Who Killed Jesus - part 2
Here's a dilemma: I'm going away for three days tomorrow morning and I may not have the internet when I get back (I'm moving house and it's being turned off), so rather than post nothing at all I'm going to write my concluding post on the atonement but make it very short and to the point, so excuse the brevity. Part one here.
1. The punishment that Jesus bears
i) I'm not backtracking here from what I wrote in the previous post. Jesus saves us from God's wrath, which as I argued is a result of humanity rejecting the one true God and turning to idolatry. However, the notion of equivalent suffering or retributive punishment that Adrian suggested is both incorrect and inadequate to a) force us to come to the conclusions about new life and freedom from sin that the NT proclaims and b) to deal effectively with sinful human nature. Equivalent punishment visited upon the Son by the Father suggests a crude formula whereby the offence against God = X which can only be alleviated by Christ enduring punishment Y. As soon as Y = X then reconciliation and atonement have taken place and the wrath of God is alleviated. This grossly distorts both the nature of God and the nature of sacrifice, and also imports alien concepts of punishment that are unhelpful in our explanation of the Gospel.
ii) Isaiah 53 - the classic proof from scripture for the doctrine of penal substitution:
Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
First of all, it does not actually state that God was the agent responsible for piercing and crushing Jesus, and only that "we perceived him to be", not that he actually was, but that's not really relevant here and in any case is somewhat tenuous. What is more important is the background of the Isaiah passage. All the prophets have their roots firmly in the Torah, and they seek to apply it afresh and with divine insight to Israel as her history unfolds, and Isaiah is no exception. How then does this affect our understanding of the "punishment that brings peace"?
The Torah prescribed a series of punishments and curses for Israel that would occur if she were to become disobedient. In fact we see at the end of Deuteronomy that both God and Moses fully expect Israel not to obey God and enjoy blessing, but to disobey him and fall under the divine curse. Now each of the punishments that Israel was to endure were sent not to appease God, or to balance out a scheme of divine justice, but to purify God's people so that they would become pure of heart. Consider Leviticus 26:14ff for example, God sets out a series of punishments that are designed to correct his wayward people. Notice how after each punishment/curse there comes the refrain ("and if you still will not listen to me...") which makes clear that God's intended purpose behind punishment is not simply to "uphold his justice" or to appease his wrath by means of retribution, but to produce a people who will love him and worship him. A people who do not worship idols but who worship God and so who are holy, a people who will listen to him. Also in Deut 30:1-14 it is clear that God will have a pure and obedient people with a new heart but only after they have been judged and punished because of their disobedience.
This concept is not only the foundation for the new covenant and new heart anticipated by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, but also for the new messianic future envisioned by Isaiah in Isa 40-66. Here then in Isaiah 53 the "punishment that brings us peace" is not a retribution or a means of balancing out a cosmic equation of divine justice, but it is a foreshadowing of what will ultimately take place in the mission of the Messiah. The punishment and judgement of God is designed to bring transformation and new life out of what is old, idolatrous and sinful. It is always orientated towards the future. We might consider Heb 12:4--11 as a good case in point. Indeed the Hebrew word mishal ("punishment") here denotes not an eye for an eye style retribution, but a correction or discipline whose stated purpose is to bring shalom.
ii) Gal 3:13 - I wrote my undergraduate thesis on this passage so if you want to read up on that then click here. Essentially, Gal 3:13 is simply following the Torah tradition found in Isa 53 and elsewhere. The "curse of the law" is not some general sense of divine ill-favour towards human beings, but quite specifically it means the curse of the Torah, which as we have seen is not concerned with balancing out equations of justice, earning forgiveness, or placating an angry Yahweh, but with producing a holy people who will have circumcised hearts. This has of course all taken place in the person of the Messiah himself. He has undergone the curse of the law, but in doing so will bring about the blessing that God intended from the beginning.
iii) We should not view the cross in isolation from the resurrection. The cross is a punishment - but it is a corrective and forward-looking punishment that will ultimately produce new life and a holy people through the power of the resurrection and the sending of the Spirit. The relationship between the cross and the resurrection is completely absent from Adrian's definition of the Gospel, and is its biggest (and ultimately fatal) weakness. Without this in view, the view of punishment becomes somewhat deformed and deficient and we find ourselves talking about Christ appeasing God's anger, God killing Jesus to satisfy his wrath, Jesus being a whipping boy in our place, or even Jesus suffering just long enough to purchase forgiveness for us. Such concepts of punishment are a million miles away from the concepts of punishment found in Isa 53 and Gal 3:13.
2. Jesus bears the judgment of God upon sinful humanity
i) As objectionable as some may find it, there is also no doctrine of atonement without divine judgment. The cross is a divine judgment and it does demonstrate the justice of God. However, it does not demonstrate, satisfy, or uphold God's justice in the way that some advocates of penal substitution (hereafter PS) suggest.
ii) As we saw with the concept of punishment above, divine judgment is never simply a question of paying back evil with evil and good with good. The cross is not the Father doing to Jesus what should have done to us so that his justice might be upheld. We then end up with the somewhat tricky situation whereby we hear it said that God is holy and must uphold his justice and so destroy us, but on the other hand he loves us and wants to save us. To resolve this personal dilemma, God exercises his justice upon Jesus by killing him, and exercises his love towards us by saving us instead, and all is well. Such views however, belong in the dustbin, as apart from anything else they rely upon a fundamentally one-sided view of God's justice.
iii) "All have sinned, and the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23 and 3:23), and so we usually stop there and say that in his justice, God must punish sin, without doing anything more, but this does not truly reflect the divine justice. God's justice is not simply aligned towards the guilty perpetrators of sin, but it is also orientated towards the victims of sin. The afflicted Psalmist cries out for God's justice (Ps 7:6), and it is the hope of the poor (Ps 142:12). This is not the justice that is pitted against the divine desire to save, but rather it is the justice that saves. God is the Judge, but this does not simply mean that "he must punish sin." What is does mean is that God must also undo the damage caused by sin. Saying that "God hates sin" and that he punishes it is true - but ironically this statement does not actually go far enough. God must not simply punish the sinner and leave it at that. For his justice to be truly established, he has to go further and not only eradicate the sin, but also transform the nature of the sinner. PS as an explanation of the cross does not usually recognise this, and to the extent that it does not it is a deficient and inadequate as a model of Christian atonement. Does God hate sin? Absolutely. Does God then deal with this sin by pouring his vengeance upon Christ in the sinner's place? No. God's justice and hatred of sin must mean the end of man as a sinner, and the overthrow of the power of sin. Above all, the establishment of justice and the end of wrath must mean the return of humanity to the worship of its creator.
iv) The Judgment of Christ - As we saw in the section above on punishment, God's judgments are designed to bring about holiness and transformation, but they were not guaranteed to do so. Israel's persistent rebelliousness meant that far from being restored by the judgment of God, it only increased the severity of the judgment upon her. The judgment that could have been saving proved only to become more damning. With Christ however, there is a crucial difference.
v) Christ is our representation and substitute. In everything Jesus does, he is not acting on his own but he is doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Because of our idolatry, we are under the wrath of God. As I suggested in the last post, a retributive punishment of the sort that Adrian suggested is impotent to deal with the problem of human idolatry, and so cannot truly deliver us from wrath. Christ however, can. As our Great High Priest and the head of the human race, he turns us back to the God that we have rejected. On our behalf, he undergoes the baptism for repentance and is faithful to God in everything. Yet as one of us, he also comes under the judgment that is part of the human lot. Crucially, unlike all the human race before him, when confronted with the divine judgment, he does not rebel, he obeys. At the cross, the God declares his verdict the fallenness and sinfulness of humanity, and that for humanity to be saved and made holy, it must be put to death and made over anew. Christ does not shirk the judgment. In perfect obedience he says "Amen" and goes to his death. God has become flesh and taken his own judgment upon himself.
vi) The judgment and punishment in the cross is a judgment in the truest sense. It is designed to establish what is good, right, and holy in place of what is sinful, under wrath, and subject to death. The new humanity, no longer in Adam but in Christ is brought forth. The old is gone, the new has come.
vii) Christ saves us from the wrath of God not by absorbing a wrathful blow, or by being a whipping boy in our place. He saves us from the wrath of God by becoming one of us and transforming us from the inside out. He is the new human being who is not an idolater, but a worshipper of the true and living God, and so he leads us out from the place of wrath and the power of sin into life and holiness. We are saved from the wrath of God through him (Rom 5:9).
viii) The cross is God's verdict upon sinful humanity, and we should never forget that. The cross refutes all human arrogance before God, and shows that we are indeed as filthy rags. Yet it is not the end of God's verdict upon humanity - the resurrection is. The reason for the judgment upon Christ is not to balance the universal equation between divine holiness and divine love, or simply because God will not tolerate sin. The judgment is simultaneously an act of love and holiness and justice because it will ultimately lead to the overthrow of sin and death, and the end of man as a sinner and the beginning of his holiness. It is a just judgment because it will put things to rights. Penal substitution as a model of atonement does not satisfy the wrath of God because it does not satisfy the requirements of God in relation to human holiness. The judgment of Christ is the opening note in the symphony of new creation.
ix) Christ's death is substitution, but it is not something that he does in isolation from us. It is not external to us and given to us only by means of exchange. It is something in which we are invited to participate. We are to be united with Christ in his death, so that we will be united with him in his resurrection. In doing so we recognise the beginning of the end of our old life, and the start of our new life of holiness in the power of the Spirit. The life of the age to come.
x) The shed blood of Christ does not suggest placation or appeasement in the sense of bargaining or enduring an equivalent punishment. Christ's entire life is a sacrifice because it is a continuous act of worship to God. His spilled blood symbolises not a bargaining death, but a life offered out perfectly in worship to God even to the point of death. Blood signifies the offering of life (Lev 17:11).
xi) I apologise. I said I'd be brief but I've written far too much and it's now 2am. Oops. I have, I hope highlighted some of the weaknesses of the PS model, at least as far as Adrian's challenge goes. I also hope that I have managed to do so without simply ignoring things like wrath, holiness, punishment, and judgment, but rather by showing that they are all fully integral to the Gospel and that they work together in a harmony that includes both the cross and the resurrection. I might write some more on the relationship between the divine plan for Jesus to die, and the role of sinful men and the evil powers in his actual execution, and how this affects the premise that "God killed Jesus". It's all in John 3:14-15 ;-D , but that's for another day
Thanks for this insightful post! I think, however, that you have misplaced the real problem with 3.ii. The real problem, I think, is that it requires an unacceptable degree of separation between the Father and the Son. We mustn’t say that “the Father punishes the Son” because if Father and Son are one substance, they cannot will separately. Therefore, we must say “God punishes Himself.” We can (and do) associate the Father primarily with the punishing and the Son primarily with the suffering, but the ultimate answer must be, as you say later, that “God has become flesh and taken his own judgment upon himself.”
I think the version of penal atonement you are arguing against is a very sloppy formulation of something that (in a better formulation) is a true but incomplete picture of the Cross. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians believe in this sloppy version, and it becomes very problmeatic both for trinitarian theology and for ethics. I haven’t read Adrian’s post, but the version of penal substituion here probably is, as you said, “as if most of the the pieces of the Gospel are there, but they have been put together in completely the wrong order.” There was a great paper in the journal Faith and Philosophy a while back (the April 2004 issue) by Steven L. Porter entitled “Swinburnian Atonement and the Doctrine of Penal Substitution” that argued in favor of the moral coherence of penal justice in general and especially as applied to the cross, while presenting a much better account than these popular misunderstandings. I highly reccomend it. It was a long time ago when I read it, and I don’t remember if he resolves the trinitarian issues (I don’t think so), but he does deal exceedingly well with the ethical difficulties.
Kenny Pearce (Email) (URL) - 23 06 06 - 00:41 (Edit / Delete)
Sven –
Interesting post, but as you already know, I disagree—too much so to write everything here.
First, I agree with your general view of the prophets’ relation to the Torah. They do take the Torah and apply it to Israel’s current circumstances. The prophets call the people back to YHWH, their covenant Suzerain. However, have you ever read all of Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song? You seem to cite only those verses which will help your argument, or at least do not disprove it. Have you considered Is. 53:10, “But YHWH was pleased to crush him, whom he had caused grief”? In my mind, this text is as clear as any that the Father puts the Messiah to death, and more so, he is pleased to do so. Also, Acts 2:22-23 affirms both divine and human agency in the death of Christ. God’s predetermined will and foreknowledge and human responsibility must be put side by side here in any formulation of the atonement.
Second, your dichotomy between Jesus saving us from the wrath of God and retributive justice is simply fallacious. I agree with you that the atonement is more than penal substitution, but it is certainly no less than this. Take Hebrews 2:14-17 for example. This text is a classic text on Christus Victor. Christ takes on humanity in order to destroy the one who holds the power of death, this is the devil and he reconciles these . . . The point of this text is not simply that Christ accomplishes destruction of the devil and deliver those under the fear of death, but how he accomplishes these things. The NT is just as interested in the “mechanism” of the atonement as the result of such. What is the mechanism of the atonement? I believe that the author locates it in two themes. The first theme is incarnation (14, 16, 17a) and the second theme is atonement (either propitiation or expiation here) through death (14b, 17b).
My third point, I will not argue for, but simply express disagreement with you. I believe the burden of proof is on the one who denies retributive justice in relation to the atonement. The Torah teaches the lex talionis (law of retaliation; eye for eye), and for God not to operate under the same auspices of his commands would be simply contradictory to his nature and character. The satisfaction of God’s holy wrath and retributive justice can not be the only result of the the atonement of Christ, but penal substitution must be included, and I would consider it the mechanism for the other results: justification, redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, Christus Victor, moral example. Much more could be said here, but I have said too much already.
-John
John Meade (Email) (URL) - 23 06 06 - 17:28 (Edit / Delete)
Kenny-
Why do you enivisage the father as the primary with the punishing? How does this happen. What, or who, mediates the father punishment.
I would want to argue that christ undertook to take on the full consequence of sin.
John-
I dont think that the verse about an ‘eye for and eye’ is actualy teaching that one must take someone else’s eye if mine is taken. Rather the function of that law is to regulate retribution such that is directly proportional to the crime.
I don’t know about sven, but i would not want to argue that all punishment is restorative. I would want to hold a difference between punishment and penalty. Christ took our penalty. The word punishment is unhelpful in that it implies someone is punishing Chirst. Rather christ actively entered into the full consequence of our sin. The satisfying thing in the action is not the suffering per se but the holines of the suffeirng. (see P. T. Forsyth The Work of Christ)
I think that we must avoid treating Chirst a third party.
With reference to Issiah 53 who is YHWH i.e. does yhwh exlusively refer to God the Father. If not maybe your answer is there.
Richard McIntosh - 23 06 06 - 21:24 (Edit / Delete)
Richard,
Good comment. I am glad to hear you say that you do not completely deny retribution. Also, I realize that the eye for eye is not literal, but it is the expression of the lex talionis, which refers to exacted punishment for the crime.
Also, I think all the references to Yahweh in Is 53 refer to the Father. The Servant will later be revealed as the Son, don’t you think (52:13)?
I am unsure about the difference between penalty and punishment. Is. 53:5 talks of the punishment that brought us peace being upon Christ. Punishment is a part of substitution. We were to be punished justly for our sin, but instead Christ took the punishment/penalty justly due us. For true retributive justice to occur, Christ would have to undergo the punishment for us. Of course I am not at all sure how this might relate to Christ’s supposed descension into hell. Biblically this idea is hard to sustain. Theologically, one might need it to say that Christ had to endure the tortures of hell for the redeemed. I am not at all sure here, but at this point I do not think that Christ descended into hell, nor would he have to in order to truely take the punishment which brought us peace.
Got to go, but I have one more comment to make at a later time.
-John
John Meade (Email) (URL) - 23 06 06 - 21:40 (Edit / Delete)
John—don’t know if you’re interested but here’s an intro to the ancient teaching of Jesus’ descent to hell. The ancient teaching had nothing at all to do with Christ being punished in hell, but more with him plundering hell. That intro covers Scriptural basis, various ante-Nicene references, that kind of thing. Here’s the URL standalone if you’d rather:
[[http://weekendfisher.blogspot.com/2006..]]
Also, I’m sure “an eye for an eye/a tooth for a tooth” was not mandatory; Jesus said as much and used God’s mercy as the prime example of it. None of this is to go into details of your 3rd point with you other than to say “not so fast.”
Take care & God bless
Anne (Email) (URL) - 24 06 06 - 00:07 (Edit / Delete)
John, I dont think that you got my point that ‘eye for an eye’ is not saying that one must take and eye for an eye but that one may take no more.
Richard McIntosh - 24 06 06 - 16:34 (Edit / Delete)
Isaiah 53:10. Yahweh is the Son of God. Jesus is Yahweh. The High Priest in the First Temple period carried the name, he represented/was Yahweh. Jesus is the true High Priest, He is Yahweh. Yahweh does not crush himself.
Buck (Email) (URL) - 26 06 06 - 02:35 (Edit / Delete)
Buck –
I agree with you that sometimes one may interpret Yahweh as the Son in some places in the OT. However, I do not reduce Yahweh as the Son in all contexts, especially Is 53. How do you explain 53:10b, “And the good pleasure of Yahweh will prosper in His hand.” Clearly, Yahweh does not equal the Servant in this context. The Servant is crushed. Yahweh is the one how does the crushing.
Now, does the NT ever present Jesus as the Servant of this song? Yes, look at 1 Peter 2:20ff. Also, John 12:37-41. Notice where the two quotations from Isaiah are taken from. The first is Is 53:1 and the second is 6:10. The first refers to the Servant (distinct from Yahweh) and the second refers to Yahweh himself (read the context of Is 6). For John, there is no problem with talking about the divine servant (“My Servant” in 52:13) and claiming that Jesus is Yahweh as well (12:41; “These things, Isaiah spoke of him. . . ”).
Richard –
I think I have mistook your interpretation of the eye for eye, if you mean that this command only ensured that the penalty would not supercede the crime. I agree that it would do that, but at the same time, the torah demands justice in the lex talionis sense. The torah demanded that justice be satisfied. There is no way around it. What standard of justice did the Prophets hold the people to? If the torah does not exhibit and teach justice, where else would one find it?
– John
John Meade (URL) - 26 06 06 - 18:47 (Edit / Delete)
Don’t have time to set out all the evidence, but I think that is how the first Christians understood it. There is the Most High God, and then there is the Son. Yahweh is the Son. Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus is Yahweh. In Isaiah 53 Yahweh is equivalent with Jesus. Then you have to look at the Gospels, Yahweh did not crush himself. He was crushed by other humans, by their sins. I think we have to take a look at the translation of Isaiah 53. I don’t think it actually says what the penal substitutionists among us think it says. Paul misunderstood who Yahweh was, Yahweh was Jesus. He was persecuting the God he thought he worshipped. In Isaiah 53 there is a representational correspondence between Yahweh and the Servant, this obvious with the Gospel usage of this text. Sorry don’t have time to quote chapter, verse, references, etc.
Buck Eschaton (Email) (URL) - 26 06 06 - 20:29 (Edit / Delete)
Buck,
Where is the Most High God in Is 53? The three main charaters are the Servant and Yahweh, and of course the first person plural reference, “we.” Right now, I am curious as to your sources for this interpretation.
-John M
John Meade (URL) - 26 06 06 - 21:33 (Edit / Delete)
The Most High God is not referenced in Isaiah 53:10. Don’t have any materials right in front of me, so don’t hold me strictly to it, but it seems that Yahweh in the person of servant has allowed himself to be wounded. He is allowing Himself to be wounded, so that He will take the blows that were previously aimed at others. Were talking human wrath. He is absorbing the human wrath.
53:5 could be translated, “‘The covenant bond of our peace was his responsibility”, and also ‘By his joining us together we are healed’.
Is the servant figure here a high priest, performing the Day of Atonement rituals? This servant figure is repairing the wounds in the community, bonding them together in peace, in effect saving them from destroying themselves. His blood is life.
Buck Eschaton (Email) (URL) - 26 06 06 - 21:56 (Edit / Delete)
yahweh is Jesus. Which was the point of my earlier question. I would not want to say that paul got it wrong. Paul teaching on the atonement is both profound and spot on. (though of course not being inerrant :) )
We must remember that Christ is both the servent and YhWh. Further the word punishment in Issiah 53 is restorative. I am not saying all punishment is restorative. but the punishment talked about in issiah 53.
Regarding justice being satisfied. Amen! and Amen! Jesus did satisfy divine justice. He satisfied love’s wrath. Justice is not satisfied by mere punishment. The prophets did not seem to be. But by the postive establishing of right relationship between God and humanity. Justice is more satisfied by a restored relationship than with an exacting of suffering. Christ’s greatest suffering was to realise what sin meant to God in deapth of human sinfulness.
Richard
Richard McIntosh - 26 06 06 - 22:56 (Edit / Delete)
I’m convinced that God the Father, God the Most High does not require any kind of payment or retribuion or whatever for human sin. Jesus said something along the lines of if you even think an evil thought you have committed murder. I think it’s safe to say that Jesus equates even the smallest sins with murder. The smallest sins if not repented of will inevitably lead to murder. In our case if human sin is not repented of, the cycle of vengence and human wrath will end in the world being consumed in a mushroom cloud. God knows this. The bond has been broken, Yahweh is sent, the servant/Christian is sent. Can’t remember where but I’ve seen to forgive equated with to bear. Yahweh/Jesus becomes the focus of our wrath. He is literally bearing our sins. He is bearing our stones, our bullets, our bombs. These are the sins He is bearing. Without Yahweh interceding our wrath will end in nuclear warfare and there will be no flesh saved. Yahweh saves us from ourselves. Is Jesus saying “This is my body broken for you” or could He saying, “this is my body broken by you”?
Buck Eschaton (Email) (URL) - 27 06 06 - 00:14 (Edit / Delete)
Buck and Richard (though to a lesser degree),
I am still not following your arguments. Are you saying that every place the name Yahweh occurs, it is a reference to Jesus? If so, I have another question for you: in every place the word theos is used, do you think it is a reference to God the Father? I hope you would say no; because of course there are references in which theos is a reference to the Holy Spirit or Jesus. The same can be seen with the name Yahweh. We know that Yahweh is God, but this name does not indicate which person of the Trinity specifically, does it? In Isaiah 6, I have no problem with saying that Yahweh is Jesus Christ because John 12 says as much. However, when a distinction between divine persons is made, which person will receive the name Yahweh? It seems anti-trinitarian or at least not affirming of the trinity to say that “Yahweh crushes Yahweh” because this denies the role of the divine Persons in the crucufixion and ultimately the salvation of humanity.
Anyway, to probe Is. 53 a little further with you: who is the Servant? The most common interpretations put forth these days are that he is Israel (Is 44:21) or is he an individual most likely to be taken as the Messiah (Is. 52:13ff)? Most commentators recognize that the Servant is an individual by the time Isaiah comes to his fourth and last song. How can this Servant be the Messiah and Yahweh in the same context? This reading would confuse any reader if when Isaiah spoke of the Servant (but that’s really Yahweh), and Yahweh (oh by the way that’s the Son, the second person of the Trinity, who is the Servant). According to your reading, both the Servant and Yahweh share the same identity, but this reading is impossible because the whole song presents the Servant’s relationship to Yahweh, and it does not teach that they share the same identity. Also, 53:12 is so important (lacen, “Therefore”) indicates the conclusion of the song. Here, Yahweh is speaking about what the Servant accomplished as a result of his suffering: the forgiveness of sins and intercession for transgressors. The point is that all results of suffering come from Yahweh putting the servant to death for the people. This song makes more sense when read in light of Isaiah chapter 1. This chapter puts all of Israel’s harlotries on display for all to see. The Servant is numbered with the rebels (53:12), therefore he divides the plunder with the many (53:12).
I am going to be honest here. Your interpretation sounds a bit like one who has precommitments against penal substitution from the outset, and denies the plane reading of the text in order to escape your most dreadful nightmare: penal substitutionary atonement. I hope I am wrong here, and I am simply misunderstanding you because I hope we agree that the text and only the text will lead the way in any formulation of the atonement we may devise.
The interpretation I have set out here, I think accomplishes a fair reading of not only this text, but even the NT texts usage of this passage. They use this passage to teach that the suffering of Christ at the will or pleasure of his Father accomplished what is called atonement on behalf of the people. This is not divine child abuse, but rather the glorious redemption plan and implementation of that plan by the Triune God that we worship. I recommend that you read or reread John Stott’s, The Cross of Christ. We can say all we want to say about Mr. Stott or Leon Morris for that matter, but at the end of the day, these two men care most about the meaning of the text, and that (not always perfectly) drives their conclusions.
Let me know what you think.
-John
John Meade (URL) - 27 06 06 - 01:12 (Edit / Delete)
Buck –
Forgive me, but I have one small comment on the very last point you made: “Is Jesus saying “This is my body broken for you” or could He saying, “this is my body broken by you”?” The simple answer is, no. Jesus could not be saying the latter because words still have meaning and hyper+genitive simply does not mean “by” anywhere else in the NT and I would venture to say in all of Greek lit. Rather, this construction means “for” in the sense of “for the benefit of.” If the Gospel writers wanted to commincate the interpretation you have set forth, they would have used either hypo+genitive or dia+genitive. This point should be beyond dispute. Forgive my tone if it sounds harsh, I am not upset, simply attmepting to understand your position.
-John
John Meade (URL) - 27 06 06 - 01:20 (Edit / Delete)
I wish I could spend more time putting everything together.
Two writer’s who have taught me a lot in the last couple years are Rene Girard and Margaret Barker. Mr. Girard is responsible for what he calls mimetic theory.
Mr. Girard contends that:
1. Human behaviour/desire is mimetic, or imitative.
2. Human culture and religion is founded upon a collective murder.
He has studied the greats in western literature and the founding stories of primitive religion. He agrees with Nietzsche that the Gospels are structurally the same as the founding stories in Pagan religions, but with one substantial and really all important difference. The gods of primitive religions are always guilty of the crimes with which they’re accused, but Jesus, though He is accused of the worst crimes is declared innocent. That doesn’t make much sense I realize.
Example:
The Horrible Miracle of Apollonius. This is a true story, a “miracle occurred.
A plague was raging in a Greek city (plagues in the ancient world aren’t always biological). This story is in defense of pagan religion. They have their miracle workers too. Apollonius is called to the city to perform an atonement ritual. To heal the city. He arrives and declares that he knows what is causing the problem. Takes the inhabitants to the outskirts of the city. They find a blind beggar. Apollonius declares that this beggar is the cause of the plague, he is the plague and that they must stone him to death. The people are initially, like “Apollonius, dude, this guy is just a poor beggar, he’s not the cause of the plague.” Apollonius insists, you must kill him or the plague will not be removed. His blood must be shed for the removal of the plague. Finally after much encouragement somebody throws the first stone, and after that someone else, until the whole city is stoning this poor homeless man. The story tells that after the blind man was stoned and murdered the plague disappeared, happiness returned to the city. Apollonius is the hero (the high priest), and the blind man actually was a plague demon. This story is tells us that it is indeed better for one man to die than the entire city to perish. By the blind man’s wounds the city was healed. This story is a defense of Paganism. I think Neitzsche would have loved it.
The Gospel accounts are really quite similar to this. Isaiah 53 is quite similar to this. What am I getting at? In the above story, Jesus is the blind man, the servant is the blind man. 1 Peter 3:21 tells us that we should follow Christ’s example and follow His footsteps. “He suffered for us, leaving us an example”. We are called to bear/forgive sins. The blind man above was buried in the sins of city.
Jesus/Yahweh was not killed by the Father. He bore the sins of the people. He took their sins. Acts 3:14-15 states that the people killed Jesus.
I think what 1 Corinthians 27, “that whosoever eats of the body and drinks of the blood unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord”, is saying is that those that do it unworthily will make the same mistake again, and murder someone else.
I probably didn’t make much sense, but oh well. Hard to fit everything in the comments section of a blog, but anyway check out Mr. Girard. Actually a good introduction is Gil Bailie’s Violence Unveiled. Try to find some stuff by Margaret Barker. She has so much to say, seems outta control sometimes. She has discovered that the origins of Christian symbolism can be found in the rituals and symbols of the First Temple, not the second temple. Her work is really quite amazing.
Buck Eschaton (Email) (URL) - 27 06 06 - 04:49 (Edit / Delete)
One more thing. Romans 8:31-32
“What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?”
Paul is referring here to the story in 2Sam 21:1-9. In the words of James Alison,
Do you see what St Paul is playing with there? St Paul is saying that God, unlike King David, did not seek someone else as a stand-in sacrifice to placate us, but gave his own son to be the expiation, putting forth the propitiation.
In that text, who is propitiating whom? King David is propitiating the Gibeonites by means of Saul’s sons. God is propitiating us. In other words, who is the angry divinity in the story? We are. That is the purpose of the atonement. We are the angry divinity. We are the ones inclined to dwell in wrath and think we need vengeance in order to survive. God was occupying the space of our victim so as to show us that we need never do this again.
Buck Eschaton (Email) (URL) - 27 06 06 - 05:01 (Edit / Delete)
John—
Please don’t confuse me for Buck (even thought he makes some very good points). I like the suggstion that Jesus takes our destructive cyle of violence into himself to exhust it. Thought I dont think that exhusts the meaning of the cross.
I do belive in penal substitution. I just object to many of the formulations of it by some evangelicals. I think that Stott’s book is excelent and have read bits of morris.
here is quote from stott to think about:
There is no question now either of the Father inflicting punishment on the Son or of the Son intervening on our behalf with the Father, for it is the Father himself who takes the initiative in his love, bears the penalty of sin himself, and so dies. pg 152 cross of christ
I do disagree with Stott a little bit. For instance he suggests a strife of divine attributes which i think is just plain wrong.
We should not pit the Father against the Son. The Father does not Punish the Son but the son willingly takes upon himslef the penalty for our sin. But more than that he take on himself the full judment of the Father. The divine NO echos over Christ on the Cross, the No to Man and all his sinfulness. But The ressurection teaches us the God’s No is contained in his Yes for humanity.
Can I suggest that you read chapter 6 of Stotts book again. Also can I suggest that you read P. T. Forsyth (who stott quotes loads) book The Work of Christ. You can get it free at CCEL.
Richard McIntosh - 27 06 06 - 10:48 (Edit / Delete)
Richard,
I do not mean to link you with Buck. I will try to take a look at Forsyth when I get a chance. However, I still do not think that I will be convinced of a distinction between penalty and punishment. Yes, we are talking about the Father and the Son, but we are also talking about the Son become flesh. He has identified fully (yet without sin) with us. Notice the language of Is 53:12 again, “He was numbered with the rebels.” Jesus quotes this text in Luke 22:37 right after this the disciples tell Jesus they have two swords. The significance of the sword, I think goes back to the idea of rebel or transgressor. Jesus has freely associated with the rebels of his day. Although he is innocent in every respect, he has associated with the rebels to the point of taking the punishment due them. I think this idea includes the penalty.
This will make little sense to you, I think, because you do not agree with me about the overall context of the atonement. I see the atonement as the highest expression of God’s justice because only through the atonement of Christ can God be said to be just and justifier (Romans 3:26). The logic is inescapable: If God had not made an atonement (propitiation; cf. Rom 1:18 for wrath, yes I disagree with Sven here as well, because I believe that the wrath of God still abides on all those who have not trusted in Christ for God’s justification. God’s final no and yes have not been spoken, for a day of wrath still remains. cf. Rom. 2:5-6), God could be called unjust. But Paul has argued that God can no longer be called unjust because his justice has been displayed in the death of Christ.
I do agree with you that Christ takes the penalty and full judgment of the Father, but what is the difference between judgment and punishment in this context. It seems we are almost back to these language games again. We are both interested in precision, but we should not equivocate on terms here.
Buck –
Thanks for sharing the sources with me. I am still very confused about your vire, but your mention of Girard clears a few things up. Do you only hold to a mimetic view of the atonement? I do not deny this is an implication because of 1 Peter 2:21, but to say this is the only point or even the main point of the atonement, seems to miss the whole point, don’t you think?
Also, Romans 8:31-32 can not be taken as you say. In what sense are we the offended party? How are we propitiated? Furthermore, Romans 1:18 sets the wrath issue straight. Paul wrote one letter to the Romans that has been preserved for us. I take the letter as a unity, which means I attempt to follow Paul’s argument. If we follow Paul, we cannot arrive at the conclusion that we are angry at God, in need of him propitiating us. This idea is fallacious if not heretical in my mind because it completely confuses the places of God and man, and the Trinitarian redemption which the NT expresses so clearly. Paul talks of propitiation, but it is the party who has unquenched wrath who is propitiated according to all accounts. Romans clearly states that the wrath of God is being revealed on sinful man, and that this wrath will be poured out finally on the day of wrath, which is in the future, at Christ’s return. All talk of sacrifice and propitiation in Romans must be seen through this lens, or we are missing Paul’s whole argument. I know we can not say everything we want to say over a blog, but could you give me a little more so that we can progress in the conversation. Again, thanks for the conversation, and I hope we can progress in it.
-John
John Meade (URL) - 27 06 06 - 19:21 (Edit / Delete)
John,
Thanks for you comments.
I do think that Christ satisfied God on the Cross. I do think that Christ satisfied the justice of God. He justified God.
What justified him was not suffering as suffering but the holiness of the suffering. It is the obedience, as calvin says, which is the atoning part of Christ’s work. Not the suffering per se.
Have a look at my post on atonment on my blog
destructionofgog.blogspot.com there is an essay on anselm. Where I almost entierly agree with anselm.
Richard
richard mcintosh - 28 06 06 - 16:16 (Edit / Delete)
Richard –
I feel bad that we are having this great discussion while sven is on the sidelines as it were.
“Christ justified God.” In what sense? I could agree with you if you mean something like, because of Christ’s sacrifice and the sinner’s faith in Him, God may be just when he justifies the ungodly.” This is the only sense that I know of in Scripture where God would ever be “justified.” Even this explanation is not entirely satisfactory because it assumes that God was actually on trial, when the reality is that we are on trial and in need of justification. The plight consists of how God can justify the ungodly and remain just simultaneously.
Your point about suffering and justification is quite interesting. I agree the obedience of Christ is what justifies us. However, I can not seperate suffering and obedience so neatly. Hebrews 5:7-9, “who in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications with a strong cry and tears to the one being able to save him from death and he was heard on account of his reverence, although he is being the Son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and being perfected . . .” Christ learns obedience from the things he suffered. Both of these things contribute to his “being perfected” it seems to me. Furthermore, 1 Peter 3:18 talks of Christ suffering once for sin the just for the unjust (cf. 1 Peter 2:21). Obedience includes suffering even to the point where I would call Christ’s suffering a sine quo non of his obedience. Hebrews 2:10 say as much when it says, “For to perfect the Author of their salvation through suffering. . . was fitting for Him (God the Father; my abbreviated literal translation). Without suffering, can we really say Christ obeyed? I do not know, I am leaving this point for us to think about.
So although I may not be entirely precise to say the suffering of Christ satisfies God, suffering is so wrapped up with obedience that I think even the NT authors do use the terms interchangably. I guess I could agree with the phrase “the holiness of the suffering,” but where does this idea come from?
I guess I could see your point about Christ satisfying God as opposed to simply his justice. I am focusing on the particular attribute of God which is in view, but it is somewhat of a misnomer to single out one of God’s attributes so I guess I could see your point here. Though, I am not quite ready to adopt any view of Christ justifying God. The NT talks of the vindication of Christ in the resurrection, is this what you have in mind? I am a little confused by this languague of “justifying God.” Would you clarify? Thanks.
-John
John Meade (URL) - 28 06 06 - 22:46 (Edit / Delete)
by Justify God I mean that the Cross shows God to be in the right and man to be in the wrong. I am not suggesting that God is on trial. I am hopefuly using Forsyth’s terms.
I agree that the suffering is part of the obedience. This is another place were I am not entierly happy with stott. In chapter 6 he suggest that the important thing is that Christ bore what we could not bear. As oppossed to offer what we could not offer. I would like to suggest that Christ offers what we could not offer and contained in that is the idea that he bore what we could not bear viz-wrath of God.
The suffering is certianly important. For Christ is obedient under the fallen conditions rather than pre fallen condition.
Richard
Richard McIntosh (Email) - 29 06 06 - 03:39 (Edit / Delete)
Trackbacks to this entry:
Who killed Jesus?
Sven continues his excellent look at the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and how they relate to God’s justice and our salvation.
God’s justice is not simply aligned towards the guilty perpetrators of sin, but it is also orientated towards the victims of sin… This is not the justice that is pitted against the divine desire to save, but rather it is the justice that saves. God is the Judge, but this does not simply mean that “he must punish sin.” What is does mean is that God must also undo the damage caused by sin… For his justice to be truly established, he has to go further and not only eradicate the sin, but also transform the nature of the sinner…
As our Great High Priest and the head of the human race, [Christ] turns us back to the God that we have rejected. On our behalf, he undergoes the baptism for repentance and is faithful to God in everything. Yet as one of us, he also comes under the judgment that is part of the human lot. Crucially, unlike all the human race before him, when confronted with the divine judgment, he does not rebel, he obeys… Christ does not shirk the judgment. In perfect obedience he says “Amen” and goes to his death. God has become flesh and taken his own judgment upon himself…
The reason for the judgment upon Christ is not to balance the universal equation between divine holiness and divine love, or simply because God will not tolerate sin. The judgment is simultaneously an act of love and holiness and justice because it will ultimately lead to the overthrow of sin and death, and the end of man as a sinner and the beginning of his holiness. It is a just judgment because it will put things to rights.
pax et bonum
Sent on 22 06 06 - 09:28 (Edit / Delete), via Barefoot in the wilderness
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
