|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Johnny,
Thanks for that! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I'm really starting to get some clarity as a result of all your good debating and comments.
I'm sure we have the same 'ideals' and are trying to explain them from within the various systems and mindsets which we are familiar and inspired by.
If only the 'Pierced for our Transgressions' devotees were like you bro'... ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
If only the 'Pierced for our Transgressions' devotees were like you bro'...
This is the bit where I really, really want to say ... (fanfare) 'I was one of the authors!' (duh dah - there should be a smilie for that ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) ... but I can't ... due to the slight problem that it wouldn't be true ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
I don't get how a barrier to a relationship can only be one sided? If there is something 'in the way' how can it only keep mankind from God and not the other way round?
Because the Fall affects our nature but not God's. Human beings, being creatures, are mutable and therefore can be changed from a better to a worse state. The same is not true of God.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
I don't get how a barrier to a relationship can only be one sided? If there is something 'in the way' how can it only keep mankind from God and not the other way round?
Well, I think that this very concept, that of a one-sided barrier to relationship, is a great leitmotif of the whole of scripture, and especially th Old Testament. Think of Hosea, for example. Of course, the word "barrier" is imperfect at describing the concept, but there are other analogies in scripture, like blindness, that cover the idea as well. We are loved, but we don't love in return, we are blind, and so cannot see Him, but He can see us.
quote:
Except that in PSA God ends that cycle by taking the punishment himself. To put it crudely the headmaster's cane is broken for ever! Perhaps I'm obsessed with penal thinking but ISTM that PSA does what you say above but without leaving the 'old way' outstanding. CV does not destroy retributive justice in the way PSA does.
Yes, but the point I'm making is that punishment is not effective in truely dealing with sin. The best it can do is to ameliorate the worst excesses through deterrence. God's way of dealing with sin truely does destroy it, and that way is the way of forgiveness. PSA is God saying "the full complement of punishment for sin is fulfilled, and I am satisfied." CV is God saying, "The problem is not sin, because that has always been dealt with by the only method that treats it sufficiently seriously, that is, forgiveness, but there is also a need of sin to not only be forgiven but "unmade", its effects to be reversed, and that problem is solved by the paschal event.
quote:
I appreciate that you distinguish forgiveness with reconciliation. However, I'd like to stress that your point above only works if we can do that. Where do you find this distinction in the ministry of Jesus?
I'm pretty confident that even a cursory trawl through the Gospels will confirm that Jesus taught that we should forgive unconditionally. It will further suggest that the reason we should do so is because we ourselves have been so forgiven. Episodes suggesting that there is a subsequent response to prior forgiveness would be, off the top of my head, the woman anointing Jesus feet, Zaccheus, and the blind man in John 9, (if you take healing as a metaphor for forgiveness), but I could come up with others.
quote:
I'm not sure that you are being fair here JJ - how could Jesus possibly fulfil every single OT type in an exact correspondence at the same time? Anyway, was not this part of Hebrews 13 - when Jesus 'goes outside the camp'? The OT Professor Gordon Wenham has done some work on this ... I'll have to try and remember where I put it
OK, perhaps not totally ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) fair, but I think my main point stands - that PSA adherents do seem often to conflate (or confuse) the OT sacrificial model with penal thinking. I don't think that the scriptural basis is there to do so.
quote:
If only the 'Pierced for our Transgressions' devotees were like you bro'...
Amen to that!
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Guys, thanks so much for your considered, moderate and thoughtful debate. I wish I could contribute, but I am in no way learned enough to do anything other than try and absorb what is being said.
It does make me realise a little more of the majesty, mystery and sheer depth of God though.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Before this turns into Woodstock and we all start holding hands and sing 'he's got the whole world in his hands' ... I'd better return to the theme of PSA and take up my trusty sword known as 'defender of truth' ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, I think that this very concept, that of a one-sided barrier to relationship, is a great leitmotif of the whole of scripture, and especially th Old Testament. Think of Hosea, for example. Of course, the word "barrier" is imperfect at describing the concept, but there are other analogies in scripture, like blindness, that cover the idea as well. We are loved, but we don't love in return, we are blind, and so cannot see Him, but He can see us.
Good point. I'll need to think about this more. But for now - Hosea is still a book about 'punishment'... e.g. Hosea 2 v 13; 9 v 5 etc.
Also, I get confused in this whole debate because we shift so frequently from actual picture to analogy so quickly. Thus I agree with your analogies of love and blindness etc., but I still wonder how Jesus' death on the cross 'healed us' etc. The thing about PSA is that is not only an analogy but it also corresponds directly with what was actually happening - i.e. Jesus was literally being punished for something he didn't do (e.g. Luke 23 v 41). What I need to wrestle with is whether that just a coincidence or whether Luke used that terminology deliberately.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
CV is God saying, "The problem is not sin, because that has always been dealt with by the only method that treats it sufficiently seriously, that is, forgiveness, but there is also a need of sin to not only be forgiven but "unmade", its effects to be reversed, and that problem is solved by the paschal event.
I know you read Romans 3 v 25 differently but I'd like to return to the Pauline concept that something 'changed' in God's attitude towards humanity at the cross. I think Acts 17 v 30 backs up this temporal sense of the cross.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm pretty confident that even a cursory trawl through the Gospels will confirm that Jesus taught that we should forgive unconditionally. It will further suggest that the reason we should do so is because we ourselves have been so forgiven. Episodes suggesting that there is a subsequent response to prior forgiveness would be, off the top of my head, the woman anointing Jesus feet, Zaccheus, and the blind man in John 9, (if you take healing as a metaphor for forgiveness), but I could come up with others..
The woman in Luke 7 is a interesting example since Jesus uses his interaction with her to teach Simon about God's forgiveness.... and he uses a penal / fiscal analogy to do so! I know that the money lender cancelled the debt rather than paying it back himself but isn't that actually the same thing? The money lender had already paid the 'debt' to the borrower in advance. I would argue that the story in Luke 7 is a wonderful example of forgiveness, it teaches us to forgive others unconditionally BUT the basis for this behaviour is that God has already cancelled our debts!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
davelarge writes:
quote:
It does make me realise a little more of the majesty, mystery and sheer depth of God though.
Spot on. Again, I think that's the purpose of embracing ALL the images of the atonement, not just one, recognizing that they all have biblical support, and that they are images and metaphors rather than precise descriptions of exact transactions. Embracing the breadth and depth and width and height of all the metaphors without feeling the need to dot every i and cross every t (because they are metaphors, not exact transactions) allows you to grasp that-- to get a glimpse, as Paul says, of the "unknowable"-- something so huge, so inexplicable, so entirely transcendent, that it changed the relationship of humanity to God forever.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
We bollocks that up all over the place in our current system of criminal "justice", where our focus on punishment results in people coming out of prison more dangerous and broken then they were when they went in.
... The good news of God, to me, is that God (in Christ) stands outside our systems of retributive punishment and beckons us towards another way of doing things.
I partially agree with you. This has been a point made by JJ and others on the ship before. However, I'm having a hard time trying to work this out in practice.
What is this different way of doing things? Please would you describe a criminal justice system where these principles were put into practice. Doesn't human nature need things like deterrent? If Jesus is showing us a better way, what is that better way? (Don't say 'forgiving people unconditionally' ... I mean apply this to a national criminal justice system!)
Good question. I guess there's a few things I'd point you towards:
Victim/Offender Reconciliation Program
British Columbia's programs for indigenous communities
Victims' Families for Reconciliation
There's a lot out there: the idea of "restorative justice" is taking shape in many places.
--------------------
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
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I'd always been troubled by the word "sacrifice" used to describe the crucifixion, for the reasons others have mentioned. But I recently read Garry Wills's books What Jesus Meant and What Paul Meant, and in one of them (can't remember which at the moment) he points out that we also use the word "sacrifice" to describe a soldier giving his life in defense of his country. And he suggests that this is what we should be thinking of: Jesus was not killed by God as punishment for humanity's sins; he went into battle with God's (and humanity's) enemies and was killed, but won anyway.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
the difficulty we have as sinners in approaching God, not the other way round. Those concessions were for our benefit, not His. He is always there alongside us, whatever the state of our souls, as it were. Again I would ask, if the difficulties are such as you suggest, then how was it possible for God incarnate to walk around first century Palestine, mixing with and enjoying the company of sinners.
Regarding Christ's humanity, the nature of the incarnation was such that Christ's 'Godness' was clothed in human flesh - hidden in other words. They saw something of the reality at the transfiguration. The glory aspect was mostly hidden during his earthly ministry. In my view the risen Lord represents the current reality of Jesus and no sinfulness can come near his presence.
Regarding your other point, IMO it is a both and not an either, or situation. Of course a sinner can't approach a holy God but vice versa is also true. God's love demands he search, find and redeem us, rescue us from going our own way. He wanted and wants to be alongside us but was prevented by the utter corruption of our nature consequent to the fall. Hence the law, rituals, sacrifices etc of the Mosaic era. I see where you are coming from in the vice versa argument. but I see the scriptures as more in line with my view.
quote:
Christ had to die because that was the only way in which the power of evil in humankind and in the cosmos could be defeated. Evil can never be defeated by returning violence for violence, because the cycle merely perpetuates itself. But in sacrificing Himself, Christ defeats evil with good, assuming it into Himself and thus exhausting it. Evil is so powerful that only the full might and power of God can break its hold, and that might and power is at its most mighty and powerful in humility and apparent weakness.
Fine but the mechanism by which evil is exhausted is the shedding of his blood. There is no other means whereby God's justice could be satisfied. There are two concepts in the atonement as I understand it,forgiveness and transformation. I see the blood of Christ as effecting covering of sin or forgiveness and the cross, or death of Christ with its resurrection corollory as effecting potential transformation. (a la Watchman Nee.) But you can't have the one without the other.
Could I respectfully suggest that your issue of PSA seeing God as violent is really a human judgement, a construct whereby you appear to have said 'God can't be violent by my definition so there has to be another way.' If you refuse to see God as violent (or wrathful, dangerous or at times angry,) what do you make of some of the injunctions in the OT to wipe out every trace of a sinful people group? Surely you are the one who is being unscriptural here by choosing to ignore inconvenient texts.
quote:
So, with those few words, you set aside the whole of Jesus teaching on forgiveness. I'm sorry, I don't for the life of me see how anyone who has read the Gospels (or even the Old Testament) can write that.
you would have to demonstate that the lamb being sacrificed was bearing the sin of the people. But of course, that can't be done from the scriptures, since the "sin-bearer" was the scapegoat, driven out into the wilderness, not killed. The sacrificial animal, had it been bearing sin, would have been unclean, and thus not "perfect and spotless", the requirement for an acceptable sacrifice. So, was Christ sacrificed, yes, but was God, in Him, punishing our sin, no.
The basis of forgiveness is in the heart of God. It needs no other basis. Even on a practical lever, it is the only way that is powerful enough to neutralise the power of sin. Punishment doesn't do it. If it did, our prisons would be empty. We're good at punishment. We don't need the concept of an angry, wrathful god to teach us how to do that. But forgiveness, well that's a whole different story.
[/QB]
Well actually, I tink there is muddled thinking here. The teaching of Jesus on forgiveness is in no way set aside by my view of justice being retributive before it can be restorative. Forgiveness is indeed in God's heart but my point is that his holness precludes it from being offered without the manifest justice of punishment. Is 53 "He was wounded for our transgressions, the chastisement of our peace was upon him" etc. The scapegoat is indeed sent away unkilled but Leviticus 4 suggests a more general model for dealing with sin in the Mosaic era. You haven't addressed the Heb 9:12-15 scripture or the I Pet 1:19 one either.
Forgiveness does indeed require a basis and that basis is justice. Fortunately for us it is, as you say, in the heart of God. The miracle of the cross is the combination of justice and mercy in a single historical event. I can extend forgiveness to the person who has wronged me only because I too am forgiven and I am only forgiven because God has forgiven me and God has only forgiven me because my sin was judged in Christ.
Incidentally, JJ before you accuse someone of not knowing the scriptures I'd suggest you approach them yourself in a more holistic and inclusive way. I believe of course that there is more than one way to 'see' things but to suggest a belief in PSA is unscriptural is ridiculous.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Good point. I'll need to think about this more. But for now - Hosea is still a book about 'punishment'... e.g. Hosea 2 v 13; 9 v 5 etc.
Well, not if you read all Ch. 2 in context. Sure the word punish is used, but the first part of the chapter seems, not about vindicating any moral stance, so much as a disciplining process, whereby short-term unpleasantness is intended to lead to benefit in the longer run, and, if you associate the hinge v13 with the second part of the chapter, which is not an impossible reading, then the use of the word "punish" seems to be ironic.
quote:
Also, I get confused in this whole debate because we shift so frequently from actual picture to analogy so quickly. Thus I agree with your analogies of love and blindness etc., but I still wonder how Jesus' death on the cross 'healed us' etc. The thing about PSA is that is not only an analogy but it also corresponds directly with what was actually happening - i.e. Jesus was literally being punished for something he didn't do (e.g. Luke 23 v 41). What I need to wrestle with is whether that just a coincidence or whether Luke used that terminology deliberately.
Ah, an excellent point, John. I do indeed think that the problem we have here is about analogies and how they relate to reality.
As I see it, we have an asymmety here. Because we are both familiar with PSA, a lot of the analogical elements associated with it are glossed. That's not to say, however, that they aren't there, it's just that they aren't in dispute - we don't "need" the analogies to explain something with which we are all sufficiently familiar. Those analogies have already done their job. However, when trying to debate a topic about which there is dispute (and possibly misunderstanding) then analogies are inf fact very necessary. And we try a number of different analogies until we think the pooint has been understood. But we are aware that this is all theyare -analogies.
A good gedanken experiment would be to think of us both pitching our viewpoint on the atonement to a hypothetical martian. I think that such a creature (he? she? it?) would find that there is at least as much hand-waving involved in PSA as in CV. How does our sin get imputed to Christ, and His righteousness to us? How does His condemnation free us from guilt? These are questions the answers to which are at least as "mysterious" as "How does Jesus death on the cross defeat the power of evil". I sort of take it as a given that the precise mechanism by which these things happen is intractible to human understanding, but that is not to say that we cannot draw, from that bit of understanding that we have, something which tells us more about who we are, who God is, and how the disconnect between those two natures can be reconciled.
With regard to the narrow point on Luke 23:41, I'm not sure that the verse tells us anything apart from that the repentant theif considered Jesus to be innocent - something with which we would both concur, but I'm not sure it says anything about PSA or CV.
quote:
I know you read Romans 3 v 25 differently but I'd like to return to the Pauline concept that something 'changed' in God's attitude towards humanity at the cross. I think Acts 17 v 30 backs up this temporal sense of the cross.
Well, clearly, as creatures limited by time, we would not have been able to respond to Christ before the incarnation (except indirectly, by faith in what was not known), and certainly not in the same way as we can, post the incarnation. I'm not sure that the fact that this is available to us now, whereas before it was not, reflects a change in God's attitude to us. But, that aside, a CV reading of the cross is equally consonant, under this verse, with a PSA reading. Even under CV, we need to repent of our sins.
quote:
I would argue that the story in Luke 7 is a wonderful example of forgiveness, it teaches us to forgive others unconditionally BUT the basis for this behaviour is that God has already cancelled our debts!
So would I, except that I would phrase it "the basis for this behaviour is that God has already forgiven us (cancelled our debts, if you like) unconditionally. That's the point Jesus is making towards Simon. The one to whom the debt is owed "just forgives" it. The woman is showing how such radical forgiveness, no strings attached, is capable of effecting change in the life of the sinner.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Regarding Christ's humanity, the nature of the incarnation was such that Christ's 'Godness' was clothed in human flesh - hidden in other words. They saw something of the reality at the transfiguration. The glory aspect was mostly hidden during his earthly ministry. In my view the risen Lord represents the current reality of Jesus and no sinfulness can come near his presence
Why could this not happen? Is it because God cannot abide sin, which is what I read your position as being, or because sinners can't abide God? The logic you use supports the second position, and says nothing about the first, ISTM.
quote:
Fine but the mechanism by which evil is exhausted is the shedding of his blood.
Agreed, the shedding of blood is involved in Jesus dying.
quote:
There is no other means whereby God's justice could be satisfied.
With respect, that is an assertion which has been hotly debated on this thread and others. Does the cross reveal God's justice. I say it does, but it is not punitive justice. It demonstrates (or at least the whole paschal event demonstrates) that God's justice is not punitive but restorative. He makes all things new.
But that is not, I suspect, (and correct me if I'm wrong) what you mean. What PSA states is that sin can only be dealt with by punishment, because of the constraint of God's justice. I believe that only forgiveness is powerful enough to truely "deal" with sin. Why else should Jesus instruct us that we should deal with it in that way.
quote:
There are two concepts in the atonement as I understand it,forgiveness and transformation. I see the blood of Christ as effecting covering of sin or forgiveness and the cross, or death of Christ with its resurrection corollory as effecting potential transformation. (a la Watchman Nee.) But you can't have the one without the other.
I agree with you that there are two aspects, but, whilst I do think that the cross speaks (subjectively) into forgiveness, and that at the heart of its power is forgiveness, I don't think that it in itself originates forgiveness. Rather it demonstrates its power. But the ontological work of the cross is the defeat of the power of sin, the overcoming of evil by good, the triumph of humility over fallen concepts of strength. But you are certainly right that the resurrection doesn't make sense without the cross, nor the cross without the resurrection. I would probably see the resurrection as the prime event, but that is as much of a function of my personality as anything else. It is what speaks to me most powerfully, but YMMV.
quote:
Could I respectfully suggest that your issue of PSA seeing God as violent is really a human judgement, a construct whereby you appear to have said 'God can't be violent by my definition so there has to be another way.' If you refuse to see God as violent (or wrathful, dangerous or at times angry,) what do you make of some of the injunctions in the OT to wipe out every trace of a sinful people group? Surely you are the one who is being unscriptural here by choosing to ignore inconvenient texts.
Well no, not really. Rather, I see the PSA paradigm as a human construct, and an unworthy view of the nature of God. This is probably not the place to start a debate on inerrancy, but I do, in fact, believe in progressive revelation. If the writers of Numbers or Exodus got it right about God, then I don't see how you can make sense of the New Testament, and especially the Gospels. Either jesus was lying when He said "whoever has seen me has seen the Father", or he was profoundly mistaken about His nature and that of the Father, or the problem texts reveal something true about the nature of the process of a people struggling to explain the unexplainable God within the paradigm of a late bronze age society surrounded on all sides by uber-violent fertility cults and tribal war "gods". I opt for the third explanation. If that lays me open to the charge of "ignoring problem texts", then it's a cross I will have to bear. I don't think it is what is happening, but I accept that it is something against which any defence I have would be seen to be self justifying.
quote:
Well actually, I tink there is muddled thinking here. The teaching of Jesus on forgiveness is in no way set aside by my view of justice being retributive before it can be restorative.
Actually, what you wrote was "Justice to me is by definition retributive. A wrong suffered must be paid for,atoned for." Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. but I took that to mean that justice is always retributive. I just don't accept that. Nor do I accept that a wrong suffered must be paid for. Atonement in itself means reconciliation. I know it has got all mixed up in popular speech with transactional notions and penitence and so forth, but it isn't what the word means.
quote:
Forgiveness is indeed in God's heart but my point is that his holness precludes it from being offered without the manifest justice of punishment.
Again that assertion. The whole point about God's justice needing to be "manifest" or demonstrated is that it is so transcendant compared with human justice. Human justice says, "they killed the son of God, wipe them all out", Divine justice, restorative justice says, "Father forgive them...". Now this would only have been a pious sentiment had it not been that God gave His "yes" to that prayer in the resurrection. It really works. Forgiveness is really more powerful than hatred, good really does triumph over evil. Restoration really is better than punisment.
For a discussion of Isaiah 53 and non-violent atonement, this is quite involved and would make a long post even longer, so could I direct you to this link.
OK, quickly Hebrews 9:12-15:
The writer is comparing OT sacrifice (which is not a penal concept) to the work of Christ. He specifically states that the ransom is to set them free from sins, which is precisely the paradigm of CV.
I Peter 1:19
Jesus compared to a sacrificial lamb, again, not penal - the lamb wasn't punished when I was sacrificed. Peter talks of people being redeemed (ie slaves whose freedom has been "bought") through the cross, again the theme of liberation from bondage to sin. Again, I suggest, this is CV rather than PSA.
quote:
Forgiveness does indeed require a basis and that basis is justice. Fortunately for us it is, as you say, in the heart of God. The miracle of the cross is the combination of justice and mercy in a single historical event.
I disagree that the basis of forgiveness is justice. The basis of forgiveness is love. Justice is the way of restoring that which has been damaged by sin , but that differs from forgiveness per se. I agree that justice and mercy meet at the cross, but I see justice as the putting right of what is wrong, rather than any notionm of punishment.
quote:
I can extend forgiveness to the person who has wronged me only because I too am forgiven and I am only forgiven because God has forgiven me...
I'm sorry, I can't see that this makes any sense. I have to forgive people because it is right to forgive people, and it is right to forgive people because that is the only way of dealing with sin which is up to the job. That would be true whether or not we had been forgiven already, but that we have been so forgiven is a spur to behaving in the same way. Of course, if you are saying that the process of sanctification which begins with our forgiveness is a necessary precondition (because to behave in such a radical way requires the transformation of our lives in a Christ-ward direction) then I wouldn't disagree with you, but that is a problem with the working out, not with the theory.
quote:
God has only forgiven me because my sin was judged in Christ
I'm sorry, I don't think that this assertion has any basis in the Scriptures.
quote:
Incidentally, JJ before you accuse someone of not knowing the scriptures I'd suggest you approach them yourself in a more holistic and inclusive way. I believe of course that there is more than one way to 'see' things but to suggest a belief in PSA is unscriptural is ridiculous.
I have re-read all my posts about this, and I can't find anywhere where I have accused you (or anyone else, for that matter) of "not knowing the scriptures". The nearest I could come to it was the bit where I expressed surprise that anyone who had read the gospels could
write that forgiveness could only take place as a result of some sort of transaction, ie there cannot be unconditional forgiveness. If that seemed to you to be questioning your scriptural knowledge, then I unresevedly apologise. That was not my intention. I was, rather, confused as to how you could deduce your conclusion from the Gospel evidence, which points in precisely the reverse direction.
I stand, however, by my assertion that PSA is "sub-biblical", that is, it can only be "read into", rather than "read out of" the scripture.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, not if you read all Ch. 2 in context. Sure the word punish is used, but the first part of the chapter seems, not about vindicating any moral stance, so much as a disciplining process, whereby short-term unpleasantness is intended to lead to benefit in the longer run, and, if you associate the hinge v13 with the second part of the chapter, which is not an impossible reading, then the use of the word "punish" seems to be ironic.
Leaving aside the 'ironic' reading of punish - which I think stretches the text a little too far - let us not forget that the writer is talking about Israel here personified. undoubtedly the punishment is discipline but the way it seems to work in the OT is that 'Israel' is punished (in a penal sense) so that 'Israel' learns from it. Of course Hosea 11 v 1 then becomes a type picked up by Matthew in his gospel so that the new Israel (Christ) succeeds where the old Israel failed. This reading fits perfectly with a PSA understanding where 'old Israel' is punished and 'new Israel' learns from it ... both in Christ
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
With regard to the narrow point on Luke 23:41, I'm not sure that the verse tells us anything apart from that the repentant theif considered Jesus to be innocent - something with which we would both concur, but I'm not sure it says anything about PSA or CV.
I suppose I'm building a case - I'd add the cumbersome emphasis of details with Barabbas too - that Luke wants us to read it that way (with PSA undertones). I think that there is a strong penal backdrop to Luke's gospel... I guess I need a bit more evidence, but I'm getting there
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
A few posters in this thread seem confused about the Old Testament sacrifices. So I will attempt some clarifications (they’re lengthy ones I’m afraid).
Ken managed the remarkable feat in his comment of turning a lamb into a goat. I’m afraid that goats and lambs are different animals and not interchangeable. The descriptions of Yom Kippur involve goats, not lambs. The Passover involved a lamb. The Passover is not the Day of Atonement and lambs are not goats. When the New Testament talks about Jesus as the Lamb of God, it doesn’t mean Jesus as the Goat of God. If Penal Substitution was true, then it would make a lot of sense for Jesus to die on the Day of Atonement, and so a lot of Christians seem determined to believe that he did. But Jesus was killed on the Passover, which isn’t the Day of Atonement.
The Passover was a festival celebrating God’s powerful intervention in human history to free Israel from the political oppression of pagan nations. It commemorated the exodus from slavery in Egypt. As a result it was associated with slavery/freedom and nationalistic political escape from pagan rule. On a regular basis during the time of Jesus and Paul, there would be political riots in Jerusalem during the festival of Passover caused by groups who wanted to see Israel overthrow the Roman yoke of political oppression just as their ancestors had the Egyptians.
The Passover “sacrifice” was not really a sacrifice by our standards (the word sacrifice tends to be used in all ancient cultures for any killing of any animal since all life was consider sacred – it does not by itself indicate any meaning or power is being attributed to the event), but simply that a lamb was eaten as part of the traditional celebration, like eating a Turkey on thanksgiving day. In the original context of the exodus, the lamb was not a sin-sacrifice, it was not for forgiveness of sins. Its blood was simply used as a spiritual marker to label the doorposts of the Israelites in a way visible to God’s angel (blood, being the essence of living beings was thought to exist both in the spiritual and physical worlds). In short, the Passover lamb was not a sin sacrifice, and was not viewed as such by Jews in the New Testament era. It was simply a tradition to eat a lamb during the celebration of the religious-political Passover festival.
The various different sacrifices prescribed in the Law were believed to work in a variety of different ways. The two most common uses of sacrifices were shared meals, and as a gift to God. Shared meals were where the killed animal was divided up and eaten together by the community or a small group. Virtually all animals killed were eaten in this way, since animals were very valuable and meat less common in the ancient world than today and almost always a person would invite a least their close friends to a party if they were going to eat one. A portion of the animal was given to God, and the group ate the meal together with God considered to be present among them. In the ancient world, group meals tended to be strongly linked with honor – the order of the seating of people at a table for example would declare to everyone who the most important people were in order down to the least important. These group meals had the function both of reinforcing communal bonds, and enforcing strict hierarchical ordering within the community. Alternatively a number of different group meals could be held simultaneously, with each being attended by only a certain social class from within the community. (Note the special thing about the communal meal introduced by Jesus is that it treats all equally, which is why Paul gets so upset when Christians start splitting into groups to eat it)
The other most common use of sacrifices was the simple giving of a gift to God. This could be done as thanks, out of the gladness of ones heart, or done as a petition to request a favour in return. It was customary to give a proportion of the first harvests back to God in thanks for his bounty – this was called the first-fruits offering. Gifts also formed an important part of the honor system in the ancient world – gifts were given and received on a regular basis, especially in response to other gifts or faithful service given. If a person’s honor was offended and they were wrathful, the giving of a gift in recognition of their honor was considered the appropriate way to restore the balance. Part of the punishment for various offences was also to give God a gift – if the person was rich it was to be an animal sacrifice (meat animals had a high market value) but if they person was poor they could give fish or grain instead. This served a double-purpose of appeasing God by restoring his honor through a gift, and of functioning similarly to what we would call a “fine” as monetary payment for the transgression (even by the time of Jesus, few Israelites had any or many coins – payment in animals and grain worked far better). The gifts given to God would usually be rerouted to the priesthood and temple who would get them on his behalf, though sometimes gifts were burned whole under the belief the smoke would rise to heaven where God would smell its pleasing odor.
Note that those two were by far the most common uses of sacrifices. However on rare occasions sacrifices could be used as part of ritual magic. Magic was believed to be a real force, like unto what we might think of as the physical scientific laws of nature. It was believed that by rituals, incantations, trances, the binding of supernatural beings, and the use of the spiritual power in blood that the magical power in the world could be tapped into and guided. Gods were generally believed to be able to be affected by magic, and use it themselves. Gods were considered able to summon magical powers to curse men, or men could curse gods. There were various rituals to remove unfriendly magic or the magical equivalent of dirt (“pollution”). The blood of a pure and spotless animal was believed to be the magical equivalent of detergent. Hence, since the wrongdoings of Israel caused magical pollution to build up within the temple, that pollution needed to be cleaned off on a regular basis with blood. Also, on the day of atonement, a ritual was used to transfer the curses on Israel off onto a goat which bore the curses safely away and out into the wilderness. Some Christians seem to want to confuse magic with justice when talking about sacrifices, however that’s about as sensible as trying to interchange lambs and goats. The modern concept of impartial justice (or even the ancient one) is an abstract, logical and theoretical idea that relates to moral virtue and an equal society. It has little relation to the ancient ideas of primeval magical powers which threatened man’s existence and which could be harnessed or controlled through rituals.
These sorts of sacrifices tend to be very common among all cultures that participate in sacrificial practices, as well as being used by the Israelites. It is quite interesting that most cultures go through a similar series of steps as their ideas about and understandings of the importance and meaning of sacrificial practices changes over time, and their views about the usefulness of sacrifices themselves change. It is typical for cultures to start drawing a link between ritual purity and morality; over time more emphasis is place on morality; it becomes emphasised that moral action is more important than sacrifices; sacrificial language becomes used metaphorical to describe moral action; and finally sacrifices are rejected as entirely valueless and moral behaviour becomes considered to be of sole importance. Unsurprisingly this pattern is manifested throughout the bible. Human sacrifice is rejected when Abraham sacrifices an animal instead of his son, then the law comes with its restriction on sacrificial practices to within prescribed limits. The prophets and psalms tend to take a negative view on the value of sacrifices, repeating how mercy and justice are far more important to God than sacrifices and using sacrificial metaphors to describe morality such as “a sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit and a contrite heart”. The New Testament generally goes to the final step and generally rejects any value to sacrifices (eg “the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin”) and instead uses sacrificial language only metaphorically to talk about morality and moral acts. Jesus’ selfless acts are described as sacrificial, his martyrdom likened to the lamb’s blood being used to clean away sin, our living a moral life is likened to having our robes washed in the heavenly detergent of the blood of the lamb.
As one poster correctly pointed out, the New Testament uses an abundance of different sacrificial language in reference to Jesus. (Paul also uses sacrificial language to describe his own forthcoming death in 2 Tim 4:6) Virtually every single type and kind of sacrifice is at some stage in the New Testament used to describe Jesus and his accomplishments. It has also been commented that since not all sacrifices worked by the same mechanisms (of those ones that did something), how are we to interpret the contradictory mechanisms that these analogies provide in terms of the atonement? The answer is reasonably straight-forward. If Jesus’ death or atonement worked the same as any one type of sacrifice, we could expect the New Testament analogies to centre around that model. In fact we find that no one type of sacrifice is greatly favoured by the New Testament – the New Testament makes full use of the entire range of sacrifices and even identifies Jesus with the priest and the altar as well. The thrust therefore is clearly that the entire sacrificial system is outdated and gone and has been entirely replaced. It is not merely that Jesus’ death worked like one of the sacrifices, it is that Jesus’ followers are not interested in sacrifices.
The reasons for this become apparent when we look at the New Testament’s moral teachings. The New Testament Christians have reached the step where morality has superseded the sacrificial system. Morality is constantly emphasised throughout the New Testament epistles - moral commands are given over and over again, exhortations to grow in love and imitate Christ are constantly repeated. In the gospels we see Jesus saying things like “I desire mercy not sacrifice” and “the greatest commandment is to love one another” and he attacks the Temple system and Mosaic customs on moral grounds out of concern for the poor and oppressed. Finally the authorities kill him for this and he dies a martyr. In response God resurrects him, demonstrating clearly that God approved of Jesus. The early Church saw in God’s resurrection of Jesus a statement about the sort of life God approves of. They though that if they were to be like Jesus then they too could gain God’s approval. Eg.
“if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten…For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.” (1 Pet 2:20-25)
The gospels make clear that throughout his life he helped others and challenges the systems and people that were oppressing the poor and outcasts. He gathered around him a group of followers who were committed to his cause, and warned them to expect persecution. He was prepared to die for his cause of helping others as a martyr, leaving an example to follow. By holding the image of Christ’s faithfulness even unto death in their minds to inspire them onwards, thousands of his followers endured struggles and hardships and even death for the sake of him and his cause. God, in resurrecting Jesus, not only endorsed everything Jesus did and taught and that God himself was behind and supported Jesus’ movement, but also demonstrated that Jesus himself had received God’s favour and attained a positive judgment and thus upheld Jesus as an example we should aspire to imitate if we hope to achieve God’s favour ourselves. Through the example of Jesus, the empowerment of the spirit and the community of dedicated Christians around them, the New Testament Christians sought to imitate Jesus and conquer sin in their own lives and in the world, being transformed themselves into Christ-like people and transforming the world around them, seeking to establish God’s reign on earth by causing his will to be done. Paul comments “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” (Phil 3:10-11) John comments “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world.” (1 John 4:17)
If anyone wants to read more about the ancient sacrificial system I recommend Finlan’s Problems with Atonement as being easily the best work on the subject. (or if you really want a challenge try his The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors)
A reference was also made indirectly earlier by another poster to Jeffrey Gibson’s work 'Paul’s "Dying Formula"' in Celebrating Romans: Template For Pauline Theology, 2004, in which Gibson examines the meaning of the Greek phrase “X died for Y” in the one hundred and eleven surviving occurrences from that phrase in Greek manuscripts. His found that 100% of the time the phrase “X died for Y” is talking about a martyrdom (in the broad sense of the word) – usually it refers to a soldier who has died in battle fighting for his country, city, family or friend, and sometimes refers to martyrs for religious causes. Paul makes fairly prolific use of the phrase “Jesus died for us”, implying therefore Jesus died some sort of martyr’s death for our sake. Paul directly compares Christ dying for us in Rom 5:7-8 to the normal situation of a man dying for the sake of another person, and presents the difference as being not one of kind but one of degree – normally you would give your life to save someone else because they are a good person worth saving, whereas with Christ it was when we were immoral people that he gave his life as part of his teaching and effort to change us personally and change society. Hence, Paul continues, if God loves us enough to send Christ to teach us righteousness and die doing it when were wicked, how much more must he love us now that we have learned righteousness from Christ and live in a way pleasing to God (5:9-10). Note that common in Greek descriptions of martyrs are references to blood and shedding of blood, and also references to the faithfulness of the martyr to their cause even unto death. Remember that crucifixion was not a particularly bloody death, so the New Testament’s constant references to the blood of Christ need to be explained either against a sacrificial or martyrological background. Paul’s use of the three ideas of “Christ died for us” and much talk about Christ’s “blood” and “faithfulness” indicate a strong martyrological theme.
Strictly speaking this reading puts the New Testament position on the atonement closer to being Moral Exemplar than Christus Victor, though plenty of Christus Victor elements are still present.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Hi, Starlight, and welcome. That was a very interesting first post. You're setting the bar pretty high for your second!
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
A few posters in this thread seem confused about the Old Testament sacrifices. So I will attempt some clarifications (they’re lengthy ones I’m afraid).
This is going to be a very short post, sorry ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
PSAers actually rather like the Passover. And that is because PSA language fits so well with it.
In Exodus 12 the text keeps repeating that 'every house in Egypt will have someone dead' (men and animals). The Egyptians each have a dead body and then Israelites have a dead lamb. The Exodus narrative describes it as both penal and substitutionary - It is probably THE PSA image!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Johnny S,
In the Exodus narrative the situation is not that the the Israelites deserved to endure punishment like the Egyptians but the sacrificed lamb took their punishment on itself and suffered in their place. There is no hint that the Israelites deserved punishment or that God wanted to punish them or of them having displeased God. Nor is the lamb ever spoken of as substitutionary. Its blood is simply used as paint, marking the Israelite houses so that the angel can see and avoid harming the Israelites.
You seem to have taken an imaginative approach to interpret this as Penal Substitutionary. But it takes even less imagination to "prove" Christus Victor - the blood of the lamb conquers and defeats the power of the angel of death protecting the households covered with it. Actually, it does seem quite possible that the Israelites would have seen the blood as a magical talisman which was used to place a protective blessing over the home which warded off the angel of death.
As I mentioned previously, if Penal Substitution were true then Jesus ought to have died on the Day of Atonement. While that didn't work by penal substitution it's at least something vaguely close compared to the rest of the sacrificial system. The Day of Atonement was all about the removal of sin from Israel and the transfer of the curses off Israel onto the animal. It seems you'd like to confuse the Day of Atonement with the Passover, but they are completely different festivals held on completely different days of the year and focus on completely different things. If the New Testament writers had wanted to set Jesus against a Day of Atonement context and say that the curses on the nation were transferred to him, then it could easily have spoken of Jesus as the Goat provided by God if they wanted. However, the NT is silent on Jesus as the Goat of God. Passover is not the Day of Atonement and has nothing to do with atonement.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
In Exodus 12 the text keeps repeating that 'every house in Egypt will have someone dead' (men and animals). The Egyptians each have a dead body and then Israelites have a dead lamb. The Exodus narrative describes it as both penal and substitutionary - It is probably THE PSA image!
Coming rather late to this thread, but the Passover is most definitely not penal or substitutionary. It is clear in Exodus 11 that God at no time intends to kill or harm any of the Israelites, the entire purpose of the plagues is to free them from their slavery. The Passover lamb sacrifice is not a penalty they have to pay, nor is its death in substitution for the death of the first born.
The Passover sacrifice is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and celebration that the Israelites are freed from slavery and are God's people. Christ is our Passover lamb because his sacrifice makes us God's people and frees us from the slavery of sin. This seems to me to be much closer to the imagery of Christus Victor than PSA.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Heck, in the article in the OP the guy claimed himself that appeasement sacrifices were a pagan tradition, not a jewish one. The point of the sacrifice isn't to make God happy, it's to remind yourself of what you have done.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Victim/Offender Reconciliation Program
British Columbia's programs for indigenous communities
Victims' Families for Reconciliation
There's a lot out there: the idea of "restorative justice" is taking shape in many places.
These all look great and are to be commended - however, all of them seem to be supplementing the penal system instead of replacing it?
There is a movement, in some systems and communities, to allow people's criminal activities to be dealt with through restorative justice channels instead of the traditional x crime= y days in jail model. Given consent of both offender and victim.
Some details here
International organization herehas lots of information about instances in which this model is adopted INSTEAD OF the penal system.
No, we're not 100% there yet--our current model is way too entrenched and self-perpetuating. But ultimately, "we have this big broken thing instead" isn't a valid reason for rejecting the alternatives.
Hmm--I find myself able to apply that argument to PSA as well.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
JJ, I too am sorry but if your sin is not judged in Christ then you still carry its burden. You are not regenerated, born again or made a new creature. Gal 2:20 does not apply to you.You are still under the judgement of your fallen humanity and all the evil deeds which you have managed to accumulate not that you are different in that sense to any one of the rest of us. I find it utterly incomprehensible that the clear reading of scripture is rejected here in favour of a theological metaphor which sees blood sacrifice as something Christian thought has merely evolved out of and away from. To say PSA is 'sub scriptural' is to patronisingly reject a literal reading which in turn requires mental gymnastics to negotiate. Could I remind you of what 1 Pet 1:18,19 actually says: "we are redeemed with precious blood..the blood of Christ" Redeemed means bought. The blood is the purchase price! Hebrews 9:12 states that Christ entered the holy place by means of his own blood. Put this together with the scriptures on his death and we see not only that he died for our sins and was raised for our justification but also how this was possible. Regarding your dismissal of inconvenient OT texts on God's anger and judgement as bronze age ancient belief systems, my view is that we must deal with scripture as holistic. The God of the Jewish scriptures is the God we worship. He has not changed in essence but he has found a way whereby we can approach him. The covenants of promise have become accessible to the Gentile world through the watershed of the atonement. See Eph 2:12, 13 which states, "You (Gentiles)..were separate..excluded.... but now in Christ Jesus you who were formerly far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ for he himself is our peace.." And incidentally,what do you do with Peter's opinion on 'penal substitution'? He says in 1 Pet 2:24 that "He himself (Christ) bore our sins in his body on the cross." Perhaps the one Jesus entrusted the keys of the kingdom to got it totally wrong. What say you?
Furthermore, Starlight, The Passover had the express purpose of shielding the Israelites from the judgement that came upon the Egyptians. The blood on the posts caused the angel of death to 'pass over' the house. This clearly implies a penal factor, an avoidance of judgement. Christ's death in the midst of the feast of Passover therefore carries the typological significance of his blood shielding believers from judgement. It is interesting that Passover was the first major feast of the Jewish year. Christ actually chose to die then to underline the necessity of regeneration, the complete cutting off of the ties of Egypt which is typologically the world. Our personal deliverance from sin and removal from worldly thinking is the first step in our transformation into his likeness.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Furthermore, Starlight, The Passover had the express purpose of shielding the Israelites from the judgement that came upon the Egyptians. The blood on the posts caused the angel of death to 'pass over' the house. This clearly implies a penal factor, an avoidance of judgement.
I don't think that it implies an avoidance of judgment for which they ought to have been guilty. They were saved because they were God's people. Similarly, they were exempted from all of the plagues.
When the passover and the exodus are mentioned throughout the Bible the word that is used is "redemption" - which He accomplished not by witholding their punishment, or placing it on a lamb, but "with a mighty hand." Redemption is about overcoming the enemy:
quote:
Deuteronomy 7:8 The LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 9:26 Your people and Your inheritance whom You have redeemed through Your greatness, whom You have brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
Deuteronomy 24:18 But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you from there;
Micah 6:4 For I brought you up from the land of Egypt, I redeemed you from the house of bondage;
These references fit much better with Christus Victor than with PSA. Other passages about redemption carry the same idea:
quote:
1 Kings 1:29 “As the LORD lives, who has redeemed my life from every distress,
Nehemiah 1:10 Now these are Your servants and Your people, whom You have redeemed by Your great power, and by Your strong hand.
Psalm 25:22 Redeem Israel, O God, Out of all their troubles!
Psalm 55:18 He has redeemed my soul in peace from the battle that was against me.
Psalm 69:18 Draw near to my soul, and redeem it; Deliver me because of my enemies.
Psalm 72:14 He will redeem their life from oppression and violence; And precious shall be their blood in His sight.
Psalm 106:10 He saved them from the hand of him who hated them, And redeemed them from the hand of the enemy.
Isaiah 50:2 Is My hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Indeed with My rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness;
Jeremiah 15:21 “ I will deliver you from the hand of the wicked, And I will redeem you from the grip of the terrible.”
Micah 4:10 There you shall be delivered; There the LORD will redeem you From the hand of your enemies.
Luke 24:21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened.
I think that this last one is especially telling. They thought that His power failed. They didn't understand His power or His redemption.
But the passover lamb was a means of saving Israel, just not as a substitute for something. The lamb stood for the innocence of Israel and its blood stood for the truths related to that innocence. So they marked the way, serving as signals for the angels, as Starlight said.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Jamat,
quote:
Could I remind you of what 1 Pet 1:18,19 actually says: "we are redeemed with precious blood..the blood of Christ" Redeemed means bought. The blood is the purchase price!
Many of the church fathers taught what is known as the Ransom Theory of the atonement where God literally pays the devil with the blood of Christ to redeem us. In that view were are very literally “redeemed with precious blood…the blood of Christ”. I presume you would reject that view… so I suggest that you shouldn’t accuse others of rejecting the literal meaning of the text when you do so yourself.
And, if we pay more attention to what the verse is saying and throw in a bit of context for fun:
“Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; for it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy." If you invoke as Father the one who judges all people impartially according to their deeds, live in reverent fear during the time of your exile.You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” (1 Pet 1:15-19)
The context is talking about them changing their conduct so that they live holy lives. The thing they have been ransomed from was not “god’s punishment” but “futile ways” of living. It is clear that the thought is that the believers need to change their conduct, be holy, and therefore achieve a positive final judgment in the sight of God “who judges all people impartially according to their deeds”. They were rescued from their previous “futile ways” of living and taught holy to be holy in their conduct by Jesus who sacrificed his life to teach them this.
quote:
And incidentally,what do you do with Peter's opinion on 'penal substitution'? He says in 1 Pet 2:24 that "He himself (Christ) bore our sins in his body on the cross."
Taken literally 1 Peter 2:24 seems to teach Christus Victor and Moral Exemplar – Christ “carries” our sins in his body on the cross and bears them away into grave with him, he does this so that we ourselves might “die” in imitation of him to our sinful ways and live righteously. It was through him doing this and suffering those wounds that we were able to be healed.
That’s what the verse seems to say literally, and that’s not Penal Substitution. There’s no notion in there of penalty, but rather one of rescue, as if we were diseased with sin and Christ transferred that disease to himself and took it with him to the grave. But that’s a far cry from any notions of cosmic justice, or penalties imposed or transferred by God’s law-court. It looks far more like a story a God who has seen his creation suffering from sin and reaches out to help, taking that disease on himself in order to save us.
Now personally, I don’t think we should take this verse totally literally. The comment that we ourselves “die to sin” is clearly metaphorical in some sense, drawing an analogy between a moral change in our lives and Christ’s death on the cross. So I suggest there is every reason to take the sentence about Christ bearing away our sinfulness in his body as equally part of the analogy. Sin is not a substance that can be carried by a waiter on a silver platter, Christ can’t simply carry it away in his body literally as if he’d eaten it. The point of the metaphor of Christ carrying away sin is perhaps not therefore talking about the mechanism of atonement but rather about the effects – the passage is not saying how he did this but commenting on what was done: Namely, sin has been destroyed.
The context however does tell us a lot about the mechanism. Let’s look at the immediate context:
“if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. 22 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 23 When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten….25 For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.” (1 Peter 2:20-25)
What does that tell us? We were going astray like sheep, but Christ our guardian came to set our souls back on the right path. He did this by leaving an example for us of suffering for doing right. If we emulate that example we will gain for ourselves God’s approval. So, in short, you appear to have plucked one sentence out of context from the middle of a passage clearly advocating Moral Exemplar and interpreted your sentence creatively to teach Penal Substitution.
quote:
The blood on the posts caused the angel of death to 'pass over' the house. This clearly implies a penal factor, an avoidance of judgement.
Avoidance of suffering, yes. Of judgement? Not really. Here are two possible scenarios about what the blood does:
1. It’s basically paint, and is a painted marker for the angel of death, who sees it and thinks “okay, Israelite house, won’t go there”.
2. It’s a magical charm desired to created a spiritual forcefield around the house, and the angel of death when it tried to go there would be warded off.
Either of those two could plausibly have been what the ancient Israelites believed, given their beliefs about blood and magic and given what the bible says.
A penal substitutionary account leaves more questions than it gives answers though: Why on earth would God want to kill the firstborn Israelites? Why would he perform this judgment against Israel? Why does the biblical account give no hint that Israel has sinned or angered god or incurred his wrath? Why does the account not say that the Lamb is a substitute? How does the death of the lamb serve as a penal substitute – does it exhaust the angel of death’s killing power or what? If so, why do the Israelites themselves kill the Lamb rather than the angel of death? etc A penal substitutionary theory does not at all flow naturally out of the Passover accounts, you’ve got to already believe in the atonement theory of Penal Substitution and read it backwards into the Passover under the belief that the Passover must have functioned like Christ’s atonement. Over the years I’ve seen more than a few Christians engage in the curiously circular logic that (1) the Passover (and sacrifices in general) must have functioned like Christ’s atonement (ie penal substitution), and that therefore (2) the fact that Christ died on Passover like the sacrificial lamb proves he is a penal substitute since that’s how the Passover sacrifice worked.
quote:
Christ's death in the midst of the feast of Passover therefore carries the typological significance of his blood shielding believers from judgement.
Typologically, anything can be interpreted to mean anything. I’m afraid I don’t have much patience with symbolism, as its only a matter of imagination to make up anything you want to.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
As the debate rages I'm not always sure that we are talking about the same thing.
1. Some are trying to demonstrate that PSA is not as ubiquitous in the bible as has been made out.
2. Others are trying to 'remove' PSA as sub-biblical.
3. Some seem (although I'm not sure they are) to be defending PSA as THE atonement model.
4. Others, like me, merely want to hold on to PSA alongside all the other models.
Because of the different aims we seem to frequently 'miss each other'. For example, I am slightly surprised at the attemtps to expunge all traces of PSA from the Passover. It can clearly be interpreted as substitutionary atonement since the death of the lamb makes the Lord 'spare' the Israelite homes. And arguments about the silence of the text in saying that the Israelites 'deserved' death are somewhat redundant - the whole point is that the text leaves unanswered why the Israelites would have died as well alongside the Egyptians (without the blood of the lamb.)
And so we return to the points above. If some are saying that the Passover could fit with CV or PSA then fine. I can't see how anyone can claim that the Passover does not fit with PSA.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
That's interesting Johnny. I can't for the life of me read PSA into the Passover. Probably because I don't think you can get any theory of the Atonement out of the Passover, although you can read the Passover as prefiguring (types and shadows) the Atonement once the Atonement has actually happened.
If PSA is true then its not unreasonable to take that interpretation of the Passover. If not, not, as they used to say in Aragon.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Yeah Johnny I think your comment that different people are trying to prove different things is helpful to keep in mind. My personal view is that PSA was not believed by the writers of the bible (and that they held the Moral Exemplar view primarily with smatterings of Christus Victor) and that many biblical passages get mistakenly read as teaching PSA.
On the subject of Passover then, let me make it clear that I am not saying that it is impossible to fit Passover with PSA... with enough imagination it is possible to fit anything. I am arguing:
(1) that there are interpretations of Passover that do not involve PSA.
(2) that those interpretation are not merely plausible ones, but in fact more likely to be accurate than the PSA one.
(3) That Jesus' death during the Passover and references to him as the Passover Lamb do not therefore constitute any positive evidence in favor of PSA over Christus Victor, contrary to what some supporters of PSA seem to think (and in fact constitutes a degree of positive evidence toward Christus Victor over PSA).
(4) That the Day of Atonement matches PSA much better than Passover, and that therefore Jesus' association with Passover rather than the Day of Atonement is some level of evidence against PSA.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Thanks Starlight. I think we are on much more reasonable territory now.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I am arguing:
(1) that there are interpretations of Passover that do not involve PSA.
Fine.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
(2) that those interpretation are not merely plausible ones, but in fact more likely to be accurate than the PSA one.
Ummh ... I'm still not convinced by 'more likely'. You still haven't dealt with the fact that God is clearly 'punishing' the Egyptians. You are mostly psycho-analysing the thoughts of the Israelites as to what they thought was going on. I'm not convinced.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
(3) That Jesus' death during the Passover and references to him as the Passover Lamb do not therefore constitute any positive evidence in favour of PSA over Christus Victor, contrary to what some supporters of PSA seem to think (and in fact constitutes a degree of positive evidence toward Christus Victor over PSA).
well, maybe, but you have to prove point 2 more clearly first.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
(4) That the Day of Atonement matches PSA much better than Passover, and that therefore Jesus' association with Passover rather than the Day of Atonement is some level of evidence against PSA.
Again maybe. It is interesting that the NT does 'unpack' the cross extensively, and yet when it does, e.g. Hebrews, it tends towards the 'atonement' sacrifice model and not the Passover as the default explanation. Now I realise that you don't think that those sacrifices where necessarily PSA either, but it does make your point 4 rather redundant.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You still haven't dealt with the fact that God is clearly 'punishing' the Egyptians.
But that is exactly the point here. God is punishing the Egyptians, not the Israelites. The slave-keepers are punished; the slaves are set free.
This is in direct opposition to PSA where we who are the slaves to sin deserve the penalty. The "passover model" of atonement would suggest that it is sin itself that is to be punished and defeated so that sinners can be set free, and Jesus is the sacrificial lamb which is the symbol of that setting free.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
But that is exactly the point here. God is punishing the Egyptians, not the Israelites. The slave-keepers are punished; the slaves are set free.
This is in direct opposition to PSA where we who are the slaves to sin deserve the penalty. The "passover model" of atonement would suggest that it is sin itself that is to be punished and defeated so that sinners can be set free, and Jesus is the sacrificial lamb which is the symbol of that setting free.
Woah there! Hold your horses (or your chariots if you are an Egyptian). Who said anything about the exodus being an analogy for slavery to sin? I'm not disputing it but just pointing out that that is another huge leap in the argument.
Before we jump to analogies I was still stuck in the text. When God came in judgment he did so in punishing the Egyptians. You have conveniently jumped from God judging people (i.e. a penal model) to God judging 'sin' (i.e. a CV model). Last time I looked Egyptians were people, and just as much 'people' as the Israelites. The Israelites still had to sacrifice a lamb to stop God's judgment falling on them to ... as people!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
But that is exactly the point here. God is punishing the Egyptians, not the Israelites. The slave-keepers are punished; the slaves are set free...
Woah there! Hold your horses (or your chariots if you are an Egyptian). Who said anything about the exodus being an analogy for slavery to sin? I'm not disputing it but just pointing out that that is another huge leap in the argument.
Before we jump to analogies I was still stuck in the text. When God came in judgment he did so in punishing the Egyptians...
I think that Johnny has a point -- let's stick to the text. In my Bible, there is no mention that I can find of "punishing" anyone. The only mention of sin that I can find is Pharoah saying that he has sinned against God by changing his mind about freeing the Israelites. But no-one else even uses the term AFAICS.
It appears that the text says that God heard the cries of His people and "remembered" His promises. It also says that God keeps "hardening Pharaoh's heart," which is pretty hard to fathom for me. But the thrust of the story appears to be that God is showing His power, not that He is "punishing" the Egyptians. And, given that slavery was the common practice throughout the Torah, it's far from obvious that slaveholding as such was deemed to be worthy of punishment.
An awful lot of the discussion about atonement theory seems to fly beyond the text into people's own hobby horses. This is especially true when people insist on reading the atonement back into the Hebrew Testament. But the extent to which people read references to Jewish religious practices in the New Testament as proof of their own views -- despite twisting those practices into something that no Jew would recognize -- should give us all pause. Are we listening to scripture or dictating to it?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The Israelites still had to sacrifice a lamb to stop God's judgement falling on them too ... as people!
No. This is exactly what they didn't have to do. It seems perfectly clear to me from Exodus 11 that God had no intention of ever harming the Israelites. It is not a case of "slaughter a lamb or else I will slaughter you" but "slaughter a lamb because you are one of my people and that I may pass over you". These are fundamentally different.
The penalty in the Passover is meted out not to God's people but to others. God's chosen people have no penalty to pay nor any substitution to make, so there are no links between PSA and the Passover. In PSA it is us as God's people who should pay the penalty. In CV the "punishment" is on and the victory is over sin itself.
It is not a matter of whether or not God judges or punishes, both are going on in the Passover narrative. The issue is who/what gets judged punished and how.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
It also says that God keeps "hardening Pharaoh's heart," which is pretty hard to fathom for me.
The sun's rays fall upon us all. The wax however melts, while clay becomes hardened. That's the explanation the Orthodox traditionally gave on that verse, that while all get God's grace, the hearts of some behave like wax, while the hearts of others behave like clay. In other words, it is not God the one that does the hardening, but one's own self. The sun gives its heat to all things.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Yet another interesting observation, Andreas. Thanks!
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Are we listening to scripture or dictating to it?
Fair point Tom - I think you've shown on numerous occasions where I've been guilty of that.
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But the thrust of the story appears to be that God is showing His power, not that He is "punishing" the Egyptians.
I agree but wonder how you can't see that the way he was showing his power was by 'punishing' the Egyptians. If he wasn't then he seems to be acting in a very capricious manner - happening to pick on them to show his strength.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
It seems perfectly clear to me from Exodus 11 that God had no intention of ever harming the Israelites. It is not a case of "slaughter a lamb or else I will slaughter you" but "slaughter a lamb because you are one of my people and that I may pass over you". These are fundamentally different.
...The issue is who/what gets judged punished and how.
This is probably my fundamental problem with attempts to completely expunge PSA. If that is the case then God is worse than a violent Father who demands punishment, he demands the slaughter of innocent animals for no significant reason at all.
Why couldn't they just have used paint?
Was the Angel of Death short-sighted, or did he use a sense of smell?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
I agree that the Passover lamb was, de facto, a sacrifice (during the 2nd Temple period, didn't the Priest officiate at all of the Passover Lamb slaughter?), and one which ties in with the 'communal meal' aspect of some sacrifices.
Thus, there seems to be some 'point' about the life of the Lambs in the blood 'warding off' the Angel of death.
I agree that the original story doesn't really 'sell it' in terms of a 'penal transfer' (the Israelites are the 'good guys', not the 'bad guys' needing to be protected from their own God), but there is a sense of 'delivery from death'.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But the thrust of the story appears to be that God is showing His power, not that He is "punishing" the Egyptians.
I agree but wonder how you can't see that the way he was showing his power was by 'punishing' the Egyptians. If he wasn't then he seems to be acting in a very capricious manner - happening to pick on them to show his strength.
Hi, Johnny. BTW, I certainly did not mean to suggest that you personally were placing your interpretation above scripture. My concern was more general, that we were all in danger of doing that. If I appeared to be targeting you, I apologize.
As to the point quoted above, I share your discomfort with the story. But it really seems that God is indifferent to the Egyptians in this story (a sense that I also get with other non-
Isrealites in other parts of the Torah). It is possible that we should just view these things as being the people of Israel's take on how God has looked after them. The question of what this says about God's relationship to the Egyptians is just not addressed in the story because it is specifically about the Isrealites.
Or maybe the view in that time was that the leader of a people could bring down God's wrath on the whole people, whether those people had any say in the actions of the leader or not, so it was seen as righteous. I really don't know.
But I am hard-pressed to discern anything that I would recognize as justice towards the people of Egypt in the actions of God in this story. I'm not sure that back-filling a justification that makes us comfortable with the story is really the best way to approach scripture, however.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Hi, Johnny. BTW, I certainly did not mean to suggest that you personally were placing your interpretation above scripture. My concern was more general, that we were all in danger of doing that. If I appeared to be targeting you, I apologize.
I didn't think you had me particularly in your sights. I just got convicted, that is all ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
It seems perfectly clear to me from Exodus 11 that God had no intention of ever harming the Israelites. It is not a case of "slaughter a lamb or else I will slaughter you" but "slaughter a lamb because you are one of my people and that I may pass over you". These are fundamentally different.
...The issue is who/what gets judged punished and how.
This is probably my fundamental problem with attempts to completely expunge PSA. If that is the case then God is worse than a violent Father who demands punishment, he demands the slaughter of innocent animals for no significant reason at all.
Sorry for the double-post. ISTM that your point would have some power for a vegetarian, but not for meat-eaters. The sacrificial system of the OT seemed to be pretty much the way that people went to the butcher. They ate the meat, except for some fat, in almost all cases. The point of the sacrifice was not that the animal was killed (that would happen anyway.) Rather, the point was that the people of Israel were reminded that they owed their sustenance to God. Remember, these people were "loading up on carbs" before a long journey...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that your point would have some power for a vegetarian, but not for meat-eaters. The sacrificial system of the OT seemed to be pretty much the way that people went to the butcher. They ate the meat, except for some fat, in almost all cases. The point of the sacrifice was not that the animal was killed (that would happen anyway.) Rather, the point was that the people of Israel were reminded that they owed their sustenance to God. Remember, these people were "loading up on carbs" before a long journey...
--Tom Clune
Not convinced. I think you're conflating two issues. Yes, this is how they ate. But there was something special about the blood (e.g. Leviticus 17). I don't want to reopen the 'Passover / Day of Atonement' debate but there is certainly a lot more going on than firing up the BBQ!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
I'm not convinced, either. I agree that something more is at work in all this, and that something is pointing the way to the Almighty. But, when I try to nail it down more specifically, I usually feel that I'm "whistling past the cemetery."
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I'm not sure that back-filling a justification that makes us comfortable with the story is really the best way to approach scripture, however.
--Tom Clune
This is probably a tangent but it does raise an issue that keeps coming up on this thread - how we handle scripture.
I'm going to outline two opposing methods, but please put me straight if I'm being unfair etc.
1. Biblical theology - I look for one coherent message to the whole Bible. This means that when I come to bits that don't seem to fit or appear to contradict each other I try to find someway to fit them into one coherent message. Of course the danger with this view is that I too easily go for reductionistic and simplistic answers, forcing things to fit. However, it does mean that I can't (or at least I shouldn't )pick and choose which bits I listen to and which bits I don't.
2. Biblical theologies - others appear (IMHO) to have lost confidence in one coherent message to the bible. There are bits that contradict each other and there is no need to fit them together, or 'to square the circle'. The advantage of this is that we are freed up to genuinely listen to each bit, and don't end up cutting everything down to the same old doctrines. However, (IMHO) the significant disadvantage is that there is no objective criteria to help us decide what to go with and what to 'ignore'.
I raise this because I have encountered the frequent suggestion that option 2 is more intellectually honest. However, I disagree. I think it leads quickly to a position where the stance of the reader is absolute and the text is bent to my viewpoint.
I readily concur that Jesus is the prism with which we should view the scriptures. However, in practice that simply moves the above two options to focus on the gospels instead of the whole bible but still leaves us with the same problem.
Sorry about the tangent, but my guess is that we will always talk passed each other (to some degree) while we hold very different ways of handling the bible.
John.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
"hardening Pharaoh's heart"
Let's not forget that if I say to a friend "you've made me angry" I don't mean that they've reached inside my skull and overridden my free will and flicked the angry switch, but rather I mean they've done something and I've responded with anger. They've only "made" me angry indirectly through their actions, not through any direct control of me. Hence we would use the phrases "you've made me angry" and "I'm angry at you because of what you did" pretty much interchangeably. It is interesting to note that the Pharaoh narrative does the same thing - throughout the passage it alternates between saying "Pharaoh hardened his heart" and saying "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" as if the two meant the same thing.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why couldn't they just have used paint?
Was the Angel of Death short-sighted, or did he use a sense of smell?
I think that this was answered by Starlight above:
quote:
Posted by Starlight:
blood, being the essence of living beings was thought to exist both in the spiritual and physical worlds
I have some other points that I'd like to bring up about CV and universalism, but I'll wait until we're done with the Exodus.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by davelarge:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why couldn't they just have used paint?
Was the Angel of Death short-sighted, or did he use a sense of smell?
I think that this was answered by Starlight above:
quote:
Posted by Starlight:
blood, being the essence of living beings was thought to exist both in the spiritual and physical worlds
Yes, but where is the evidence for any of this?
And I'm the one accused of reading back into the text
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
JJ, I too am sorry but if your sin is not judged in Christ then you still carry its burden. You are not regenerated, born again or made a new creature. Gal 2:20 does not apply to you.You are still under the judgement of your fallen humanity and all the evil deeds which you have managed to accumulate not that you are different in that sense to any one of the rest of us.
Well, personally, I rather thought I was saved by grace through faith. pace Ephesians 2: 8-9. As a result of God's grace, I believe that the benefits of Galatians 2:20 do accrue to me. But I'd like to get what you are saying clear in my mind. Are you saying that I have to have a particular view of the atonement, that is, your view, in order to accrue those benefits? Are you saying that God's grace isn't sufficient ground for salvation, and that a "correct" doctrinal understanding is necessary as well? Because, if you are, where does that leave the, I guess, about 90% of the rest of christendom who do not, and never have, shared that understanding. Strewth, even a sizable minority of evangelicals don't take that view, let alone all the Catholics, non-Evo Protestants and Orthodoxen. Of course, you may not be saying that, and I may have misunderstood you, so feel free to clarify.
quote:
I find it utterly incomprehensible that the clear reading of scripture is rejected here in favour of a theological metaphor which sees blood sacrifice as something Christian thought has merely evolved out of and away from.
Several points, here. Firstly, blood sacrifice is one of the genuine strands of thinking about the atonement. The writer of Hebrews develops the theme exhaustively, because it was something which his target audience understood readily. We, however, are not first century Jews, so its relevance to us (though not its truth) will be limited. I'm not sure how useful a concept it is today, and suspect it causes more confusion than illumination, but that is not to say it isn't a valid way of understanding the Atonement. However blood sacrifice is not penal!! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Furthermore, the writer to Hebrews clearly states that the sacrifice of Jesus does indeed render the old testament concept of blood sacrifice redundant. If you want to put it that way, (I wouldn't) he agrees that we have "evolved out of it"!
But what I find really difficult to understand is the continuing assertion that PSA is "the clear teaching of Scripture". It is not. I can just about see that you could argue that it is, in fact, the teaching of scripture (though I don't think that it is) but how could it be clear when the vast number of Christians of whatever stripe down the ages, men and women genuinely committed to Christ, martyrs, some of them, for their faith, did not see it in scripture at all. I don't see how it is being condescending to point that fact out, along with some of the reasons why I would concur with them that it is a doctrine which, in fact, is not clearly taught in scripture.
quote:
Could I remind you of what 1 Pet 1:18,19 actually says: "we are redeemed with precious blood..the blood of Christ" Redeemed means bought. The blood is the purchase price! Hebrews 9:12 states that Christ entered the holy place by means of his own blood. Put this together with the scriptures on his death and we see not only that he died for our sins and was raised for our justification but also how this was possible.
Excellent case for a sacrificial understanding of the Atonement. Jesus death is, indeed, prefigured in the OT sacrificial system. Also, that Jesus death was instrumental in releasing us from bondage to sin is, without doubt, biblical teaching. Neither of these points, either jointly or severally, implies a penal understanding. As I have said before, such a sacrificial understanding is quite in line with the scriptures, and I have no problem with it. But it is not the same thing as PSA. I think that Starlight's extensive and solid analysis demonstrates why this is so.
quote:
Regarding your dismissal of inconvenient OT texts on God's anger and judgement as bronze age ancient belief systems, my view is that we must deal with scripture as holistic.
I absolutely agree with this, indeed, it was the point that I was trying to make. It is the whole account of scripture that must be assesed. And, since we are living post the incarnation (from a human perspective) I don't think it is unreasonable to read the OT texts in the light of the more complete revelation of God that we have in Jesus, as per Hebrews 1:1.
quote:
And incidentally,what do you do with Peter's opinion on 'penal substitution'? He says in 1 Pet 2:24 that "He himself (Christ) bore our sins in his body on the cross." Perhaps the one Jesus entrusted the keys of the kingdom to got it totally wrong. What say you?
I don't have a problem with the idea that the wieght of human (and, indeed, cosmic) evil was poured into Jesus on the cross. That is a good case for Christus Victor. In order to establish PSA you would have to show that God was dealing with that evil punitively, rather then by sacrifice and love. In short, and I know this is a bit of a simplification, and nuanced PSA-upholders will probably wince, (sorry, John) that God's anger was placated by that process.
quote:
Furthermore, Starlight, The Passover had the express purpose of shielding the Israelites from the judgement that came upon the Egyptians. The blood on the posts caused the angel of death to 'pass over' the house. This clearly implies a penal factor, an avoidance of judgement. Christ's death in the midst of the feast of Passover therefore carries the typological significance of his blood shielding believers from judgement. It is interesting that Passover was the first major feast of the Jewish year. Christ actually chose to die then to underline the necessity of regeneration, the complete cutting off of the ties of Egypt which is typologically the world. Our personal deliverance from sin and removal from worldly thinking is the first step in our transformation into his likeness.
Well, I agree with the second part of this clip. I don't think anyone here is denying the need for regeneration and sanctification. But there has been extensive discussion here as to why the Passover lamb is not, in fact, a penal image, but rather, is better understood from a CV POV, God defeating the enemies of His people. Merely stating that the Passover is "clearly penal", does not make it so.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by davelarge:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why couldn't they just have used paint?
Was the Angel of Death short-sighted, or did he use a sense of smell?
I think that this was answered by Starlight above:
quote:
Posted by Starlight:
blood, being the essence of living beings was thought to exist both in the spiritual and physical worlds
Yes, but where is the evidence for any of this?
And I'm the one accused of reading back into the text
Well, I guess we don't know exactly what a Bronze-age Jew understood by blood, but we do have some pretty firm examples of how those beliefs worked out in practice. It does seem to be a sign of committment, of covenant ratification, and it does seem to have been thought to be capable of reminding God of His promises. Not much penal about it though, istm. There was blood associated with repentance, but it was blood shed to "remind God" (we are talking Bronze-age, here) of His covenant to (anachronistically) "remember their sins no more". But it was the covenant, (that is, grace)not the sacrifice, which brought forgiveness. It was the goat that was the sin-bearer, and that was not sacrificed/punished.
[ 25. May 2007, 09:39: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qupe
Shipmate
# 12388
|
Posted
I've been following all this PSA/CV stuff, and I've got two questions which may sound cheeky or frivolous but I do want to ask them seriously.
Firstly, what we are talking about is how Christ redeemed the world - not if, but how. Therefore, is it absolutely necessary for christians to understand how, or is it enough just to accept and be grateful that Christ did redeem us? I think of the simple affirmations of faith made by so many people whom Jesus touched - is that enough, or is the understanding of what the redemption means so fundamental to christian faith that we really must be clear on what our understanding of salvation is?
Secondly, is it possible to be bowled over by both Christus Victor and aspects of PSA? Or are the two positions so contradictory that they cannot possibly be sychronised? The reason I ask is that I have got so much out of reading all these debates, but am still not very clear as to 'where I stand' and find both CV and PSA (in certain expressions) remarkable, wonderful and compelling, and suspect that the ultimate truth is far bigger than any of us could ever know.
If these questions have already been answered elsewhere, just say! And if they are very basic and obvious, please excuse my ignorance!
--------------------
'Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.'
Posts: 802 | From: Down the road from the chocolate factory | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I'm not sure that back-filling a justification that makes us comfortable with the story is really the best way to approach scripture, however.
--Tom Clune
This is probably a tangent but it does raise an issue that keeps coming up on this thread - how we handle scripture.
I'm going to outline two opposing methods, but please put me straight if I'm being unfair etc.
1. Biblical theology - I look for one coherent message to the whole Bible. This means that when I come to bits that don't seem to fit or appear to contradict each other I try to find someway to fit them into one coherent message. Of course the danger with this view is that I too easily go for reductionistic and simplistic answers, forcing things to fit. However, it does mean that I can't (or at least I shouldn't )pick and choose which bits I listen to and which bits I don't.
2. Biblical theologies - others appear (IMHO) to have lost confidence in one coherent message to the bible. There are bits that contradict each other and there is no need to fit them together, or 'to square the circle'. The advantage of this is that we are freed up to genuinely listen to each bit, and don't end up cutting everything down to the same old doctrines. However, (IMHO) the significant disadvantage is that there is no objective criteria to help us decide what to go with and what to 'ignore'.
I raise this because I have encountered the frequent suggestion that option 2 is more intellectually honest. However, I disagree. I think it leads quickly to a position where the stance of the reader is absolute and the text is bent to my viewpoint.
Hi, Johnny. I think this is an interesting point. I am a hard-core Methodist. Literally the only thing that I can think of that I have rejected in John Wesley's thought is wrapped up in this issue. Wesley, like the Church as a whole before him, explicitly embraced the first view. Indeed, he urges people to look at apparent contradictions in scripture and use the "clearer" passage to interpret the murkier one.
Wesley's approach continues to be the main line in approaching scriptures AFAICS, and is a powerful one. On this board, Freddy uses exactly this approach to great effect. So I do not want to sound dismissive of it. But I no longer find it the right approach for me.
The reason is that I find it too distorting when I apply it. In my hands, it has exactly the disadvantage that you attribute to the second approach, but in a somehwat different form. When I create the unity within the scriptures, I enforce my preferences upon the text.
When I acknowledge apparent contradictions or significant differences of viewpoint, I find that it leaves the issue open for me to revisit as I grow spiritually or increase my knowledge of Biblical times. I may or may not end up resolving the tension in the text, but I have clearly marked that it exists within my current understanding. If I force a unity that is beyond my current understanding, I find that the issue tends to become closed in my thinking. Of course, YMMV.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
