Substitutionary Atonement
In the past week, our COAS has seen a lot of discussion on the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. To fill out explanations of this, I’d like to direct you all to 2 different locations
First of all, check out our Confessional Statement (#’s 7 and 8). This is a concise and clear explanation of the doctrine.
For a very detailed and thorough explanation, I will direct you to Mars Hill Church in Seattle, for Pastor Mark Driscoll’s sermon on Good Friday, the Day of Atonement. I will warn you, as it is a dark and heavy theme. He goes into a lot of detail about the crucifixion that will make most of us uncomfortable. I recommend it because it definitely does not pull any punches, and is one of the best explanations of the Old Testament sacrificial system and allusions to the Messiah that I have ever seen. It is an excellent sermon overall.
Enjoy!
(7) Redemption of Christ
“We believe that, moved by love and in obedience to his Father, the eternal Son became human” (Brad)
Right off the bat I disagree (and what is this doing in an atonement section anyways when it is outlined earlier?). That is a dual God if you look at it – Father and Son (2 separate beings – or God split into 2).
“fully God and fully human being” (Brad)
I disagree with this claim also – since it fairly impossible a claim. How can God be fully human and if human fully, also God? Doesn’t this make Jesus some kind of super-human and no longer human as we know/acknowledge it? Do any of us have a God nature like Jesus? So how was it he was ‘tempted in every way like us’? It doesn’t add up to what Paul says or even other writers about Jesus (namely God was tempted and died – two things He mentions are not possible).
“reconciled to God all those who believe” (Brad)
I see the term ‘believe’ at the end – what do we mean by saying this? Those who believe the right things about God or those who believe the values from God (to do them)? They are different in nature and make all the theological difference.
“We believe that salvation is found in no one else” (Brad)
This is an exclusive claim – I know that – but I actually do agree in one sense of the way this sentence can be interpreted. Salvation comes from Jesus – but how do we receive that salvation is the key? Is it already available to all no matter what or do we need to say some prayer or something?
(8) The Justification of Sinners
“We believe that a zeal for personal and public obedience flows from this free justification.” (Brad)
Believing it is one thing – it being a reality is a whole other thing. So is the claim this: Jesus dies for all, bore all our sins, made us just before God via grace? Nothing we did right? So how come someone has to believe any of this to be saved? God’s grace should be greater than anything we can imagine and I think that sacrifice (if what you are saying is true) means all are saved no matter what they believe (since it not them that matters but Christ). This is like one hair from Universal Reconciliation – you just tap on obedience and even then it means nothing anyways.
Sorry if it seems I am ‘busting balls’ here – I don’t mean to but I want to converse on some of these issues. I just think let’s follow these beliefs out to their whole extent and see what we find.
As for Driscoll, I’ll check him out later - I am guessing I won’t agree with him anyways.
Societyvs,
“Sorry if it seems I am ‘busting balls’ here”
Even if you are, I appreciate that we can discuss this stuff with a mutual sense of humor. I also appreciate your patience with me in getting you some of the resources I have promised. It is still gonna take me a bit, so I apologize for that, but it will happen.
When I saw the baby in “Good Friday: Day of Atonement,” I really really really wanted to shut it off.
I got to the part where the man is hanging himself.
At my age, I can take just about anything, but that was insenstive and stupid.
Yes, I know I was warned, but it was still insensitive and stupid.
Whoever made that, doesn’t know the first thing about suicide. Or what it does to those left behind.
NorEaster,
I understand your revulsion. Totally. If it helps too, the church was given ample warning as to the graphic nature of the service, and children under 12 (i think it was 12) were not allowed at all, and under 17 only by permission.
Again I understand your revulsion. How could they have told that part of the story (Judas hanging himself) and have been sensitive to those who have been affected by suicide? Is the answer to not even talk about / present that part of the story?
I’m asking because I’m sure that those involved approached the decision to include it with a pastoral heart, and must have struggled with the very circumstance you talk about. I’d love to hear your take, though.
Hi Brad,
I’m not entirely sure what your tradition is, but is substitutionary atonement dogmatically necessary for you? I sometimes wonder if it is one of several possible ways to think about how Christ can reconcile us to God. While it is instructive and illuminating to consider how this miracle occurs, is it trying to draw too tight a boundary around the mystery of God and salvation in Christ to require assent to substitutionary atonement of a believer?
I raise the question for a couple of reasons. First, focus on the substitution seems to downplay the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus. Second, it seems to be grounded at least on part on a philosophy of justice that is more medieval than anything (which is why Anselm was the one to codify it), and which certainly proves a stumbling block in my efforts at evangelism; “what kind of God requires that someone be murdered to return justice to the world?”, which I’m sure you’ve heard before. Third, I think that the more complicated the doctrine which we require Christians to take on, the more difficult our interfaith and ecumenical relationships become. Surely the Creeds were enough of an explanation for the early church…
Thoughts?
Faithfully,
Chris
Chris,
Some good questions. I have mentioned this before elsewhere, but this is a very appropriate place to bring it up again. The idea of substitutionary atonement is deeply rooted in Judaism. Remember that in Genesis 3, we owe death for our sin. That God did not require it but “passed over” it with the sacrifice of an animal is a display of His great abounding mercy. Nonetheless, death was still required, and it was as if the animal sacrifices were only temporary coverings. Jeremiah and Ezekiel both prophesied a coming time when God’s people would have the law written on their heart and God’s Spirit would be in them. It was then revealed by Jesus at the Last Supper that He was the fulfillment of those prophecies, but that it would require His life to do so. He needed to become the perfect sacrifice, He needed to pay the penalty that was due the Lord, He needed to take our death onto Himself. Because He did, we are declared righteous, justified. This is substitutionary atonement, and as I said, it is thoroughly Jewish. It also explains why Christians as a Jewish sect do not participate in animal sacrifices. Does that help any?
Great explanation, Mike! Succinct and complete.
Dang… thanks for that Mike. Sorry for not getting to your questions, Chris, it looks like it was good that I didn’t right away. Mike was able to summarize it much more effectively than I.
I would also add (in answer to your first question) that this only magnifies the Incarnation, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus because “practiced what He preached.” A God that teaches us to serve others unto death, who also follows that virtue Himself, is a Good God indeed.
In answer to your 3rd question (ecumenism), I am a Chaplain Candidate in the National Guard. I have not had a problem having interfaith dialog with other denominations and religions so far… In fact, it is the surpassing Grace of Substitutionary Atonement that truly unites Christians across denominations.
Again, awesome questions. This is what I live on.
“Remember that in Genesis 3, we owe death for our sin. That God did not require it but “passed over” it with the sacrifice of an animal is a display of His great abounding mercy. Nonetheless, death was still required, and it was as if the animal sacrifices were only temporary coverings.” (Mike)
Uhm…Mike…I think you are forgetting something in this theology….we all still die…yeah…it’s still happening. So if Jesus’ sacrifice was to replace the ‘temporary coverings’ then how come death is still being required of us? Did i miss a memo somewhere?
“He needed to pay the penalty that was due the Lord, He needed to take our death onto Himself” (Mike)
Same point as above. If Jesus has taken our death - then there should be no death at all for us who believe?
“yeah…it’s still happening.”
Yes, it is. But His resurrection is “proof” of that future promise being fulfilled. This is confirmed in Paul’s epistles as well as Revelation. Revelation especially shows the saints yearning for that future restoration of the new heavens and new earth. The “not yet” aspect is also prophesied in the Old Testament (Ezek. 37). Jesus accomplished in the middle of history what He will do for us at the end of history.
But Brad, if it is ‘not yet’ then what did the atonement actually accomplish? Jesus resurrected - that’s great - but we all die still irregardless of some subsitution for our sins (which apparently is the penalty for our sin - this death thing - passed on from Adam).
We are still paying a penalty for our sins - death…maybe we can wait for a future resurrection (true) - in the mean time - we are still paying for our sins (dying) because the substitution is not fulfilled? Isn;t that what it has to mean in this theoogy?
It’s also quite ludicrous to say Adam sinned so he died and we will not die because our sin has been wiped clean…fact of the matter is…we die…thus sin still exists.
“But Brad, if it is ‘not yet’ then what did the atonement actually accomplish?”
“in the mean time - we are still paying for our sins (dying) because the substitution is not fulfilled?”
You could ask the author of Hebrews (9: 11-14, 28-29):
“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through hthe greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of lthe blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God…. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once qto bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”
Either way, the author of Hebrews makes it pretty clear that substitutionary atonement is rooted in the Jewish sacrificial system, and it is not intended to prevent death, but to assure the resurrection.
Societyvs,
Also, I am currently reading “Far As The Curse Is Found,” by Michael Williams. I just stumbled upon some relevant stuff.
First, Jesus’ reading of the Isaiah scroll in Luke 4:18-19, he stops short of reading the rest of that sentence, which finishes “….and the day of vengeance of our God.” That section paralells “to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,” in Isaiah 61:1-2.
So he stops short of it and says, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” What this implies is that the (previously expected) single eschatological event of God’s grace and judgment is actually a progressive or staged, “rather than a unitary, single divine event.” Williams goes on to say that “The Year of the Lord’s Favor” is a season of blessing that precedes judgment for a time:
“Jesus has come not to judge the world but to save it. The judgment announced by the prophets and John the Baptist has been delayed so that the gospel of the kingdom can be preached. Jesus says exactly this in Matthew 24:14: ‘And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.’”
Anyway, just thought it relevant to your questions. I found it pretty interesting myself, and have not heard such a concise explanation before. Peace.
First, Jesus’ reading of the Isaiah scroll in Luke 4:18-19, he stops short of reading the rest of that sentence, which finishes “….and the day of vengeance of our God.” That section paralells “to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,” in Isaiah 61:1-2.
Isn’t that so cool!! I had a pastor show that a couple of years ago and have been astounded how the plan has unfolded from the beginning until now. And then…He says He will bring it all to completion…man!!
“so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”
So Christ is coming a 2nd time - but not to deal with sins - but with something else…so apparently his sacrifice has dealt with sins - but I would ask ‘how so’? The wages of sin is death - and we are still paying that for some odd reason. Unless somewhere in this current orthodox there is a flaw in the reasoning (being that we still die and struggle with sin each and every day).
I would ask - what do you think is Christ’s atonement actually about? Payment for sins? To merely end the sacrifical system - fulfilling it? To pave a way to God for all (by this I mean the Gentiles) through him? I mean, what is the strength of the atonement?
Christ paid for my sins - or died on my behalf - if this is in regards to resurrection and eternal life benefits - I can dig that. If the sacrifice was for our sins - well then what does that really mean (us dying still and all and basically the Torah and Prophets waiting to be fully fulfilled)? Then isn’t Christ just paving a way to God for all - our role being to follow his teachings to come to God?
Societyvs,
“The wages of sin is death - and we are still paying that for some odd reason.”
Good point, and I think it hits on the primary point of discrepancy in our mutual understandings. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were not only cast out of the Garden and thereby forbidden from the Tree of Life (therefore destined to die physically), but they also suffered immediate spiritual death (separation from the Living God). The sacrificial system God established took the physical death of an animal and counted it as a spiritual covering, even though the people of God still experienced a physical death. When Jesus came, he became the perfect sacrifice, God/man stepping into the groundwork laid in the sacrificial system and removing our spiritual death once and for all. But Jesus did what the animal sacrifices couldnt, he raised from the dead. In His, physical death is conquered too. 1 Corinthians 15 describes this as the first fruits. This means we will rise from the dead too, including those who observed the animal sacrifices before Jesus came. So all of God’s people taste death, but are not left prisoner too it. In other words, now Jesus is our Tree of Life.
Where is thy sting, O death?
You know Mike - I actually agree with your interpretation - except I’d use a figurative death as being mentioned by Paul which foreshadows something that is provided by God through Jesus in the future (ie: resurrection to a new way of living).
Reason I say figurative is because Paul talks about death and resurrection in ways that can in no way be seen as literal when addressing the Romans, Colossians, or Ephesians. Paul actually tells the people they are dead (to sin) and resurrected with Christ - which is not actually true in a literal sense. The people obviously struggle with sin and die. Paul is using this to talk about identification with the Christ movement in Gentile communities - and explaining who they should stop their old ways for the teachings of God ways.
I would say Paul is not contradictory to Jesus in this sense - they want the people to follow the teachings of God and change their ways (a newness of living on earth). It’s the conversion process laid out - which I think happens time after time over periods of years (and not at once as we keep on changing).
Societyvs,
Okay! I agree with you too, except I need to make one minor distinction.
“Reason I say figurative is because Paul talks about death and resurrection in ways that can in no way be seen as literal when addressing the Romans, Colossians, or Ephesians”
It is certainly true that Paul does at times refer to the resurrection in a present, figurative sense, however it would be a mistake to equate that to every time he refers to the resurrection. There are very clear cases where Paul talks in no uncertain terms about a future, very literal resurrection from the dead, my favorite of which is 1 Corinthians 15:12-23
“Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.”
I agree Mike - Paul is referring in figurative language in the present to an actual reality in the future (ie: death and resurrection - as shown by Christ).
So…what is the meaning of…
I am crucified with Christ therefore I no longer live, Jesus Christ now lives in me.
I’ve always understood it to mean, I have died to myself and now live for Jesus. He has taken up residence within me through His Spirit, and so now I can walk in newness of life because of resurrection power.
I know this does not mean I will never sin, but I will be able through His Spirit to choose not to sin. Never sinless while living in the flesh, but day by day being changed as I surrender more to His Life within.
Am I way off in y’all’s way of thinking?
if jesus was God and God was jesus, God killed Godself to appease God.
great reasoning.
instead i suggest we take the idea that jesus was indeed a sacrifical lamb but with a twist. he was the scapegoat of his people. it is recognized that animal species other than humanity also learn by imtation, nevertheless, humans lack the ‘braking mechanism’ of animal species where rivalry ends when one submits to the other (dominance-submission).
Mimesis, this imitative desire that leads us to violence, has been redeemed through the person and work of Jesus. Just as Jesus imitates the Father, so we who have been called by him, imitate him. That is, redemption consists of a real alternative; to imitate one another or to imitate God.
Michelle,
I cant speak for every one of my colleagues, but that sounds good to me.
Luke,
I realize the struggle that much of this stuff presents, however it is important to realize that if God were truly God, then He wouldnt need our approval of the way He has done things. In other words, the fact that you (i imagine) comment sarcastically on God’s “great reasoning” seems to communicate you would have preferred God consult you on the way He has chosen to redeem His people. If I am reading you incorrectly I apologize.
I dont want that to sound harsh, but if God cannot operate without our say-so than He is no better than little man-made idols.
“If jesus was God and God was jesus, God killed Godself to appease God.”
Aahhh! But what responsibility does The Creator have toward His creations? What responsibility does a parent have toward His children?
Don’t forget. In Genesis 1:1, the noun “God” is plural and the verb “created” is singular. At least in the original Hebrew. (Sorry to be repeating myself, Michelle, but when you’ve got a good idea you can’t help but share it!
)
And, if you care to think about it, that simple lingustic “glitch” answers a lot of questions.
the opening line is a little too harsh. but here are my thoughts on the issue:
1. why is God a he?
2. I totally agree with God operating outside of man’s thought processes. However substitutionary atonement doesn’t sound plausable. It’s about a totally loving God, incarnate in Christ, reconciling us to him. On the cross Jesus dies for our sins, the price of our sin is paid, but it is not paid to God, but by God. I reject the notion that Christ’s death assuaged God’s anger at the sins of humanity.
I see the Christian focus on Jesus suffering and death as being at the heart of much of the suffering inflicted BY Christians. Rather, it is the many positive aspects of Jesus life, his non-violence and concern for justice, which are worth of study and imitation.
This theology of substitutionary atonement is composed of many elements in scripture and tradition–references to Jesus’ death as a sacrifice, ideas of redemptive suffering, and a deep tradition of eucharistic remembrance that Jesus died “for us.” These elements appear in all branches and eras of Christian tradition. But the organization of them into a complete substitutionary view of the atonement is much less universal. Such a view has never been prominent in the Eastern Christian church, and it was not the dominant view in the Western church for the first half of its history.
Many scholars, and myself included, think the rise of atonement theology represented a terrible wrong turn, plunging Christian spirituality into a toxic brew of idealized masochism, authorized retributive violence and social domination.
that it was rather about Jesus rendering the power of unforgiveness and bitterness, etc., ineffective. In this sense, Jesus gave his life in example so we could be liberated from those attitudes which kept us bound. Giving his life freely was the only way to set humanity free from their wrong attitudes (sin).
So it is not that God needed a sacrifice for sins. It is not that God needed Jesus to pay for sins or to become sin for us. The death and resurrection of Jesus was moreso about waking humanity up to the evil that pervaded their hearts.
I don’t think God put Jesus on a cross. I think humanity did. I think hanging Jesus on a cross was an outward expression on what filled the hearts of humanity. In a sense, Jesus was saying ..I want to be magnet for all of your anger,pain, bitterness, unforgiveness, negative energy, etc. Take it out on me… so we can move on and play a new game.
Dr. Fraser of Oxford writes, “Nicene Christianity is the religion of Christmas and Easter, the celebration of Jesus who is either too young or in too much agony to shock us with his revolutionary rhetoric.”
Dr. Fraiser claims that ‘normative’ Christianity not only has nothing to do with the message of Jesus, but that it exists to stifle that message as its mortal enemy.
Jesus prophetic message sent directly from God by God was to love God (Jesus), neighbor and self. The rest is commentary.
I like Luke - not the biblical author - but this latest guy to join the convo - he’s got some good points to be made.
““If jesus was God and God was jesus, God killed Godself to appease God.”” (Luke)
Reasoning wise - even by simple human standards - this is basically suicide for the people God loves…does God committ suicide? Can God even die?
“I don’t think God put Jesus on a cross. I think humanity did. I think hanging Jesus on a cross was an outward expression on what filled the hearts of humanity. In a sense, Jesus was saying ..I want to be magnet for all of your anger,pain, bitterness, unforgiveness, negative energy, etc. Take it out on me… so we can move on and play a new game.” (Luke)
I like this as a view of the meaning of the cross - since I see it as also something similar. The atonement to me has to be about something more like this and humanity being exposed for it’s ’sinfulness’ and not about God killing another aspect of god to fulfill some clause God created. The people that need this are humans and not the other way around.
“Dr. Fraiser claims that ‘normative’ Christianity not only has nothing to do with the message of Jesus, but that it exists to stifle that message as its mortal enemy” (luke)
I really really really like this sentiment - and although it is a mass generalization - for me - the point of this sentence is true (which is the ironic part of this).
I find it kind of funny we have a Jesus character in the gospels always butting heads with the authorities of his day and we now see the authorities of our day doing very similar things to those in Jesus’ day - but they can’t see it for some reason (God forbid a Christian should actually admit to be the authority over God’s word). But this is what we see now in organized religion and along with it comes the obvious problems that Jesus pointed out about having authority (it’s easily abused and used for gain and power).
I have tested this theory of Fraser’s out and he is right - Christianity at it’s core is not about the teachings of Jesus (most Christians will admit this outright) but the faith seems to be about having the right ‘beliefs’ about God and what not else (usually ritual).
The teachings take a backseat to faith in God that has to be accurate or else we ‘do not believe at all’. I have been called a non-Christian about 12 times on the Internet for less than what Luke is saying here but mainly for their sakes - their upholding of a exclusivst view about God of which they have be ‘right’ to all others ‘wrongs’. For a faith that preaches grace the doctrines of Christianity are everything except graceful (I say this as a generalization).
“love God (Jesus), neighbor and self. The rest is commentary.” (Luke)
This actual comment ‘the rest is commentary’ comes from Rabbi Hillel from about 200 BC - a Jewish scholar in regards to ‘treat others how you want to be treated’…and I agree with it. The point of this faith is ‘living it’ and not about ‘believing it to be right’ - now belief is important but some belief is just a waste of time and used to merely seperate the ’sheep and goats’ so as to usurp the Christ’s role.
I’m getting pretty confused… Why can SA not be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus?
“Jesus prophetic message sent directly from God by God was to love God (Jesus), neighbor and self. The rest is commentary.” (Luke)
“The point of this faith is ‘living it’ and not about ‘believing it to be right’ - now belief is important but some belief is just a waste of time and used to merely seperate the ’sheep and goats’ so as to usurp the Christ’s role.” (Societyvs)
That orthodoxy and orthopraxy are mutually exclusive is an absolute fallacy. Belief informs action. Patriotism inspires volunteerism. Islamic Fundamentalism inspires terrorism.
Can any belief be more beautiful and inspiring than a God who practiced love, humility, and service to the ultimate degree? (Heb 4:15)
“Many scholars, and myself included, think the rise of atonement theology represented a terrible wrong turn, plunging Christian spirituality into a toxic brew of idealized masochism, authorized retributive violence and social domination.” (Luke)
Please show me where the Bible itself talks about this. The OT, as amazingly explained by the author of Hebrews, paints atonement theology in the light of Grace and Love. This “wrong turn” is indeed founded in the very beginnings of the faith (the Pentateuch).
“So it is not that God needed a sacrifice for sins. It is not that God needed Jesus to pay for sins or to become sin for us. The death and resurrection of Jesus was moreso about waking humanity up to the evil that pervaded their hearts… I don’t think God put Jesus on a cross. I think humanity did.” (Luke)
But He had allow it. There is no doubt that the absolute violence of the cross exposed the wretched sinfulness of human motivation. But was it “merely” that? Again, why can it not be both? Where do you get these value assumptions?
Please, at least read Hebrews. The significance of SA, reaching as far back as Genesis, has massive implications for the people of God. I cringe to see Jesus’ sacrifice relegated to “only or merely” an example of selfless living. It is so much richer, more beautiful, and infinitely more empowering.
“Please, at least read Hebrews” (Brad)
Why stop and only read Hebrews - lets go back into Jewish thought on these actual sacrifices and find out how they were used and interpreted…Hebrews is like one short book in the whole bible on this subject - when these practices are from the Torah (mainly Leviticus) - and it has been studied to extremes by Judaism (rabbi scholars through the ages).
Takes too much time - I admit that much - but we are reading back in only a small piece of a much bigger framework.
I would also add in Luke has little problem with Hebrews - but with Jesus being God. I have called it suicide - and when you think about it - isn’t it? God allowing Himself to die for us - to satisfy Himself? It’s kinda strange when you look at it for what it is saying.
But what it is also saying is quite the impossible task for us - Jesus is 100% God while on earth (this is the orthodox position) - well…I am no genius but that’s 100% more than anything we have…so Jesus was not like us in all ways (unless we all have 100% humanity and 100% divinity?). I am guessing the people that wrote the origninal doctrines never thought out all aspects on this. Following Jesus - or becoming like him - is impossible and useless to try to do. We cannot do anything that Jesus did - he has an undue advantage in that respects.
“Belief informs action” (Brad)
I agree - that’s why this is important (I guess). However, I make distinctions between modern uses of the term belief and classical uses of the word belief in the gospels (or letters). I think the original intent of the gospel writers is not about just holding to some correct belief set - but doing that correct belief set (or acting upon it).
The idea ‘believe in Jesus’ is used a lot in the gospels - but what does believe there mean? Believe he who he said he was or believe in teachings he gave us? There are marked differences in this when looked at. If it is literally ‘believe in the person of Jesus’ and all is well - then we remove belief from anything we are asked to do to believing something just mentally. If ‘believe in Jesus’ is directly tied to identification with the teachings (to do them and live by them) - then we are playing some association with the term belief. I use the association aspect more or less.
“Why stop and only read Hebrews”
I agree, hence “at least” Hebrews, which is at least as reliable and viable as any other rabbinical source.
But to venture into the Torah, Lev. 17:11 absolutely establishes the shedding of blood for the atonement of sins:
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.”
Does it say Jesus was SA for sins? No. But it (along with others) certainly establishes the sacrificial system as a gift from God and a means by which Israel may approach the Holiest God as sinful people.
“I would also add in Luke has little problem with Hebrews - but with Jesus being God. I have called it suicide - and when you think about it - isn’t it?”
Think of it more along the lines of a man stepping into the line of fire to take a bullet for someone else so that they may live. Is that man committing suicide?
On Jesus’ divinity:
Matthew (26:65), Mark (14:64), and John (10:33) all show Jesus making very public and very clear claims to His divinity. Luke’s audience was mainly gentiles, and he chose to show Jesus’ divinity through His miracles (most notably the healings). They all very much communicate Jesus’ divinity, and that is how the original audience would have understood it. Just because Luke does not record the specific dialog does not mean it didn’t happen, he just chose to communicate it differently.
And if Luke is authoritative in your view on this point, how can Matthew, Mark, and John be less authoritative? Forgive me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying, but it sounds a lot like you are cherry-picking convenient verses…
“I agree - that’s why this is important (I guess). However, I make distinctions between modern uses of the term belief and classical uses of the word belief in the gospels (or letters). I think the original intent of the gospel writers is not about just holding to some correct belief set - but doing that correct belief set (or acting upon it).”
It is most definitely both, but the gospel writers also understood that action COULD NOT come before belief, and was inexplicably linked to orthodox belief. This is why the early church fathers combated heresy with such vehemence. It was not idle belief disconnected from orthopraxy, but belief that informed our perspective on all of life and how we interacted with it. All of the gospel writers (and especially John and Paul) made it VERY clear that following the teachings of ANYONE did nothing and were worthless without understanding them through relationship with God.
“Orthodox” doctrine is not doctrine for the sake of doctrine. It has purpose. That purpose is to cultivate relationship with the One True God. If we are confused about who He is, how can we have relationship with Him?
“I would also add in Luke has little problem with Hebrews - but with Jesus being God.” (societyvs)
i confess i struggle with it. we all should. even the early christian church did (http://toothface.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-testament-class.html)!
even the gospels do! matthew, mark, and luke all would say that jesus being God is blasphemy (esp. matthew). It is John that makes the lamb of God and Jesus is God comparisons. if we view all other gospels through the lens of john and pave over the differences, then you really can’t have a personal relationship with God as you don’t have the full impact of what the gospels are saying.
“Orthodox” doctrine is not doctrine for the sake of doctrine. It has purpose” (brad)
who’s purpose? God’s? Or man’s? Man to get a clearer picture of God… to get a framework to get to see God through… problem with framing things is that there’s plenty more outside the frame than in it. This, in a sense, is boxing God.
“matthew, mark, and luke all would say that jesus being God is blasphemy (esp. matthew).”
Pardon? Would you mind clarifying that statement with some examples?
“if we view all other gospels through the lens of john and pave over the differences, then you really can’t have a personal relationship with God as you don’t have the full impact of what the gospels are saying.”
There’s no doubt that each gospel covers different aspects and perspectives of the same historical event(s), but their messages are similar and not in disagreement with each other. The differences between them are not categorical, but perspectival. 4 different perspectives provide much more richness and fulness of who God is, and is thus constructive towards relationship with Him. I do not propose we pave over the other Gospels with John, but there is definite overlap in the messages, hence the scriptural references.
“who’s purpose? God’s? Or man’s? … This, in a sense, is boxing God.”
I don’t mean to be rude, but what in the world are you talking about? Having identity assumes that God is some things and not others. God is many things infinitely (love, grace, power, wisdom), but He is not an infinite number of things (i.e. cruel, evil, impotent). This is not putting God in a box. If you disagree with the specifics of what I’m talking about, bring some hard scriptural evidence for what you are talking about. Otherwise, it’s mere opinion.
saying God is a he is boxing God.
i’ll get back with you on the scriptural differences as i’ve left my gospel parrell’s book at the library. there is overlap but not much between synoptics and john as 91% of john is unique only to john.
“saying God is a he is boxing God”
Define “he.”
God is not an “it” by any stretch, and is thus “personal.” One cannot be both “personal” and “it.” I would not ascribe any physical gender to God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit, but Jesus is most definitely a “he” in every sense of the word. Relationally, God interacts with His people as a Father, as a Son, and a Spirit, but all pronouns and literary gender in the Bible is masculine.
So if God is not a “he,” what is… God? And how do you know?
“i’ll get back with you on the scriptural differences as i’ve left my gospel parrell’s book at the library. there is overlap but not much between synoptics and john as 91% of john is unique only to john.”
Awesome. I’m looking forward to it. If you don’t mind, start with Matthew (26:57-68, esp. 64), Mark (14:60-65, esp. 62), and John (10:30-33), which all show Jesus making very public and very clear claims to His divinity.
“But to venture into the Torah, Lev. 17:11 absolutely establishes the shedding of blood for the atonement of sins” (Brad)
Not true – but this is why I refer to Jewish rabbis on Jewish sources (Torah)
“In response to this argument, I have explained that contrary to the missionary claim that blood sacrifice is the only method of atonement in the Bible, there are three methods of atonement clearly defined in the Jewish scriptures: the sin sacrifice, repentance, and charity. Moreover, the sin sacrifice (known in the Jewish scriptures as korban chatat) did not atone for all types of sin, but rather, only for man’s most insignificant iniquity: unintentional sins. The sin sacrifice was inadequate to atone for a transgression committed intentionally. The brazen sinner was barred from the sanctuary, and had to bear his own iniquity because of his rebellious intent to sin against God. The Torah teaches this fundamental principle in Numbers 15:27-31” (Rabbi Singer - http://www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath.html)
“Moreover, if missionaries want to use Leviticus 17:11 to bolster their position that blood sacrifices are indispensable for procuring an atonement, they must use all of the verse, not just a part of it. Leviticus 17:11 specifically says that the blood of the sacrifice must be placed “upon the altar to make atonement for your souls.” That is to say, Leviticus 17:11 explicitly declares that blood can only effect atonement if it is placed on the altar. Jesus’ blood, however, was never placed on the altar. If the church is going to take the “blood” part of the verse literally, they must also take the “altar” part literally as well. Jesus’ blood was never sprinkled on the altar, and therefore his death could not provide atonement for anyone.” (Rabbi Singer)
We can disagree with Singer – but this is from his own scriptures – which I am guessing he does know.
“Think of it more along the lines of a man stepping into the line of fire to take a bullet for someone else so that they may live. Is that man committing suicide?” (Brad)
So…God would not know when he was going to die? Because we are not talking about a mere human here (as noble as the action is) – God would have to know the time of his death.
“Matthew (26:65), Mark (14:64), and John (10:33) all show Jesus making very public and very clear claims to His divinity” (Brad)
Matthew 26:65 is in response to this sentence of Jesus’ “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN”.
Nowhere in that claim do we see Jesus claiming to be God – the claim is quite simply – the Messiah/Christ.
Mark 14:64 is about Jesus response “I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN”.
Again – Jesus claims to be Messiah here – which is the question in both Matt and Mark. They are not asking Jesus if he is God…cause they would just say that if that was their question (why do they need to skirt around the issue).
John 10 is very interesting (namely the weird language John uses) – here is a great example – John 10: 28-29 “and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand”
Jesus mentions two sets of hands in back to back verses about himself and God the Father – and for some reason unbeknownst to John – the Father’s hands are greater than Jesus’. How can God be greater than another aspect of God?
“And if Luke is authoritative in your view on this point” (Brad)
Luke is not authoritative in my view – Matthew is the gospel I choose to use. I meant Luke, the other person writing, when I referenced Luke (sorry about that confusion).
“If we are confused about who He is, how can we have relationship with Him?” (Brad)
Easy, we just need to follow the teachings and they draw us closer to God…that’s what is meant by Matthew’s ‘following’ (which is easily translated as a verb/action). I think we cannot literally follow Jesus – but wouldn’t you know – he left us some teachings to use. Now some see the importance as the character of God – well that’s up to them – to me the importance is following God while on earth (and not being dead sure of how He looks – but what He is wanting us to do).
he=male. when God is male, male is God. when God is white, whites are God. etc. etc. ad infinity.
Matt and Mark: christ means annointed one. Son of God is still human. in the roman empire Julius Ceasar himself was called the annointed son of God savior of the empire. yet we forget this context and look through John and automatically assume divinity. The Gospel of Matthew does not use this language, John does. Jesus here is speaking out against the institution of the Temple and uses roman language to answer back.
Son of Man, Son of God is not a divine statement. It is a human chosen by God. Only John takes it to the next level to say that jesus is infact God.
societyvs,
“Not true – but this is why I refer to Jewish rabbis on Jewish sources (Torah)”
I was not trying to say that it pointed directly to Jesus, only that atonement through the shedding of blood is a Jewish concept. It looks like you would agree…
“God would have to know the time of his death.”
Agreed. Jesus remarked on several occasions that He would be killed/betrayed/crucified/etc.
“Again – Jesus claims to be Messiah here…”
Also agreed. But the charge levied against Him, blasphemy, would not have been used for claiming to be “merely” the Messiah… it was a charge reserved for those claiming to be God (as is also included in John 10).
“How can God be greater than another aspect of God?”
The beauty of the Trinity is that there is an eternal model for love that existed before creation. God the Son submits to God the Father. We see this in the garden in Jesus’ prayers before He is apprehended. This is a model for (indeed, God modeling) our relationship with God and with each other.
“Easy, we just need to follow the teachings and they draw us closer to God…”
How is that different from legalism? Our nearness to God depends on our ability to follow His teachings? There doesn’t seem to be much grace in that….
Societyvs,
Part of the difficulty that has occurred in the conversations between us all regarding the Jewish scriptures (which Christians also claim) and their interpretation is our place in the history of their interpretation. Jews view their scriptures in an ongoing interpretive framework, and so when we talk about Jewish views and interpretation we could be talking about 30 different things, and all of us be correct. When we (meaning those of us at COAS) refer to Jewish interpretation, we are referring to the interpretation of scripture (both minority and majority) before Jesus came. there are many Jews who continue to interpret the texts that way, but there are many who dont.
Simply because a Christian says, “This is how a text was interpreted” doesnt make it invalid. And simply because someone goes to Temple every friday/saturday doesnt mean they have the “Jew” market cornered. Dont forget that I am ethnically Jewish as well as a believing Christian. I have an extraordinary respect for my Jewish brothers and Sisters and have an intense desire for Christians to realize that Christianity is a Jewish Sect.
Luke,
I havent yet had the chance to welcome you to the blog, so “Welcome!”
“Matt and Mark: christ means annointed one. Son of God is still human. in the roman empire Julius Ceasar himself was called the annointed son of God savior of the empire.”
This is true, however it doesnt mean that Matt, Mark, and Luke are DENYING the divinity of Jesus. As a matter of fact, one of Matthew’s main purposes is to expand the Jewish understanding of Son of God from simply the Davidic King to the actual begotten Son of God. In addition to explicit references to Jesus divinity, there are a number of implicit divinity claims that scream “Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.” I will post that one tomorrow, but for today lets enjoy a bit of a humor break and check out my new post.
“Also agreed. But the charge levied against Him, blasphemy, would not have been used for claiming to be “merely” the Messiah” (Brad)
Brad I read each verse and nowhere in any of the verses does Jesus claim to be ‘God’…fact of the matter is - the priests charging him acclaimed this and not Jesus (and they say he is blaspheming) - which makes Jesus look innocent in the scenario (not like he’s proving his God-ship).
like i said, lord and savior does not infer divinity. only john takes that last step. messiah in jewish tradition is a man… a holy man, but a man whom God ordains, commisions, and empowers.
thanks for your welcome. i’ve really liked all the other posts, but this one got to me. just asking to reconsider this language of atonement business.
Luke,
Lord was absolutely a claim of divinity. There is simply no way around that one. The personal name of God YHWH was read as Adonai so as not to take the name of the Lord in vain. Adonai got translated into Greek as Kurios, and Kurios gets translated into English as Lord. So Jesus as Lord is explicitly Divine. The interesting thing about this is that the Greek word Kurios was used by Caesar referring to himself, so to proclaim God or Jesus as Kurios is to say that no other God is.
YHWH is also read as El Shaddiah and Elohim. there are a lot more names of God in the jewish tradition than that… some count up to 99 names. Your use of the word Lord is bad logic as that is the word that slaves use for there masters in 1 Peter. so are the masters of slaves divine also?
Nice try but no.
it’s this simple, the only Gospel to name Jesus as divine is John.
YHWH, El Shaddai, and Elohim are all ways that God is addressed, but when Jews read the tetragrammaton YHWH, they pronounce it as Adonai. If you are going to disagree with the tradition you are going to need to site your sources.
“Your use of the word Lord is bad logic as that is the word that slaves use for there masters in 1 Peter. so are the masters of slaves divine also?”
This accusation is mildly humorous because your example is a textbook case of logical fallacy. When you see a word used one way in a specific context, the assumption is that it is used that way in every context. That is a logical fallacy (or more to the point, a grammatical fallacy). How many words do you use that differ depending on the context? In English, Lord is one (Divinity, nobility, exclamation, etc). Why is it such a stretch to imagine that in Greek it would be the same.
“it’s this simple, the only Gospel to name Jesus as divine is John.”
Why does Matthew tell us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy spirit? Why not in the name of Larry, Moe, and Curly? The only reason, especially to a primarily Jewish audience, was to transform in their mind the need for viewing Jesus as equally divine as the Father.
this rhetorical question stands to point out that very fact that words differ based on context. so your argument is inherently flawed.
as for sources… okay Rabbi Jack Pascoff’s class in Rabbinic Thought here at Lancaster Theological. Before that Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel stated in his book Man’s Quest for God that the word YHWH’s history is complex. This is not the word for God as the jews know it as it would only be spoke in the holy of holies once a year on Yom Kippur. so they substitute various names for God and THE LORD appears in the bible like that anytime the letters YHWH appear. You can also find this at the end of the New Oxford Annotated Bible about the appearence of THE LORD.
plus i don’t see anywhere in the baptism in Matt 3.13 anything about the holy spirit. can you site that passage?
Luke,
Aha! Now I see where we are coming from on this. Your usage of Heschel allowed me to see that we are talking about two different aspects of the same thing. It is true that the true name of God represented by YHWH was said only once a year in the Holy of Holies, and that other names were substituted when a Jew reading the Torah would come across them. However, when the Tanakh was translated into the LXX, the Greek word used in place of the tetragrammaton was always kurios.
A typical example of this is in Psalm 110:1, The LORD says to my Lord, in Hebrew reads YHWH Adonai, and in the Greek reads Kurios Kurios. All that is to say that by the time the New Testament was written, the term Lord carried with it not only the repudiation of Caesar as Lord, but also the direct association with YHWH. Does that help clear up my point?
And regarding our command by Jesus to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that citation comes from Matthew 28:18-20. You might call that Matthew’s final word on Jesus divinity. At this point he has fully developed the concept of the Son of God from merely being the human representative to being equally God as the Father, a theme that Jesus indicates himself by quoting from Psalm 110.
“being equally God as the Father, a theme that Jesus indicates himself by quoting from Psalm 110.” (Mike)
Assumption.
“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question:
42 “What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “(AG)The son of David.”
43 He said to them, “Then how does David (AH)in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying,
44 ‘(AI)THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET”‘?
45 “If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” (Matt 22:41-45)
Jesus in this example - which you quote as Jesus alluding to God-hood - simply answers a question about the Messiah being a ’son’ of David. His answer being that the Messiah is not a literal ’son of David’ - as the Psalm points out with the hierarchy and the terminology of the word Lord. That passage says nothing about God-hood - and honestly, make a differentiation between the ‘Lords’ mentioned.
The term Adonai is not used in the Hebrew there for one of the Lords - just so we both know.
“American Standard Version
110:1 Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”
This is likely the better translation as one of the terms is (from transliterated Hebrew) YHWH and the other is LDVD (which refers to the second lord used in that passage). In this example, as in the obviousness of the english passages we use, God is the one in charge and the second lord (messiah) - is the recipient of that charge by God.
Societyvs,
“This is likely the better translation as one of the terms is (from transliterated Hebrew) YHWH”
I am looking at the Hebrew right now, and smack in the middle of the verse is Adonai. What you dont know is that in an attempt to pronounce the tetragrammaton, scholars overlaid the vowels of Adonai onto YHWH. This was because the Jewish translators who came up with the vowel pointing system wanted the name of God to be unpronouncable (so as not to take the name in vain), and by putting the vowels of Adonai over YHWH indicated to the reader that Adonai was to be pronounced instead of the actual name.
So when later scholars actually tried to pronounce the name with the vowels of Adonai, they got Jehovah. This is because the Hebrew letter Y turns into a J and the letter W gets turned into a V in English.
“and the other is LDVD (which refers to the second lord used in that passage)”
Again, what you dont know is that this is actually L (to or for) DVD (David). It is indicating who wrote the Psalm. The second Lord you are looking for is a little farther down: LADNI. L (to or for) ADNI (Adonai).
“You might call that Matthew’s final word on Jesus divinity”
but Matt didn’t have any first words on Jesus divinity. The son of God is a human who does the will of God and this reading has that same context. You’re putting your 21st century notions of a triune God on it. That notion didn’t exist for 500 years later from when the text was written.
Same with substitutionary atonement. This doctrine didn’t exist for the first 1,000 years of the church’s existence.
sure you can support both in scripture, that’s why they’re doctrines. but i don’t find those doctrines useful anymore. They put God in a violent box. My God is not a violent God that would require violence to end violence. as we’ve seen in our churchs history the violence this doctrine has caused, persecution of the jews, muslims, and other non-Christians, oppression and super-session of the jewish faith, denouncement of heretics (who later were right) just to name a few.
the doctrine of substitutionary atonement was a good gift to the church but like machinery it must be handled with great care. it hasn’t been and has sent more ppl away from the church than has brought towards. like medicine, taken in the right dose and accompanied by other portions it is good. too strong a mixture or indulged to the exclusion of everything else is dangerous. must use it for what it is for and not for what it is not.
“I am looking at the Hebrew right now, and smack in the middle of the verse is Adonai” (Mike)
“From what I’ve heard, in Greek, Psalms 110 reads “Kurious said to my Kurious,” which gives the impression of equality. But in the Hebrew, it says YWHY/Adonai says to Adon/Adoni, which are two very different types of lords.” (One Small Step)
I am not alone in thinking those two Lords mentioned in that passage are different - because they are - even the Jewish faith knew this (thus this passage is used as a messianic verse in the first place). This passage in the Jewish faith is not looked at as ‘God said to my God’ - and they are the Hebrew scholars - should I believe the or someone like NT Wright?
Now one only need consider the fact the Jewish faith has never thought the messiah would be literally ‘God’ in the flesh and we see that Psalm 110:1 is defintely not an allusion to God speaking to Himself (in the actual Hebrew). Or why do generation after generation of rabbinical scholar (even prior to Jesus) keep getting it wrong…no one is the blind.
oh.. and i forgot to mention: “Matthew 28:18-20. You might call that Matthew’s final word on Jesus divinity”
the textual notes say that