in awhile we are confronted by choices that involve choosing between God's way and the devil's way. How do we find the strength to follow our Lord? If indeed the "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26: 41), how do we find the strength to make the tough, right choices in a world that encourages us to take the easy way? We find two clues from Jesus' victorious choice.

First, Jesus always trusted in the love of His Father. Even as He agonised over the prospect of the Cross, Jesus always knew that God was His Father (Matthew 26:39). As R. T. France reminds us:

[The relationship of trust and loyalty between Father and Son which was put under scrutiny at the outset of Jesus' ministry (4:1-11), proves able to survive even this ultimate test. ( The Gospel Of Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007, 1002)]

We choose to obey God, even when it is tough, even when we don't understand, because we trust our Abba Father. His love is perfect and all his ways are just. Jesus knew that and chose accordingly. At some point of our Christian pilgrimage, and perhaps many times in our journey this side of heaven, we need to know in the depth of our beings, the utter trustworthiness of the love and purposes of our Abba so that we would free fall for Him if He were to ask us to.

The second clue from Gethsemane as to how we can find the strength to make the tough decisions of life is somewhat of a negative one. We need a supportive community. Jesus made it clear that He wanted His three closest disciples to be with Him because of the gravity of the test that He was facing. Jesus is no unfeeling stoic. He freely tells His friends: "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me." (Matthew 26:38b TNIV) The fact that His three friends fell asleep on the job does not negate the principle that we are meant to face the challenges of life in the company of faithful friends.

There is mystery at Gethsemane. We will never fully understand all that happened there two thousand years ago. But we know there was a tough decision to be made and that Jesus made the right one. And that He now invites us to take up our crosses and follow Him, fully trusting the Father, in the company of faithful friends. This Maundy Thursday we echo the words from Gethsemane: " ... not as I will, but as you will."

Donating to Graceworks
If the ecommentaries have been helpful please consider donating to the work. How?

1. Pay by Cheque/Drafts:

Make cheques/drafts out to:

GRACEWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED and send them to:

GRACEWORKS,
Ghim Moh Estate Post Office,
PO Box 161
Singapore 912736

NB. All cheques and drafts banked in Singapore must be in Singapore currency.

2. Pay by Credit Card: Visit www.graceatwork.org to pay via PayPal with any major credit card.

If you have difficulties with the above two payment options do let us know. (Malaysian supporters can transfer money to a Malaysian bank account. Please write us at: enquiries@graceworks.com.sg)
===================================

Ecommentaries are archived at www.graceatwork.org
Newer ecommentaries are also posted at www.graceworks.com.sg

To sign up for this weekly e-reflection, go to the Grace@Work website,
www.graceatwork.org

Photo courtesy of this website

The Path To Reconciliation

Excerpt from "Trends & Faith", The Great Commission Sept 2007. By Dr Leong Tien Fock

"Most Christians take for granted that when Christ died on the cross, He bore our sins. That means He substituted for us and suffered on our behalf. This is clearly taught in Scripture. But this teaching is becoming unpopular, especially among some younger christians. It has even been labelled "cosmic child abuse". This is not the place for a comprehensive response to this rising trend. We will consider one issue.

The charge of "cosmic child abuse" is based on the assumption that the teaching that Christ died on our behalf means He was punished as an innocent third party by His Father. This is not true. We need to look at the nature of forgiveness. In the process we will also see why forgiveness is difficult and why in some cases reconciliation is even more difficult. This helps to explain why there is often an impasse in resolving personal conflicts.

To forgive is to cancel a debt. In the Lord's Prayer we read, "Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors." (Matt 6:12) In human relationships this idea is more clearly seen when we forgive someone whose offense against us involves material loss. If I spread lies about you and cause you to lose a well-paying job, I owe you a debt. You can actually sue me for damages. To forgive me means you cancel that debt by absorbing all the loss yourself. Even if the lies did not result in material loss, you could still have sued me for the emotional pain you suffered. To forgive me means you willingly endure the pain and let me go scot-free.

So to forgive others we must be willing to bear the consequences of their wrong against us, whatever the consequences may be. What makes forgiveness difficult is that only the offended party can forgive. If I offend you, neither your pastor nor your father can forgive me on your behalf. But if you are the one who is offended, the last thing on your mind is to forgive me. You may even scream, "How can I let him go scot-free for what he did to me!?"

When we sin, we sin against God. So only God can forgive sin. And to forgive sin, God Himself must bear the consequences of sin, which is death. That means God must die. But God cannot die. So God had to become man to bear the consequence of sin. As John Stott puts it, it was "God in Christ" who died on our behalf. Hence Christ was not "punished as an innocent third party". He was the offended party. When He hung on the cross, He willingly bore the consequence of our sins so that we could be forgiven."

The Atonement Of Christ

The Atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ
By Davin Wong, GCF icommentary

Some time last year I was introduced to the term "great words of salvation". They are covenant, sacrifice, The Day of Atonement, passover, redemption, reconciliation, propitiation and justification.

Some of the words sound familiar, others I probably heard for the first time when I read "The Atonement" by Leon Morris.

For starters, I learned that approach to God in the days of Moses and Aaron was tricky business. Selected passages in Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus revealed that God made it clear to the Israelites that they could not rush into His presence at any time they wanted and just as they were. Not even the high priest! (Lv 16:2) Besides that, coming before the presence of the Lord was done in connection with
putting away of the nation's sins, hence the added importance and solemnity of
the occasion. Surely, we Christians who live in this time and age have reason to be glad that Christ came and did away with all these technicalities. Because of Him and through Him we now have direct access to God and His forgiveness. (Heb 10:10, 13:12)

Then there is the word "covenant". Looking at the OT, Exodus 24 recounts the significant event where God established the covenant with Israel which proceeded from God's choice of the nation. In verse 8, we find the familiar words "This is the blood of the covenant" which accompanied the putting of blood on the people. The
significance of the blood is seen in the light of Israel being cleansed from the sin
and defilement of its tainted past and at the same time being consecrated for its new role as the people of God. In response, Israel took upon itself the obligation to obey God's law even though this was not a condition of the covenant.

Nevertheless, the righteous requirement of the law could not be fulfilled as it was
weakened by the flesh and God decisively intervened by sending His own Son as the
once-for-all sacrifice that takes away sin, brings about forgiveness and establishes a new covenant with His blood. (Jer31, Luke 22:20, Rom 8:3-4, Heb 8:6-3, 1 Pet 3:18) Holy Communion then is a constant reminder of the place of the covenant. Our participation is a pledge that we, whose covenant with God has been established at such a cost, will live in a manner befitting the covenant.


A new word I learned from reading this book is the word "propitiation". Simply put, propitiation means the turning away of anger. Specifically, we're referring to God's anger. Some find it difficult in that they see wrath as incompatible with the fact
that "God is love". But this is faulty reasoning. The opposite of love is not wrath. It is hate. We can say that if God is a God of love, He will not hate those whom he has made, but we cannot say that He will never be angry with them. In fact, the more He loves, the more He would be angry with every sin that mars the perfection of the
beloved.

Part of what Christ did on the cross was propitiation, the taking of such action so that the wrath of God no longer rests on us. This means a wonderful assurance of peace for the Christian. In the end we have nothing to fear, for "he is the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:2, ESV). Learning about propitiation definitely changed the way I approach fellow Christians on Sunday with the greeting "Peace
be with you!"

Finally, reading the book has brought before me some of the richness of the New Testament teaching about the cross of Christ. The great words of salvation provide many facets to the atonement. Each way of looking at the cross underlines the fact that the way of salvation is not a way of human merit. Salvation is of grace, for salvation is of God. Christians are to see the cross at the heart of their faith for
two reasons. The first is that it is solely by the way of the cross that Christ brought about our salvation. But we should not just stop at the study of the cross, for Jesus said that if anyone wanted to follow him, he must take up his cross daily (Lk 9:23). The one thing this book has done for me is to show that no matter how you
look at it, the cross still challenges us today to live a life worthy of the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Soli Deo Gloria!

Trinitarian Atonement

Can God forgive sin without Christ bearing the penalty? It depends on what it means to forgive. If Christ bore the penalty, did he do so as an “innocent third party” (giving the impression of "cosmic child abuse")? It depends on what it means to forgive.

The following is excerpted from A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Volume 2, pages 74-77) by James Oliver Buswell, Jr.

1. Forgiveness

Before reviewing the history of the doctrine of the atonement, and before examining the Scripture in detail, I must state a generalization which I believe to be of great importance, and which has meant much to me over a period of many years: I believe that all genuine forgiveness involves substitutional suffering fully commensurate with the disvalue of that which is forgiven. When orthodox theologians such as Charles Hodge reject the word "forgiveness" as conveying the central meaning of the atonement I must make it clear that I entirely agree. What Hodge and others mean by "forgiveness" correctly corresponds to the more superficial popular usage of the word. I do feel, however, that a deeper analysis of what is involved in genuine forgiveness is not contrary to traditional orthodox theology as Charles Hodge and other competent writers have set it forth. I came to the generalization which I suggest from a simple acceptance of the scriptural substitutional view of the atonement, and I make my suggestion as a defense of the substitutional view.

When I learned that there have been theological liberals who have suggested a "forgiveness" view of the atonement while rejecting the "substitutional" view, the discovery was a shock to me and caused me to re-examine my suggestion to see whether I had been wandering from the biblical position. I shall show later wherein my suggestion differs from the "liberal" views which emphasize forgiveness.

My chief point is that Christ is not a "third party" in the case, but the party sinned against. The "One Mediator" is "God manifest in the flesh" (I Timothy 2:5; 3:16). Since genuine forgiveness necessarily involves substitutional bearing of the sin forgiven, and since the crucifixion of Christ is to be taken as the all-inclusive, all-representative act of sin, therefore Christ died for my sin in my place as my Substitute. I should justly have been swept into the Lake of Fire. He might have said, "Angels, destroy them." But when He said, "Father, forgive them," He was dying in my place.

To make clear my own point of view at this stage in the discussion I ask the reader's indulgence in inserting the following material which I wrote in the early days of my ministry, material which was first published in 1924.

2. My Testimony in 1924

On my way to the Kansas City Student Volunteer Convention [in December 1913], I fell into conversation on the train with a philosophy teacher from the University of ———. In this conversation I met for the first time the modernistic criticisms of the doctrine of the atonement. I defended my orthodox views of substitution to the best of my immature ability. The Professor replied, "Those views will not appeal to your mind when you become more mature. Why not say that God simply forgives men, as we must forgive each other, and as the state pardons a criminal?"

In my first summer quarter in the University of —————— I again met with the same argument. It was advanced by several older students in a conversation at lunch in a restaurant. My belief in the Substitutional Atonement was laughed at. I replied to the best of my ability with the best illustrations I could command. "Oh, yes," one of the older students answered, "I used to believe that way and preach that way, but I gave it up long ago."

THE PROBLEM

I went back to my room very thoughtful, and stayed there in prayer and meditation for I don't know how long. I remember that I walked back and forth, and sat down, and lay on my bed, and got up repeatedly to walk again. I thank God that that day I utterly disregarded my assigned studies and prayed and thought through a vital problem. Let no one suppose that I doubted for a moment that Christ died for my sins in my place. I did not doubt that, for I had been born again. My problem was that I had been unable to express my convictions in terms which modernistic-minded men could at all comprehend. "Our Passover," "Our Sin Offering," "Our Redeemer," "Our Ransom," "Our Mediator," all these terms were utterly void of significance in their minds, as they are in the minds of thousands of young people everywhere today. We had no common language of religious terms, such as Paul had with the Jews and even with the pagans of his day. When I said, "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us," I was not, as Paul was, giving a new and fuller meaning to a bit of dearly cherished religious symbolism; I was to them merely repeating in a childish way an archaic and utterly meaningless formula of a long-buried age. "Substitutional Atonement is not necessary in human forgiveness," they said, "Why should it be necessary in Divine Forgiveness?"

I must give the conclusions I arrived at that day, though I hesitate to give them as briefly as I must here. ... I will give them in the knowledge that they have proved helpful to some of my friends who have met the particular problem which I have met, and in the hope that none of God's good people who have not met and are not likely to meet this problem, will be at all disturbed by the discussion of it.

THE ANSWER

1. The prophecy of the philosophy professor has proved the opposite of the truth. If there is one thing which has matured with my maturing, in the past ten years since the prophecy was made, it is my belief in the Substitutional Atonement. Christ died for my sins as my Substitute.

2. All forgiveness, human and divine, is in the very nature of the case vicarious, substitutional. I cannot take time here to develop this thought, but it is, to me, one of the most valuable views my mind has ever entertained. No one ever really forgives another, except he bears the penalty of the other's sin against him. When the state pardons a criminal, society takes upon itself the burden of the criminal's guilt. When we pray, "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors," we are not asking God to forgive us by a vicarious sacrifice while we forgive each other by merely overlooking faults which cost us nothing. The human analogy is of course imperfect, but all the moral outlines of divine substitutional atonement are present in human forgiveness.

3. The guilt of one individual's sin against another cannot morally be transferred to a third party. Moses and Paul prayed that they might become substitutes for Israel, and bear their guilt, but it was morally impossible, for they were third parties in the affair. "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him" (Psalm 49:7). When we say that Christ died as our Substitute, we do not in any sense imply that He was a third party who stepped in between God and man.

4. The guilt of one individual's sin against another can morally be borne either by the sinner (as in the case of justice without forgiveness . . .) or by the one sinned against (as in the case of forgiveness . . .) Christ was not a third party in the affair at Calvary. He was God against Whom that sin (and every sin in the last analysis) was committed. The issue was sharp, at Calvary, between twelve legions of angels to compel the ones offending to bear the guilt, and the lone Saviour, the One offended who in forgiveness bore the guilt Himself. No voluminous system of theology could comprehend the meaning of the death of Jesus Christ, but in the word 'forgiveness' it is more fully comprehended than in any other human formula. When the Son of God, being hanged on a gibbet of shame by the sons of men, said, "Father, forgive them," instead of saying "Angelic hosts, destroy them," He did, in the clearest imaginable way, substitute Himself for sinners, and bare their sin “in His own body on the tree.” What a wonderful Saviour!

Divine Child Abuse?

What did Christ accomplish on the cross? To demonstrate His love. To triumph over principalities and powers. (Christus Victor). To set a moral example of obedience. To pay a ransom for our souls.

These are important facets of the cross, but we can't stop there.

II Corinthians 5:22: “He (God the Father) made Him (Jesus) who knew no sin, to become sin on our behalf that we could become the righteousness of God in Him.”

At the heart of the cross, Christ bore our sins and took upon Himself the just wrath of God that we deserved. He took the punishment as our substitute so that we may be forgiven and rescued.

Unless the cross actually saves us, it would be an empty show of love just like the silly lovesick boy who says, "Darling, I will prove my love for you by jumping off Niagara Falls".

It is only meaningful act of love if the beloved is in real danger such that diving in would be an attempt to rescue her.

And a humiliating and painful death by crucifixion is hardly victorious if not because by setting us free from the power of sin and death, Christ has disarmed the weapons of the enemy. Satan is defeated on the cross as he no longer has any claim on us. Christ has paid the ransom, and triumphantly snatched us from his hands.

And yes, we can learn about obedience of the Son even unto death and denying one's will to do the Father's by looking at the cross. But it is because Christ has died and rescued us from our moral condemnation that we have the most powerful, motivating influence for obedience in life.

So we can make much sense of the other motifs through the lens of Christ's substitutionary death. But in and of themselves, these motifs are emptied of their power. Sadly, this notion of penal substitutionary atonement has sometimes been described as 'cosmic child abuse'.

Greg Koukl wrote some helpful responses here
"Why is it an act of love for God the Father to punish His Son? How is it the Father’s love? I could see it being an act of love for Jesus if he chose to do it, but how is it an act of love by the Father that Jesus would lay down His life? How is it loving that the Father would punish a third party?

If you did something bad to me, and I grabbed Joe Blow over there and said to you that I was going to forgive you because I’m going to punch this guy out, you would wonder how it’s an act of love for me to forgive you by punching him out? It might be his love if he said to punch him out on your behalf, but hardly an act of my love. Unless - in the case of God the Father, and the Son, Jesus, that the Son is also God. That is, it is not just another man that the Father is punishing for our sins, but God who became a man Himself and took upon Himself His own just punishment.

This is why it’s so important to approach this challenge with an understanding of the Trinity, and understanding of the nature of God Jesus is God; He isn’t just an innocent third party. He is the Judge Himself suffering, the One who determines the punishment takes it, the One who passes judgment receives it. It is Jesus, the incarnate God. That is how it’s an example of the love of God.

It is precisely because God is love that He has made a way for sinful men to be forgiven and His holy quality of justice to be upheld at the same time so that, as Paul writes, He can be both the just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

Read on for Greg's full story. Also check out Mark Dever's Nothing But The Blood and Gary William's Punished In Our Place (with an important discussion on pre-Anselm theologians)