The Meaning of His Death
A Commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for May 31-June 6, 2008
Simon Vouet "Korsfästelsen" (1622)
It is a fact that in the midst of life we are faced with death. It’s also a strange kind of irony that after a lifetime of defeat sprinkled with a few thrills of victory, we gather at the memorial service or graveside of the “dearly departed” with eloquent eulogies and tributes. At such times, it seems that all the deceased’s works were not only good, they were magnificent. Their virtues are magnified and shortcomings overlooked as if they were never part of the relational equation. Due to its permanent nature and the toll the loss takes on the living, it is difficult to find virtue or meaning in death. Yet, when it comes to Jesus, there are many meanings of his death. For instance, he died to reconcile us to God (Rom. 5:9-11), to destroy the power and works of the devil (Col. 1:13, 2:15), to take away sin (John 1:29; Heb. 9:26-28), and to give us eternal life (John 3:14-16).
The Greek word thanatos (death) has two significant meanings. One describes the separation of the soul (the spiritual part that returns to God - Ecclesiastes 12:7) from the body (the material part that ceases to function, is buried in the grave, and turns to dust. This is referred to as the death of sleep - John 11:11-13). The other is the second death (the separation of humans from God spiritually – Gen. 2:17, and physically – Rev. 20:14). From the fall of Adam and Eve, all people have had a spiritual condition that puts them in jeopardy of experiencing the second death (Rom. 5:12, 14, 17, 21). Only those who reject Christ as their personal Savior will not be delivered from it (John 5:24; 1 John 3:14). In spite of that, although all humans, from Adam to the present, have died the death of sleep, no one has experienced the second death, except Jesus, the God-man, who did so we won’t. When speaking to Martha about the death and resurrection of her brother, Lazarus, Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the [eternal] life; he [or she] who believes in Me will live [eternally] even if he [or she] dies [physically]” (John 11:25).
All decisions for or against Christ must and will be made before the death of sleep. However, in his case, Jesus experienced the second death before entering the death of sleep. Jesus died the second death so that no one should perish, but all have eternal life. This means that his was an atoning death, a substitutionary sacrifice to redeem humanity from sin and the second death.
It was by an extraordinary light that the birth of Jesus was announced (Matt.2:2; Luke 2:9), and on the cross, by an exceptional period of darkness, the universe was notified that he was entering the second death. All nature, brought into being by his power of creation, fled in aversion from the sight of its Creator in anguish of the soul, cut off from the eternal presence of the other members of the Trinity in a great crisis for the redemption of humanity. The mysterious separation of soul from body was taking place during that time (Isa. 53:10-11). “He was bearing the sins of the whole world; the Lord had laid on him the inequity of us all; there was no one to comfort him in his heaviness; and the light of God was for the time withdrawn from him” (The Pulpit Commentary).
His encounter with the second death took place “from the sixth hour (noon) . . . until the ninth hour” (3 p.m. – Matt. 27:45) as he hung on the cross that fateful Friday centuries ago. Not a word is written about his experience during those three hours. They are simply reported as hours of silent suffering to the human observer. We can only imagine the loneliness, faintness, confusion of mind, and despair as all the despicable assertions of sin culminated in one bold assault on the Son of God who endeared himself to the world as the Son of Man who knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21). When the struggle was over and victory attained, the silence was broken by a “loud cry” from Jesus. The Greek word for “loud cry” emphasizes the fact that he out-cried the loud cry. It was a roar not previously known or since spoken by anyone who has traversed this rocky road called life. It was at once a cry of dereliction and victory as Jesus used the words of the Psalmist (22:1) to convey his passion and fulfill Scripture (Joel 3:15-16).
Matthew and Mark report the words that accompanied his anguished cry, “ELI ELI LAMA SABBACTHANI?” That is, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?” (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34). We cannot ever expect to know exactly what this cry meant to Jesus. We, however, understand that it was a cry that expressed the torment of his soul from being cut off from his Father, compared to which the cruel torture of his body was nothing. It’s also noticeable that Jesus did not refer to his father as “Abba,” as he had done on numerous occasions, especially during his agony in Gethsemane (Mark 14:36). The reason is that, while on the cross, he was carrying out the work of redemption as a man and referred to his Father as “My God,” while he was doing His will (Isa. 49:4).
The words of his loud cry validate the proposition that it is his second death that has meaning for our salvation. He faced and conquered it during those pivotal three hours on the cross.
For example:
First, he himself declared he was “forsaken” – or abandoned – by God during that time. When his soul was troubled, a voice from heaven comforted him (John 12:27-28). In his agony in the Garden, an angel appeared from heaven to strengthen him (Luke 22:43), but on that occasion, he was alone – forsaken.
Second, the verb forsaken is not in the Greek present tense, as is translated in some versions. It is in the aorist (once for all time), and it implies that during the three hours of darkness Jesus had been in utter desolation at that one time only. Being forsaken by his Father was the most grievous of all his sufferings since his arrest; in that instance after recovering from those three hours he gave the most doleful, soul-wrenching cry (Ps. 69:1-3).
Third, while Matthew gave the Hebrew form of the loud cry, Mark reported in the Aramaic language, which was the lingua franca of Jesus’ childhood. Just as he recited Psalm 22 from his early years, so he retreated to this common vernacular at that crucial moment.
Fourth and most significant, since the dead know nothing (Eccles. 9:5), even in the case of Jesus, the plan of salvation had to be fulfilled before he died the death of sleep and was buried in the grave. Only after Jesus was assured of the success of his mission to save humanity did he turn to his own human needs. “After knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture (Isa. 53:4-6), [Jesus] said, ‘I am thirsty’” (John 19:28). Prior to that, he had refused all attempts to ease the excruciating agony (Matt. 27:34), but fully conscious of the meaning and successful completion of his atoning death, he sought remedy for his physical depravation, took the vinegar (v. 29), and received or imbibed it (v. 30). Then he declared that his mission was finished and the wages of sin “paid in full” (Tetelestai) or “it is finished,” which rightly means “to complete, perfect, carry out what is said” or “to fulfill a promise.” Having completed his mission to atone for the sin of the world (John 3:16) and declared it a success, Jesus died physically, dying the death of sleep (Matt. 27:50-51).
Finally, redemption, or re-creation week, ends the same as creation week, with the Sabbath. When Jesus had completed the plan of salvation, for the first time since his birth, he entered into a Sabbath rest, just as reported in Genesis 2:1-3. This all means that our salvation was bought and wrought on the cross, not in the grave. When Jesus had “finished” his works of salvation for the restoration of humanity on the sixth day, just as he did after creation of humans on the sixth day, he rested (Heb. 4:10).
Hyveth Williams is senior pastor of the Campus Hill Church, in Loma Linda, California.
Comments
Dear Hyveth,
Are you writing that since Jesus died the second death (separation from God) before the physical death (sleep death) and performed a few actions in-between, that you believe one can survive the second death for a short time physically?
"3. This all means that our salvation was bought and wrought on the cross, not in the grave."
Neither the cross nor the grave were all-sufficient. Thousands of people were crucified by the Romans during this time. Without the wonderful Sunday morning Resurrection, there would be no Christianity today. It is the SOLE reason for Christianity.
The stories and illustrations about the meaning of Jesus' death were not considered at that time, but took decades before they gradually became part of the Christian belief system. The Gospels, written at least a generation afterward, were an effort to show that Jesus had a miraculous conception, birth, life, death and resurrection, and convince the Jews of that meaning. No one at that time believed that Christ was the Messiah, but it was the Gospel writers, many years later, who took pen in hand to convince their readers that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of a coming Messiah. Isaiah's prophecy of a young woman's conception and birth was taken out of its context in support of this and many more illustrations were given to support this evolving understanding.
Paul used the metaphor of Jewish sacrifice and atonement that his hearers were all familiar with. But he also used many other analogies in support of the meaning of Jesus. By the time the Gospels were written, the historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements, giving the meaning of Jesus for his followers. The first Christians saw him as a new Moses, new Joshua and the Jews in Palestine believed that he was the Messiah, the Son of David--before he was killed.
Mark, the earliest Gospel, presents Jesus as a perfectly normal man with a family of brothers and sisters, but no mention of any notice about his birth; in fact, his story begins at Jesus' baptism. Jesus himself never claimed to be God, but the Son of God--a title used by kings in the OT. He called himself the Son of Man.
There is the ultimate question: Is salvation impossible for mankind without Jesus' death? If so, to whom was the ransom paid? Who received the sacrifice? How was his death for our benefit? Neither Paul nor the other NT writers ever attempted a precise, definitive explanation of the salvation they had experienced.
All through our lives as Christians we have sung about the blood of the lamb that redeedmed us; but the explanations posited have never fully explained how blood is salvific.
Elaine,
It is "salvic" for absolutely NO other reason than God says it is. Mt.26:28; Heb.9:15-28; Heb.10:14.
The Sacrifice was accepted in our behalf and He was raised on Sunday morning showing our justification was accomplished by faith in Him. Rom.4:25.
pat
"Without the wonderful Sunday morning Resurrection, there would be no Christianity today. It is the SOLE reason for Christianity."
Nice thought. Would that thoughts count.
The undeserved penalty that Christ took was not his resurection, it was his death.
Without the shedding of blood, there can be no atonement.
(See Romans 5:8-11)
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him... And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."
No blood in the resurection was there?
AMEN Pat.
Amen Michael,
Thanks for adding that "literalist" verse from Romans.
pat
To attribute every word in the Bible to God saying it, removes any human in the choice of words within it, the choice of which writings to include in the Bible, and that God never actually wrote a single word in the Bible. Men wrote what they thought about God, no less than we today write as though we knew what God said and meant many years ago.
Is that the inerrant and infallible view of the literality of the Bible? Sounds much like it.
Elaine,
"Men wrote what they thought about God, no less than we today write as though we knew what God said and meant many years ago."
It is your priviledge to believe this.
I prefer to accept the Chicago statement.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reform...
regards,
pat
The words in the Bible may be one perspective, but thinking that the resurection is the SOLE reason for Christianity is quite another.
If I were to choose between the 2 perspectives, I think I would have to choose Paul's over Elaine's.
Sorry
The earliest Jesus-believers, led by Jesus' own brother James, continued their lives as Jewish believers, very attached to the Temple and its blood rituals. They obviously did not view Jesus as the antitypical sacrificial lamb, offered up for the sins of the world. These were the people who knew Jesus best and who apparently never did not hear him say that he had come to abolish the Torah (in fact, he said the opposite in Matt. 5).
In the Synoptics, God is perfectly capable of forgiving sin without recourse to blood (think the Lord's Prayer). By arguing that God needs to see blood run--that of his own incarnated flesh--in order to forgive, turns forgiveness into a quid pro quo scheme.
Paul later on turned Jesus, the ambiguous Messiah, into universal savior, and he clearly saw Jesus as having been killed in our place.
Aage,
And Jesus saying that He was the blood of the covenant shed for the remission of sins?
As to Mt.5:17-The premise is that Jesus fulfilled and ratified/validated the law.
Likewise Paul Rom.3:31.
The Christ event is a package deal!
The virgin birth, the childhood, the baptism, the temptations in the wilderness, The ministry, the challenges of tradition, the Garden, The trial, The cross, the grave, the resurrection,
The walk to Emmaus, The ascention, The Upper Room, meeting Paul on the Road.
The narrative is clear and compelling. My hope is built on nothing less. He lived, died, and rose again for me! Tom
Yes Tom!
How does the death of Christ satisfy God? Is a God that satisfies Himself moral? Is a God that accepts the death of an innocent for the guilty, moral? Is violence at the cross the only way to end sin?
How can blood pay for sins? Or is that just a literalistic motif? and is the assumed premise true that a just/righteous law ought to demand death/blood for eating a wrong fruit?
Many good questions here. Let me add some. In what way did/does the death of Christ "change" God? Is this a prerequisite before he can save/forgive? What kind of judicial systems permits substitution in capital cases? How are concepts of right and justice affirmed by the view of payment of penalty--or the big words like appeasement, propitiation, expiation and so on?
Most of all, what kind of God do we see here? And are we not in danger of splitting the Trinity by setting one element of the Godhead against the other?
Too many questions maybe. But we're supposed to be thinking here, not reciting the catechism...
Jonathan
Jonathan and Arlyn,
Since we are all asking questions...What does it mean that "God is just and the justifier of those that trust in Christ" as far as God's morality and justice? Rom.3:26.
And if the Father, Son, and Spirit are of one accord on the issue why would it divide?
pat
Arlyn,
The death of Christ satisfies God because the rules of His government state that life is conditional upon obedience to his moral law. Failure is not an option. There is no excuse for disobedience. Once Adam and Eve sinned they would have to pay for their disobedience with their lives. Jesus volunteered to give his life as a substitute for their lives. God accepted this substitutionary death.
JB, The position you give above was not constructed until thousands of years later. The whole substitutionary death and demands of the law that there be a death were never an idea or a provision in all of Jewish belief. It is a NT doctrine that developed only after Jesus' death.
What assurance do we have that God accepted this substitionary death?
Jonathan asks questions which no one has tackled:
"In what way did/does the death of Christ "change" God? Is this a prerequisite before he can save/forgive? What kind of judicial systems permits substitution in capital cases? How are concepts of right and justice affirmed by the view of payment of penalty--or the big words like appeasement, propitiation, expiation and so on."
All we hear are repetitious and trite statements. We want explanation of how those actually work. Substitionary death was not accepted under either Jewish or Roman law, but only something added later by Christians. Since these are literal terms, how do they work literally? How do the even work symbolically?
Elaine,
I will ask you also,
Since we are all asking questions...What does it mean that "God is just and the justifier of those that trust in Christ" as far as God's morality and justice? Rom.3:26.
pat
Elaine,
The substitutionary death concept goes all the way back to Adam and Eve and the sacrificial lamb. The story of Cain and Abel is in the Bible because Cain was the first human to reject the substitutionary death of the Savior. The offering Cain brought was a thank offering. The offering means, we, that is, God and Cain are friends, God rejects Cain’s offering saying, there can be no friendship between you and I until you admit you are a sinner in need of my grace through the Savior. Cain is angry because he does not feel he needs a Savior. In his mind, Cain does not see himself as a bad man; God should accept him as he is.
The whole book of Romans is written in answer to the question the Roman Christian’s have asked Paul: Why do we teach Salvation by grace but the other Jews here are saying, we are wrong, we don’t need grace? Paul starts with the people who lived before the flood and goes right down through time showing why we need a Savior. Finally he concludes by saying; God is going to uphold the message I preach that Jesus Christ is the Savior for the whole world. This was the original message of salvation as a promise illustrated and forecast in the Old Testament. Now it has been fulfilled by Christ’s life and death. Every race of man on the earth has a chance to be saved from eternal death. Thank God for his wisdom worked out in reality by Jesus Christ.
Since these are two different viewpoints that run all the way back to Eden we are just one more generation given a chance to see which side we will choose during our watch. Soon we will have to hand it off to the next generation and let them decide what they will do. In the end the real question will be who has the power to deliver on their promises, and bring life, health and happiness.
I am not unmindful of the other questions, but it is not convenient to answer them all at once. Besides, since each idea is related to the next idea, they all form a rational whole; it is of little value to explain other parts if one is rejected.
First of all, the belief in the Jesus' resurrection is the SOLE historical reason for the Christian faith. If the disciples had not believed that God had resurrected Jesus, he would just have been another failed wanna-be Messiah, and the disciples would have backed the wrong horse.
Secondly, substitutionary sacrifice is ONE image trying to describe aspects of the atoning work of Jesus as the Christ. It does not, however, give the full picture of the meaning of Jesus' death (or his life for that matter). The ways of God are more mysterious than we or the writers of NT can possibly formulate (even inspired by God), and a reductionist approach approach to God will not help us understand Him. The incarnation, Jesus' life, teaching, and ministry for the people of Galilee and Judea, his death, and his resurrection, are all part of the atoning work of the Christ.
Pat
I didn't say the idea of blood atonement was not present in the Synoptics. The Gospels were written after Paul's epistles and Pauline theology shows up in them, although it plays a peripheral role there. The point still stands, in my opinion, that those who knew Jesus the best, did not associate him with the Temple's blood rituals. Otherwise, why were they so devoted to the Temple and its service after the death of Jesus, as told in Acts?
JB
Your Cain and Abel theology is not based on either the Old or the New Testament. The Hebrew scriptures do not associate the blood rituals of the Torah with the future. The Middle East was awash in blood rituals. The Jewish sacrifical system does not seem to have been very different from those of surrounding nations (but admittedly, I haven't done any comparative studies and would like to hear from somebody who knows more about the subject than I do.)
Aage,
Am I to conclude that Christ really "did not say" that "This is the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the remission of sins?"
Is that "imposed by Matthew" as Christ actually saying it, when He really didn't, only because of Paul's writings or because he was a disciple led of the Spirit to write the book?
Or by His recording the saying was He giving the atoning purpose of His death that Christ himself gave that is later in time elucidated by Paul's writings and the writer of Hebrews if the author there is other than Paul? (I am refering to the sequence of actual events not the timing/dating of the writing of the books)
pat
Jonathan,
So glad to see you in here! Your questions are better than mine!
Friends,
In no way do I want to lesson Paul's contribution to the meaning of Jesus' death.
However, I find it very puzzling that Jesus spends very little time (or maybe he talked about it a lot and the disciples blocked it out)explaining the meaning of his death. (but after being baptized with the HS they wrote the gospels and it's meaning is still de-emphasized in His discourses with them.) So, how did Jesus, God Himself, understand the meaning of what He was about to do? and why was it not an overriding theme in his discourses if the meaning was so central to our salvation?
Could it be that we are wrong in our focus?
Pat,
(I really appreciate your contributions on this blog and we share a wonderful friendship with Bob Rigsby! Wish he would jump in on this!)
Will you unpack what you believe Jesus meant by "This is the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the remission of sins?" And if you can use His own words or John the Baptist's mainly, the points would be more credible.
Pat
You asked:"Am I to conclude that Christ really "did not say" that "This is the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the remission of sins?"
Pat, that is my conclusion but I hold a different view of Scripture than you. I can't imagine Jesus instituting a religious ceremony focusing on the drinking of blood (symbolic or not)--something that would have been truely repugnant to any Jew, and the Jesus we see in the Synoptics is overwhelmingly Jewish in his outlook.
The Gospels describe two different Jesus characters: One is Jewish, devoted to the Torah, one who's come to restore the fallen house of David and whose mission is strictly confined to the Jewish people (Matt. 10) and who can't abide the thought of the Torah being abrogated (Matt 5). The other Jesus is not concerned about holy places, be it Jerusalem or Mt Gerisim, he sends his disciples into the whole world to make disciples (in spite of the fact that Paul specifically says that he was the first one to come up with that idea, in Galatians) and when he appears before Pilate, he refers to his opponents as "the Jews", as if he wasn't even part of his own people.
My view of the Bible allows me to conclude that the Gospels do not present a consistent view of Jesus. I don't expect you to share my point of view, and I'm even open to the possibility that I might be wrong. (I have been so on more than one occasion!)
Sirje
There seem to be two separate issues here. The one deals with the question, does God need to see blood poured in order for Him to forgive our sins; the second, how can we know our sins have been forgiven.
The New Testament is filled with the concept of a forgiving God, who is more than willing to forgive through His grace, if we only ask. At the same time, Jesus was a Jew, living in Jewish culture which was mixed up with its religious traditions. The Jews had God's forgiveness taken care of through their elaborate sacrificial ceremonies, as had the other cultures around them. When Jesus elaborated on the meaning of sin(Sermon on the Mount) the Jews, who had perfection nailed down, were offended and plotted to kill Him, provididng both political and religious reasons. That is why Jesus was killed.
The second question deals with human nature that requires concrete demonstrations. The Jews had displayed God's forgiveness through a play that included innocent animals, ritualistic death and lots of blood. With this in place, the sinner was able to pick up and proceed with his life for another year. We need the same concrete demonstration of debt paid and forgiveness given.
So, does God need to see blood in order to forgive - NO, but we do.
Hi Arlyn,
Yes, Bob is a close friend of mine also. Until I sold my Honda VTX-C about 2 years ago we rode bikes together quite often and enjoyed talking about many subjects.
On the atonement Bob did not take the "classical" Protestant view but the one put forward by Graham Maxwell. We quit discussing this issue and shared our friendship each holding our own view.
The text in MT.26:28 reads literaly from the Greek, "For this is the blood of me of the covenant the [blood] concerning many for the forgiveness of sins."
Heb.9:11-28 elucidates the fact that Christ death fulfils the old covenant and also establishes a covenant of better promises by the sacrifice of Himself and His own blood.
The better promises being, " 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”
17 Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”
18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Heb.10:10-18.
Obviously without knowledge of the sacrificial system of type the antitype makes no sense. In the OT Isaac said where is the Lamb...In the NT John the Baptist says "behold the Lamb of God."
This is why Christ says in Jn.8:24 that if they did not believe that He was the one He claimed to be they would die in their sins.
The fact that there was not immediate understanding does not mean the well was not there to be drawn from in the future.
To many things that could be said but in closing this time,
"23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Rom.3:23-26.
Now that is good news! Good news that can not be had with Christ as an example only!
pat
JB wrote:
"The substitutionary death concept goes all the way back to Adam and Eve and the sacrificial lamb. The story of Cain and Abel is in the Bible because Cain was the first human to reject the substitutionary death of the Savior."
That is how many readers interpret it today but no one until after Jesus' death had even thought of such a symbolic meaning. What one "sees" retrospectively, in any given event, depends solely on his method of interpreting. That is not a conclusion ever given from Scripture. If so, where is Cain's offering explained in such a manner?
Much confusion over the meaning of Jesus' death comes from misunderstanding and misapplication of the OT sacrificial system. So maybe it's time to take another look at that--my little contribution is here:
http://www.pineknoll.org/jg/45-god-in-other-words/185-futile-offerings-g...
So what do WE mean by "there's power in the blood"?
More questions!
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan,
Read your site and agree that God was not satisfied with “just” the cultic sacrifices…BUT He was satisfied with the “cultic sacrifices AND a spiritual heart” as David pleads for so that He might appropriately offer righteous sacrifices in the OT system. Ps.51:18,19.
Of course those are done away by Christ’s sacrifice once and for all. But one can not ignore how the right relationship is made available only through the blood of Christ.
14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, Thou God of my salvation;
Then my tongue will joyfully sing of Thy righteousness.
15 O Lord, open my lips,
That my mouth may declare Thy praise.
16 For Thou dost not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
Thou art not pleased with burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.
18 By Thy favor do good to Zion;
Build the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then Thou wilt delight in righteous sacrifices,
In burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then young bulls will be offered on Thine altar.Ps.51:14-19.
On a previous post you brought up the normal “strawman” of "division" in the trinity by the propitiation of Christ’s sacrifice as if God forced Christ to do His will.
I understand that you are the SDA- UN Representative so I gather you are a believer in EGW statements.
So how would you see these quotes as dismantling any “strawman” idea that the Father forced the propitionary sacrifice or that it is devisive to the Trinity(Godhead)?
The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because he himself was obedient. {ST, December 9, 1897 par. 6}
The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}
Before the foundations of the earth were laid, the Father and the Son had united in a covenant to redeem man if he should be overcome by Satan. They had clasped Their hands in a solemn pledge that Christ should become the surety for the human race. This pledge Christ has fulfilled. When upon the cross He cried out, "It is finished," He addressed the Father. The compact had been fully carried out. Now He declares: Father, it is finished. I have done Thy will, O My God. I have completed the work of redemption. If Thy justice is satisfied, "I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am." John 19:30; 17:24. {DA 834.2}
You do believe those statements don’t you Jonathan?
Regards,
pat
Who is effected by the death of Christ, does God need to change?
Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Blood has two main Biblical meanings, life and violent death. Your conscience is the target of the blood. To change your view, your hostility toward God. The blood is the life of Christ, the life of God who offered forgiveness even as people were killing Him. The life of the one who came back from the Grave and who ever lives as our advocate with the Father. Who is the fullness of God. God changes us. The life and power of God cleanse our conscience from worthless works to the works of the God who is alive and promises to give us life.
Stop this nonsense about Jesus suffered the Second death for which there is zero Biblical support, Stop this nonsense about Jesus punished by God's wrath, for which there is no New Testament support (the article above had to go to Isaiah for that one, New Testament writers did not seem to pick that up, strange). We have so far to go and we so distort God that we should be ashamed at ourselves for making God out to be unjust (then calling it just) and incapable of forgiveness unless He gets His pound of flesh (even though both Old and New Testament say to freely forgive).
For more on this week's lesson go to http://cafesda.blogspot.com/
Ron,
I Saw your site too Ron and since you quoted EGW on the lesson how do you respond to the quotes I offered Jonathan?
Regards,
pat
PS. Perhaps the best understanding of propitiation is "the turning away of wrath."
You see Christ received the wrath of God AGAINST SIN that we should and "turned away wrath from us" so that the "justified by faith" may say,
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.Rom.5:8-10.
pat
"So does God need to see blood in order to forgive? NO, but we do."
Posted by: Sirje | 05 June 2008 at 5:00
Who declared that we "need" to see blood? That was the sentiment of those who lived when the sacrificial system was currently used. How long has it been since Christians used sacrifice?
None.
The concept is outdated by 2000 years, and yet because it was repeated and had meaning for those so long ago, we still use it an analogy which is minus all meaning today. Isn't there a contemporary illustration that we postmoderns are capable of understanding? The Bible writers were certainly in tune with their world. Have we lost all touch with our world today?
To understand forgiveness, who needs to see blood? When you have wronged someone, or you have been wronged, do you, like Shylock, demand a pound of flesh, necessitating blood, in order for it to be effective?
Pat, you said: "Of course those are done away by Christ’s sacrifice once and for all. But one can not ignore how the right relationship is made available only through the blood of Christ."
And then you proceed to use only OT statements which were still in effect at that time. Wake up! We're living 2500 years later and they are NOT in effect today; else why would Christ have fulfilled them? All such sacrifices are obsolete.
Pat wrote:
"I Saw your site too Ron and since you quoted EGW on the lesson how do you respond to the quotes I offered Jonathan?
Regards,
pat
PS. Perhaps the best understanding of propitiation is "the turning away of wrath."
First Propitiation is not turning away from wrath unless one holds to the pagan understanding of appeasing a god. Which is why modern translations say atoning sacrifice or sacrifice of atonement. (what God did to bring us toward reconcilation)
As for Ellen White, being she was a product of her time and her understanding and was largely based upon Christian traditions I don't see any real need to take her statements and set them into the concrete of doctrine for all subsequent Adventists. If the Bible is our standard we don't need her foisted upon us or to have other Adventists use her as if we must accept her statements as if they came from God. Adventism has to get past Ellen White as well as Ellen White's traditional Christian view of Jesus pleading before God saying my blood my blood. God is on our side and not because Jesus was punished by God to pay our penalty but Because God loves us and wants us to love Him, and Jesus is the full revelation of that love, a love that never diminished even when rejected by men.
Elaine my Dear,(I mean it and hope it is not an offense)
Check my post again please. I used Ps.51 because Jonathan had on his site referred to texts in the OT how God did not want sacrifice. In context that was because/due to their "practicing iniquity then bringing sacrifice."
Ps 51 showed the correct attitude for sacrifice in the OT and that was with a truly repentant heart and then the appropriate righteous sacrifice.
The type was replaced by the antitype Christ who shed His blood for us "once and for all."
Your correct in the sense NO MORE BLOOD SACRIFICE of any type...but the application of the merits of that sacrifice are yet needed for entering/maintaining a right relationship with God as we are "being made holy"...but never getting there.
"9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Rom.5:9-11.
Niebuhr summarizes my main problem with what I shall call the "weeds" of "liberal theology" Elaine.
"A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross." The Kingdom of God in America, p.193.
I don't need THAT Jesus of modernity...I'll go it alone first!
Regards,
pat
Ron,
You say, "First Propitiation is not turning away from wrath unless one holds to the pagan understanding of appeasing a god. Which is why modern translations say atoning sacrifice or sacrifice of atonement. (what God did to bring us toward reconcilation)."
Why did we need to be reconciled? Were we not children of wrath?Eph.2:3
What happens when one refuses Christ according to Jn.3:36..."God's wrath remains on him."
See, I suggest you have so long heard the argument (strawman) of Jesus appeasing the Father by his death that you fail to see that the Father and the Son agreed on the way to turn away the wrath of God against sin and sinners. Why this way. I DON"T KNOW. But that is the way scripture tells us it occurs according to God's will and we receive that promise by "faith alone."
Regards,
pat
Isn't it wonderful that no matter what analogy we use about Christ's death or God, that we can be saved without believing any or all of it?
RC,
Yes, the blood is to change us. But, "stop this nonsense about Jesus being punished by God's wrath, for which there is no NT support?"
The synoptics' description of the crucifixion of darkness sweeping over the land at noon carries this idea with it. It is an illusion to OT passages describing the Day of the Lord/i.e the execution of God's judgement against Israel's sin and rebellion. One specific citation is Amos 8:9,
"'In that day,' declares the sovereign LORD, 'I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.'"
The entire context is one of God's wrath being poured out against the rebellion and sin of Israel.
It's quite interesting that the natural circumstances surrounding Jesus' death are being described in very similar terms. Israel has once again rebelled...this time, by rejecting God's own Son. Darkness sweeps over the land. But instead of calamity and death coming at that time on all... as the OT prophets describe God's judgement upon the rebellion of his people... death only comes upon one person.
And that one person cries out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Is this not indicative that God's wrath, in the form of judgement and rejection, is falling on Jesus instead of those who have rejected him? Is this not in keeping with the whole concept of "substitutionary atonement," an idea that is not too popular on this site, but can be traced through not only the NT, but also the history of interpretation?
I personally find this in Paul's statement, "He made him who knew no sin, to be sin (a sin offering) for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Cor 5:21. I also see this throughout Rom. 5, which speaks of judgement, condemnation, and death coming through the sin of one man, but justification and life coming through the act and gift of the one man, Christ.
He agreed to bare God's judgement, condemnation, and yes, just wrath against sin, so that we might be fully swept into God's favor and grace forever...the way that God always has preferred, and always wants to relate to us.
Whether that changes us, is up to us.
Thanks...
Frank
With all our Western mindset and its emphasis on materialism, it's just too easy to miss the symbolism. We think of "objective blood" rather than look for its meaning. When we read that Jesus came to give his life a ransom for many, we want to know to whom the ransom was paid, how the transaction was accomplished, and what the currency was! Instead, "it cost God a lot!"
As to the problem of "splitting the Trinity" I would see this as far more than a "straw man." While we may make much of Jesus' pleading, we need to remember John 16:26...
Jonathan
So Jonathan...you disagree with EGW. Is that fair to say?
That's ok but it is always interesting that one can disagree with everything but the IJ with immunity in SDA officialdom it seems. That does anger me.
And...this is in regards to the most important issue of all...how we are reckoned to be right with God. In this case, I feel she got it correct with scriptural support in the quotes I posted to you.
I feel you should work on expressing the proper way that sacrifices in the OT were pleasing and commanded by God...they were not to be ignored at that time.
You might add Jn.16:27 to vs.26 to see why "He loves you."
Regards,
pat
Pat wrote:
"Why did we need to be reconciled? Were we not children of wrath?Eph.2:3
What happens when one refuses Christ according to Jn.3:36..."God's wrath remains on him."
What is God's wrath becomes the question. Is it God punishing the innocent as in the starving child or the child raped and murdered by a corrupt person. Or is the wrath of God that God allows there to be natural consequences to man's actions and the chance actions of the natural world where fire, plague and pestilence reek havoc. The consequence for sin was put forth in the Eden story, the symbol of the tree of knowledge of good and evil when one chooses evil the result will be death. Evil choices lead away from God and God is the source of life. So we are all subject to that kind of wrath and except if one accepts the gift of God then they remain under that condition.
Any other view such as saying God's wrath is that He must punish sinners by killing them means that we are not being saved from our broken condition but we are being saved from the tyranny of God. The problem then is not sin but God's attitude toward the sinner. We are not being saved as in salved (the root of salvation), healed, we are saved from the vindictive God's cruelty because He condemns everyone. With the only way out being that He condemns everyone artificially in some type of transaction where people killed Christ yet it was actually an act of God. All this drawn from assuming the quotation of Psalm 22 is not really a reference to a Psalm which of course was not numbered then, a Psalm of tragedy into triumph but was actually God separated from God.
What all this does is very clearly show a distortion of God which I often illustrate by this quotation:
"In many of the popular sermons and hymns of the last two centuries Christ is set forth as mediator between an angry God and the condemned sinner, pleading with God for mercy, at the same time receiving the divine wrath into his own bosom and thus averting from the sinner the consequences of his sin." (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, vol. 7 page 270)
For more see:
http://newprotestants.com/Subatone.htm
Pat wrote:
"So Jonathan...you disagree with EGW. Is that fair to say?"
About as helpful as:
"So Pat...you disagree with Scripture. Is that fair to say?"
And I'm sorry for your anger.
Jonathan
Cliff,
If you happen to look in, I appreciate this weeks lesson by Roy Adams and your part that I just looked at.
I feel that "propitiation" rather than "just expiation" could have been dealt with better as does Leon Morris vs. Dodd but overall I appreciate it.
Perhaps the EGW quote on Propitiation would have been good on Friday's page.The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because he himself was obedient. {ST, December 9, 1897 par. 6}
Jonathan,
That's ok just following Eph.4:25,26. "To speak truth...be angry but sin not."
Regards,
pat
Elaine,
Thanks for responding to my post, but I must not have made myself clear enough. Yes, the blood is an ancient metaphor used more than 2000 years ago. It had meaning at the time, especially for the Jews; but we read the same scriptures and I would have thought my comment you quoted would not be taken literally, especially by you. We need to see the blood in the sense that most of us can't operate merely on the basis of concepts and need concrete ceremony to punctuate our milestones - weddings, funerals, graduations etc. We could just make our vows, our goodbyes and our celebrations
mentally but we seem to need ceremony and something concrete to handle, to exchange, to engrave in stone in order to deal with life events. On that basis, we need to see concrete evidence that our sins have been dealt with.
How would a guilt ridden person find peace except to see graphically the payment for that offense being dealt with. Some of us are capable of living mentally, making our peace in the quiet of our solitudes but the average person needs the graphics.
Hi!
I can forgive someone who has wronged me without requiring that somebody be tortued and killed. Can't God do as much?
Dave
Dave,
Perhaps you are more righteous than God?
"The LORD watches over all who love him,
but all the wicked he will destroy."
Ps.145:20
Yes, I do understand the symbolic meaning of "blood" but it is used and sung so often that there are those who DO take it literally and need the death of Jesus to assure them.
Like Dave, if I truly forgive someone I have no need for them to pay penance. That is taken literally by the Roman Catholic church where penance is doled out to demonstrate a sinner's true forgiveness. Why, if it a necessity as claimed by the Protestant church, that there is not a penance required? Did Jesus "pay" a penance? We speak so glibly but have much difficulty actually giving specific examples of how that should work. When we can begin to avoid the cliches and think of how the salvation jargon sounds to the totally unintiated, we may be able to illustrate better.
Harold said,
"First of all, the belief in the Jesus' resurrection is the SOLE historical reason for the Christian faith. If the disciples had not believed that God had resurrected Jesus, he would just have been another failed wanna-be Messiah, and the disciples would have backed the wrong horse."
If the price of salvation for us was Christs death on the cross then the "bill" was paid when he died. Had he not been resurected the penalty for our sins would still have been paid.
The perspective that the disciples might THINK they had backed the wrong horse is plausable but has nothing to do with if the price had actually been paid.
Aage said,
" I can't imagine Jesus instituting a religious ceremony focusing on the drinking of blood (symbolic or not)--something that would have been truely repugnant to any Jew, and the Jesus we see in the Synoptics is overwhelmingly Jewish in his outlook."
Where do you get this "drinking of blood" idea?
Elaine said to JB,
"The substitutionary death concept goes all the way back to Adam and Eve and the sacrificial lamb. The story of Cain and Abel is in the Bible because Cain was the first human to reject the substitutionary death of the Savior."
That is how many readers interpret it today but no one until after Jesus' death had even thought of such a symbolic meaning. What one "sees" retrospectively, in any given event, depends solely on his method of interpreting. That is not a conclusion ever given from Scripture. If so, where is Cain's offering explained in such a manner?"
Your assumptions are incorrect.
There are many examples but I will give you one. "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" This was John the Baptist's declaration in John 1:29
It encompasses the salient points of salvation all of which were known and covered before Jesus death. The LAMB of God. Well known phrase at the time aknowledging the linkage between the sacrifice of lambs they had been making substituionally for generations and their expectation of a comming messiah. Also it confirms the method of salvation when he says, "...who takes away the sin of the world."
As to the rest of your posts, what can one say except, "Earth to Elaine, Hello?"
"Isn't it wonderful that no matter what analogy we use about Christ's death or God, that we can be saved without believing any or all of it?"
Elaine,
Why is it called justification by faith?? Why would Paul speak of the gospel being revealed to faith and nothing but faith (faith to faith) if faith is not necessary. Or, maybe in the system you've constructed the gospel isn't the good news of salvation, it's just good advice... or maybe just a good ancient myth with which us religious types are simply deluding ourselves.
Elaine, I read post after post in which you deride the foolishness of the biblical story/gospel. Maybe that's why Paul called it the "foolishness of the message."
You know something? I personally know what the foolishness of the gospel has done for me in my own life, and the pit from which Jesus saved me. And no...it was not some kind of psychological epiphany, it was the power of Christ working in my life as I called upon him in desperation...desperate faith. And, as I found him personally, the Bible became an entirly different book to me. The gospel was no longer some ancient Near-Eastern myth as it once was to me, it became living good news.
I respect the intellectual rigor that is brought to bear on biblical issues, and our interpretive ideas on this site. It is necessary. But, unless one feels their need, the gospel will be nothing more than a myth or fairy tale, or a nice intellectual, parlor debate and nothing more.
Thanks...
Frank
Michael said:
"There are many examples but I will give you one. "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" This was John the Baptist's declaration in John 1:29.
And there was a tape recorder in John the Baptist garment when he recorded this?
We do not have definitive knowledge of who wrote the Gospel of John. Suffice to say that it was not written until at least two generations later and for a particular audience and with a specific agenda. John's Gospel is not purported to be history, but a theological interpretation of Jesus.
Elaine,
Tell me what your paternal and maternal grandfathers 16 generations ago did for a living when they were between 20 and 40 years old.
Then I'll believe you really exist.
Frank,
But, unless one feels their need, the gospel will be nothing more than a myth or fairy tale, or a nice intellectual, parlor debate and nothing more.
Amen Frank, my "past" life has been such that it is my only hope and my present life seems to see my need more and more as I mature because I see through the Spirit my true self better.
pat
Michael, I appreciate your thoughts but "perhaps" the only reason Christ would not be raised would be if He had sinned and then he would not have been raised for our justification. Then the resurrection would not be showing that the sacrifice was accepted and His perfect life imputed to us.Rom.4:25. But in those divine initiatives their is uncertainty.
Regards,
pat
Hyveth Williams needs to study New Covenant Theology to realize the Decalogue, including the Sabbath was fulfilled on the cross, but not leaving the New Covenant without standards:
http://cranfordville.com/NTViceLists.html
http://cranfordville.com/NTVirtureLists.html
The Sabbath was fulfilled on the cross, making Christ our True Rest, that can be experienced, any day of the week. Can we still worship on the "shadow" day, sure, we are not to judge one Christian against another on this matter Col 2:16, 17 declares.
The Old Covenant was declared "obsolete" by the making of the New Covenant, Heb 8:13.
Have we made the Sabbath a "god", to the extent one can not see the "Gospel"?
Pat,
Good thoughts.
I cant say why Christ wouldnt have been raised, but to US, it would have had the same net effect to if he had simply gone directly to heaven after his awakening. No angel to say, why are you crying, no appearance to the disciples later ect.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a noise?
Jesus pays the price on the cross and IF no one saw him after the Resurrection before he went to heaven, was the debt still paid?
The resurrection showed US that the sacrifice was accepted and His perfect life was imputed to us. Rom.4:25.
Agreed whole heartedly. But our confidence or assurance is not what secures our salvation, is it?
Aage/Elaine,
The first premise that stands at the fountainhead of my theology is that there is a living God today. Second is that He chose certain men to convey information in the Bible that He provided to them. Third the Bible is therefore a unified whole, both Old and New Testament operating to explain each other.
I am well aware that Jews do not accept the sacrifices of the Old Testament as having any future meaning nor do they teach the need for a Savior. This is a dispute that runs at least back to the days of Jesus, separated Jews and Christians, and caused persecution. The scope of my presentation of Cain and Abel is from the position of the unity of the Bible.
Cain was not a Jew. The offering of a lamb preceded the Jews by at least 2000 years. Mankind is the same the world over and from generation to generation, therefore we all stand in the same need of a Savior. By rejecting God’s chosen method of sacrifice Cain was rejecting the need for a Savior. He was the first human being to do so, he therefore heads the list those who reject salvation. Abel died believing in the need for a Savior, therefore he stands at the head to the list of those who do accept salvation. There is no third way.
Hi Again!
It appears to me that some of our comments so far presuppose that the PRIMARY issue is whether we get to live forever and how what happened at the cross can guarnatee us that.
But are we absolutely certain that this is the most important consideration? Haven't Christians over the centuries explored other options as well?
Haven't at least some of them PRIMARILY seen in the cross a clue as to how we should live here and now?
"Must Jesus bear the cross alone,
and all the world go free?
No, there's a cross for everyone
and there's a cross for me."
Thanks!
Dave
1. The Biblical texts on blood, lamb, sacrifice, high priest are all true.
And it seems that most of us believe that the blood shed on the cross has a symbolic meaning (though actual blood was shed)in terms of salvation (namely life/death)- we believe that red and white cells, platelets and serum do not add anything to God or "satisfy" Him in any way. And Jesus as the Lamb of God connects Him with the lamb's role in the sacrificial system- not necessarily meaning that Jesus was a four legged creature. So, there is no further need to waste time poking fun at literalistic meanings of the above terms to make a point.
But could it be that our minds are now trapped in literalistic interpretations of the next level of Biblical concepts regarding salvation?
Are "merits imputed or imparted" (EGW words)- are merits a physical tangible asset that can be transferred in the universe- is that God's ultimate reality or a metaphor? Is a perfect human being's death/ or the death of the progenitor of the human race a true physical substitute for anyone else's capital punishment? Is the fact that Jesus willingly fulfills His own law system (propitiation)make that system (or that system as we understand it)now righteous, even though it is proportionally irrational (capital punishment for every infraction)?
I fear that in line with Luther who won the debate over the transubstantiation of the eucharist by quoting Jesus' own words, "This IS my body"- we can be right in affirming the words but trapped in the same trap of literalism that the Jews fell into with the sacrificial system. (He won that debate, he quoted the Bible accurately, but he was wrong in ascertaining the meaning.)
Jesus's blood--death---It does solve the Sin problem. How does it do that? (no shirking -unlike the "Trinity" and "Incarnation", this is a question that cannot be left nebulous because it is the crux of christianity)
Hi Dave,
"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve."
1 Cor.15:1-4.
For me, With our gaze on Christ who loved us and gave himself for us on the cross this enables us to walk with full assurance of our salvation in Him..."our worse cross" becomes bearable with the eager expectations of the promises we have in Him. This makes "proper service" possible.
When we focus on "our cross" we lose our way by perhaps having the tendency to look inward and thus become our own savior by "our cross."
I suggest that perhaps Mother Theresa's expressed lack of Joy (barring a true mental illness) was because she could never really accept basking in the gift without "her own sufferings."
my thought,
pat
Hi Arlyn,
You ask, "Jesus's blood--death---It does solve the Sin problem. How does it do that?"
Simply "because God says so" and I accept that by "faith alone."
"But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Rom.3:21-26.
pat
PS. Luther did not win the debate with Calvinist on transubstantiation who asks Luther how can He be in heaven at the right hand of God and in the bread at the same time...obvious symbolism.
Pat,
I, too believe with all my heart.
The question was not- do we believe it does, though, it is HOW do we believe it solves the great controversy and sin?
ps. I was referring to the Marburg Colloquy Oct 2,1529 between Luther and Oecolampadius vs Zwingli and Melanchthon. Luther's use of the scripture was one of three possible interpretations- This is my Body- a. transubstantiation-where material bread became divine flesh b. (Luther) literally Christ's body were present in the sacrament "in, with and under" the elements of bread and wine c. (Zwingli) symbolic-Christ is present but not tied to the elements.
Did you have another event in mind- Calvin?
typo: Luther vs Oecelampadius as a debate pair. Melanchthon vs Zwingli as a debating pair.
Arlyn,
I was loosely referring to "Calvinism and the Reformed tradition."
The issue is... where is there obvious symbolism rather than proceeding from the idea that everything being symbolism or a metaphor.
PS. "The How" is for God who says He is just and "the means" of receiving the blessing by faith alone is for us.
pat
Dear Pat,
Perhaps we waste time stating our points too strongly. I never mean to imply that "everything" is symbolism or a metaphor as a starting point. And I think I know you from your writings that you are not a die-hard literalist that waits for obvious symbolism before you are willing to look for layers of meaning.
What I am suggesting is that substitutionary death, propitiation and merit transfer,to name just three sound biblically-based concepts of salvation stemming from the meaning of the cross- may have multiple meanings or be pointing to a deeper reality. And so more unpacking needs to be done. That's the question of "How?" with all it's implications on the picture of God. HOW God solves Sin says much about Him. (THAT He does, is certain.)
You seem to agree with Calvinists when, for instance, they use reason to point out that Jesus cannot be in two places at one time- to Lutherans. So, that's one tool to also be applied to the three concepts above too.
Transfer of guilt as literal blood in the sanctuary program was symbolic. Could transfer of merits also be? Could Jesus' blood/payment also be? What are they pointing at, then?
Hi,
Just a couple of points.
1. Jesus death was not substitutionary. The Bible very clearly states this fact. It is the principle of the Second Adam.
Romans 5:18, 19 - Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Just as we were all in Adam, all of humanity, just so, all of humanity was in Christ on the cross. That is not substitution.
The other aspect of this thought is also the fact that since Jesus lived the perfect life, the born-again Christian, by faith, (using the same principle explained above) also has access to that perfect life. God the Father, at judgement, does not see my deeds but the deeds of Jesus, perfect! More info at Pr. Sequeira's site http://www.jacksequeira.org
2. The fact that sin brought about death, it was through conquering death is there victory over sin. Therefore, "blood" would be required.
Arlyn,
The "transfer of merits" is not "making righteous by Christ or the OT ritual." It is "rekoning righteous."
Jesus was righteous and fulfilled all righteousness. The Bible says we are "reckoned", (logizomai)considered righteous by faith in Christ. "They point" to God's righteous way to provide salvation for sinners...The "how" and "the means" of receiving.
Your question seems to be implying "how do I prove" that the "how" is valid and not mere symbolism?
pat
Sona,
We were all in Adam- I could see that in a physical sense since our whole gene pool as from him.
But we were all in Christ at the cross. How?
I agree that the Bible says through one Man's righteous act/obedience the free gift came to all/many were made righteous. But does that mean we were all in Christ at the cross physically? Could you use biology to prove that if you think so? Does it mean we were all spiritually in Christ at the cross? How would that be- including the unborn who have not sinned yet?
Is this second part not a symbol or metaphor? (But truth, nonetheless.)
Pat,
So, merits can be transferred? Can they be transferred in part or only as a whole package? Can they be used over and over- since Jesus' merits can be applied to more than one person? What is different about His merits vs the good merits of other humans (if they are capable of being applied in parts?)?
If it is reckoning only and not reality, is salvation then based on bookeeping of merits? Is salvation reality based, or legal formality? Is this how God prefers to operate- to balance His books on merits? Is this why Jesus had to be perfect? Would the cross mean nothing if He sinned just once- does that automatically negate all the good merits He accumulated?
Or could this also be a true metaphor (that corresponds with our reality and His) that helps us who are exacting in our definitions of justice, legalistic? Justice is to us- a tangible transfer of made up punishments and rewards. A criminal gets so many years in jail, lessened for good behaviork, mitigated for attenuating circumstances etc.
Agreed that we are reckoned righteous by faith in Christ. That is true.
Do we know what that means?
Or how that works?
Does the Bible explain further than that?
Arlyn,
Did Christ really come in the flesh and die? Is that symbolism or metaphor? Perhaps rather a gnostic or docetic Christ?
What it means?
I am "considered" righteous/just by God through faith in Jesus substitutionary death.
How it works?
By the believer accepting by faith what God declares to be His just way of forgiving sinners.
Does the Bible further explain it?
nope.."It is finished."
pat
Pat,
You sound like "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."? Who cares how God looks through our self-contradictory, irrational, legalistic, exacting version of how the death of Christ satisfied God? God says it's just. He says He considers me righteous, that's just by definition. Reality is an inconvenience."
I'm not trying to change the Bible, I don't deny the necessary flesh and blood death of Christ. And I believe God is just in his salvation plan. But since the most common "classic" atonement theory is NOT- I am willing to change my understanding of how salvation works.
There will be more atonement theories in the future- because our understandings grow. No theory will ever be the last. Because no theory is perfect in encapsulating reality. And the best way to grow is to ask why and how to our present paradigm and watch the cliche's fall off.
Arlyn said
"You sound like "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."? Who cares how God looks through our self-contradictory, irrational, legalistic, exacting version of how the death of Christ satisfied God? God says it's just. He says He considers me righteous, that's just by definition. Reality is an inconvenience."
Actually THAT IS reality.
Hi Sona,
A few questions on your statement that "'blood' would be required." By whom? God? Justice? The Devil? The onlooking universe?
Or does it simply mean that there is an intrinsic consequence to sin--that you die? In terms of the meaning of Jesus' death, that's one of the most important answers Jesus gives at the cross--sin really does kill. And kill completely and eternally. That's why restoration of the relationship with the living God, and accepting the healing only he can give is so vital--far more important than some judicial status.
Jonathan
I remember asking a SS teacher when I was about ten, "Why did Satan kill Jesus if he knew that meant his doom? Why didn't he do everything to keep him alive so the plan of salvation would be wrecked?" I remember my teacher giving me a very strange look and saying something about getting back to me.
To her everlasting credit she did the next week and she gave a pretty good answer I thought. It must have been because I remember it to this day. She said something along the lines that Satan is evil and evil cannot help but destroy. I can't say as I see the entire narrative in the same way now but her answer made a big impression on me regarding the nature of evil.
Michael and Arlyn,
For me "as a Christian" the Bible is as you say it Michael(thanks), My REVEALED REALITY of what God is like.
I start from that premise that it is the authoritive will of God. If you want to show me a better exegesis of texts than the "substitutionary atonement" ones Arlyn then I'll take a look.
If you simply want to create "a new idea/ new considerations /new theories/ new dialogue etc." without sound scriptural support as regards atonement that is unacceptable to me.
Bottom line--
In this way, God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever trusting in Him may not perish but have life eternal.Jn.3:16 To the one rejecting the Son "the wrath of God remains on him." Jn.3:36.
That's my Faith and it's not about me it's about Him who died for me.I believe "unconverted" man wants to get away from the cross as quickly as possible with new theories for it is foolishness and a stumblingblock to him. "Humanity" will accept Christ as an example of compassion etc.... but as a atoning sacrifice...No.
Regards,
pat
Pat,
The penal substitutionary model of the atonement is a very dated and inadequate model for today's world. It has served the Christian church, both Protestant and Catholic for centuries, but it was not the atonement model of early Christians. it is a model that came into prominence during the middle ages.
You may not be aware but there are many other atonement models used in Scripture. The Great Controversy model that many Adventist prefer is just one such model even though many see it as reality in verity, just as those who see the substitutionary model of understanding Christ's death as reality and not a model.
The growth of understanding about God, his nature and character have led theologians across the religious spectrum to question the penal substitutionary model. In the past ten years even evangelical scholars have raised serious questions as to its validity and value.
In its defense, the substitutionary model is one that can be easily explained, wrapped up and tied neatly with the Old Testament sacrificial system forming a closed system of thought that is hard to break out of. In addition its content and wording has been woven into all our hymns, sermons, religious teachings and liturgies.
One need not reject the substitutionary model when one see its inadequacies, other models have their limitations as well. But as we are to walk in increasing light until the Day Star dawns, I would urge you, Pat, to be open to seeing the saving work of God in an even greater light than the substitutionary model provides.
Donna
Pat,
"I believe "unconverted" man wants to get away from the cross as quickly as possible with new theories for it is foolishness and a stumblingblock to him. "Humanity" will accept Christ as an example of compassion etc.... but as a atoning sacrifice...No."
Right on! This discussion feels a bit like Paul's Athens experience in Acts 18.
"(All the Athenians and foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)" Acts 18:21
But when Paul goes to the Aeropogus, and gets down to the brass tacks of Jesus, his resurrection, and the coming judgement, they sneer at him. It becomes an offense to their reasoning, wisdom, etc. It seems like the same type of offense is coming up here, albeit over some different, but related issues.
Why? Is it that the gospel is an offense to us as well? We can live with Jesus primarily as a moral example/moral influence, we can live with the idea of trying to do our best to follow his teachings, but the preaching of the cross really reveals that we are in a much bigger mess than we would like to admit. Without Christ, we are all judgement bound, whether we like it or not, whether we understand it or not, whether it offends us or not. Paul preaches this over and over in Acts and in his letters... it can't be gotten around. There is no difference, all are in the same predicament without Christ, Jew and Gentile. (Rom. 1:18-3:20)
But, what Christ has accomplished through his death for us, and all that follows (resurrection, etc.) is truly sufficient, and is the only way to change our appointment from judgement to salvation.
"For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath, but to recieve salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us (substitution?) so that whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him." 1 Thess. 5: 9-10
God has us in his "eternal appointment book," because of nothing else but our clinging to Jesus as our Lord, and what Jesus did for us as our Savior! All other issues must follow in this train. To me, that's truly good news!
Thanks...
Frank
"Elaine,
Tell me what your paternal and maternal grandfathers 16 generations ago did for a living when they were between 20 and 40 years old."
Surprise! They were kings and queens in England and in Europe. I have been very fortunate in the ability to trace my ancestry (thanks to the world's largest genealogical library in Salt Lake City) in a direct line back through Charlemagne and down to the first century A.D. These records are faithful, as all the different nations kept very accurate records of births, marriages, and deaths for succession reasons. Because of the intermarriages to cement relations between the different nations, they are all in my direct ancestral line.
So, to answer you question, 16 generations ago my ancestors were in the royal line, living in castles and owning land that was farmed by the peasants. I have every name, DOB, DOD, and marriage date. Eleanor of Aquitane is a direct ancestor, and one of the few queens who was married to two kings and the mother of three; immortalized in Katherine Hepburns' "The Lion in Winter." Name a king or queen of any of the Western European countries: Spain, Portugal, France, the German districts, and I'm from that stock.
Maternal line is mostly French, going back only to the 14th century. Genealogy was a hobby several years ago and it's intriguing when you find information you never knew existed previously.
Any more questions?
Hi Pat Travis.
You make some interesting points. I have read your comments on many articles in the Spectrum blog, and even an article that you wrote for Ministry Magazine. I have noticed a consistent trend in your incessant use of "quotation marks" and I wanted to share some liberation theology with you:
You are "free" from having to do that. You no longer should feel as though you "need" to use quotation marks to make underhanded points. In fact, unless you are actually "quoting" someone, quotation marks may actually detract from the real points you are making.
Be free!
Cheers,
"Grammar Nerd"
For those who wish to substitute their logic and science for the substitutionary gift of Christ/God, what gall, and brazen daring. Can you save yourself? Since Adam it has been proven no.
So, eliminate the Bible and go to Darwin, salvation is not even a concept. Is it a selfish concept to want to live forever? Not when suggested as an option by God.
So, why should anyone listen to someone, new Atheist, that has no answer to the afterlife?
Grammar Nerd, you may not except this source but:
"Quotation marks are also used to indicate that the writer realizes that a word is not being used in its current commonly-accepted sense."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Signaling_unusual_usage
Frank:
Re: your scripture quote: "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath, but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us (substitution?) so that whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him." 1 Thess. 5: 9-10
The word "for" used here is "huper" and would usually mean "to the benefit of" rather than "instead of." Only by imposing a previously determined theological view would substitution be seen in this verse, I think.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
RDS,
I might take exception to your use of the word except when what you seem to mean is accept. But then, I'm just a Grammar Nerd. You'll forgive me.
Yes, Jonathan...
But could one of the benefits be that he died in my place? I don't see the substitutionary model of salvation as an either/or proposition over and against other models. Jesus and salvation are huge enough to encompass many metaphors, and realities actually, at the same time. To me, both/and.
Thanks...
Frank
Frank,
Very well written! We truly are in a bigger mess than we realize.
Wow,
Went out for awhile and activity picked up!
Donna,
If you will give me text's of your view and exegete them, I will be glad to look at your view. If you start with the view that the scriptures themselves are in error and this is what we now reframe it to mean...I can't go there.
Frank's 9:04 comments seem very good for you to consider.(Thanks Frank)
Dear "Grammer Nerd,"
I am much more a mess than even you realize! Thanks for the thoughts but no promises on how I will try to bring attention to certain points.
Good grammar and communication skills most certainly are to be desired.
Not suggesting you are this way but it seems today that there are individuals that would accept a very articulate sermon or a wonderfully written piece as being terrific "EVEN" (so sorry)if it had absolutely no content! But true, the best goal to shoot at is terrific communication skills WITH content. I am "challenged" on both fronts.
I tell my wife that if we understand what each of us means (not hears) that is often good enough. With a look, she can sometimes do that without speaking or writing a word!:~) Believe me, that Filipino blood can get your attention real quick! I hope she doesn't tell my secrets.
Jonathan,
Would you say that Rom.3:26 is about substitution?
By the way, I got the "look" from my wife last night and scurried away from the computer. My point was...do you believe the specific quotes offered by me of EGW are accurate as regards propitiation, substitution, and common agreed purpose of the trinity in atonement?
RC got my point and said she was a product of her times. How say you?
I think that is everyone.
pat
Pat
Where in God's name did you ever get the idea that I was even suggesting that the various atonement models are not biblical. Your response to me indicated that I did not get my point across. I do not share to convince you or to convert you but to make you aware that other atonement models exist and are valid and are biblically based. That these models exist is not my personal opinion, belief or viewpoint. They are recognized in most theological texts books. There are real problems with limiting one's view to just one model.
Most folks mix and match the models - even St. Paul was known to use two or three different models in the same sentence! His goal was security of salvation. His exegetical methods have cause grief to systematic theologians for centuries. Our own church has infused the Great Controversy model with much of the substitutionary model's wording.
But limiting one's theology to a particular atonement model limits God's gracious acts in history and his continued revelation for our current time. The penal substitutionary model can be a horrible model when it comes to revealing God's character, nature and his salvific purposes, however satisfactory you have found it to be personally.
Donna,
I was blessed to take a class on "The Atonement" from Dr.Roger Nicole at RTS while in seminary. Dr. Nicole was one of the original founders of the ETS.
I am aware of the various theories of atonement.
1.The ransom-to satan theory by proponents such as Origen
2. The recapitulation theory by Irenaeus
3The satisfaction theory of Anselm (not the reformers view)as it is not based the necessity on the justice of God.
4.The moral influence theory by Abelard...much like Graham Maxwell's view though not identical Maxwell asserted.
5.The example theory by the Socinians
6.The governmental theory by Grotius
7.The mystical theory was proposed by Schleirmacher.
8.The theory of vicarious repentance by Cambell
9.The penal substitution theory which is the Reformed tradition and I suggest the one most closely aligned to EGW and the GC Theme.
As you might guess, I feel #9 most clearly represents the Biblical position and I suggest the one most like the one put forward by EGW (which doesn't mean it is correct)
regards and blessings with your Chemo.
pat
PS. Please excuse my lack of Caps grammer nerd in proper names in 1-9.
Whatever view of the atonement we hold, it should harmonize with the words that Jesus Himself used to define his mission in coming:
"This is eternal life, to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent. I have shown your glory on earth; I have finished the work (the mission - singular) that you gave me to do...I have made your name (character) known to those you gave me..." (John 17:3-6)
And, one of my favorite verses on this subject:
"We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding [without reading on how would you finish this verse? Why did the Son come and what understanding did He come to give us?], SO THAT WE KNOW THE TRUE GOD. We live in union with the true God -- in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life." (1 John 5:20)
Brad
Grammar Nerd believes in grace (which is the subject of this column, isn't it?). Therefore, all of your grammatical errors will henceforth be forgotten. I absolve you.
Grammar Nerd,
Shalom...I will try to do better as it is the ideal but I am "challenged."
Thanks for the fun and grace!
pat
Is God "Love" or "Only Love". The list of "various theories of atonement" can be attractive to those that do not believe God has various traits to his personality beside "Love", like justice, wrath .....
There is a fad, IMO, in some forums to forget this. They wish to talk of "natural consequences" that gets God "off the hook" for his justice which involves punishment and death. Why is that? Modern day progressive thought I would suggest, or left wing Theology. How could we worship a God that gets angry?
RDS,
The Bible succinctly puts it this way: "God is love"
There is no verse in the Bible that says "God is justice" (although God is just). There is no verse in the Bible that says "God is wrath" (although there is such a thing as God's wrath described in the Bible).
The all encompasing description of God's character is love. Period. So, we need to be able to describe the subjects of God's wrath and justice in such a way that they are seen as a dimension His love. These qualities are not separate and distinct from His love in any way.
Brad
Brad, I recognize your name as the leader of the forum www.heavenlysanctuary.com . Do you not teach that natural consequences rather than God proactively punishing or showing his wrath is the way the sinner will "get what's coming to him". When God exercises His justice or wrath in the Bible to protect those He loves, and those who love Him, isn't that a loving act???
Since systematic theology is by nature the product of one's understanding of the world making sense of what the Biblical words mean, and the Biblical words correcting one's understanding of experience, all theological theories are a product of their times interacting with scripture. The biggest mistake is to think a certain atonement theory is scripture. It isn't, it is an understanding of scripture.
The penal substitution theory is based on that century's understandings of law, on the right of rulers to impose arbitrary law and satisfy it by pure choice. That model of penance, imposed arbitrary punishment, transferable death decrees is not a paradigm that is respectable today or worthy of intelligent worship and does not address great controversy issues. It is focused on the narrow scope of earthly sinners only and God finding loopholes in His law in which to satisfy Himself with His own death/blood then transfers in two directions: of the death penalty from man to Him, and merits from Him to God. And then, the sinner with someone's else' record is considered perfect under law and is given eternal life because legal fiction has been transacted. What??? This is NOT the only way scripture can be interpreted, it is merely the most familiar way it has been interpreted to our generation.
Our understandings of law has moved on- it is no longer a sole right of rulers to cre