|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Easter Message : Christ did not die for sin
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I don't care what PSA says. God obviously suffered with us as a human and continues to do so omnipathically.
If I were to deny the God of the bible, plainly, simply, obviously revealed in and by the entire bible to me, I would be being a coward. Even more of one than I am already. Yes.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Just as long as you keep in mind that one man's "It's obvious to me from the Bible" is another man's "You must be joking it doesn't say anything like that." This of course is the achilles heel of the "Just me and the Bible and Jesus" methodology.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You mean it DOESN'T say anything like PSA+ if you're a Neanderthal like me? I mean you clever young folk can make it say black is white I know, but I'm WRONG? Intellectually deficient? Uncompassionate? Inadequate? Psychotic (only the latter am I actually NOT). But I'm those things BECAUSE as a very simple, simplistic, exoteric man I read PSA IN to the Bible? When it ISN'T meant to be?
[ 14. April 2007, 15:53: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And I missed that tautology - I believe in PSA cos the bible tells me to. All right? It doesn't tell YOU to. OK? That's MY responsibility.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Can't somebody disagree with you without it being "i'm smart and you're stupid"? People read it differently. They come to different conclusions. That's all. There's plenty of very intelligent (as well as plenty of very stupid) people on both sides of the PSA thing. Nobody is impugning your motives or your intelligence. They're just disagreeing with your exegesis.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Just as long as you keep in mind that one man's "It's obvious to me from the Bible" is another man's "You must be joking it doesn't say anything like that." This of course is the achilles heel of the "Just me and the Bible and Jesus" methodology.
Well, "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" can, unfortunatly, often mean, "I want to believe it, I can make this verse fit it, that settles it".
Not that I wish to have a go at conservatives specifically. I guess all Christians do that to some extent, whether they are liberal, conservative or other. And, yes, there are very smart conservatives and very dumb liberals. Very smart liberals and some very dumb conservatives.
Not just on exegesis either.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Can't somebody disagree with you without it being "i'm smart and you're stupid"? People read it differently. They come to different conclusions. That's all. There's plenty of very intelligent (as well as plenty of very stupid) people on both sides of the PSA thing. Nobody is impugning your motives or your intelligence. They're just disagreeing with your exegesis.
How can you disagree with exegesis?
By definition exegesis is drawing out what is there in the text. If it's there, how can you disagree with it??
If it were eisegesis, fine - disagree away.
I'm with PSA + on this one.
I don't understand the 'anything but PSA' position - especially when the exegesis is consistent and as plain as any other theory - in some cases, more so.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Nobody does exegesis in a vacuum. It is not just "drawing out what is there in the text." If what is there in the text were so damned obvious there wouldn't be 10,000 different denominations all claiming to have the true exegesis of scripture.
We all bring our preconceptions, our existing prejudices and beliefs and theologies and ecclesiologies and philosophies and life histories (and so on and so on and so on) to our exegesis. You no less than I. An exegesis is an informed guess. It's not like reading a thermometer and seeing what temperature it is. Theology, even exegesis, is an art, not a science.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Nobody does exegesis in a vacuum. It is not just "drawing out what is there in the text." If what is there in the text were so damned obvious there wouldn't be 10,000 different denominations all claiming to have the true exegesis of scripture.
We all bring our preconceptions, our existing prejudices and beliefs and theologies and ecclesiologies and philosophies and life histories (and so on and so on and so on) to our exegesis. You no less than I. An exegesis is an informed guess. It's not like reading a thermometer and seeing what temperature it is. Theology, even exegesis, is an art, not a science.
There are not, however, 10,000 atonement theories.
Half a dozen at most, and all of them with exegetical foundation - even, it must be admitted, PSA, in which I cannot find anything that would negate anything the Scripture says about law, grace and atonement.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How can you disagree with exegesis?
Well, as an example, different traditions don't agree on the exegesis of Matthew 16:18.
There are all sorts of assumptions that are not eisegesis strictly-speaking that people bring to the bible that change the way that they do exegesis.
Random examples:
* Did God tangibly appear to people in the Old Testament and talk to them in words they could understand? Some would say yes, others no. If not, what does it mean to say that God appeared to Noah, Moses, Abraham, etc.
* What is the nature of God? In Christian tradition a Neo-Platonic view of God stands in tension with a more Jewish view of God. We tend to use both images and chop and change but some people more consistently use one view or another.
* What is the nature of the Church? Is it institutional or spiritual? Until I was in my 30s, I'd never heard the assumption made, for example, that "God wants the church to look the way it did in the first century."
I don't think any of these things is eisegesis strictly speaking, but our assumptions about them can profoundly change the way that we look at the bible and do exegesis. And these were just three random ideas off the top of my head.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Nobody does exegesis in a vacuum. It is not just "drawing out what is there in the text." If what is there in the text were so damned obvious there wouldn't be 10,000 different denominations all claiming to have the true exegesis of scripture.
We all bring our preconceptions, our existing prejudices and beliefs and theologies and ecclesiologies and philosophies and life histories (and so on and so on and so on) to our exegesis. You no less than I. An exegesis is an informed guess. It's not like reading a thermometer and seeing what temperature it is. Theology, even exegesis, is an art, not a science.
There are not, however, 10,000 atonement theories.
Half a dozen at most, and all of them with exegetical foundation - even, it must be admitted, PSA, in which I cannot find anything that would negate anything the Scripture says about law, grace and atonement.
Perhaps. But it doesn't at all answer what I said. I was referring to your claim, which I find absurd, that you can't argue with exegesis.
If you're going to define exegesis so strictly that it can't be argued with, then I would say there is no exegesis at all. It is all, by your definition, eisegesis.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The exegesis theme on this thread i about PSA. It is very difficult to get a straight answer from those who don't/won't believe in PSA on those passages where the exegesis seems very clearly to be PSA.
It would be interesting to get a few Bible verses that speak of PSA, ransom, blood sacrifice, etc and actually get some good, clear, convincing, satisfying exegesis on those verses from the non PSA/ransom/blood sacrifice adherents.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I have just been listening to a woman on the radio whose father physically abused her and did so using language re PSA to justify his actions.
It seems to me that PSA is 'bad news' for people who come from abusive backgrounds.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The exegesis theme on this thread i about PSA. It is very difficult to get a straight answer from those who don't/won't believe in PSA on those passages where the exegesis seems very clearly to be PSA.
It would be interesting to get a few Bible verses that speak of PSA, ransom, blood sacrifice, etc and actually get some good, clear, convincing, satisfying exegesis on those verses from the non PSA/ransom/blood sacrifice adherents.
Well, to me, ransom and blood sacrifice are not PSA. I probably don't interpret them in the same way that you do, but they aren't PSA. As I said, my whole objection to PSA is that it gives philosophical priority to retributive justice as being the act that effects salvation.
All I can say is that I read the Gospels and I don't see anything that Jesus said as being anything like PSA. He doesn't preach it and he doesn't act it out. He gives us very big hints that he is the Suffering Servant, but that's about all I can see. If all this wrathful God stuff were so darn important, why did Jesus spend all his time on earth preaching about wimpy forgiveness? Why didn't he spend three years telling everyone they'd go to hell if they didn't shape up? Wouldn't that have been more comprehensible to people?
And yes, I do give priority to the teaching of Jesus over that of Paul and the Pauline letters and over the Old Testament (Although it must be said that Jewish people seem to read the Old Testament and fail to see the Calvinist wrathful God as well.)
To me, PSA looks an awful, awful lot like eisegesis and the cries of "no justice without an execution" only convince me further of eisegeis since this is 180 degrees opposite of Jesus' teachings.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Does all this not show how the cross is indeed either seen as foolishness or a stumbling block?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The foolishness and stumbling block is that the Son of God got crucified... not PSA.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The foolishness and stumbling block is that the Son of God got crucified... not PSA.
Thank you, Andreas.
Mudfrog, the scandal of the cross is that God forgives us without beating the shit out of anyone. He just does it. For free.
This is contrary to the way that most people in the world operate. To put back that element of retribution into one's theory of the way God forgives us is to attribute our human sinful nature to God.
If you honestly think that "the way of the world" is to forgive other people, then you and I are living in parallel universes. Because what I see in the world in which I live is hatred and a desire for revenge and the idea that might makes right.
[ 14. April 2007, 18:34: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
This thread is reaching my personal zone of deceased equines and I think we've been around the arguments at least three times. Mudfrog, I don't know which biblical verses people use to support PSA; I was actually taught that PSA has a biblical basis that is only just barely supportable but far from strong. (I do not have these materials any more as I gave them to someone else.)
I feel that almost all I could say on the subject of forgiveness is said in Miroslav Volf's book "Free of Charge". Although it is not a book about atonement per se, I think that the book brings out very clearly why forgiveness makes retribution and punishment logically impossible. It also sets the subject of "forgiveness" in a very strenuous theology of sin and sinfulness.
I think I have very little left to say. I do remain extremely puzzled about the strength of emotion surrounding those of us who cannot accept PSA.
[ 14. April 2007, 19:35: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
re: the bible
The books of the bible are not books of men, but of God. If they are not of men then why do we think that we an read them the same way we read books of men?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FromAfrica
Apprentice
# 12523
|
Posted
What if the death of Christ on the cross actually brought this whole world to the brink of destruction and disaster passed over us only because Jesus prayed "forgive them because they don't know what they are doing". Maybe that prayer applies here also. Do we know what we are doing? What I am saying is the death and blood of Christ almost got us into big trouble (parable of the vineyard Mark 12) but the words and forgiving spirit of Jesus is what saved us. The blood now represents the forgiveness of that big sin and so other sin as well but in reality Christ died to give us life. God sent His Son so that we might live forever.
--------------------
Out of Darkest Africa.
Posts: 9 | From: KwaZulu Natal | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FromAfrica:
What I am saying is the death and blood of Christ almost got us into big trouble (parable of the vineyard Mark 12) but the words and forgiving spirit of Jesus is what saved us.
Nice thought. It is interesting that this is the line of thought that would follow naturally from the parable of the vineyard. We killed the Son so we will be "destroyed miserably."
Another way to look at this is to say that "that which killed the Son of Man" is what will be miserably destroyed. The owner of the vineyard was not going to kill all vinedressers, just the wicked ones. It is easy to extrapolate from that idea that the whole point is to eliminate the "wicked vinedresser" that lurks within all of us. Or to overcome that element of humanity.
To my mind this is what Jesus' prayers and forgiveness are about. He isn't praying for the wicked vinedressers to be pardoned and continue to go about their business. He is praying for them to change their ways.
The assumption, I think, is that it is possible to look at what we have done, realize that this is what we are like, and ask God's help and forgiveness so that we can change our ways.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
I just wonder if evangelicals will ever win - we get accused of being Christo centric but when we start talking of PSA (which involves all of the Godhead) others want to promote Christus Victor - which does not seem as trinitarian in its outlook?
Not that I agree with the reason the person was imprisoned in the first place - but a close example of the courts accepting someone else paying the price to release another is here
Council tax rebel released early from prison So human law does understand the ability to pay for someone elses "crimes" and finds it entirely acceptable.
Another question - would it not be more cruel to send Christ to die on the cross unless it was absolutely totally necessary.
The whole aspect of Christ's life , death and resurrection are important to us.
In living Christ lived under the law and fulfilled it.
In His death He redeemed us with His precious blood - as the apostle Peter calls it
In His resusrrection He justifies us - Romans 4 v 25
I also heard Jeffrey John Easter Sunday morning and (Show of Hands at night) - he has a sense of humour , he is thoughtful , but has not much experience of some preachers when he thought his sermon was long at fifteen minutes. (Show of Hands were fantastic in the Royal Albert Hall)
One thing he did draw out is that in the tomb is that it was not a coincidence that the tomb had two angels (Luke 24 v 4) and linked it with the mercy seat of old - which I found interesting from someone so publicly against PSA.
The aspect of substitution is found in verses like
2 Corinthians 5 v 21
1 Peter 2 v 24
Galatian 3 v 13
I know how proof texting is not acceptable in some quarters but suffice to say I could find many many more - all that would fit in the SA model of atonement than any other. Especially when you include all the pictures of atonement in the Old Testament.
I am also interested in why if Isaiah 53 is so unimportant it is referred to so many time in the New Testament?
With respect to God's wrath - was Christ right to overturn the moneychangers tables in Matthew 21 v 12? That seems like someone displaying anger?
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mystery of Faith
Shipmate
# 12176
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
I am also interested in why if Isaiah 53 is so unimportant it is referred to so many time in the New Testament?
I don't think anyone is denying the importance and evocative language of Isaiah 53, but perhaps emphasising that when applying it to Christ it can be interpreted in many different ways. The fact that it is such evocative poetry about the suffering servant makes it a powerful illustration adopted by the gospel writers to try and explain what Christ has done for us. It remains, however, one picture amongst many.
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Andreas and Seeker - the stumbling block - the skandalos - of the cross is that Christ was crucified at all! It was what a lot of people on here are railing against - the fact that God would send his Son to be the final blood sacrifice and suffer a substitutionary death.
That is the scandal.
It is also foolishness in the eyes of people who would rather put their own philosophies over and above the plain teaching of Scripture.
Jesus was punished, condemned, in our place, not just paying the price, but bearing the penalty upon himself and thus demonstrating perfectly the power of God and the passionate love of God for the world.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
I am also interested in why if Isaiah 53 is so unimportant it is referred to so many time in the New Testament?
Isaiah 53 is very important. It's just that there are better ways of interpreting it than that God sacrificed His Son to pay the debt of sin.
For example, it can be seen as similar to the way that Ezekiel was commanded to "bear the iniquity of the house of Israel":
quote:
Ezekiel 4 1 “You also, son of man, take a clay tablet and lay it before you, and portray on it a city, Jerusalem. 2 Lay siege against it, build a siege wall against it, and heap up a mound against it; set camps against it also, and place battering rams against it all around. 3 Moreover take for yourself an iron plate, and set it as an iron wall between you and the city. Set your face against it, and it shall be besieged, and you shall lay siege against it. This will be a sign to the house of Israel.
4 “Lie also on your left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it. According to the number of the days that you lie on it, you shall bear their iniquity. 5 For I have laid on you the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days; so you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. 6 And when you have completed them, lie again on your right side; then you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days. I have laid on you a day for each year.
Ezekiel "bore the iniquity" by acting out this peculiar scenario. Isaiah did something similar when he went "naked and barefoot as a sign and a wonder" (Isaiah 20).
These prophets didn't actually take away sins, or atone for them, by doing these things. The purpose was to represent the sin and point it out - to warn people and encourage them to change their ways.
Jesus' death pointed out that there is something in us that wishes to reject and destroy God. That is the sin that Jesus encountered and took on, or "bore." Jesus exposed that evil to the light of day, enabling us to reject it and reform. So He said:
quote:
Matthew 10:26 For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.
Luke 12:3 Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.
When evil is exposed its power is taken away.
So in my opinion there are other ways to see Isaiah 53 that are more consistent with the rest of Scripture than the PSA interpretation.
Isaiah 53 is nevertheless an important model for understanding what happened to Jesus.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
One thing and I think it's an important thing. I don't know if I can articulate as well as I thought it.
But if Jesus took all of the punishment for believers sins - why are believers still suffering the consequences of their sins? No one gets through this life without 'reaping what they sow' believer or not, psa or not. If Jesus was punished for every single sin of believers then it seems rather unjust that us believers are still living with punishment over us for our wrong actions.
If I steal something and get caught - it will be me that faces prosecution from the government (which Paul CLEARLY sees as Gods instrument of wrath on evildoers) and me who suffers the punishment - not Jesus.
That, for me, makes it impossible for me to say something like "Jesus has taken all the punishment for my sins". He hasn't, just living life and reaping what you sow will clearly testify to that.
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Andreas and Seeker - the stumbling block - the skandalos - of the cross is that Christ was crucified at all! It was what a lot of people on here are railing against - the fact that God would send his Son to be the final blood sacrifice and suffer a substitutionary death.
That is the scandal.
It is also foolishness in the eyes of people who would rather put their own philosophies over and above the plain teaching of Scripture.
Jesus was punished, condemned, in our place, not just paying the price, but bearing the penalty upon himself and thus demonstrating perfectly the power of God and the passionate love of God for the world.
Mudfrog, you have said absolutely nothing to me personally in our conversations that indicates to me that you have heard what I'm saying.
Therefore, I would appreciate it if you didn't tell me what I'm "railing" about. It appears to me that you don't have a clue what my objections are and, from where I sit, it looks like you are the one who is doing the "railing".
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
It appears to me that you don't have a clue what my objections are
You have a good point, here, Seeker. Discussions are more satisfying when you have the feeling that people at least understand, or at least have read, what others are saying.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Some words by Giles Fraser in his ‘Christianity with Attitude’:
“The language of punishment is commonly saturated with the language of finance. Criminals ‘owe a debt’ to society; victims seek ‘compensation’; the home secretary sets a ‘tariff’ for various types of crime. The recent report, Rethinking Sentencing, unanimously approved by the Church of England General Synod, urged the Church ‘to take seriously the power of the financial/economic nexus of thinking to condition responses in areas of life to which it has, in truth, no relevance’. ..Yet the Judeo-Christian tradition has a good deal of responsibility for locating our thinking about punishment within a financial paradigm. Genesis describes the enslavement of Israel by the Egyptians as having been brought about by poverty. ‘Now there was no food in all the land, for the famine was very severe. We with our lands will become slaves to pharaoh; just give us seed so that we may live and not die.’ Salvation from slavery was primarily conceived as salvation from debt….In the Hebrew Scriptures, the remission of debt was understood within the tradition of the jubilee, where all debts were wiped clean, and those in the debtors’ prison of slavery released….It is a crucial difference. Whereas the jubilee tradition speaks of debts forgiven, Christ’s passion is commonly understood, particularly by evangelicals, as debts paid by another on our behalf — thus protecting the reciprocity of debtor and creditor. Protecting, that is, the basic premise of finance.
This logic has more to do with Adam Smith than Adam and Eve. For the idea that sins are some sort of debt that must be paid off is to subjugate the Christian gospel of good news to the poor to the power of mammon. Penal substitutionary atonement, with its understanding of Christ as the only person ‘good enough to pay the price of sin’, is really all about the worship of money….Rethinking Sentencing begins the much-needed debate into what our judicial system would look like if it was premised not on the logic of salvation as debt and repayment, hut on the idea that crime is the breaking of a relationship within the community, and that genuine justice must he all about relationships restored. This is not justice as pay-hack hut as problem-solving. Through restorative justice, criminals are made to face the consequences of their actions and led to accept responsibility….A genuinely biblical conception of justice that prioritizes forgiveness as a means to heal divisions is not about letting people off ‘free’ - that financial metaphor again — hut about shifting the paradigm SO that our response to crime targets the need to re-establish harmony within the community.”
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
the stumbling block - the skandalos - of the cross is that Christ was crucified at all! It was what a lot of people on here are railing against - the fact that God would send his Son to be the final blood sacrifice and suffer a substitutionary death.
That is the scandal.
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo
Another question - would it not be more cruel to send Christ to die on the cross unless it was absolutely totally necessary.
I think others have said this better than me, but it bears repeating IMO. These statements look at the cross, see that it happened, see God as omnipotent and omniscient, and assume that it's necessary to see a way that God actively willed the death of Jesus--that it must have "done something" on God's end that was worth all the horror. That the cross was God doing something we can't see--cancelling a debt, effecting forgiveness, bridging the gap.
Others see it differently. I look at the cross and see humanity doing something that's all too easy to see--in the big and little injustices and horrors we see and make and suffer every day. It is, indeed, a scandal that Christ would experience it--it is a horrible, cruel thing. But I see the will of God less in crucifying Christ to enact an unseen balance and more in Christ's full identification with the human cost of living decently in a fallen world. Jesus willingly putting down the power of God to live (and die) by humanity's rules, in order to point to ways of changing them and stripping them of ultimate power. God's hand wasn't on the hammer on the hill--it was on the stone at the tomb.
I think this might be part of the talking -past-each-other-thing: we don't all go from "Jesus came from God" to "Jesus died on the cross" by way of "because God sent his Son to be the final blood sacrifice." Supporters of PSA are asking for an answer to a question opponents don't really ask in the same way, and vice versa.
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura
Wise Drunkard
# 1066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
One thing he did draw out is that in the tomb is that it was not a coincidence that the tomb had two angels (Luke 24 v 4) and linked it with the mercy seat of old - which I found interesting from someone so publicly against PSA.
Yes Dobbo, but affirming this connection does not necessarily bring us to PSA, which Alison demonstrates in this article: An atonement update
quote:
You can tell that that was how it was read because in John’s Gospel immediately after this, at the resurrection, we are transferred to the garden. We are back to the “first day” and we are in “the garden”. Peter and John come to look, then Mary Magdalene comes in. What does she see? Two angels! And where are the angels sitting? One at the head and one at the foot of a space that is open because the stone has been rolled away. What is this space? This is the Holy of Holies. This is the mercy seat, with the Cherubim present.
--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco
Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
I am also interested in why if Isaiah 53 is so unimportant it is referred to so many time in the New Testament?
Isaiah 53 is very important. It's just that there are better ways of interpreting it than that God sacrificed His Son to pay the debt of sin.
Jesus' death pointed out that there is something in us that wishes to reject and destroy God. That is the sin that Jesus encountered and took on, or "bore." Jesus exposed that evil to the light of day, enabling us to reject it and reform. So He said:
quote:
Matthew 10:26 For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.
Luke 12:3 Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.
When evil is exposed its power is taken away.
So in my opinion there are other ways to see Isaiah 53 that are more consistent with the rest of Scripture than the PSA interpretation.
Isaiah 53 is nevertheless an important model for understanding what happened to Jesus.
Can you give me another redemption scenario that is as trinitarian in its outlook as PSA?
So that I understand are you rejecting the idea that Christ in some way is our substitute and is the atoning sacrafice - as the lamb of God - or is that you see it as part of the redemption picture? Because I suppose there are those that see PSA or SA as part of the picture but are open to the other theories as well.
quote:
by infinite monkey
Others see it differently. I look at the cross and see humanity doing something that's all too easy to see--in the big and little injustices and horrors we see and make and suffer every day. It is, indeed, a scandal that Christ would experience it--it is a horrible, cruel thing. But I see the will of God less in crucifying Christ to enact an unseen balance and more in Christ's full identification with the human cost of living decently in a fallen world. Jesus willingly putting down the power of God to live (and die) by humanity's rules, in order to point to ways of changing them and stripping them of ultimate power. God's hand wasn't on the hammer on the hill--it was on the stone at the tomb.
I think this might be part of the talking -past-each-other-thing: we don't all go from "Jesus came from God" to "Jesus died on the cross" by way of "because God sent his Son to be the final blood sacrifice." Supporters of PSA are asking for an answer to a question opponents don't really ask in the same way, and vice versa.
You make it out that it is a human thing - I want to see it as a manifestation of God's love
1 John 4 v 10
I am interested in another picture of atonement that explains the word hilaskomai - propitiation in this text and of the OT sacraficial system - the way PSA seems to fit in my eyes anyway.
Particulary with respect to a Trinitarian view of redemption as one that was planned by the Godhead before the beginning of the world
2 Timothy 1 v 9
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
You make it out that it is a human thing - I want to see it (the cross) as a manifestation of God's love
1 John 4 v 10
I am interested in another picture of atonement that explains the word hilaskomai - propitiation in this text and of the OT sacraficial system - the way PSA seems to fit in my eyes anyway.
Particulary with respect to a Trinitarian view of redemption as one that was planned by the Godhead before the beginning of the world
2 Timothy 1 v 9
Cheers for that. I want to understand you better when you say that I "make it out as a human thing"--I don't think I communicated well. To me, the crucifixion--the specific and horrible things done to a man who was Love incarnate by the people who feared what that Love could mean in their society--was, very much, a "human thing". I can't get behind a God who requires or predetermines that kind of violence--in the name of justice, love, or whatever have you, to anyone innocent or otherwise. I'm fairly certain that makes me hell-bound in many folk's opinions--fair enough, and I trust it will all be sorted out in ways beyond what any of us can currently imagine.
Despite my fundamental belief that crucifixion was not the "will of God" in terms of a remedy for sin, I do believe that God's love was indeed deeply present on Calvary, as I have to hope it is in the thousands of mini-Golgothas we humans have made for ourselves and each other over the millenia. I believe that God, as embodied by Jesus, loved us too much to take the easy way out--loved us too much to change our realities to fit His own safety or power. Loves us too much to ask of us something that he had been spared from by those 10 thousand angels. Too much to demand we put faith in a resurrection without first showing us how it can be done.
To me, that is the love of God--that He transforms our pain by enduring it and changing it. Not causing or needing more of it--not even to Himself.
Does that make sense?
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
Can you give me another redemption scenario that is as trinitarian in its outlook as PSA?.
Sure. The Son of God came into the world to bear its sins in the same sense that Ezekiel bore the sins of Israel and Judah. He dealt with those sins by representing them and pointing them out. But Ezekiel could not deal with them as effectively as Jesus could because he was not God. Jesus was.
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
So that I understand are you rejecting the idea that Christ in some way is our substitute and is the atoning sacrafice - as the lamb of God - or is that you see it as part of the redemption picture? Because I suppose there are those that see PSA or SA as part of the picture but are open to the other theories as well.
Yes, I don't accept that Christ is our substitute and atoning sacrifice.
Redemption, to me, means that He overcame the power of evil - which is consistent with the Old and New Testament usage of the word.
His sacrifice is that He sacrificed His physical life to gain a spiritual victory - as He taught many times.
He was a ransom in the sense that He wished to give everything for the sake of the human race.
We are indeed healed by the ordeal that He underwent, or by His stripes, but it was because He was victorious in the struggle, not because He took our punishment.
These interpretations have more biblical support, in my opinion, than the idea that Jesus took our punishment in the PSA model.
The PSA model is unacceptable to me not just because of the repellent idea of the Father being somehow satisfied by the Son's death, but because of the salvation formula that inevitably accompanies it.
The idea that we are saved by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and not by obedience to God, contradicts, in my opinion, the message of both testaments and the explicit words of Jesus.
The point is that religion is about escaping the bondage of self-centered and worldly desires and practices, and finding freedom and happiness by choosing God-centered and other-centered desires and practices, in obedience to God's will.
PSA is not about this, as far as I can see.
[ 16. April 2007, 01:58: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Afghan
Shipmate
# 10478
|
Posted
Read Leviticus 16 - which describes the Yom Kippur sacrifice, two sacrifices, one offered to God for atonement and one who bears the iniquities of Israel out into the wilderness.
Then read all those bits of the New Testament that refer to Christ as a sin-offering, a hilasterion, the Lamb of God. The writers of the New Testament unanimously chose to portray Christ as atoning sacrifice and not that which bore the sins of the congregation. Only the Epistle of Barnabas connects Christ with the scapegoat and that isn't canon.
I admit that I have conceptual problems with PSA but it also does not seem to pass the test of Scripture.
--------------------
Credibile quia ineptum
Posts: 438 | From: Essex | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
I thought I'd made a really good point up there! I knew it would be ignored?
Have I, in a split seconds flash - nullified PSA?
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
I thought I'd made a really good point up there! I knew it would be ignored?
It was ignored, I think, because everyone knows that we are talking about eternal and spiritual forgiveness, not the escape of worldly consequences. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
But surely Gods wrath is just as relevant in life as in the afterlife?
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
But surely Gods wrath is just as relevant in life as in the afterlife?
Sure, but the peace that is offered is on an internal, spiritual level.
That is, God's wrath does not literally put you in jail, and Jesus' redemption won't literally get you out of jail. But it will help you find peace even if you are in jail.
[ 16. April 2007, 12:15: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Hilasterion was wrong translated as 'propitiation' It appears in Cranmer's Communion Service. A better ranslation is 'expiation'. That way, he isn't punished INSTEAD of us - we have to die to sin too.
William Blake wrote: ‘Every religion that preaches vengeance for sin is the religion of the enemy and avenger and not the forgiver of sin and their God is Satan.’
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
William Blake wrote: ‘Every religion that preaches vengeance for sin is the religion of the enemy and avenger and not the forgiver of sin and their God is Satan.’
Leo, I am uncertain of your intent here. I presume that you know that Blake was a lapsed Swedenborgian who vented a great deal of bile in Swedenborg's direction. I confess that I love Blake, but I can't help but wonder why you quote him to a Swedenborgian.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
Can you give me another redemption scenario that is as trinitarian in its outlook as PSA?.
Sure. The Son of God came into the world to bear its sins in the same sense that Ezekiel bore the sins of Israel and Judah. He dealt with those sins by representing them and pointing them out. But Ezekiel could not deal with them as effectively as Jesus could because he was not God. Jesus was.
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
So that I understand are you rejecting the idea that Christ in some way is our substitute and is the atoning sacrafice - as the lamb of God - or is that you see it as part of the redemption picture? Because I suppose there are those that see PSA or SA as part of the picture but are open to the other theories as well.
Yes, I don't accept that Christ is our substitute and atoning sacrifice.
Redemption, to me, means that He overcame the power of evil - which is consistent with the Old and New Testament usage of the word.
His sacrifice is that He sacrificed His physical life to gain a spiritual victory - as He taught many times.
He was a ransom in the sense that He wished to give everything for the sake of the human race.
We are indeed healed by the ordeal that He underwent, or by His stripes, but it was because He was victorious in the struggle, not because He took our punishment.
These interpretations have more biblical support, in my opinion, than the idea that Jesus took our punishment in the PSA model.
The PSA model is unacceptable to me not just because of the repellent idea of the Father being somehow satisfied by the Son's death, but because of the salvation formula that inevitably accompanies it.
The idea that we are saved by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and not by obedience to God, contradicts, in my opinion, the message of both testaments and the explicit words of Jesus.
The point is that religion is about escaping the bondage of self-centered and worldly desires and practices, and finding freedom and happiness by choosing God-centered and other-centered desires and practices, in obedience to God's will.
PSA is not about this, as far as I can see.
When I am asking about trinitarian involvement - I am asking what for example God the Father or God the Holy Spirit has to do with redemption
- given that the Holy Spirit applies God's love to our hearts Romans 5 v 5
Where is God the Father in the working out of redemption?
What I am trying to say is I believe that the Author of the work of redemption is the triune God - and other pictures of redemption seem to neglect this aspect.
Also other models do not pick up on the various roles of Christ - being a sacrafice , being a high priest , being a mediator, being a propitiation and for clarification I do not think PSA picks up the whole picture either.
I think my problem is that with the word propitiation some form of substitution is indicated.
Also propitiation is translated mercy seat in Hebrews 9 v 5 - linking it to the day of atonement.
Also in Romans 3 - there is a correlation between propitiation and redemption Romans 3 v 24 and 25 . How does the idea of sin bearer work in that context.
Incidently I like the idea of sin bearer - I see it as part of the picture of redemption - I can see that in the picture of Ezekiel 1 v 10 - I simply feel it is important not to reject any picture of Christ's atoning work on the cross.
After all the number of crosses that are seen in churches and on christians and celebrating the mass/ eucharist / communion - does strike me that it has a very central role in God's plan or a lot of Christians have missed the point completely.
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Some words by Giles Fraser in his ‘Christianity with Attitude’
As a theologian, Giles Fraser is a very good journalist.
Apart from there being other popular authors (McCabe, Alison) who put the case against PSA better, Fraser confuses PSA as such with the language of ransom. Given that this language is patristic in origin, it seems unlikely to me to be inextricably tied up with capitalism, unless it was getting in there supremely early. I particularly dislike the compulsorary dig at evangelicals.
In the earliest accounts, the ransom was paid to the devil. Suitably demythologised, I rather like this view. The world gets its piece of meat in Jesus. The regrettable necessity is unergone, one man dies to establish social peace, and things can continue. At which point God 'spoils the spoiler of his prey' through the Resurrection. The forces of violence and death are cheated.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I presume that you know that Blake was a lapsed Swedenborgian who vented a great deal of bile in Swedenborg's direction. I confess that I love Blake, but I can't help but wonder why you quote him to a Swedenborgian.
Blake did not entirely throw off Swedenborg. He merely had some issues with "reason." In any case that quote is perfectly Swedenborgian.
I didn't realize that Leo was quoting it at me. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hilasterion was wrong translated as 'propitiation' It appears in Cranmer's Communion Service. A better ranslation is 'expiation'.
I have to confess that those are both words I only ever encounter in Christian liturgy and I would not want to stick my neck out and say what, if anything, is the exact difference between them.
I very much suspect that people who use those words in prayer book liturgy, or when singing a few very old hymns, or who red them in the AV Bible, (and when else does anyone use them?) probably don't make a distinction between them. They aren't really part of our current vocabulary.
I've got a vague feeling that in a human context "expiation" means putting things right with someone you have hurt or offended in some way (a bit like restitution) while "propitiation" means asking for forgiveness from someone in authority over you (a bit like an apology). So when Johnny hits Billy in the school playground, giving Billy a chocolate bar adfterwards might be "expiation", askign the teacher to let him off detention might be "propitiation". But I'm genuinely not completely sure.
And even if that is the case there doesn't seem to be much difference between the two as as far as a relationship with God is concerned. In that doing harm to others is an insult to God, who is the creator and sustainer of this good world since marred. So all baseless injury done to others is also sin against God. But we cannot materially harm or benefit God (obviously) so restitution and apology, with reference to God, come down to pretty much the same thing.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I've got a vague feeling that in a human context "expiation" means putting things right with someone you have hurt or offended in some way (a bit like restitution) while "propitiation" means asking for forgiveness from someone in authority over you (a bit like an apology).
I may be wrong, but my association with expiation is that one is working one's way out of one's guilt, by making amends, praying for forgiveness, mortifying the flesh, what-have-you. The "ex" part seems to suggest that you are evicting the guilt from within by some kind of action. Propitiation has always seemed to me to be somethig done for you by someone else. I think we basically have the same sense, with only minor connotative differences.
BTW, Freddy, thanks for your words on Blake. I had always assumed from his diatribes in "Marriage of Heaven and Hell" that he was rabid in his opposition to Swedenborg once he changed his mind. Glad to be corrected. And Leo may not have been addressing his remark to you -- I think I jumped to a conclusion that, on reflection, is unwarranted. Leo, I apologize for questioning your intent without cause.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
William Blake wrote: ‘Every religion that preaches vengeance for sin is the religion of the enemy and avenger and not the forgiver of sin and their God is Satan.’
Leo, I am uncertain of your intent here. I presume that you know that Blake was a lapsed Swedenborgian who vented a great deal of bile in Swedenborg's direction. I confess that I love Blake, but I can't help but wonder why you quote him to a Swedenborgian.
--Tom Clune
I just thought it was a good quotation.
I do not know much about the Swedenborgians but they don't sound entirely orthodox!
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hilasterion was wrong translated as 'propitiation' It appears in Cranmer's Communion Service. A better ranslation is 'expiation'.
I have to confess that those are both words I only ever encounter in Christian liturgy and I would not want to stick my neck out and say what, if anything, is the exact difference between them.....there doesn't seem to be much difference between the two as as far as a relationship with God is concerned. In that doing harm to others is an insult to God, who is the creator and sustainer of this good world since marred. So all baseless injury done to others is also sin against God. But we cannot materially harm or benefit God (obviously) so restitution and apology, with reference to God, come down to pretty much the same thing.
I wasn’t satisfied after some googling when the best I could find was: Expiation emphasizes the removal of guilt through a payment of the penalty, while propitiation emphasizes the appeasement or averting of God's wrath and justice. http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T1978
So I went to my book shelves. C. H. Dodd wrote in Romans (Moffatt Commentary) that ‘propitiation’ is misleading, being in accord with pagan usage but foreign to Biblical usage, and that the real meaning of Romans 3:24f is that God has set forth Christ as ‘a means by which guilt is annulled’ or even ‘a means by which sin is forgiven’.’ It is just possible that the Greek word ought here to be given the meaning that it regularly bears in the Septuagint (and which also appears in Heb. ix, 5), and that we should translate it simply as ‘mercy-seat’ or ‘place of forgiveness’. ‘…His wrath must not be regarded as something which has to be ‘propitiated’ and so changed into love and mercy, but rather as being identical with the consuming fire of inexorable divine love in relation to our sins.’ He also argued that English translations mislead – in the Greek, ‘expiate’ is never used as a verb with God as its object. Its object is always sin.
D. M. Baillie, in ‘God was in Christ’ argued that, ‘even in the Old Testament usage the pagan meanings had been left behind because it was God Himself who was regarded as having mercifully appointed the ritual of expiation, though man had of course to supply the victim. But this is the amazing new fact that emerges when we come to the New Testament: that God even provides the victim that is offered, and the victim is His own Son, the Only- begotten. In short, ‘it is all of God’….It all takes place within the very life of God Himself… Priest and the Victim both were none other than God.
Still not really satisfied (no pun intended) I dug out my NT lecture notes from 1972! Here, I had written: ilasterion was a Septuagint word for ‘mercy seat’. In Leviticus 16:16, blood was sprinkled over it. Hebrews 9:5 has the definite article THE hilasterion so it must refer to Christ removing what defiles the worshipper, rendering him unfit to approach God. The blood, in the Hebrew sacrificial system, is seen as ‘the life’ – so atonement is not about Christ’s death placating an angry God but about the living of his whole incarnate life as an offering to God and a showing to us of the way to live.
To summarise – Christ did not die INSTEAD (Greek anti) of us but FOR (Gk hyper) us – for us to follow in his steps.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I do not know much about the Swedenborgians but they don't sound entirely orthodox!
Well, maybe not entirely. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
But I think we're close. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hilasterion was wrong translated as 'propitiation' It appears in Cranmer's Communion Service. A better ranslation is 'expiation'.
I have to confess that those are both words I only ever encounter in Christian liturgy and I would not want to stick my neck out and say what, if anything, is the exact difference between them.....there doesn't seem to be much difference between the two as as far as a relationship with God is concerned. In that doing harm to others is an insult to God, who is the creator and sustainer of this good world since marred. So all baseless injury done to others is also sin against God. But we cannot materially harm or benefit God (obviously) so restitution and apology, with reference to God, come down to pretty much the same thing.
I wasn’t satisfied after some googling when the best I could find was: Expiation emphasizes the removal of guilt through a payment of the penalty, while propitiation emphasizes the appeasement or averting of God's wrath and justice. http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T1978
So I went to my book shelves. C. H. Dodd wrote in Romans (Moffatt Commentary) that ‘propitiation’ is misleading, being in accord with pagan usage but foreign to Biblical usage, and that the real meaning of Romans 3:24f is that God has set forth Christ as ‘a means by which guilt is annulled’ or even ‘a means by which sin is forgiven’.’ It is just possible that the Greek word ought here to be given the meaning that it regularly bears in the Septuagint (and which also appears in Heb. ix, 5), and that we should translate it simply as ‘mercy-seat’ or ‘place of forgiveness’. ‘…His wrath must not be regarded as something which has to be ‘propitiated’ and so changed into love and mercy, but rather as being identical with the consuming fire of inexorable divine love in relation to our sins.’ He also argued that English translations mislead – in the Greek, ‘expiate’ is never used as a verb with God as its object. Its object is always sin.
D. M. Baillie, in ‘God was in Christ’ argued that, ‘even in the Old Testament usage the pagan meanings had been left behind because it was God Himself who was regarded as having mercifully appointed the ritual of expiation, though man had of course to supply the victim. But this is the amazing new fact that emerges when we come to the New Testament: that God even provides the victim that is offered, and the victim is His own Son, the Only- begotten. In short, ‘it is all of God’….It all takes place within the very life of God Himself… Priest and the Victim both were none other than God.
Still not really satisfied (no pun intended) I dug out my NT lecture notes from 1972! Here, I had written: ilasterion was a Septuagint word for ‘mercy seat’. In Leviticus 16:16, blood was sprinkled over it. Hebrews 9:5 has the definite article THE hilasterion so it must refer to Christ removing what defiles the worshipper, rendering him unfit to approach God. The blood, in the Hebrew sacrificial system, is seen as ‘the life’ – so atonement is not about Christ’s death placating an angry God but about the living of his whole incarnate life as an offering to God and a showing to us of the way to live.
To summarise – Christ did not die INSTEAD (Greek anti) of us but FOR (Gk hyper) us – for us to follow in his steps.
If you cannot google for what you are looking for - this suggests to me it is not widely ascribed to. Ie If it is not supported it is for a reason. I hope it is not the same source that suggests that Isaiah 53 is not speaking of Christ as you were alluding to earlier - because most of the NT makes it clear that it was Christ.
quote:
to show regret for bad behaviour by doing something to express that you are sorry and by accepting punishment:
Cambridge Dictionary
I thought of highlighting the word punishment but I think it unnecessary - expiate may not give the idea of turning away God's wrath but it clearly talks of punishment - and making a punishment for no apparent reason certainly seems unjust to me.
I can also give you from the same source you used
hilaskomai
Greek Lexicon
The best you get from that is
to expiate, make propitiation for
ie the words are clearly linked
and that is the same for every other Greek lexicon I found
Vines Dictionary
Eastons Bible Dictionary
Strongs
I could go on but I think I prove my point - you have not given one recognised Greek Dictionary reference
The other idea is that the apostles would use a concept that his audience would understand and then turn it on its head - ie Mars Hill - unknown God.
So propitiation was something that clearly the target audience would understand - so I do not think it is to difficult to accept that the word is propitiate.
That being said even expiation has an idea of punishment as per Cambridge DIctionary, and if it is talking of Christ and punishment in verse I quoted above that suggests penal atonement - it still helps the PSA case.
quote:
per tclune
I may be wrong, but my association with expiation is that one is working one's way out of one's guilt, by making amends, praying for forgiveness, mortifying the flesh, what-have-you. The "ex" part seems to suggest that you are evicting the guilt from within by some kind of action. Propitiation has always seemed to me to be somethig done for you by someone else. I think we basically have the same sense, with only minor connotative differences.
The problem is that your understanding of expiation would not fit in the texts quoted above re propitiation ( expiation per Leo)
because it talks of Christ being the propitiation.
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
