Ship of Fools: The Crucifixion: A Very Different Approach

Thread: The Crucifixion: A Very Different Approach Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025208

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
If Jesus on the cross actually is God on the cross, and if God on the cross is Godforsaken, if God comes to the cross to feel what it's like to be us at our most human, then what if the cross is also God's mea culpa?

What if the cross is God's apology for our suffering, what if it's God's self-imposed sentence for allowing entropy, sickness, disease, moth and rust and flame when God, in God's omnipotence, could have set the rules our universe is bound by very differently?

What if the Crucifixion is the end of God's aloofness? What if the cross isn't our absolution but God's?

- Christopher Cocca

Discuss

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

I am sure some of our more scholastically-minded shipmates will come up with a great academic discussion of this. This thread will become a bounty for positivist theology freaks.

Personally, I feel that the argument as cited has the deep flaw of modelling God on the Human ("limits", "suffering", "will",...).

We cannot approach the Mystery with rational western thought.

But some of us doubtlessly will.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
From the cited article:
I can't feel pathos in the part of the narrative that stresses how hard it was for God to give up God's son and pour the full measure of God's wrath out on Jesus.

Well yeah.

God loves, God does not hate.

But God repents seems to fall short of God loves. What is the problem here is that God the Father in Heaven is not identified with Jesus on the cross.

God dies.

That is the message of the cross.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The problem with this approach is that it takes one event out of context and tries to interpret it.

There is no precedent in the biblical texts for God making an apology by actions such as this. Jesus crucifixion takes the model of sacrifice, which is a solid biblical model. I suppose that you could interpret this as Jesus-as-God making a sacrifice or Jesus-as-human making a sacrifice.

But sacrifice is not about apology. It is about restitution, making things better. Otherwise it becomes as sick as PSA. What sort of God says to me "Look, your friends and family will die horribly, millions will suffer across the world, but its OK, because I am also going to stick part of myself on a lump of wood to die"

Doesn't work. Any more than "You are all bad people, but I will ignore it because I will let you murder my child". If God needs absolving to us, then that makes us gods, and can be seen to justify us doing anything.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

It wold seem to suggest that God 'owes' us an apology, when I tend to believe that God 'owes' us absolutely nothing.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Really good post, Cat. but I don't think this bit goes far enough...

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Jesus crucifixion takes the model of sacrifice, which is a solid biblical model. I suppose that you could interpret this as Jesus-as-God making a sacrifice or Jesus-as-human making a sacrifice.

Can I have both please? (I'm greedy).

The sacrifice imagery is there, sure. But Jesus was crucifies at Passover, not Atonement, so there has to be an element of freedom about it too. I'ts not just about forgiveness, it's about freedom as well.

I think Cocca (OP guy) may be onto this aspect, but gets sidetracked. We're not set free by God saying sorry either.

But we agree on so much. Just look at this as me being pedantic.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem with this approach is that it takes one event out of context and tries to interpret it.

That's so rare with atonement theories!

Actually, the thing that the OP made me think of was Jack Miles' wonderful (and quite middle-of-the-road) Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God. If you haven't read it, it is well worth the time. I found it much more engaging than his more widely-read OT meditation, God: A Biography. FWIW

--Tom Clune

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

At risk of pressing the spew button . Doesn't being in Love mean never having to say you are sorry ?
If we want God to keep saying sorry for all the horrible, nasty, shitty, not very fluffy things in the Universe then far easier to become an atheist and have done with it.

The message of the Cross is Humility, not some grovelling, meaningless, 21st Century apology . We Christians would do better to try and alight to that message rather than change it IMV.
Bu...t , you know , if this sort of stuff is going to change the declining fortunes of Christianity then anything's worth a try .

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
At risk of pressing the spew button . Doesn't being in Love mean never having to say you are sorry ?

No, it doesn't. Try never saying sorry to the ones you love and you'll get the point.

Stupid punch line to a film, that's all that quote is.

I'd quite like God to say sorry for not letting my Mum die - then I'd be able to forgive him and move on. I rationalise it by believing God never intervenes - but even believing that doesn't make him less culpable really. Being an atheist would be far better imo.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

There's only one thing I can really say about all this - thank God for Holy Tradition.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

From the op: "What if the Crucifixion is the end of God's aloofness? What if the cross isn't our absolution but God's?"

God never was aloof without also being interactive with us, check out both Genesis 1 and 2.

The cross was God's gift to us as an example, not as an apology. It says that whatever the evil of the world does to us, God will bring new life through it in extraordinary ways if we align our will to his.

I don't think that God has any need to apologise to us, as God is not accountable for the pain people inflict on each other. We must carry the burden of responsibility for ourselves, individually and collectively.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The idea in the OP is good for a sermon. I quoted this

quote:
If Jesus is actually God on the cross, and if God on the cross is Godforsaken, what if the cross is God's apology for our suffering? What if it's God's self-imposed sentence for allowing genocide and disease when he could have set the rules very differently by which our universe is bound? What if the cross isn't our absolution but God's?

from Mixed Blessings – B. Taylor (Cowley 1986) p. 62f last year in my Maundy Thursday sermon.

It does not fit in with other stuff for those who like a systematic theology.

The key question is, what is theology for you?

Is it system with all is dotted and all ts crossed?

Or is it a playful, wondering, musing reflection on the God of surprises?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Really good post, Cat. but I don't think this bit goes far enough...
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Jesus crucifixion takes the model of sacrifice, which is a solid biblical model. I suppose that you could interpret this as Jesus-as-God making a sacrifice or Jesus-as-human making a sacrifice.
Can I have both please? (I'm greedy).

Absolutely, but not necessarily together. You can build an atonement theology on either, and then both would be valid and partial stories.

The point about atonement theories is that setting a single one up as "The Model" is always wrong. There are many (at least 7) distinct models of atonement, and they are all right, despite being incompatible. You need the whole lot to start to get a perspective on what it is all about, because all are partial stories. Atonement as freedom - after the Exodus model - is one of these stories, and so is an important part of the picture.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
There's only one thing I can really say about all this - thank God for Holy Tradition.

Why? Because everything is nicely set in stone and doesn't require Thinking About? Which seems to be what you are suggesting.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

If it were an apology, he would have said so. What good is an unrecognized apology, from anybody?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
There's only one thing I can really say about all this - thank God for Holy Tradition.
Why? Because everything is nicely set in stone and doesn't require Thinking About? Which seems to be what you are suggesting.

How about, because reinventing the wheel over and over is a waste of time and effort, and more likely to create a new religion than improve an old one?

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
At risk of pressing the spew button . Doesn't being in Love mean never having to say you are sorry ?

No. Theology by sappy pop song is rarely good theology.

Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :

quote:
Give me all-loving over all-powerful, always. And if God is omnipotent? Omnipotent without the acrobatics of theodicy that place limits on the "all" in all-powerful and concede that there are just some things God can't do?

I like this. It has never seemed to me to be true that God could possibly be all loving or all powerful. Simple argument for my agnostic/atheist view, but the most compelling argument for me.

If we can't approach "the mystery" with rational western thought (or any rational thought?) then what's the point of approaching it at all?

God owes us nothing? Please. God owes me nothing. I have a pretty good life. Many, many, many cannot say the same. He owes them a great deal.

If Jesus was god and was sacrificing himself to save us all, he would have said so. He never straight up said he was God. He couched everything in parables and quips and counter questions. So, if he was apologizing there is no reason to believe he would be any less vague about it.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Ok let's go with this for a minute . I mean what exactly is an apology . A vocal and heart-felt expression of remorse and regret for something we have done, (or failed to do).

So what has God done that He needs to apologise ?
Apologise for creating us and not ensuring we live in a perpetual Eden maybe. Isn't it we who need to apologise for our disobedience.

The Cross could be an acknowledgement of heart-rending crap, injustice, evil etc. or even an antidote . But an apology ? Doesn't work for me.

( [Votive]

For the right outcome with regards to your mum Boogie)

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
If Jesus on the cross actually is God on the cross, and if God on the cross is Godforsaken, if God comes to the cross to feel what it's like to be us at our most human, then what if the cross is also God's mea culpa?

What if the cross is God's apology for our suffering, what if it's God's self-imposed sentence for allowing entropy, sickness, disease, moth and rust and flame when God, in God's omnipotence, could have set the rules our universe is bound by very differently?

What if the Crucifixion is the end of God's aloofness? What if the cross isn't our absolution but God's?

- Christopher Cocca
Discuss

Do you have an opinion on this? If so, what is it?

Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

So what has God done that He needs to apologise ?
Apologise for creating us and not ensuring we live in a perpetual Eden maybe. Isn't it we who need to apologise for our disobedience.

Maybe? Yes. And no we don't.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
There's only one thing I can really say about all this - thank God for Holy Tradition.

I've believed for many years that the Orthodox flavour of Holy Tradition (essentially Christus Victor combined with the enablement of theosis as I understand it) is right on the atonement, but to me it doesn't speak particularly clearly on the question of "why that way" (Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension) rather than by fiat if you will. I note in passing that PSA despite its faults, does try to address this.

So I think it may be legitimate even within Orthodox theology to look for answers to "why that way" within the context of accepted soteriology and it may be that there are subsidiary actions of God in play. I'm not saying the OP is right, but rather that Holy Tradition doesn't seem to rule it immediately out of court.

Of course, I'm certifiably Anglican, not an Orthodox theologian.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Do you have an opinion on this? If so, what is it?

While we're waiting, why don't you share yours with us?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If it were an apology, he would have said so. What good is an unrecognized apology, from anybody?

Wpuld hr now?

Whenever were the ways of God to humanity that clear and not tangetted?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The whole point of an apology is to be understood. If it fails in that, it loses its nature. And The God whose name is Logos would certainly understand that.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QBWhenever were the ways of God to humanity that clear and not tangetted? [/QB]

God never gave us a clear systematic theology. Instead we got a story of a relationship with his people.

The rest we have to work out for ourselves.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Do you have an opinion on this? If so, what is it?
While we're waiting, why don't you share yours with us?

Because?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Because?

I'd be interested.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
There's only one thing I can really say about all this - thank God for Holy Tradition.
I've believed for many years that the Orthodox flavour of Holy Tradition (essentially Christus Victor combined with the enablement of theosis as I understand it) is right on the atonement,

You don't understand it, apparently. We are not Christus Victor. Christ's coming was required for three reasons: (1) to unite the human and divine natures (other wise Theosis isn't possible). And the only way to unite the human and divine natures is to, well, unite them. Which requires someone who is both God and man. Hence, the incarnation. (2) to destroy the power of sin, which requires the death of the sinless one. (3) to destroy death, which requires entering into death and breaking its power from within.

Only #2 seems to be covered by western "theories" of atonement. But we reject PSA inasmuch as it posits (or presupposes) a legalistic framework, and the inheritance of Adam's guilt. Our understanding of sin and its overcoming is more one of sickness and healing than either transgression and punishment, or penalty and payment or captivity and weregild. These latter may be used as metaphors, but nothing is built on them and they are not held to be at the heart of the atonement.

All of which I hope answers your "why" question.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
God never gave us a clear systematic theology. Instead we got a story of a relationship with his people.

The rest we have to work out for ourselves.

This. Very well said.

And "working it out" is a process. The pilgrimage of the Church. A long march. And as any hillwalker amongst you will know, there is a time for striding on, a time for map reading, a time for just enjoying the beauty of the landscape, a time for sheltering from the gales (or trudging through them) etc.

But whatever it is a pilgrim/hillwalker does, it is always done in an attitude of contemplation : awareness of that which is around. The here-and-now. The context.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Sappy song, misquoted, sums up the OP for me.

"It's all about ME, Jesus
It's not about You
As if I should do things Your way"

(with apologies to Paul Oakley)

More theologically

Suffering is not an apology. It is a consequence. It strikes me as a discounting of suffering to see it in such terms. Suffering is not an appeal to self-interest, but a call to compassion and an affront to indifference, both to the pain of the sufferer and the way the suffering was caused.

I'd argue in precisely the same way to any who would seek to reduce the suffering to a kind of self-interested means of salvation.

Both approaches empty the cross of its power.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You don't understand it, apparently.

Well, your reasons (1) and (3) are what my brief shorthand was referring to so I suppose I should have written a bit more to avoid confusion, but what I'm getting at is reason (2):

quote:
(2) to destroy the power of sin, which requires the death of the sinless one.

This is the bit that I don't get from reading Orthodox sources. Why does the death of the sinless one destroy the power of sin? How does it do so? Why is the death of the Son of God more efficacious than the death of any other sinless one such as a newborn baby if there is no inheritance of guilt and no concept of merit?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Do you have an opinion on this? If so, what is it?

I don't really know what my opinion is on this.

I just know that when I first heard the idea about a month ago from one of my teachers ( a senior cleric ) I was floored. I had never heard it before and I was floored yet very intrigued.

So I googled it yesterday cos it was in my head again.

Turns out this Christopher bloke was the only other reference I could find on it.

Christopher reckons it was something he came up with himself, as did my teacher.

But leo says B. Taylor has a similar theology and tclune reckons it reminded him of a Jack Miles book.

Which is curious in itself.

So it's totally nontraditional yet something about it seems compelling.

I think it's because it offers an about face on all our dismal theories on theodicy.

It's not something I would be comfortable preaching on ( no doubt I'd be de-albed), but like leo said too, theology can be playful, wondering and musing.

I guess I posed it here because I think it has something worth musing on.

I'm just not sure what that is yet. [Big Grin]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

mousethief, despite yourself, you're making me Orthodox [Smile]

I'm getting increasingly sick, literally, of any premiss of damnation.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Because?
I'd be interested.

Darn. That made me smile, despite myself.

And Evensong, fair enough. Thanks for the reply.

I have a problem with the quote in the OP because I can't believe that Jesus was forsaken on the cross - despite his own quote from the Psalm. Am I saying Jesus was wrong in how he felt? or that he meant something different to how what he said sounded to the listener? I don't know. But the idea of God forsaking himself - at a time of ultimate sacrifice, love and obedience to God's will - does things with my head I can't work out.

As for the cross being God's apology? Again, I don't know either. If that was the case, I would much rather that God had 'apologised' by not letting so many people starve or die needlessly in the 2000 years following his sojourn on earth; or by explicitly preventing wars, holocausts and innocent suffering. Rather than letting things trundle on interminably in the way they have done, since Jesus died for the world (to quote a well-known phrase). So the cross as apology doesn't seem to make sense.

The cross as identification with suffering humanity, and even, dare I say, as some form of write-off on sin, I can at least intellectually get a grip of. Though these ideas have their own problems, too, of course.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

If the Father did not forsake the Son incarnate, we have not been identified with. Not been assumed and redeemed.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Oooh, sorry, and Cocca is wrong. God could not have set the rules differently.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I knew this OP reminded me of something I'd read before in a book!

Here, from from one of Douglas (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) Adams' later books in the series is his particular take.

quote:
God's Final Message to His Creation:

'We apologize for the inconvenience.'

Douglas Adams, "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish"

(The ultimately decrepit Paranoid Android Marvin - who by then was some 37 times older than the known age of the universe - observed "I think .. I feel good about that" - and then expired contented.)

It made me laugh when I first read it. But I never thought the notion would make it into serious theological books. Just too brainwashed, I guess.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Oh, and fletcher christian, God OWES us love.

And Schroedinger's cat, the kind of God who creates knowing that there is no other way but suffering for all concerned.

In the Father abandoning the Son, God, shorn of all non-moral divine attributes, all power, all communion experienced for the first time the full horror of being just human.

Like all of us, died alone.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Oh, and fletcher christian, God OWES us love.

Sounds like Job's argument. God does not owe anybody anything. That God does get involved is a sign of his love.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

balaam. For God IS love. He has no other higher attributes. No 'rights', no Sovereignty that can remove OUR right to His love. To Him. He can't NOT love us.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If the Father did not forsake the Son incarnate, we have not been identified with. Not been assumed and redeemed.

But how could God forsake Jesus and why?

The nearest I can get to understanding this is the notion of denying oneself, as when Jesus said his disciples should deny themselves in order to follow him. And I suppose one could say that God denied himself on the cross, somehow. But I don't read that as being 'forsaken'.

Besides I don't need God to forsake Jesus to feel identified with. He was forsaken by his friends, he knows how I feel if I'm forsaken. And while I may sometimes feel forsaken by God, I'm not actually. Unless I believe there is no hope in God.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

God needed to know. And we now know that He knows if we need to. I find it terribly comforting. Jesus was not alienated - like we ALL are ALL the time - from God until that moment. Our alienation, disconnection, lack of intimacy, of relationship was fully assumed, embraced and redeemed.

It's OK.

We are NOW in the heavenlies, in the Father's arms, in Christ. All humanity. We barely feel, know, experience, project it. We will FULLY. We must invoke it now. For, with ALL.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
God needed to know.

Well, that didn't occur to me, Martin. I'm not sure I can go along with it intellectually (or what passes for my intellect!). But instinctively I love the thought of that.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But how could God forsake Jesus and why?

Good question, and not easy to answer.

I found a page which compared the Church Fathers with protestant calvinistic interpretations - hope it helps:

The Cross: A Comparison

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

[Smile]

etc Anselmina. I'm glad.

I got it from neo-orthodoxy in the person of Baxter Kruger of Perichoresis via my former cult now Grace Communion. Kruger got it from the Torrances ... Barth all the way back to the Cappadocian Fathers.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But how could God forsake Jesus and why?
Good question, and not easy to answer.

I found a page which compared the Church Fathers with protestant calvinistic interpretations - hope it helps:

The Cross: A Comparison

Thank you, Mark Betts. I'm probably too deeply-dyed a heretick(!) to assent to it. But I get where it's coming from, and there is a kind of circular logic about it which is appealing.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I have a problem with the quote in the OP because I can't believe that Jesus was forsaken on the cross - despite his own quote from the Psalm. Am I saying Jesus was wrong in how he felt? or that he meant something different to how what he said sounded to the listener? I don't know.

I don't get it. You know that Christ is reciting psalm 22 [21], and yet you write "despite his own quote"? It is by his own quote that we know that Christ had not despaired. Just read the entire psalm...

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
As for the cross being God's apology? Again, I don't know either.

Well, I share your scepticism there. First, this doesn't really work other than with a godlet bound to time and restricted in power. God cannot come to a realisation that He messed up and then employ the crucifixion as a means of saying sorry. An eternal omniscient God has always known exactly what He has done to the universe, so any apology about that would be completely hollow. Second, even in terms of such a godlet version of Christianity, what good does the crucifixion do? "You lot are dying, I'm so sorry I goofed about that. Here, I will have myself killed gruesomely, that should make you feel better / even the score." Yeah, right.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If the Father did not forsake the Son incarnate, we have not been identified with. Not been assumed and redeemed.

The Father did not forsake us, as He did not forsake the Son. The Father allows the Son to suffer and die though, as He allows us to suffer and die.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
God OWES us love. ... For God IS love. He has no other higher attributes. No 'rights', no Sovereignty that can remove OUR right to His love. To Him. He can't NOT love us.

That's simply abuse of language. The earth has no "right" to be kept on its orbit by the sun, and the sun does not "owe" the earth any gravitational pull. Rather, the sun's gravity pulls the earth onto its orbit. Being X does not make a duty out of X.

Furthermore, let's not forget Esau of Genesis 25, Malachi 1 and Romans 9. The facile assumption that "God is love" means the same as if that was said about a human being is manifestly false. As usual, Aquinas to the rescue:

quote:
Summa Theologiae I q20
God loves all existing things. For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it possesses. Now it has been shown above (Question 19, Article 4) that God's will is the cause of all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God. To every existing thing, then, God wills some good. Hence, since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists. Yet not as we love. Because since our will is not the cause of the goodness of things, but is moved by it as by its object, our love, whereby we will good to anything, is not the cause of its goodness; but conversely its goodness, whether real or imaginary, calls forth our love, by which we will that it should preserve the good it has, and receive besides the good it has not, and to this end we direct our actions: whereas the love of God infuses and creates goodness.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Putting my serious hat on ...

There is the important question of the extent to which understandings of God as Father, and God as Love, have moved. Forget about 2,000 years. Think of the interval between the KJV translation and the NIV translation of Hebrews 12:6-12

Here it is in the KJV

quote:
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;

And here in the NIV

quote:
6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.’
7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? 8 If you are not disciplined – and everyone undergoes discipline – then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! 10 They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

12 Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees.

The KJV hearkens back to a world in which fathers "chastised and scourged" their children as a normal part of fatherly duties. In case folks think this is just language drift, a check of other uses of the word indicates that both were associated with physical punishment - in the case of scourging, severe physical punishment.

These were seen as the "normal" acts of fathers as a part of a good bringing up of children. The infliction of pain was used to correct. Indeed, the clear message is that without "punishment for your own good" from "father", you weren't a proper son.

The 17th century KJV does represent the plain meaning. The author of Hebrews has absolutely no difficulty in saying to those who are enduring all kinds of hardship that they should remember their fathers' punishments as ways in which they were corrected, learned how to behave better.

The NIV uses words which soften the original impact, because in western culture the whole notion of discipline has moved away from the infliction of physical pain by blows as a normal aspect of correction. The notion that God might have to apologise for human suffering caused by His acts of creation was much more difficult for people in the past to conceive, in a world where the experiencing of pain was seen as a normal part the world, and in the family home was seen as a necessary aspect of discipline by a good parent.

Don't get me wrong. The more modern western-world understanding of the bad consequences of causing physical pain to children while disciplining them is one I much prefer. The old "this will hurt me more than it will hurt you" stuff never really worked for me. And I was fortunate to have a gentle father and mother.

But I think one consequence of this shift is that the theodicy issues associated with the problem of pain have also shifted. As a result, all sorts of issues of suffering (not just those demonstrated by the cross) are seen by us today in a rather different way to previous generations. That has some major implication for the kerygma.

Evensong, I know I've done some leg-pulling on this thread. But don't get me wrong. I think this thread was a rather good idea.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Then despair is not assumed and redeemed.

And how could I forget?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Oh, and interestingly, I didn't didn't say that He did. On the contrary. That is our perception. As it fully and terribly became Jesus'.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Then despair is not assumed and redeemed.

And how could I forget?

I don't want despair to be redeemed. I don't want it in the Kingdom of Heaven. I want it to be left behind. Don't you?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I have a problem with the quote in the OP because I can't believe that Jesus was forsaken on the cross - despite his own quote from the Psalm. Am I saying Jesus was wrong in how he felt? or that he meant something different to how what he said sounded to the listener? I don't know.
I don't get it. You know that Christ is reciting psalm 22 [21], and yet you write "despite his own quote"? It is by his own quote that we know that Christ had not despaired. Just read the entire psalm...

Steady on! I'm just getting over the shock of being called virtually sola scriptura on the other thread, and now I don't even read my Bible?! [Smile]

Yes, maybe Jesus was giving - whether incidentally or deliberately - a final lesson before dying, in applying scripture practically, using himself as an example; as he did many times during his life. It would hardly have been unlike him. And maybe all that exposition of the Psalm with regard to his own situation was implicitly revealing itself as he hung on the cross. As Son of God his relationship to the scripture, his knowledge of his Father, his own self-awareness, would no doubt imply a more complex reading than if, say, anyone else in the same situation had muttered that particular phrase.

But who knows the mind of Christ at that moment? Did Jesus expect his auditors to hear and record his remark as a theological working out of the Psalm: 'I'm asking God why he's forsaking me, but they'll really know what I mean'?

Is there no room for the possibility that even the Son of God, as a man in a crap-load of pain, actually spoke those words and meant just those words at that moment, even while at another level God the Father was fulfilling the whole of the Psalm's meaning? How can we know, unless we know what Jesus was thinking?

There is an ambiguity here which, while it submits very nicely to our theological understanding as we look back and work it all out, still seems to present a definite mystery as to the actual experience of Christ at that time.

I think I'm arguing for that ambiguity of what Christ felt or meant, to be left at least ambiguous, rather than tidied neatly away as 'problem solved'.

FWIW,I know Jesus wasn't forsaken by God (at least I believe so), and I find it very difficult to think that Jesus did feel himself forsaken by his Father. But I don't know that for sure because I don't know what he was actually thinking at the time. And equally I think the same, when we claim that Jesus must've intended the whole of the Psalm's meaning to be taken into account when he quoted it. We just don't know that, no matter how true are the theological principles which explain God's working.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
balaam. For God IS love. He has no other higher attributes. No 'rights', no Sovereignty that can remove OUR right to His love. To Him. He can't NOT love us.

That's not what you said. you said "God owes us love."

For us to be owed love we have to have done something to deserve it. We haven't.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
For us to be owed love we have to have done something to deserve it.

Oh? I think I owe my dog good treatment and food and water. It hasn't done anything to deserve it. I owed him that the first day I brought him home, when he hadn't done anything yet for or with me.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Then despair is not assumed and redeemed.

And how could I forget?
I don't want despair to be redeemed. I don't want it in the Kingdom of Heaven. I want it to be left behind. Don't you?

A good sideshoot.

I think mousethief is right. A despairing person may yet be transformed, redeemed. But only by the loss of despair.

The wounds caused by experiences of despair are very great, yet if the person subject to despair is transformed, then they can be of great help to others going through it.

Martin, the picture we have of eternity with God is a place of no more tears, no more pain. The former things pass away. We may get there by the transforming move from despair to hope, inspired by love.

Makes me think of the cry of abandonment from the cross, followed by the "it is finished". Despair itself cannot be redeemed. But a despairing person can be.

Not sure how this works in Orthodox theology, but I think the wounds of despair may be "yet visible above" (as the hymn puts it), in the glorified Christ. Maybe something like that is what you are thinking about?

And all of this factors, somehow, into the the issue of the value of pain as a teacher of the redeeming power of the cross. It is undoubtedly true that people can be driven to despair by the prospect of no relief from suffering in this life. Any of us who has lived through that, or seen a loved one live through that, knows its apparent power to kill hope, even while we are still alive. But the power of hope is an eternal power. We find it in Julian of Norwich's extraordinary statement.

"All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well".

[ 18. March 2013, 06:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Chaps, we are in complete agreement. My badly put point is that Jesus experienced the full horror of being human in His vile death at our hands, at the point of death, mind, faith robbingly alone.

THAT is redeemed. THAT is accepted. Not 'preserved'.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But who knows the mind of Christ at that moment? Did Jesus expect his auditors to hear and record his remark as a theological working out of the Psalm: 'I'm asking God why he's forsaking me, but they'll really know what I mean'?

Is there no room for the possibility that even the Son of God, as a man in a crap-load of pain, actually spoke those words and meant just those words at that moment, even while at another level God the Father was fulfilling the whole of the Psalm's meaning? How can we know, unless we know what Jesus was thinking?

I assume that the psalmist was in a crap-load of pain when speaking these words. Or at least was recalling a crap-load of pain. Perhaps I'm saying that instead of "either-or" we should think "both-and". I think it is highly relevant that Christ expresses these feelings. After all, He could have just uttered some triumphant statement about fulfilling His mission or some such. But no, He is crying out from the bottom of human existence. Yet He is not simply cursing the Father for His plight. In this very bottom of human existence He still finds the words of scripture, and those are words that bridge from the despair of the moment to the ultimate triumph.

Crushed by torture and death, a scream that is both truly dark and bitter and truly pointing to hope and victory. When ground to His incarnational core, reduced to nothingness in His humanity, Christ dies with faith on His lips.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But no, He is crying out from the bottom of human existence. Yet He is not simply cursing the Father for His plight. In this very bottom of human existence He still finds the words of scripture, and those are words that bridge from the despair of the moment to the ultimate triumph.

Crushed by torture and death, a scream that is both truly dark and bitter and truly pointing to hope and victory. When ground to His incarnational core, reduced to nothingness in His humanity, Christ dies with faith on His lips.

Nothing in your post I would even want to disagree with. 'Both/and' makes a lot of sense.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Martin:

quote:

Oh, and fletcher christian, God OWES us love.

Owes, or is in his nature to love? I might 'owe' it to a pet to feed it to keep it alive, but I suspect it is love that compels me to do it. I guess I just feel uncomfortable about a God instead of choosing to love us, does it out of some sense of duty.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Martin:

quote:

Oh, and fletcher christian, God OWES us love.

Owes, or is in his nature to love? I might 'owe' it to a pet to feed it to keep it alive, but I suspect it is love that compels me to do it. I guess I just feel uncomfortable about a God instead of choosing to love us, does it out of some sense of duty.

How can God be said to "choose" something if it's in his nature to do it? That would mean he couldn't choose not to do it, in which case what exactly could be meant by "choice"?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Because anything else would mean that God is not 'free' and consequently can't be God if not able to do as God wants?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Because anything else would mean that God is not 'free' and consequently can't be God if not able to do as God wants?

Is God 'free'? Why? What can God possibly want except what is in accord with His nature?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

IngoB. Beautiful.

Go mousethief!

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Because anything else would mean that God is not 'free' and consequently can't be God if not able to do as God wants?
Is God 'free'? Why? What can God possibly want except what is in accord with His nature?

I think Aquinas is particularly clear on this one:

quote:
Summa Theologiae Ia q19 a3
I answer that, There are two ways in which a thing is said to be necessary, namely, absolutely, and by supposition. We judge a thing to be absolutely necessary from the relation of the terms, as when the predicate forms part of the definition of the subject: thus it is absolutely necessary that man is an animal. It is the same when the subject forms part of the notion of the predicate; thus it is absolutely necessary that a number must be odd or even. In this way it is not necessary that Socrates sits: wherefore it is not necessary absolutely, though it may be so by supposition; for, granted that he is sitting, he must necessarily sit, as long as he is sitting. Accordingly as to things willed by God, we must observe that He wills something of absolute necessity: but this is not true of all that He wills. For the divine will has a necessary relation to the divine goodness, since that is its proper object. Hence God wills His own goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily, and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and principal object, for instance the sight to color, since it tends to it by its own nature. But God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end. Now in willing an end we do not necessarily will things that conduce to it, unless they are such that the end cannot be attained without them; as, we will to take food to preserve life, or to take ship in order to cross the sea. But we do not necessarily will things without which the end is attainable, such as a horse for a journey which we can take on foot, for we can make the journey without one. The same applies to other means. Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is not absolutely necessary. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change.

So it is not that God first makes us, and then chooses to love us. It is not an "after the fact" love, as we have. We make choices about what exists, including loving people. God's love is an "in the fact" love. God's choice is in making us and thereby we are loved. We are loved into existence, and that is God's choice. He could have not done so, since there is no absolute necessity that we exist. However, there is a necessity by supposition: given that God did in fact chose to love us into existence, we are in consequence necessarily loved. Also note that God's choice, unlike ours, is not temporal but "virtual". Since God is eternal and unchanging, there never has been a time when He changed His mind about loving us into existence. Rather, the choice is "virtual": no contradiction is involved in positing a God identical in essence to the actual God, but who has not loved us into existence. We cannot really understand how a decision can be made without the flow of time and a change, but this is what we must assert about God. (That once more points us to the fact that God is not a super-human like Jupiter.) Somehow God is reflected in His "I am"-ness beyond necessities of metaphysical calculus. (This is actually an argument for calling God a "Person" by analogy, rather than a "Power".)

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Ingo, I'm not disagreeing with any of that, what I'm uncomfortable with is the concept that God 'owes' it to us. A love from duty and a love from nature seem to be two very different things to me.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Much as I hate to disagree with the great Aquinas, how in the world can you say "Socrates sits necessarily if he's sitting" and expect to be taken seriously? Socrates only ever sits contingently, unless you're saying "tautologies are true" which isn't a terribly useful thing to say. What he has shown is that if you qualify a statement enough, it becomes a tautology. "It is necessary that all sitting people are sitting." Oh that's helpful. That proves (or even demonstrates) nothing about God. Clear on this? I don't think so.

Moving on to the substantial point, if it's more loving to create us than not, how can God not do it? Contrariwise if it's less loving to create than not, God cannot do it. Is it equally loving to either create us or not create us?

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Moving on to the substantial point, if it's more loving to create us than not, how can God not do it? Contrariwise if it's less loving to create than not, God cannot do it. Is it equally loving to either create us or not create us?

I'm not entirely sure I'm following this thread properly (this often happens to me when the words Thomas and Aquinas appear in close proximity) but I've often wondered how God being omniscient and good has any freedom of action at all. Given the knowledge of the ultimate consequences of any choice, how can a decision to make in full knowledge an ultimately sub-optimal choice ever be good? As you say, choice then requires multiple equally good outcomes.

Maybe if I read St Thomas one more time I'll get it...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0