Dead Man Walking
For Holy Week, my church put on four worship services to illustrate the story of Jesus’ last week on earth. The Wednesday night service was organized by the pastor and church plant leadership team we are preparing for in St. Louis city (Mike and I are on that team). The pastor and the worship leader are incredibly artistic men, and instead of the usual worship-preaching-worship model of service, they crafted several short videos that were interspersed with music played by the “Soul Expedition Band.”
The evening’s theme was “The Sweat of a Son,” telling the story of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, praying before he underwent torture and crucifixion. To communicate the stark intensity of this struggle, the video showed some blunt video imagery. Clips from the movie “Dead Man Walking (the scene where Sean Penn’s character is executed by lethal injection) were inserted to help contextualize Jesus’ impending execution. The following short video utilized clips from “The Passion,” with frequent flashes of the previous video, to connect and contextualize Jesus’ prayer in the garden with the struggle of knowing he would be executed.
Now, I explained all this because we’ve received some interesting responses after this worship service. One response in particular was noteworthy. A friend of mine who attended the service said that he/she was offended that the “Dead Man Walking” clips were used, and that it should not be in church. He/she said that to compare Jesus, who died as one without sin, to a tattooed murderer who died because of his sin, was extremely inappropriate. They said that clip “turned them off” to the remainder of the service.
I was absolutely ecstatic to hear this critique. Seriously. Why? Because THAT’S THE POINT! Jesus died like a common criminal, nailed to a cross between two thieves. He was without any sin, yet to take our place in death He had to die as one who had committed the very worst of sins. This is the very essence of substitutionary atonement, the very reason why He died for us, in our place.
Yet the use of this video clip was still woefully inadequate in portraying the kind of pain and suffering Christ suffered on our behalf.
Christians know this, right? Christians hopefully have some understanding of what Jesus endured during Holy Week. But we also have lost what the Apostle Paul calls the “scandalon” (literally, “stumbling block”); the offensive, scandalous nature of the cross (1Corinthians 1:23). We have no problem seeing how noble and honorable Jesus was for making that sacrifice, but if we contextualize his execution, it is uncomfortable for us. Jesus became the lowest of the low, He died like a murderer or a man convicted of treason. And to attempt to show that about our sinless savior makes some people very… very… uncomfortable.
But why do some turn off when things get uncomfortable? Why must this discomfort preclude appreciation? To know that I have not done anything worthy of crucifixion, yet I am easily covered by His substitutionary atonement, should be comforting indeed! Is it because Americanized Christianity overvalues comfort? Is it a Western thing? Or are we afraid that contextualizing the message of scripture will look too much like the “evil secular culture?”
It’s probably several factors. The reality of the cross can (and should) make us intensely uncomfortable, yet it should also command our attention. The bottom line is that we have a God who is neither safe, nor comfortable, and is more holy and worthy of our adulation than we can begin to fathom. If we cannot acknowledge that, then the church must seriously look at how we are communicating the faith in the first place.
Death is uncomfortable. Through His death on the cross Jesus conquered sin and death once and for all. Happy Easter.
For Further Reading:
Process and History of Lethal Injection
Process and History of Crucifixion
Josephus on Crucifixion
Mars Hill Church Easter Services
43 Responses
to “Dead Man Walking”
1 Trackback(s)
- Apr 7, 2008: Substitutionary Atonement « Confessions of a Seminarian
That is the very mentality that got Jesus to the cross in the first place. People who were “offended” because Jesus was a friend of sinners, spent time in the homes of the “worst” people in town, and associated himself with the poor and dirty people… all the while, claiming to be the Son of God. Yeah, that’s offensive.
But how much more scandalous to think that I, a sinner, might be identified with the very perfect Son of God! Not only did He die the death that a modern day murderer, rapist or terrorist would deserve, but scripture tells me that I (a selfish, manipulative, coveting, materialistic jerk) am not only identified with Him, but I AM THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. Talk about scandalous!
Great thoughts, Brad. Thanks for sharing. I’m looking forward to more dialog about this and more on Sunday!!!!
“That is the very mentality that got Jesus to the cross in the first place.”
Absolutely. It’s amazing how subtly it sneaks in, isn’t it? At least in this case, “the road to [the cross] was paved with good intentions.”
“but scripture tells me that I (a selfish, manipulative, coveting, materialistic jerk) am not only identified with Him, but I AM THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. Talk about scandalous!”
Amen, brother. Amen….
russ was telling me about that video earlier this week. bravo to you guys for pushing the boundaries a bit with that video. i bet there were more thoughtful conversations had about the seriousness of the cross because of that moment in the service that there would have been had you have gone the obvious route and used only passion of the christ clips.
btw…thanks for adding the photos to our facebook page (but who was that guy with the guitar?).
Someone got offended in a church - wow - but hey that’s the way these things go. Change is uncomfortable and for some seeing images of ‘Dead Man Walking’ was too drastic a change…but what are going to do? Wait for their sensibilities to catch up?
I personally don’t like depictions of the act of Jesus on the cross at all. I watch a Passion play one time and I just thought it was a tacky way to try send the message about the atonement. It actually made me laugh more than I took it serious. I really felt - in my opinion - it was a subject not to be touched - maybe it’s too sacred in a way? Then again I haven’t actually watched the Passion movie.
Now for the gist of this convo - substitutionary atonement. Basically Jesus paid the price for our sins with his atonement - once and for all? So we are forgiven for any sin we committ as long as we claim Christ’s atonement? There is something about this view that strikes me as irresponsible on some level. It’s like we are vicariously good because someone else was? Or as Russ said ‘but I AM THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD’ - because of that sacrifice. Isn’t this an irresponsible position on some level?
Now I think Jesus did atone for our sins - and cleared the way to God for each of us. However, the Jewish view of sacrifice is quite varying and never included a human being (always an animal) nor expiation for all sins (but those of ignorance). Also Jewish people hold to a 3 tier atonement system - including sin sacrifice, repentance, and charity. It kind of behooves me how we went from a system that teaches this stuff (Judaism) to the idea of substitutionary atonement - and worse yet - God died (also an ide Jewish thrology has never held).
Maybe I am off here, but if Judaic roots fill the writings - how can we be so different in the view of atonement?
In my experience, people who are the most uncomfortable with such a theo-metatextualistic juxtaposition are the usually the ones who have yet to face thier own inner demons.
I’ll bet that that person watched the film and saw a reflection. And it pained him, or her, so much that he, or she, spoke out against it in the hopes of avoiding facing that reflection entirely.
Societyvs,
You raise some good questions, and they are ones that many Jews struggled with. The early church however was very effective in showing how the groundwork for such an act of God was in keeping with the deepest of Jewish traditions. There are several key texts that would have made Jews scratch their heads, such as Isaiah 53 (why would God punish a righteous man, and why would we hate someone who acted on our behalf?) and Psalm 110 (why would two offices separated by lineage be joined in one person?) to name a couple. But when Christ sacrifices himself for us, these passages become clear in their fullest sense.
“the Jewish view of sacrifice is quite varying and never included a human being (always an animal) nor expiation for all sins (but those of ignorance)”
It is true that Jewish sacrifice never included a person, but keep in mind that the Jewish understanding of the need for sacrifice was rooted in the idea that human death is the penalty for sin (Genesis 2-3). That God “passed over” their sin by looking at the death of an animal was an act of His grace. When He steps in and takes our death, it is actually quite a natural fit for a Jewish understanding, and it is also why Christians believe that sacrifice is no longer required.
Does that help or is there more to your questions I am not addressing?
Noreaster,
“theo-metatextualistic”
I dare you to try and play that in a Scrabble game
“theo-metatextualistic juxtaposition” someone please explain without using equally huge words?
Just as a person’s religious and philosophical ideas ought to evolve with growth and time, so, too, should one struggle with ideas presented in worship. That struggle applies pressure and breeds new, exciting ideas that allow people to change.
My old pastor, Chuck Swindoll, used to say he felt the wearing of a cross was as offensive as if we would wear a symbol of an electric chair around our necks…
“theo-metatextualistic juxtaposition” what?! Come on, NorEaster, I’ve been waiting for days for a good discussion and you go taking it to a level I cannot comprehend!!
The work of the cross is first of all offensive because we do not want to admit our need for a Savior. If we can laugh it off or brush it aside, then we don’t have to see how we have ALL crucified Jesus.
My attempt at showing the prophecy of Jesus 700-1000 years before He was sacrificed:
http://considerjesus.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/this-easter-weekend/
Modern Jewish commentary has attempted to reinterpret the meaning to Israel being the Suffering Servant - in light of all the persecution they have endured. But to see all the pronouns (He) over and over again, it is quite conclusive a man (the LORD’s servant) was intended.
Mike:
As good as I am with words, Scrabble is my nemesis!
Ah ha ha ha!!!
Michelle:
Theo-metatextualism:
theo: abbreviation for theology
meta: (literally) beyond
textual: words/books/&c (specifically the Bible, but in this case, I was referring to one person’s interpretation of it…or his, or her, “comfort-zone” Christianty)
So the meaning, as I used it, was a reference to the “theological” juxtaposition of “Dead Man Walking” with “The Passion of the Christ”, which was cinematic (beyond the biblical text yet had a direct relation to that text)
And by the way, Michelle, I doubt very much that my explanation is “at a level you can’t understand.”
“There is something about this view that strikes me as irresponsible on some level.”
I’ve heard others voice it similarly with: “too good to be true,” or “that’s too easy.” If someone understands this doctrine and it leads them to an attitude of license (after all, they’re covered, right?), they don’t understand it at all. Paul confronts that very attitude in Romans 6.
It is supposed to elicit such a change of heart out of gratitude that there seems no other choice than to live a life for God.
As a husband, what will build my wife and I’s relationship more effectively? Should I put conditions and stipulations on my love? Or should I love her unconditionally, to the utmost of my ability? While the former may be easier and safer for me to do, the latter is going to strengthen our relationship far more.
Kyle,
“Just as a person’s religious and philosophical ideas ought to evolve with growth and time, so, too, should one struggle with ideas presented in worship. That struggle applies pressure and breeds new, exciting ideas that allow people to change.”
Dang… nicely put. It’s amazing how absent the concept of challenge is in our growth. In a time of self-help-book-mania, we expect to change solely through the acquirement of information. But without the crucible of challenge, what cause is there to grow?
Michelle,
EXCELLENT post… It’s an awesome reminder to see those words and the clear usage of the pronoun. Thanks!
Great article Brad. I’m honored that you felt compelled to include it as a conversation piece on your blog and it looks like it has sparked some good discussion. Thanks!
“It is supposed to elicit such a change of heart out of gratitude that there seems no other choice than to live a life for God.” (Brad)
But what if it doesn’t Brad…does substitionary atonement still exist? The way I see the sacrifice of Christ is as something for ‘all’ and ‘finished’ - so all have been given this ‘gift’ - irregardless of whether we accept the act or not (it still happened). So what of someone claims this idea of atonement and still sins?
I would also ask what is the difference at all with or without the substitution…people will still sin irregardless and try to seek God? It seems the idea is being used to say we don’t have to take pure responsibility for our actions because someone else has - and that’s quite a vicarious way to live. I am not sure what the sacrifice does and why it is a central tenet of atonement theology - when even after the atonement from 2000 years ago - we still see that Christians act the same even after the knowledge of the atonement. Which leads me to the idead repentance and charity need to be held to some level - not for God’s sake - but for ours.
To me, the greatest changes in my life came from submission to God via following the teachings and taking my life in a responsible manner - having an appreciation of the atonement - but also seeing that as a way of living too. I do believe Jesus asks of us something he was willing to do - ‘take up your cross’ idea. So what is Jesus asking there in the gospel? Do we somehow have to play a part no matter how great the atonement was?
If Jesus is my substitution - he is not my substitution for responsibility or my relationship with God obviously. Jesus actually plays the part of sacrificial lamb of sorts - being like the Passover event - as recognition we are Christ-ians and that access to God has been made (via the Christ). The blood does not require Jesus become our sole righteousness - because if this is so - then what need do we have for becoming right with God after that? Everything should be right with God already prior to anything we do - due to someone else.
Societyvs,
you are starting to ask some really heavy questions, and i would not presume to be able to answer them here. if the whole nature of substitutionary atonement and sanctification are issues that you or anyone else is interested in reading a lot about, some good resources on this would be Saved by Grace by Hoekema, Why I Am Not an Arminian by Peterson and Williams, and the Cross of Christ by Stott. again, they are good questions to be asking, but very large volumes have been written about them, and i think these are some of the best.
Ditto Mike, but let me try to fill it out a tad also…
“But what if it doesn’t Brad…does substitionary atonement still exist?”
Yes. Jesus said that many will call upon His name, but many will not know Him. There are many people who may claim to be Christian, and thus “get” SA, but not all really do. The evidence for that understanding would be, just as you say, the kind of moral, ethical, and God-glorifying life lived for God. The difference is the motivation: Do we do “good works” to get us closer to God? Or do we do “good works” out of appreciation for God bringing us to Him already? The latter reflects a true understanding of SA.
“I would also ask what is the difference at all with or without the substitution…people will still sin irregardless and try to seek God?”
Aboslutely. A transformed heart and motivation does not mean we will be able to live it perfectly before the completion of redemption. We will still sin. The difference is, as Paul says, who our masters are. Is our master sin? Or is it a God who purchased us from sin and death by His own blood?
“To me, the greatest changes in my life came from submission to God via following the teachings and taking my life in a responsible manner - having an appreciation of the atonement - but also seeing that as a way of living too. I do believe Jesus asks of us something he was willing to do - ‘take up your cross’ idea. So what is Jesus asking there in the gospel? Do we somehow have to play a part no matter how great the atonement was?”
I wholeheartedly agree. It is more than “just” SA. SA leads unavoidably to the kind of life you describe.
“The blood does not require Jesus become our sole righteousness - because if this is so - then what need do we have for becoming right with God after that? Everything should be right with God already prior to anything we do - due to someone else.”
Because that redemption, that earned righteousness, effectively makes us a “treasured possession” of God, or “special vassals.” God is our LORD. Because of SA of Christ, we no longer need to establish relationship with God through good works. But God describes relationship with him as a life of good works. Life as a married man means I love my wife. Life as a redeemed sinner and child of God means I love my God (one way of doing this is through works). It’s not a debt, because the debt has been paid. It is what life as a child of God looks like.
“SA leads unavoidably to the kind of life you describe.” (Brad)
Then I would be quick to point out - it isn’t SA we are talking about anymore then - not as far as that theory describes itself.
“Because of SA of Christ, we no longer need to establish relationship with God through good works.” (Brad)
I think we never had to in the first place - God created us is the first thing regarding humans in the bible…then we get into Torah - the Laws of God (which I am not sure God would annul) - to help humanity find it’s way to God (not about earning favor).
SA is based on false pretenses - these pretenses do not shine through in Jewish theology in the present - or from that time period (namely because the theory is one of philosophy from Gentile cultures and not Jewish sources - so we get into some weird confusion about it).
As far as I can tell, you basically think the same about Jesus’ atonement as I do - he created a way to God for us - and we just have to live it to find out. Now I don’t accept SA as a theory due to it’s lack of basis in Jewish theology or even Christ’s-theology from the gospels - but I do believe he was a sort of atonement on behalf of all to have full access to God the Father (as a messianic figure).
But that’s a lot different than me being made righteous by someone else’s actions fully and completely - or having to be perfect before the Torah/Prophets. I guess I don’t like the vicarious nature of this theory - it’s asking too little from humanity and making things more than complicated about our roles in this partnership with God.
“Then I would be quick to point out - it isn’t SA we are talking about anymore then - not as far as that theory describes itself.”
Yes it is, because it is the indicative (belief) that drives and is the foundation for the imperative (moral living). How is that not in line with what SA says about itself?
“I think we never had to in the first place - God created us is the first thing regarding humans in the bible…then we get into Torah - the Laws of God (which I am not sure God would annul) - to help humanity find it’s way to God (not about earning favor).”
God did create us without sin (Creation). Then we jacked it up (Fall). Then God began bringing us back to Himself because we are incapable of doing so ourselves (Redemption). This began as soon as we jacked things up and culminated in the person and work of His Son Jesus Christ (God Himself) who made the sacrifice on out behalf (SA, which is foreshadowed by the sacrificial system outlined in Torah). The Law describes what freedom through relationship with God looks like. It is not a set of standards that we must “jump through” to earn salvation, and that was never what was intended by them. For more info on this, check out Sarna’s commentary on Genesis and Exodus. He’s an orthodox Jewish commentator who would agree with everything I’ve just said, with the exception of Jesus as Messiah.
“SA is based on false pretenses - these pretenses do not shine through in Jewish theology in the present…”
See Sarna.
“… or from that time period (namely because the theory is one of philosophy from Gentile cultures and not Jewish sources - so we get into some weird confusion about it).”
No it is not. See also Christopher Wright’s “Old Testament Ethics and the People of God,” and T.D. Alexander’s “From Paradise to Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch.” SA is distinctly a Jewish concept. Remember the derivative of the term “scape goat”? That was a foreshadowing of the Messiah as well (Hebrews 13:12).
“…and we just have to live it to find out.”
That’s where I disagree. You’ve got them flipped. Instead of “If you live it, you get it,” SA says that “Because you get it, you live it.” does that make sense? We may just have to do a separate post on this…
“But that’s a lot different than me being made righteous by someone else’s actions fully and completely - or having to be perfect before the Torah/Prophets.”
The righteousness is a legal declaration and how God views us as His children, not a statement of how we live our lives now. The difference is that instead of US doing the saving, GOD is doing the saving. Theologically, that has huge implications.
“I guess I don’t like the vicarious nature of this theory - it’s asking too little from humanity and making things more than complicated about our roles in this partnership with God.”
It doesn’t release us from the obligation of submitting to God and trusting Him in faith. It changes or motivation, and shows God’s character more fully as one who loves and acts for us instead of requiring something from us before we are loved.
That’s HUGE.
societyvs,
I took a peak at your blog and the discussion going on there on the topic, and took a look back at our discussion here and realized that we won’t agree because of a few major underlying differences in belief. For example:
- I don’t see a schism between the words of Christ and the words of Paul. They are not in contradiction. You seem to disagree.
- I have a historical view of Adam and Eve, and thus their original created purity. You seem to see them as fictional characters.
- I believe Jesus was both fully God and fully Human, sinless yet tempted in every way as we are. Am I right to say that you don’t think Jesus was fully man?
Those are huge theological rifts that would need to be addressed before we can figure out the differences on SA. I like the idea of doing a post on SA, and wil try to figure something out for the future regardless. Peace.
“Then God began bringing us back to Himself because we are incapable of doing so ourselves (Redemption)” (Brad)
This is faulty a premise on one level - there is never a place in the Torah or Prophets where humans inititate a way back to God - God always initiates that - even after the fall. Jewish faith has 3 aspects to atonement - blood sacrifice, repentance, and charity - all of them come from God and none of them are founded in man’s words.
“The Law describes what freedom through relationship with God looks like. It is not a set of standards that we must “jump through” to earn salvation, and that was never what was intended by them.” (Brad)
I agree 100%. The law/Torah does not only describe this freedom it actually goes on to show how to enact it - via the way we live in community. The only thing lacking in Tanakh fulfillment was this messiah idea basically - which brought humans closer to God in a ‘messianic age’ - which would allow for the full inclusion of all nations at the table of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - the question being now - has this happened? We Christians think so - but that’s about as far as I would say atonement goes.
“God did create us without sin (Creation). Then we jacked it up (Fall).” (Brad)
Problem #1: We are sinful - via a passed on sin condition which we have no control over - and then God comes and makes it right for us. Yet we still have a sin condition? What was made right again by the atonement?
Problem #2: We are born into sin by no choice of our own - this condition is due to 2 people’s fault (Adam/Eve) - then God comes to earth to save us - but it’s unfair in a way…we are being judged for something we cannot control - sin - we are born into it and by no choice of our own we are inclined to it? Is this accurate?
“See Sarna.” (Brad) —- Who is Sarna?
“SA is distinctly a Jewish concept. Remember the derivative of the term “scape goat”? That was a foreshadowing of the Messiah as well” (Brad)
If SA is a Jewish concept then I am guessing the obvious - I will have no problem finding this theory in it’s full glory over at any Jewish doctrinal site. But it does pose me with something to do - so I will check into it.
As for the scapegoat - explain the concept in some depth so I can kind of see what you mean about it? Cause all I see Jesus doing away with is the sacrificial system and making a way to God without them - ie: the Messiah. Now he is making that sin sacrifice system a process by which we can approach God through him - but is sin gone?
“SA says that “Because you get it, you live it.” does that make sense?” (Brad)
It makes sense - I somewhat get into the point about what ‘believing’ means to clarify - but in essence I agree with this.
“The difference is that instead of US doing the saving, GOD is doing the saving. Theologically, that has huge implications.” (Brad)
Thanks for the clarification on the righteousness aspect of this - since I actually do agree with that definition you laid out and I am not sure I have ever heard it put that way before.
My question after that would be - can salvation be lost? I think if we are considered righteous in the aspect we can come to God then it all makes sense we can lose something we are actively involved in?
“I don’t see a schism between the words of Christ and the words of Paul. They are not in contradiction. You seem to disagree” (Brad)
I do disagree to a certain point - and I am thinking of doing a blog to prove why I think there is some stark differences between Jesus and Paul - if not in message alone - definitely in the way they view the Torah/Prophets.
“I have a historical view of Adam and Eve, and thus their original created purity. You seem to see them as fictional characters” (Brad)
True - the verdict is not out for me yet on this one - but the fact their names are more symbolic than actual names - it does make me wonder. But I think the story does make points about God and humanity worth looking at - as for original sin and all that - I am not sure about it.
“I believe Jesus was both fully God and fully Human, sinless yet tempted in every way as we are. Am I right to say that you don’t think Jesus was fully man?” (Brad)
I think Jesus was fully human - not God. Thus my views on atonement change a bit when this is considered. My blog on the issue is trying to question the problematic nature of Jeuss being God and how we lose something in that exchange. I just don’t think the proofs are there for Jesus being God - being the messiah I can see.
“I like the idea of doing a post on SA, and wil try to figure something out for the future regardless. Peace.” (Brad)
Sounds good Brad - I would welcome the post and would try to contribute. I am asking questions and doing the blogging because it helps me to see things from a variety of angles and the uses of various strands of faith dialogue in the building up of the body of Christ…also to look deeper into issue core to this faith and see if they actually can hold the weight they claim.
“… all of them come from God and none of them are founded in man’s words.”
I totally agree, so where is the faulty premise? It sounds like we are saying the same thing…
“Yet we still have a sin condition? What was made right again by the atonement?”
Paul describes it as no longer being “slaves to sin.” Sin is no longer our master and through the help of the Holy Spirit we can mitigate it’s control over our lives. It does not eliminate it completely, but significantly. The atonement accomplishes a legal, or status problem of our purity before God. Because of Jesus’ substitutionary atonement, our slate is eternally (once and for all) wiped clean. It’s similar to a legal status that has significant (but not total) freedom from sin. It is also a promise of a future completed freedom.
“… we are born into it and by no choice of our own we are inclined to it? Is this accurate?”
It’s a “both/and” situation. It is a result of the fall and the curse (something we can’t help), but we absolutely choose to do as well. Scripture communicates there are both principles of God’s sovereignty, as well as human free will. It is a modernistic assumption that the two are mutually exclusive.
“Who is Sarna?”
http://www.amazon.com/JPS-Torah-Commentary-Nahum-Sarna/dp/0827603266
“If SA is a Jewish concept then I am guessing the obvious - I will have no problem finding this theory in it’s full glory over at any Jewish doctrinal site.”
You may not find it there, but here’s why:
“It is important therefore to note that in the earlier Jewish tradition, was represented by the Targum on the Prophets, the halakic midrash Siphre and the Babylonian Talmud, he (the suffering servant of Isaiah 53) is often identified with the Messiah. The NT claim that Jesus was both the Messiah and the Suffering Servant was therefore consistent, in this respect, with contemporary Jewish interpretation. It was only after Judaism had rejected Jesus as its Messiah, and after the decline of any form of Jewish messianic expectation following the failure of the second Jewish revolt of AD 135, that the messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 fell into disrepute, just as the messianic interpretation of Daniel 9 at the same period.” (Page 109 of “Sacrifice in the Bible,” Beckwith/Selman eds.)
“… but is sin gone?” No, of course not. It is not supposed to be… yet. We are never told in the NT to expect sin to no longer be a choice or a temptation after Jesus was crucified and resurrected. The scapegoat made Israel pure and holy before the lord (simplifying here, of course). The doctrine of SA is derived from Jesus being that scapegoat. SA does not imply that sin is no longer affecting this world.
“My question after that would be - can salvation be lost? ”
LOL…. please allow me to save that for a later date…. I think we’ve got quite a bit on our hands (at least I do) for now…
Society: Please write that post. I’ve heard this a lot but just don’t see the contradictions. I’d like someone to lay it out for me so I can better understand what people are saying.
“I do disagree to a certain point …”
That’s quite the endeavor, and I’d be very interested in reading it.
“… the verdict is not out for me yet on this one”
Fair enough. I would recommend the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-4-Linguistic-Theological-Commentary/dp/0875526195/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207071924&sr=1-1
It’s awesome, and tackles the issues of symbolism and historical implications from a very literary and grammatical perspective. He knows his stuff.
“I think Jesus was fully human - not God. Thus my views on atonement change a bit when this is considered. My blog on the issue is trying to question the problematic nature of Jeuss being God and how we lose something in that exchange. I just don’t think the proofs are there for Jesus being God - being the messiah I can see.”
WOW. OK, that clarifies some things… While this is a much bigger topic, scripture is even more clear as to the divinity of Jesus (baptizing in His name, praying to Him and in His name, etc.). He, Himself even claimed to be God. What does one “lose” by this? All I see is gain, that we have a God who rescued us Himself and knows of our pain and suffering personally….
And… I mean… the very foundation of Christian belief is that Jesus is God Himself. If you don’t believe that Jesus is God then…. (and I don’t know how to say this lightly)… you aren’t a Christian at all. That’s… that’s kind of a “big deal”… THE big deal, actually.
“I am asking questions and doing the blogging because it helps me to…also to look deeper into issue core to this faith and see if they actually can hold the weight they claim.”
That’s awesome, man. We’re glad you’re here, and that’s why we’re here too. You are always welcome.
Hrmmm… Let me edit part of my last response:
“If you don’t believe that Jesus is God then…. (and I don’t know how to say this lightly)… you aren’t a Christian at all.”
This is not my place to judge or say with any certainty whatsoever, as God is the one who makes that call. So in that degree, I retract my comment. However, I will definitely say that the BELIEF that Jesus is not God is definitely not Christian.
“Society: Please write that post” (Michelle)
I’d be honored to write that post - but I may have already done it on my blog - plus I don’t have the right to write here at ‘Confessions’…and I respect their domain and what they have allowed us to blog about so far. But if you have any questions concerning what I am saying - I am willing to respond - I think that’s the most polite thing I could do.
Brad thanks for the references for the books (and even the quotes) you supplied. I am starting to get what you believe about the SA theory - and it’s fairly close to how I see it from what I can tell.
“scripture is even more clear as to the divinity of Jesus (baptizing in His name, praying to Him and in His name, etc.” (Brad)
Scripture is not clear at all on this - Christian orhtodoxy and statements of faith are quite clear on this - there is a difference between the actual words of the NT and someone’s verdict on them (which was a council that voted on this subject). God’s word is not about majority wins - but about the….’Jesus is…the truth’.
As for the divinity claims - those are usually read into the stories and someone without a single working knowledge of the NT might not arrive at that claim (trinity).
I would say the writer’s of the NT seperate the 3 people so often that it is very hard to believe any of them except One is God (ie: the Father). That includes Paul, the gospels, John, Peter, and James - and Luke’s Acts. They very clear on making a distinction between Jesus and God it isn’t even a question how often they do it…one merely needs to turn one page to the next to see many examples of this.
But if Jesus is God - as the church claims - then why does he break so many of his own commandments? God is One - first commandment - nope - God is Three in One (which basically makes God 3 distinct persons and no longer one distinct entity). God cannot die - this is a Tanakh scripture - did Jesus die? God cannot be tempted - another Tanakh guarantee - was Jesus tempted? Problematic…maybe?
It;s funny you can find a scripture anywhere in the NT and I will show you one within the same book (sometimes even the same chapter) where there is no doubt Jesus and God are different people altogether. Jesus claiming to be God…basically is tantamount to breaking his very beliefs.
“However, I will definitely say that the BELIEF that Jesus is not God is definitely not Christian.” (Brad)
This comment needs further clarification in my opinion - I actually do follow the Christ (Jesus) - so I actaully am a ‘Christ-ian’ according to it’s definition. What I am not is a Trinitarian - a term nowhere located in the entirety of the bible - a term from outside the bible then added into it as fact.
Societyvs,
You have raised a number of points that I have a ton of resources regarding, but since I myself did not compile them I will need to get permission to post them and spend time putting them into digital format. I believe that I have a response to each of your points, but I simply ask that you hang on to those questions until I can get something up. In the meantime, if you wanted to go to STLChristian and watch my OT in 6 minutes, NT in 5.5 minutes, and Lordy,Lordy videos, they deal with the progression of the biblical story and how Jesus fits into it as a divine character.
Just so you know, we really appreciate your questions and obvious desire to pursue truth. You keep us sharp and I can only imagine that God is thrilled with our discussions.
Hehe…. I was just typing a similar reply when I got the email that Mike posted one that was much better (and shorter). Ditto what he said, and we will get to those problems asap….
Whew… this can be a lot of hard work sometimes.
Well it’s a worthwhile study and endeavor - and anyone that digs through the pages of scripture for the sake of finding the truth should be commended - I think you guys are doing a great job!
Thanks bro. The encouragement is appreciated.
You may not find it there, but here’s why:
“It is important therefore to note that in the earlier Jewish tradition, was represented by the Targum on the Prophets, the halakic midrash Siphre and the Babylonian Talmud, he (the suffering servant of Isaiah 53) is often identified with the Messiah. The NT claim that Jesus was both the Messiah and the Suffering Servant was therefore consistent, in this respect, with contemporary Jewish interpretation. It was only after Judaism had rejected Jesus as its Messiah, and after the decline of any form of Jewish messianic expectation following the failure of the second Jewish revolt of AD 135, that the messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 fell into disrepute, just as the messianic interpretation of Daniel 9 at the same period.” (Page 109 of “Sacrifice in the Bible,” Beckwith/Selman eds.)
Have you read these documents to know that this claim is indeed true? If not, how can you state as fact that Jewish leaders deliberately withheld vital information from the masses?
Being as how the Targum was in use long after the source you quote claims it fell out of use because of Jesus I have to wonder at the his honesty. Jewish Encyclopedia
As far as ‘halakhic midrashim Siphre’ goes, googling it only returns messianic sites so….I’m not going to give much credance to that claim. I don’t even know if there is such a thing as halkhic midrashim since midrashim are aggadah, not halakhah.
And the Babylonian Talmud contains many opinions, both majority and minority argued down through the ages. It wasn’t even written down before the time of Jesus, not until 200 CE was the Mishnah put into writing, the Gemara wasn’t written down until 500 CE.
Seems to me if there was some great Jewish conspiracy to hide Isaiah 53 from the Jewish masses our sages would have been smart enough to not write down anything about it since many Targums and the Babylonian Talmud were not written until well into the Christian era. As conspirators, our leaders certainly were bumblers!
This argument is beneath the person I thought you were, Brad. You guys are studying to be ministers and will teach this stuff to your congregations one day? Right back to the same old stereotypes……without checking the dates and sources to see if these claims have any validity whatsoever. You paint our sages as evil men who knew Christianity was true but who deceived all their fellow Jews and sent them to hell because they wanted to keep their own power. Is that really what you believe? Is this part of the ‘good news’ you’re going to tell the whole world?
“Seems to me if there was some great Jewish conspiracy to hide Isaiah 53 from the Jewish masses our sages would have been smart enough to not write down anything about it since many Targums and the Babylonian Talmud were not written until well into the Christian era.”
Who said anything about conspiracy? Who said anything about trying to hide Isaiah 53? Read the quote again, it is only saying that the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 begain seeing Israel as he “suffering servant” instead of a messianic figure. It was a change of interpretation due to the fact that Israel was horribly persecuted by Rome. Until that point, there was still a hope and search for a messiah to rescue them from that persecution (hence the first and second revolts). Maybe the context of the quote (the chapter I took it from) expresses that more clearly, but it is definitely there in this section.
I am not trying to hoodwink anyone.
“Have you read these documents to know that this claim is indeed true?”
No I haven’t. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around ancient Hebrew, but maybe someday. It is not uncommon to leave the translation and/or exegesis to trusted academicians…
“If not, how can you state as fact that Jewish leaders deliberately withheld vital information from the masses?”
Again, never said anything like that. The author only talks about the change in how Jewish teaching interpreted the Isaiah 53 passage.
“… googling it only returns messianic sites so….I’m not going to give much credance to that claim.”
Do you not see the bias here? You will dismiss it just because it is messianic? That is going to rule out quite a bit of legitimate material between 400 B.C. and 135 A.D. Considering this apparent bias, I doubt you would consider other claims of equal academic integrity.
“You paint our sages as evil men who knew Christianity was true but who deceived all their fellow Jews and sent them to hell because they wanted to keep their own power.”
I’m sorry… but this claim is just ridiculous. I don’t know what you are referring to by “stereotypes,” but I am in no way even DISCUSSING intent here. I never said ANY of that.
“This argument is beneath the person I thought you were, Brad.”
Look. I understand this may be a sensitive topic, and/or one of hot debate, but if we are not allowed to disagree what is the point? My source is a trusted academic source taught in a very well respected seminary. There is no attempted deception here. If you don’t like what the author is saying, go read it and argue your case from there… attacking the credibility (the author’s and mine) on the sole basis that you disagree is far from constructive, and is by definition a logical fallacy (ad hominem).
Yael, you are always welcome here and I’m very interested in hearing your obviously well-read perspective. I may not agree with it all the time, but please allow me the freedom to do so without being lambasted for believing what I do. I’m saddened by the harshness of your response and critique of things I never even stated.
“No I haven’t. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around ancient Hebrew, but maybe someday. It is not uncommon to leave the translation and/or exegesis to trusted academicians…” (Brad)
I agree - but if we are going to leave the ‘Hebrew’ into the hand of trusted academicians - then we shouldn’t we go first to those who study Torah/Prophets and Hebrew as totalic point of emphasis?
I am referring to the studies of Rabbinical scholars and not Christian professors…it should be noted that Rabbi’s study that stuff all their lives (dedicate themselves to the integrity of their scriptures - all Hebrew based) - and if we are to be honest about quality academics - then let’s turn to the Hebrew masters.
“Again, never said anything like that. The author only talks about the change in how Jewish teaching interpreted the Isaiah 53 passage.” (Brad)
If this claim is true - then we should be able to find proof of this - correct? Yael claims she can’t find it within her traditions and teachings - now maybe she needs to check harder (I am not sure) - but maybe she her points are correct? She seems to have pointed out some errors from that paragraph and the terms used are not used in her synagogue/shul…I have to believe she would be fairly accurate being in Hebrew school and studying these things. Then again, maybe we can dismiss her claims?
Society,
“… then we shouldn’t we go first to those who study Torah/Prophets and Hebrew as totalic point of emphasis? I am referring to the studies of Rabbinical scholars and not Christian professors… ”
Why not both? I know Christian professors who have dedicated just as much of their lives to studying and understanding the Hebrew. Are there some that don’t? Sure. But that is where choosing sources critically comes in, and that same critique should apply to Rabbis as well as Christian professors.
“If this claim is true - then we should be able to find proof of this - correct?”
I’ll take a look at the author’s sources next week and see what that turns up.
“Yael claims she can’t find it within her traditions and teachings - now maybe she needs to check harder (I am not sure) - but maybe she her points are correct?”
Both are possible. I am totally willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she looked long and hard. However, I would not be surprised if 1st and 2nd century messianic expectation were not a common topic of academic writing in her tradition. All of her points are well worth considering, and would not seek to simply dismiss them at all.
“I know Christian professors who have dedicated just as much of their lives to studying and understanding the Hebrew” (Brad)
This is where I agree to a certain point - some do make this a worthwhile study of theirs (I am aware of a few). I would note though that if we are looking for studies on the Tanakh then it does make sense to go to Rabbinical studies first and foremost - this is their sole area of study. I would say the Christian people studying would be the secondary source (in my opinion).
It’s similar to this idea: Two bakers in the same zip code have been asked to cook an unleavened bread for a certain event in a city. One of them knows of the recipes but has not used them per se in the regular day to day duties of the bakery. The other baker is quite seasoned in the unleavened area and dedicates a portion of their baking to this product. Which baker would we ask to bake for the event?
That’s kind of how I look at the whole Tanakh thing when in the hands of either faith…and as you have guessed from many a communion (in a more literal sense) - we don’t quite have the grasp of unleavened bread and it’s uses.
Societyvs,
So why do you assume that the Christian professor does not have as thorough of an understanding? If two people analyze the same source, one is just as primary the other. The difference is in perspective. I will agree that some Christians and Christian Profs do not know as much about Judaism and the Tanakh specifically, but that is not because they are Christian, it is because they are not as educated!
Making this distinction based on belief/perspective alone is stereotyping and a sweeping generalization.
What if this hypothetical Christian professor were a Messianic Jew? Would that make a difference?
“Making this distinction based on belief/perspective alone is stereotyping and a sweeping generalization.” (Brad)
Only as much a broad generalization as the Gospel view of the Pharisee’s…snap…that hurt both of us.
It’s a sweeping generalization in a sense - but I also am not nieve enough to believe that a Rabbi who has dedicated their whole life to study of the Torah/Tanakh is going to have the same knowledge as someone who I am well aware does not study that as their live’s goal (ie: a Christian Pastor or what not). I would ask - are you aware of the amount of work these rabbi’s put into their studies? Lifetimes. I would compare that what a Christian puts into the gospels or letters - perhaps.
“What if this hypothetical Christian professor were a Messianic Jew? Would that make a difference?” (Brad)
Not to me. It’s a matter of what Christian academic alone spends their time in Torah/Tanakh and it’s original languages and dedicates their entire life to only the study of those books…do you know any - without the term ‘rabbi’ in front of their name? That’s the basics of this whole thing.
It seems like a generalization - and I will stand corrected if there are Christian academics who can claim that same knowledge as a rabbi - no probs here - congrats on them. However, one has to also ask how much are they guided by a view of those OT texts in relation to the Christian texts? I think you mentioned to me ‘cultural pre-suppositions’. That’s the real conundrum.
I can only come at this from my expereince and studies (also a bachelor of theology) and what I was taught. Now I had some good teachers that went through the Tanakh - usually in 4 month classes for certain sections - like Torah, Minor prophets, Major prophets, Wisdom Lit, etc. I had a great teacher in this regards (Mark Boda) - and he was a great teacher in these areas…
What I did notice is my recent studies into the Judaic faith were not so much as touched upon without quantifying it through some Christian lens - and losing all the original meaning or rabbinic teahcings on a passage. Once I started looking at the original Judaic faith and those passages in their interpretations - well - everything was quite different and new to me (and how should this be if we are an off-shoot from them?).
Simple answer is - Gentile faith has become the marker for the Christian faith and not Judaic ideas and theologies. Trinity is one of the best examples anyone can name. Jesus as messiah (something I believe) doesn’t bother me - this messianic idea is a Jewish one still in various strands of their faith. Trinity was never a part of their faith. The son of God idea gets broken down in Jewish circles - not as always literal either. Many ideas come to mind actually - where Jewish interpretation varies from the common Christian one - how can this be? Isn’t the very books we use Jewish in nature and writing (except Luke)?
I may be wrong - but I think there is some mis-interpretation that preceeds the great councils of our faith - happening after the disicples are gone and Gentile faith arises. So going to Christian scholars kind of becomes usless on this issue because I am not sure they are feeding us true Jewish interpretations (at least - that’s the best I can attest to).
Societyvs,
“Only as much a broad generalization as the Gospel view of the Pharisee’s…snap…that hurt both of us.”
I laughed at that. That was a good one. And rather true, but only if we assume (as many have done) that every Jew in Jesus day was like the Pharisees. It is important to note that there were several Pharisees who did follow Jesus, so their portrayal isnt always bad in the Gospels.
“So going to Christian scholars kind of becomes usless on this issue because I am not sure they are feeding us true Jewish interpretations (at least - that’s the best I can attest to).”
This would be as much of a caricature as the Christian one of the Pharisees. The whole point of the Reformation was to leave behind the Roman faith for something that had its traditions rooted in the Apostolic tradition (read that as free from Platonic influence) which derived itself thoroughly from Jewish teaching.
The point you make about someone spending their time immersed in the Tanakh would be valid if we were referring to valuing the same aspects of it. A modern Jew will likely be concerned with Jewish interpretation of the Holy Scriptures from the Rabbinic point of view, and so much of their study will actually be concentrated on the Talmud. I have read much of the Talmud and can tell you, as Yael did, that there are many different viewpoints represented in it. Some of the teachings are based on over-literal readings of the text and some are based on highly allegorical interpretation. But those interpretations represent a development in interpretation that occurred after Jesus came. So in essence what we are talking about is a study of two different things. Does that help any?
Why not just get back to the word without all of the commentary first? Inductive study of the text causes one to dig deep and personally learn the word - rather than being spoon-fed.
When my husband was in seminary and I was leading Precept Upon Precept Bible Studies at the church, he was always amazed that he learned much more through the Bible studies than seminary. (NOT due to my teaching skills but due to the approach given in the homework - inductive) We would have get togethers with other couples and discuss theology - he began hearing the “name” dropping (Luther, Wesley, Bultmann, Kiirkegaardkegarkerrd - whatever..) instead of the question, “where is it written?”
We keep reading the teachings of the teachings - Jew and Christian alike - instead of digging into the word. I care what theologians have to say, after I’ve dug into it on my own, with the Holy Spirit. Then I go to the commentaries to check myself out - make sure I didn’t come up with some heresy that has already been identified. We have become bible illiterates in many ways.
I read my copy of the Torah with the Midrash commentary and see the same type of interpretation happening. The Jewish people are just as guilty of following their teachers and dropping names as we are - stick to the words, my friends. It’s what Jesus said, “You have heard it said…” We need our swords sharpened if we’re ever going to cut through the darkness.
Although I must say I’m coming down on the side of Society on this one, because the Orthodox do start in childhood teaching the word. (Yes, we have AWANAS but it’s not the same) If Jesus could explain himself using the Law and the Prophets, then we should be able to do the same. We have tended in Christianity, even after the Reformation (Luther was not known for his love of the Jews) to speak of the Old Testament as secondary, to see through our traditional lenses when, if any tradition is valid in God’s eyes, I’m thinking it’s Jewish tradition He likes. (Jesus did attend the Feast of Dedication - Hanukkah) It is the Bible Jesus read (and dare I say, wrote).
I will step off my soapbox now and retreat back to my blog.
You were spot-on with that one, Michelle.