Metaphors of Salvation
A Commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for November 22-28, 2008
Martin Luther (Lucas Cranach, 1529)
The most basic question posed by Christianity is: “Why did Jesus have to die?” I do not mean to make the simple gospel overly complex, but how could the life and death of one person—no matter how perfect—be credited to the account of another person? After all, the basic rules of justice and fair play demand that an offender pay the penalty for his/her own indiscretions. If Christ’s death is to be seen as a payment for human sin, to whom is the payment made? Does God the Father demand the payment? Or is it made to Satan? What kind of God demands a blood sacrifice when it seems that granting forgiveness is all that is required?
Is it Just a Matter of Culture?
The ways in which Christians have understood the meaning of the death of Jesus Christ have changed during the centuries. Some of the early church fathers (like Irenaeus and Origen) viewed Jesus’ death in terms of a ransom. When one considers the huge number of slaves in the Roman Empire, it is not surprising that this was seen as a particularly meaningful way of looking at the reason why Jesus had to die. In addition, Jesus himself had said that he had come to “give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28).
By the time of Anselm, an Archbishop of Canterbury in the eleventh century, social conditions had changed to the extent that the ransom idea was largely discarded in favor of what came to be known as the satisfaction theory of the atonement. For Anselm, the feudal system shed light on why Jesus had to die. He viewed God as a feudal lord and sin as an insult that had dishonored the divine majesty. Sins could not be merely forgiven; they had to be compensated for or “satisfied.” Only one equal with God could adequately compensate, yet the compensation had to be made by a human. Hence, Anselm’s book, Cur Deus Homo? (Why Did God Become Man?), affirms that Jesus was truly God and truly human. Still, one is left with the impression that for Anselm, Jesus’ death was of greater benefit to God than it was to humankind.
Along with Anselm, the sixteenth-century reformers, Luther and Calvin, saw sin as an intruder into the universe. Sin was seen as “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4) and death as the consequence (Rom. 6:23). God’s anger against sin meant that the penalty of sin had to be paid and “it seemed clear to them [the reformers] that the essence of Christ’s saving work consisted in his taking the sinner’s place.”1 This substitutionary view of Jesus’ death is very much based in such biblical passages as Romans 5:19—“For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
In the last century or so, many Christians have begun to question the whole idea of substitution. How could sin and its penalty—let alone right living and dying—be transferred from one person to another? And what kind of God would demand the death of his own Son? Surprisingly, these moderns have turned back to the ideas of Peter Abelard, an eleventh-century contemporary of Anselm. Abelard, who was deeply affected by this tragic love affair with the beautiful and talented Héloise, rejected any idea that Jesus’ death was needed to satisfy God’s wrath. Rather, God willingly took onto himself the burden of sin, and that willingness “awakens in people gratitude and love for God.”2
It seems obvious that the various theories in regard to the meaning of the death of Jesus Christ arose out of differing social and cultural conditions. But do the biblical writers favor one view over another?
Biblical Metaphors of Salvation
The New Testament writers, in fact, used a wide variety of word pictures to describe what Jesus’ death accomplished for them. Such expressions as salvation, justification, reconciliation, adoption, and forgiveness may come across to us as “heavy” theological words, but such was not the case in New Testament times. Salvation, for instance, had a “secular” meaning that denoted deliverance from some king of danger, or even the healing of a disease.
Justification is another biblical metaphor used by some of the New Testament writers to describe why Jesus died on the cross. It is a legal term meaning acquittal that comes from the world of criminals, law courts, and verdicts. The Apostle Paul is especially apt to point out that humanity stands at the judgment bar of the universe as condemned criminals (for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–11). Rather than God appearing to ignore sin, he is portrayed as dealing properly and justly with sin and sinners. We “are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.…[H]e [God] did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:24–26). Justification is the declaration that although we “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), we are “counted” by God as being upright and right with God because of our union with Jesus (Rom. 4:3). Today, the tern justification is rarely used in everyday language, except as part of “computerese” where justification carries with it the idea of making the margins of a document straight. Perhaps that tells us something of the changes in status and potential that the heavenly Keyboarder makes in our lives.
Of course, the Bible uses terms other than justification to explain how humankind is put right in Jesus Christ. Another model is that of reconcilation, which finds its origins in human relationships. Family and friends have become estranged; a close relationship has been fractured. We have become “God’s enemies” (Rom. 5:10). Yet God reaches out to restore the broken friendship. He has “reconciled us to himself through Christ” (2 Cor. 5:18).
Adoption is another picture that comes from the world of human relationships. We are seen as aliens, strangers, and orphans with no hope of finding a home (Eph. 2:12). While we are still in that helpless state, God adopts us right into his family; not as paid laborers, but as sons and daughters who call him “Father” and who have the same rights as natural-born children (Rom. 8:18; Gal. 4:4–7).
From the sphere of financial transactions, debts, and creditors comes the metaphor of salvation that is encompassed in the idea of forgiveness. In response to Peter’s question, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me?” Jesus tells the story of the two debtors. One debtor owes a fortune to the king, whereas the other owes a pittance to the first debtor. Where they are the same is that neither is able to pay their debts. We are the first debtor on whom the king has taken pity and “cancelled the debt” (Matt. 18:21–35). Of course, the tragedy of Jesus’ story is that all too often we do not extend to others (the second debtor) the kind of forgiveness offered to us in the fact that “Jesus died for our sins” (Rom. 15:3).
Putting the Metaphors Together
It seems clear that all of the theories regarding the atoning death of Jesus Christ arise out of the struggle to express the meaning of what Jesus did on the cross in terms that have currency in a particular cultural setting. Thus, the satisfaction theory, for instance, has little appeal to contemporary people.
It is also true that the New Testament writers used word pictures that they borrowed from the home, society, business, and the courtroom. These expressions are intended to convey meaning to the original hearers of the New Testament. But are such terms as justification, salvation, adoption, reconciliation, and forgiveness—not to mention others—as meaningful to us as they were to the early Christians?
In fact, the biblical writers obviously struggled to present the marvelous good news of God’s love revealed in the death of Jesus. Why else would they use such a wide variety of models? Finite language cannot completely capture the infinite. Just as sweethearts exchange not one photograph, but many, so we capture a glimpse of what Jesus did in a word picture sketched by Paul, and another in a parable retold by Matthew.
Our cultural situation is far different from that of the first century. Yet while things have changed totally, nothing has changed! Although I may not identify myself in the feudal model of Anselm, I am able to see myself in the stories of the prodigal son and the unforgiving debtor. I accept by faith that, whereas I was guilty, God now counts me as innocent; whereas I was an outcast, I am now a child of God; and whereas I was in debt, I am forgiven because of what Jesus has done on the cross. Can I totally explain it? No, but I know it to be true.3
For Discussion or Reflection
- Which biblical model of salvation speaks most powerfully to you? Why?
- Construct a modern-day parable that illustrates why Jesus had to die.
- Seventh-day Adventist Christians seem particularly “allergic” to models and metaphors. Why?
Notes and References
1. Leon Morris, “Theories of the Atonement,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1984), 102.
2. R. L. Linder, “Abelard, Peter,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1.
3. This article is slightly adapted from Ray Roennfeldt, “Why Did Jesus Have to Die?” in Robert K. McIver and Ray C. W. Roennfeldt, eds., Meaning for the New Millennium: The Christian Faith from a Seventh-day Adventist Perspective (Cooranbong, NSW: Avondale Academic Press, 2000), 65–68.
Ray Roennfeldt teaches in the Faculty of Theology at Avondale College, Cooranbong, NSW, Australia, and is president elect of the college.
Search
- rc on The Best and Worst Films of 2008
- Armin Krakolinig on Atonement at the Cross
- Elaine Nelson on On William Johnsson's Obama Editorial
- Armin Krakolinig on Atonement at the Cross
- Tom Zwemer on Seminaries Failing To Prepare Clergy To Address Sexuality Issues
- Nic Samojluk on Atonement at the Cross
- Elaine Nelson on Seminaries Failing To Prepare Clergy To Address Sexuality Issues
- Bob Helm on Atonement at the Cross
- pat travis on Milton Friedman: Master of Disaster?
- Bob Helm on Atonement at the Cross
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Most of the theories fall way apart when one points out that a process by which an immortal being does nothing for a day and a half can not be compared to a process whereby a mortal being does nothing for ever.
To claim Jesus "died" is to stretch the meaning of the word an awful long way.
And yet that is what is done
/Bevin
Dr Weiss brings out a most interesting point in a recent Spanish language column (See Café Hispanico) about the effects of the Fall. In it Weiss points out that our theology is to a large extent determined by our view of the damage inflicted on humanity by the Fall. That is an often overlooked fact.
But his most provocative and, to me, intereting point is his observation that apart from the story of Adam and Eve, the Old Testament does not refer to Adam`s sin or to the Fall of man. In the OT, he argues, people are held accountable for their own acts, and their individual shortcomings are not chalked up to Adam and Eve's transgression. The Old Testament, Dr Weiss states, knows nothing about a Fall that contamined the wellsprings of human motivation and behavior.
The need for the Fall as an overarching theological theme, arose with the apostle Paul--this is me, and not Dr Weiss speaking). The historical Jesus fought to reestablish the Davidic kingdom. That's how his disciples and brothers seem to have understood his mission. He fought apostasy, semi-pagan rulers and Roman occupants. Jesus did not need Adam to make sense of his mission. But Paul did, because he reinterpreted the Messiah to be a universal savior from sin, and not an ethnic redeemer.
I wish Dr Weiss`s article would be translated and posted in English. It`s an important piece.
The question "Why?" presupposes a common understanding of Life (as in a human life) and what death means. So, I do not think a reasonable discussion is possible, on the meaning of Christ's death, until we agree on a definition of Human Being. Traditional SdA thought was that Man is composed of two entities, the physical body and the spirit, and the metaphor for that being the creation of Man in the Genesis legend. But that model does not, easily, account for the most crucial aspect of humans, their individuality. Therefore, a three-part model seems to fit better with our beliefs. One, the physical apparatus. Two, a "life force" that is signified by the breath (spirit). Three, a principle of uniqueness that is endowed by God so as to create a new, living individual. This last is the bit that is retained in the divine database, to be ready to recreate the person with the new, heavenly body. It works for me, anyway. :)
To my judgment the best explanation for the death of Jesus if found in Ellen White’s book "Education" page 263:
*********
"Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God. Every departure from the right, every deed of cruelty, every failure of humanity to reach His ideal, brings grief to Him.
When there came upon Israel the calamities that were the sure result of separation from God--subjugation by their enemies, cruelty, and death--it is said that "his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel." "In all their affliction he was afflicted: . . . and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old" (Judges 10:16; Isaiah 63:9).”
*********
From this passage, I conclude the following: God did not demand the death of Jesus. Satan, the one who has been a “murderer from the beginning” did. He is the one who demanded his pound of flesh and blood.
God did not save sinners thank to the cross, but in spite of it. God's suffering did not begin nor did it end with the events surrounding Jesus crucifixion. God’s suffering was not an artificial imposition to satisfy the demands of justice, but rather the natural result of rejected love.
In this sense, God was on the cross the moment rebellion opened the floodgates of hell on God’s universe. Due to God’s infinite love, his suffering was beyond human comprehension, and there was no need for God to demand additional suffering by Jesus on the cross.
God permitted the death of his Son for our sakes, and not for his own. We were the ones who had a need to understand the pain sin had imposed on God to as a result of rebellion. Had God’s chosen people accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah and King, the death of God’s Son would have become superfluous and unnecessary.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Several possibilities come to mind. metaphor or no.
1. It was Satan's intent from the beginning to "kill" God.
The Cross revealed him for what he really was.
2. One Creator for one creation is a fair trade.
3. The Pauline equation: By one man, Adam, sin came upon all of his issue. By the perfection of the One Man who is God, salvation became available for Adam and all his issue.
Christ's perfect life is imputed to us as Adam's sin was embedded in us.
Christ is the new perfect Federal Man taking Adam's place.
We are His trophy.
4. The Pearl of Great Price is useful metaphor. God, in Christ, sold all to paid for His "lost creation" His Pearl--Let us make man in our image, after our likeness!" Now that He has it back, He is willing to share it with us. Tom
To coin a phrase, I have been pondering anew the story of Ruth. As the SDA Bible Commentary so aptly applies the redeeming of the field by Boaz and Ruth becoming his bride as a charming metaphor of Christ redeeming the world and coming to recieve His Church as His bride. I find more Grace in that metaphor than the harvest metaphor. "Bringing in the Sheaves" is a good metaphor of the Gospel Commission. As is "Let the lower lights be burning." But the heart of the Gospel is the proactive mission of Christ--redemption is all of His and none of us. Tom
The sin is a problem. What Jesus does is a solution.
Meaning of Jesus death depends on how we understand what is our problem.
If we think that our problem is guilt then solution is to become legally righteous.
I think the sin is a loss of trust. Adam lost his trust in God by accepting the image of God suggested by snake. So to restore the trust God came and revealed who He really is. As Jesus said the death is an ultimate display of love.
Using this approach most of things become very clear to me.
Good Morning and a Happy Thanksgiving to those in the US.
I would like to mention three things for comment.
One, I would like to second the request by Aage Rendalen’s that Dr. Weiss’ recent SS commentary be translated into English. When Dr. Weiss’ commentary was posted I tried to read it – but my Spanish is limited – and I would really appreciate a translation – I got enough of the gist to want more! Who do we need to ask to make this happen? Johnny Ramirez maybe?
Two, I would like to thank Dr. Roennfeldt for this week’s commentary. Anyone who would attempt to give an answer to the question of why Jesus had to die in a couple of pages needs to be commended!
I wish I could sit in his Sabbath School class and ask some questions. Like, why must we try to put the metaphors together? Wouldn’t this be defeating the notion of a metaphor? And aren’t atonement metaphors, atonement models and atonement theories different animals?
Three, has anyone one else noticed that this week’s lesson is on Metaphors of “Salvation” not on metaphors of atonement. Big difference. At least in my book.
Aage,
When Jesus confronts the legal question surrounding divorce posed to him, he reaches past Moses back to Adam to appeal to the first order of things as of higher value...IOW this is what God originally intended for life. The gospel writers record Jesus own appeal to Adam. Admittedly, this is not so central to the issues you are raising. But, it does point to the connection that Jesus saw between Adam and the present order in terms of our way of life.
However, what is more central, is that Luke's geneology of the Messiah traces its way back to Adam, the Son of God. This is recorded on the heels of Jesus' baptism where the heavenly voice proclaims, "...this is MY SON upon whom my favor rests." It also is bound up with Satan's temptation of Jesus, where he immediately challenges and questions Jesus' sonship.
The juxtaposition is hardly coincidental.
Luke is putting forth Jesus as the second Adam, the one who wins the victory for the entire race. The one who succeeded where the first Adam failed. Luke writes this as a Gentile, and yes, as one who was in Paul's orbit.
I bring this up however, to show that this thinking was not limited to Paul. It is also present in at least one of the gospels.
But, the other gospel writers also grasped the universal signifigance of Jesus' life death and resurrection, as well. They may not have used the term second Adam, but something such as the Great Commission, recorded by Matthew (an original Jewish disciple), reveals the scope of his perception of the disciples' mission, and of Jesus' victory. It was meant for the world...and it was of cosmic proportion. Acts reveals how this continues to dawn on the entire early church, not just Paul.
In fact, Peter (another original) is the first to actually go beyond the confines of an ethnic redeemer. The rest of the church, albeit with struggling fits and starts, follows suit.
Thanks...
Frank
Donna,
You raised several intriguing questions on 27 November 2008 at 1:52, one of which is “why must we try to put the metaphors together?” Your question is a valid one, and since, by coincidence, I was asked to teach this weeks Sabbath School lesson for a Loma Linda Spanish group led by Humberto Rasi, I had to dig deeper than ever before into the metaphorical meaning of the most tragic death ever recorded in human history: The death of the Son of God, the Jewish Messiah, the promised King of Israel.
The title of this week’s SS lesson is “Metaphors of Salvation;” nevertheless, the comments corresponding to the Wednesday assignment clearly and categorically reject the idea that this metaphorical explanation might include the cross, as seen in the first comment we encounter there: “the death of Christ is not symbolic or metaphorical.” This seems to contradict the way Ellen described the death of Jesus in her book “Education” p. 263 which I quoted above in my previous posting. Notice the following assertion she made: “The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God.”
Such a suggestion apparently indicates that the cross is a symbol of something much greater than what happened on that fateful Friday afternoon. It points heavenward to the suffering God was subjected to as a result of Lucifer’s and Adam’s rebellion against the benevolent rule of the Creator who granted both of them life. I conclude that, if the cross is in fact a revelation of God’s suffering throughout the long ages of human history, then I do not see how we can negate the fact that the cross was not only metaphorical, but rather the most important metaphor found in Holy Writ.
The author of those SS Study Guide comments rightly argues that “the Old Testament sacrifices were mere reflections” of what happened on Calvary, but forgets that the sufferings experienced by the Son of God were simply a revelation of what started with the rebellion of Lucifer and will end when sin will finally be eradicated from God’s universe.
Then the same SS commentator uses this shaky foundation in order to build on it the substitutionary death of Jesus, which allegedly succeeded in placating the wrath of God against sinners: “Christ’s sacrifice is propitiatory in the sense that it liberated us from the wrath of God.” He seems so obsessed with this pagan notion that he reinforces it by repeating this a second time: “Through the sacrifice of Christ we are liberated from that wrath, and God’s love reaches us in salvation. ... Christ’s sacrifice made it possible for God’s love to reach us. Christ experienced God’s wrath against sin so that we don’t have to experience it ourselves."
I have a hard time accepting this type of reasoning. To me the idea that God had to be placated by the sacrifice of the most innocent Being in the universe is a pagan notion, and it defies all sense of fairness and logic. I can’t imagine God saying to sinners: “The only way my anger towards you can be placated is if you agree to kill my Only Son. If you torture him and crucify him, then my anger towards sin will be abated. This is the only way I can forgive your offence towards me. My anger will not stop boiling against you until you add to your offense the most despicable act anybody can imagine: the merciless killing of my dear Son.”
Instead of this gross caricature of God’s love, we have the easy to understand description of the cross by Ellen White I alluded to above where she affirms that “the cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God.” Seen this way, the death of Jesus becomes God’s way of opening our eyes to the pain we inflict on God every time we sin. The cross ceases to be a payment, and becomes a window through which we see “the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world.
This unique way of viewing the cross frees God from any complicity in the most heinous crime of history, and places the guilt of Jesus’ death on the shoulders of the one who has been “a murderer from the beginning.” The study of this week’s lesson did deepen my conviction that all those texts we have been using to bolster our twisted view of the cross are simply metaphors for something much more magnificent and much easier to comprehend. Those texts are in the Bible, no doubt. But we should avoid a literal reading of those explanations for the death of Jesus Christ.
We need to remember that at one point Job made some comments which do not square with reality: “Shall we receive good from the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” [Job 2:10] Job's assumption was that God was the source both of good and evil. The same erroneous idea is seen in Joseph's response to his brothers who years before had sold him as a slave. He said to them: “Be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that you sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.”
My question is: Did God inspire Joseph brothers to sell him as a slave in order to eventually preserve their lives from a future famine? Was the Lord dependent on this cruel act for his providential intention towards them? Was this the only alternative he had for preserving Jacob’s family from the drought which took place in Palestine? Of course not! This means that after the fact explanations are sometimes unreliable. God’s original plan for his chosen people was quite different from what took place. This is why Jesus following his triumphal entry to Jerusalem exclaimed with the deepest sorrow: “If thou hast known what belongs to your peace!” thus indicating that the future of the Holy City might have been different.
What do you think? Am I all wet?
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Our selfish natures seem to shine through on all the blogs I have read here.
Perhaps the real reason God chose the type of God/human reconciliation He did was to prove to the other 99.9% of His universal creation His ultimate fairness to the 1/3 that chose to follow a different path.
Nicholas
Good point, Not sure I follow the math. Tom
Nic,
You are not all wet. Your Soteriology is in the right direction.
Donna,
I'm translating it as we're speaking.
aage
The nice thing about 'the cross as revelation' idea is it does not require Jesus 'death' on the cross to have any direct equivalent to our 'death'.
This avoids the issue of '1.5 days for one being is not equivalent to eternity for billions of beings'
An issue which is extremely difficult to cope with - which is why, as above, it is completely ignored by 99.9999% of christians
/Bevin
Alexander
Here is a translation of Dr. Weiss's article on the Fall and its effects. I would suggest you remove it from this thread and post it separately, as it deserves attention.
THE FALL AND ITS EFFECTS
By Dr. Harold Weiss
It is not necessary to be a Christian to recognize that every human being has something inside which does not function well. Centuries before the Christian faith arose, the Greek philosophers considered the role of the conscience. The way they understood it, the conscience always condemns. It inflicts a sense of culpability for bad thoughts and bad acts. Etymologically the Greek word, syneidesis, is made up of the same elements found in the Spanish and English words, whose origin is Latin. “Con” + “science” [“sciencia” in Spanish] states that someone else “knows” “with” me what I wouldn’t like anybody to know. The attempt to understand what led me to do the things that my conscience accuses me of, leads to explanations which claim to introduce circumstances that mitigate the evil deed.
All theology, I think, begins with the attempt to understand the breach in the human personality, which causes all of us to do what is bad, to feel guilty and to try to rationalize our bad behavior. Every human being that observes itself and tries to understand the human condition, recognizes the existence of evil. Cultures which have no knowledge of Adam or Eve as their progenitors, know that human beings carry within themselves a sense of guilt.
In the Bylonian legend, Enuma Elish, Marduk, after his triumph over Tiamat and his armies, decides that the gods need those who serve them, and he creates human beings out of the fountain of Kingu’s blood, the one identified explicitly as the one responsible for the cosmic rebellion. In this way the legend explains the origin of a condemnatory conscience in all human beings. In Genesis 3, Adam and Eve discover, after eating the forbidden fruit that they are naked and they hide, thus showing their sense of guilt. What is striking is that in the rest of the Old Testament there is no reference to Adam’s sin. On the contrary, the paradigmatic sin is the rebellion of the people of Israel in the desert, its grumblings and its idolatry.
Even more important than the recognition that there is something in us which inflames our conscience, has been the analysis of the extent of the damage caused by the evil that lodges in us. The situation can be compared to that of an insurance adjuster who makes an estimate of damage caused by an accident. In what kind of condition is the car after the accident? And the damage inflicted, does it affect the looks of the car or the functionality? What actually is damaged? It has a dented bumper; its bumper, lights, fender and engine cowling are damaged; its radiator is damaged and the fan is embedded in the engine; the damages are so extensive that the car has to be condemned and replaced by a new one. It is vital to establish the extent of the damage incurred before it is possible to decide what to do about it. Once the actual damage has been repaired, the owner of the car thinks he is driving a new car. Then a maneuver which makes the car vibrate violently, leads him or her to think that the entire steering system should be replaced. After replacing all four tires, the driver is greatly relieved to feel that the car again drives like a new car.
To return to the subject, to Christians the accident took place in the garden of Eden. That was the scene of the Fall, which introduced evil into the human condition. What is the state of a humanity being after the Fall? It’s lost its appreciation for beauty; it has been deprived of good thoughts and feelings; its will is somewhat unfocused; its will is predisposed to evil and it requires a lot of spiritual clarity as counterweight to do good; its will and mind are greatly affected, and it has to be called depraved, incapable of doing good. In other words, have we been deprived of the good use of certain faculties? Are our faculties depraved? Or, are we completely depraved beings?
The answer we give to these questions determines our theology. The Bible does not pose these questions, and consequently, does not answer them. In the Old Testament it is taken for granted that the individual person is fully able to make correct decisions by themselves and, as a consequence, that they are responsible. From this perspective it will appear that in the Fall, humanity did not suffer major damage. In other words, we have to concede that the Old Testament does not know anything about the Fall. When we read the Bible, against the background of centuries of theological traditions, we are, maybe unwittingly, conscious of the Fall and we assess the damage caused by it. This assessment affects our reading of the Bible and the theology we create with it. We certainly have reason to diagnose that there is something unbalanced in all human beings, but we lack the facts that would allow us to assess in detail our condition as fallen beings.
Last month we studied the Lamentations of Jeremiah. He was more awed by his people’s ignorance of God’s justice and righteousness than he was of migratory birds. This awe turned into frustration and lamentation--face to face with the impossibility of learning the secrets of flight and the ignorance of God’s people. Since our understanding of the mystery of evil is no better than that of Jeremiah, our confidence in the correctness of our various theologies should be sprinkled with a healthy dose of humility.
.
Thanks, Aage,
Well done and appreciated.
It does need posting elsewhere.
donna
I always find fascinating how often we overlook the magnitude of Jesus' last words on the cross that are so revealing. Sin is separation or absence from God- ultimately- state of non-existence. By the act of total separation from the Father, that no one has experienced before and since, Jesus kindly showed its ultimate effect to that 'third of the angels', deluded Satan, fallen humanity and the whole universe (or universes). Substitution? Ransom? Don't think so (though I appreciate historical insight and culture's role touched by Ray). When are we Christians (still well footed in medieval mindset) going to speak the language that the guy in the local newsagents will understand and respond with:"Ahaa!"?
PS. O! and yes! When talking about sacrifice and unfathomable love- For the sake and love of the created (and illustrating the consequences of the choice presented by the serpent) The trinity was ready to tear itself apart. That's quite a big thing in my book!
Aage, thanks for the translation of a fine article. Weiss' first name, however, is Herold, with an "e".
I have found the original commentary and the following exchanges to be among the best I have read. The discourse has been, thoughtful, sincere, focussed on answering that "simple" question of why Jesus had to die. It makes me feel "proud" to be part of a community that wrestles with such a foundational issue.
dalmatian,
Regarding the comments you posted on 29 November 2008 at 7:25 I ask: Trinity? What Trinity. The Bible knows nothing about the Trinity, and neither did our original SDA pioneers. Ellen White stated that Lucifer occupied the third position of authority in heaven before his fall, next to the Son of God, and Lucifer was a created being like the angels.
Saint Peter says that prophets were inspired by the Holy Ghost, nevertheless, when you examine the two most renowned prophetical books, Daniel and Revelation, you discover the absence of the Holy Spirit in the revelatory chain. Read Rev. 1:1, and Daniel 10:13 & 21. Who is the instrument of revelation there? It is Gabriel.
In the case of Daniel, the prophet had fasted for three weeks, desperate to receive further light from heaven, and when the angel comes, he apologizes to him because he had been busy all that time in the Persian Court. If the Holy Spirit is the revelatory agent, he must have been on vacation at the time, because Gabriel argued that there was only one halping him: Michael.
I believe that the Trinity doctrine can be traced to the pagan gods who always come in a trinitarian fashion. Catholics adopted this doctrine from paganism like Sunday worship.
If the Holy Spirit is a member of the Trinity, co-eternal and co-equal in authority to God the Father, then he is worthy of worship like God and his Son. Can you cite at least one example where the holy Spirit was the object of worship in the Bible, or at least one injunction telling us to worship the Holy Spirit?
The term rendered as Spirit in Genesis is translated as "God's presence" or "God's wind" in other versions. This is why Jesus likened the work of the Spirit to the action of the wind. I do believe that the Holy Spirit is God's presence and influence manifested through his invisible agents. If you read the Bible with this idea, you will discover that whenever God's presence or influence is felt, it is described as the work of Good's Spirit, but when God's presence is visually manifested, the Bible uses the "Angel of the Lord" expression.
Trinitarians have a problem with this unique doctrine: The Bible tells us that the Virgin Mary was pregnant as the restult of the intervention of the Holy Spirit. I ask: Was Jesus the Son of God the Father, or the Son of the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit is God's presence, then we have no problem, but if it is the third person of the Trinity, then we must admit that Jesus was the Son of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is described by Ellen White as occupying the second position of authority in heaven, how can he be the Son of the third member of the heavenly Trio?
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
And what kind of God would demand the death of his own Son?
_________________________________________________________
This commonly asked question betrays what might be called crypto-arianism, because it implies that only the Father is God and that He alone demands satisfaction. It is rank heresy to suggest that God the Father punished an innocent third party (His Son) for human sin. No way! As the rightful Judge of this world, God allowed Himself to be punished for human sin. As Karl Barth liked to put it, Jesus Christ was both the electing God and the elected Man. As God and as our Judge, He chose this path for Himself as the elected Human Being Who represents all of us. So away with this vile Arian notion that God the Father punished His Son!
Good point Bob
I think Edward Heppenstall makes the same point in the Man Who is God. Tom
The Trinitarian position confuses because it results in God either killing himself or God killing his Son, who is also God; and God cannot die; leaving Arianism lots of "wiggle room," and none for the Trinitarians, or so it seems.
But when studying the history of the development of the Trinity, it was not until a generation or two after Christ that this was even being argued and discussed, eventually resulting in the Nicene Creed in 325, but never fully convincing all the Christian body. Abstract concepts cannot be explained, but only experienced in a meditative sense, which is how the Eastern Branch of the church understood it.
Elaine
In his book, The Man Who is God, Edward Heppenstall is quite clear that God, can not die. He is from everlasting to everlasting. Thus, the Covenant of Redemption was that Jesus, the Second Person of the Godhead (Trinity) became the second Adam the new federal man, Christ lived the perfect life as the federal man. On the Cross the federal man died was laid in a tomb, and at the call of His Father, brought by an angel took up His human life again, and appears to over 500 prior to His ascention. I Cor. 15.
Jesus speaks of His Father and Of the Comforter. Matt. 28:19 reads in part: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." KJV. The Gospel of Matt. preceded all of the creeds. So the idea of a triune God is canonical not simply creedal. Tom
Tom, of course Matthew predates the Nicene Creed, without doubt.
However, if it had been so explicit and clear, why the disputations and arguments into the fourth century? The implications of Jesus' life, while he was here was still doubted by the apostles, and the many perspectives did not arise immediately, as not even Paul or Mark ever mentioned a virgin birth--something that was a later development.
The doctrines of the church were not defined at the time of Jesus' death, but took many years, even centuries, before they became codified; all of which should make us less dogmatic about any specific doctrine, realizing how they have evolved and changed throughout the centuries. What was once believed sincerely, was not first believed, nor may it be a doctrine centuries from now. Refusing to change is memorializing the status quo, or another way of saying "death."
Elaine
The doctrines of the Church yes of course.
The Plan of Salvation predates the Church. The Lamb Slain from the foundations of the earth is cannonical and written
within the first century by an eye witness.
The creeds don't trouble me, what troubles me is the institutional churches that deny the creeds and go by their own view of Scripture or their self-proclaimed prophet.
Never-the-less we are far afield of metaphors of salvation.
Not even close to the parables: The Kingdom of Heaven is Like--.
Any way Cheers. Tom
Tom, we can certainly agree on this:
"what troubles me is the institutional churches that deny the creeds and go by their own view of Scripture or their self-proclaimed prophet."
If everyone agreed this blog would be unnecessary and we would not have benefited from all the contributors. It's in the dialogue that we experience friendships through exchanging ideas.
The Trinitarian position confuses because it results in God either killing himself or God killing his Son, who is also God; and God cannot die; leaving Arianism lots of "wiggle room," and none for the Trinitarians, or so it seems.
_________________________________________________________
No one who truly grasps the Trinitarian position would say that God killed His Son. And God did not kill Himself either.
There is a huge difference between committing suicide and allowing one's life to be taken to save others.
Tom - "The Man Who Is God" by Edward Heppenstall is a great book. And even though Dr. Heppenstall is no longer with us, that book deserves a wide reading!
In his book, The Man Who is God, Edward Heppenstall is quite clear that God, can not die. He is from everlasting to everlasting.
Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 01 December 2008 at 5:33
You are no doubt aware of the "Omni's" that define Gods power knowledge and presence.
If God is and was all powerful couldnt he set asside his power of imortality? How can one be all powerful and have limits on anything other than what he sets on himself???
I will have to disagree with Heppenstall et al.
Ray
You write: "Finite language cannot completely capture the infinite. Just as sweethearts exchange not one photograph, but many, so we capture a glimpse of what Jesus did in a word picture sketched by Paul, and another in a parable retold by Matthew."
Precisely so! The only supplement I might suggest is that both Paul and Matthew use a number of different metaphors, and none is more important than the others. We need them all, and even then the subject is too big for our thoughts and words.
On a more personal level, at the Tea Tree Gulley Community Church in Adelaide, a denominationally "Sunday" congregation some of my wife's family attend, and we with them while there, I met a man with your surname--a retired wine-grower, I think--who thought that one of his relatives teaches at Avondale.
You must be the One!
Dave
"You are no doubt aware of the "Omni's" that define Gods power knowledge and presence."
Please tell us where in the Bible you find those "Omni's" that are so easily bantered about?
Has man not inserted his own ideas with such terms?
Richard Rice just showed me a new book titled "Striken by God? Nonviolent Indentification and the Victory of Christ" edited by Brad Jersak and Micahel Hardin and published by Eerdmans.
It looks like an excellent study of alternative understandings of "atonement" in Scripture and in Christian history.
The most well known authors include Marcus Borg, C. F. D. Moule, Miroslav Volf, Rowan Williams and N. T. Wright.
Looks great!
David,
I read the book last spring - and even attended a conference on non-violent atonement put on by the editor, Michael Hardin.
Perhaps I should have reviewed this book last year. Enjoy.
Donna
Donna
Please review it now! That you have not only read the book but also attended a conference convened by the author is most helpful. How many of us will be so fortunate? Not many! Let us learn from you. Many thanks!
Dave
It would be an interesting review. I don't know that I like the title non violent atonement. For the simple reason the story of Jesus sort of has a near climax based upon violence perpetrated on Jesus. (the climax being the resurrection).
As Peter told the people at his sermon in Acts "You killed the author of life" he adds that they did it out of ignorance but none the less there it is a very violent death intimately connected to atonement. The stricken by God part seems to be produced much later as a method of trying to explain atonement based upon some questionable presuppositions. The New Testament writers used some of those now famous quotes from Isaiah but they did not use the quote that Jesus was stricken by God.
"You are no doubt aware of the "Omni's" that define Gods power knowledge and presence."
Please tell us where in the Bible you find those "Omni's" that are so easily bantered about?
Has man not inserted his own ideas with such terms?
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 02 December 2008 at 4:37
OMNIPRESENCE
1. Definition
The term “omnipresence” is borrowed from Latin. It is a compound of omni, meaning “all,”and praesens, meaning “here.” Thus, God is always here, close to everything, next to
everyone.1 This means that God is unlimited with respect to space. As Wayne Grudem puts it,“God does not have size or spatial dimensions and is present at every point of space with his whole being, yet God acts differently in different places."
A. W. Tozer posits that fewer truths are so clearly taught in scripture.3 Indeed, the scriptures teach that even though the highest heavens cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27), He is still
nearby when we pray, unlike other Gods, which don’t even exist (Deuteronomy 4:7). Yet, God is not just nearby, He is in fact everywhere! He fills heaven and earth and no-one can
hide from Him. There are no secret places where He is excluded (Jeremiah 23:23-24). The Psalmist summarises this truth beautifully:
Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast (Psalm 139:7-10, NIV).
OMNISCIENCE
1. Definition
Again, the term “omniscience” is borrowed from Latin. It is also a compound of omni,meaning “all,” and scienta, meaning “knowledge.” Grudem explains it in this way: “God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and external act.”8 Or, as Tozer describes it, God knows “every possible item of knowledge concerning everything that exists or could have existed anywhere in the universe at any time in the past or that may exist in the centuries or ages yet unborn.”9 In other words, God is infinite in regard to knowledge.
He knows Himself and all other things perfectly (Job 37:16), whether they be actual or merely possible, throughout all of time (Isaiah 46:10; 1 John 3:20b). He knows things immediately,simultaneously, exhaustively and truly. Since God knows all things perfectly, He knows nothing better than any other thing. God knows instantly and effectively all matter and all matters, all mind and every mind, all spirit and all spirits, all being and every being,all creaturehood and all creatures, every plurality and all pluralities, all law and every law, all relations,all causes, all thoughts, all mysteries, all enigmas, all feeling, all desires, every unuttered secret, all thrones and dominions, all personalities, all things visible and invisible in heaven and in earth, motion,space, time, life, death, good and evil. In addition, if God has perfect knowledge, He has no need to learn. Moreover, such perfect knowledge implies that God has never learned and, in fact, cannot learn.13 Thus, God does not
need to reason toward His conclusions or ponder carefully over His answers. Indeed, Isaiah
writes:
Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge or showed him the path of understanding? (Isaiah 40:13-14, NIV)
Furthermore, the scriptures teach that God’s understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5), and that all persons of the Trinity know each other perfectly (Matthew 11:27; 1 Corinthians 2:10-11).
Nothing is hidden from God’s sight – everything is uncovered and laid bare before Him(Hebrews 4:13). The Lord watches all of Mankind and considers everything they do (Psalm
33:13-15). His eyes are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good (Proverbs15:3). Each person’s attitudes, behaviour and choices are in full view of God (Proverbs 5:21).
No thought, action, desire or motive can be hidden from Him – as the Psalmist explains:
O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive
my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my
ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. (Psalm 139:1-4, NIV)
OMNIPOTENCE
1. Definition
As with the other omni terms, “omnipotence” is a Latin compound of omni, meaning “all,”and potens, meaning “power.” Grudem defines it in this way: “God’s omnipotence means that
God is able to do all his holy will.”
Omnipotence implies the possession of all power, and unlimited power. An omniscient God can do anything He pleases (Job 42:2) and is never exhausted. His power is unlimited in
regard to both its extent and its magnitude. What is impossible for man is possible for God(Matthew 19:26). Nothing is too hard for Him (Jeremiah 32:17). Furthermore, anything can be done as easily as anything else, and all acts are done effortlessly.
Note also that the possession of omnipotence does not demand its exercise: “God can do what he wills to do, but he does not necessarily will to do anything.” In other words, God has
power over His power.
Does that about cover it?
Elaine,
Believe it or not, but I am ready to agree with the comments you posted on 01 December 2008 at 7:00 regarding the Trinity. There is credible evidence suggesting that the triple formula found in Matthew 28:19 is a spurious interpolation by Trinitarians. The fact is that Eusebius, who compiled a collection of corrupted biblical texts, rendered Matthew 28:19 without the Trinitarian formula. Here is the evidence. I am simply including a couple of brief excerpts from two sources:
*********
"Word Biblical Commentary admits Matt. 28:19 is probably not original. There is no evidence we have Jesus' ipsissima verba here" (598). The narrative of Acts notes the use of the name only of "Jesus Christ" in baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27) or simply "the Lord Jesus" (tou kuriou Iesou; Acts 8:16; 19:5). .
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm
*********
According to the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius among his many other writings compiled a collection of the corrupted texts of the Holy Scriptures, and "the most serious of all the falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19."
According to F.C. Conybeare, "Eusebius cites this text again and again in his works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew xxviii. 19, and always in the following form: "
"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."
*********
Notice the absence of the triune baptismal formula, which is nowhere else found in the New Testament. There is much more. Read the entire articles I referenced above and tell me what you think!
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
You know the whole trinity baptismal formula is likely based upon a misunderstanding. The use of in the "name of" or by my name indicates not the use of a name whether Jesus Christ or Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It means you are baptizing them in the authority of God as in they are baptized into the fellowship with God by God's instruction. "Teaching them" is the second part of the commonly used repetitive writing technique found through out the Bible where the same thing is said using slightly different words. Baptizing them is not necessarily just a reference to dunking in water but to an immersion in the teachings of Jesus.
Questions on "Omniscience"
1. If God is all-knowing: past, present and future, there are stories in the Bible that do not correlate with that title: Abraham's persuading, or arguing with God before the destruction of Sodom.
2. Did God know that Job would be restored again, and was he merely using him as a pawn?
3. Had he known that following his death, Jesus was assured of his resurrection, it would not have been treated as eternal death, or a no-return ending.
There are others. But one must either assume that God was "tempting" Abraham, and Job's outcome was not known by him, and Jesus' resurrection was not a known and planned event.
How can it be both ways?
Rc,
I would like to comment on the some of the ideas you posted on 02 December 2008 at 11:01. I believe that Saint Peter did understand why the atonement became violent, and he nailed this when he said, as you stated, "You killed the author of life," but we Christians prefer to believe that God required said violence, that it was the only way he could forgive sins, that forgiveness required payment of the debt incurred by sinners, that God required that the most innocent being in the universe die, and that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”
In so doing, we forget that Jesus used the blood as a metaphor for the reception of his words of life [John 6: 63]. The crowd listening to him were offended when he told them that they needed to drink his blood, and he clarified that his words are spirit and they are life. The same as our physical blood circulates through our physical body bringing nourishment and life, Jesus’ words runs through our spiritual veins restoring our spiritual life. This is what is needed for salvation. The same power which brought the universe into existence, when received, restores spiritual life to our souls.
Jesus is able to save us, not because we killed him, but rather in spite of what we did to him. This is why Ellen White in her book Education, page 263, uses the cross as a metaphor for God suffering resulting from the entrance of evil into God’s universe. She says that God’s suffering did not start when Jesus was crucified, but rather when Lucifer rebelled against the rule of heaven. The price of our salvation was “paid” then, and not in AD 31. This is why John described Jesus as the “Lamb of God” who was “slain from the foundation of the world.”
Michael,
On 03 December 2008 at 2:09 you quoted the Psalmist who asked: “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” This represents a good illustration of Hebrew poetry, which was based on parallelism instead of rhyme. This technique requires the repetition of the first line with a similar thought where the main idea is replaced with a synonym. In this case the term “Spirit” was replaced by the word “presence” in the second line. This gives us a clue about the real meaning of the term “Spirit.” It means God’s presence manifested through his word, his invisible angels, or by the direct intervention of Jesus identified sometimes as Michael.
There was no need to invent the doctrine of the Trinity. Actually it was borrowed from paganism, and the Catholic Church incorporated it into the Christian dogma, like it did with the doctrine of Sunday worship. This is why the term “Spirit” in Genesis 1: 1 is rendered in some Bible versions as “God’s presence,” or even “God’s wind.” And for the same reason, Jesus compared the action of the Holy Spirit to the wind. I discovered that in the Old Testament, whenever there is a visible manifestation of God’s presence, the expression “Angel of the Lord” is used; but when God’s presence is felt but invisible, then the “Spirit of God” is used. There is no need to make the work of God’s Spirit more mysterious than it already is.
Ellen White describes Lucifer as holding the third position of authority in heaven before his fall. If he held the third position then I ask: What position did the Holy Spirit occupy? The fourth?
Elaine,
On 04 December 2008 at 4:27 you hit the nail on its head. I would like to add another similar idea about God’s alleged omniscience: Since God is omniscient, then it follows that God knew that there was no chance of Jesus’ mission on earth failing. If God knew all along that Jesus would not fail, then there was no risk for God or the stability of God’s universe. Nevertheless, I discovered that Ellen White emphasizes the fact that the risk of Jesus’ mission failing was very real with eternal consequences for God and the universe.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Nic wrote:
--
On 04 December 2008 at 4:27 you hit the nail on its head. I would like to add another similar idea about God’s alleged omniscience: Since God is omniscient, then it follows that God knew that there was no chance of Jesus’ mission on earth failing. If God knew all along that Jesus would not fail, then there was no risk for God or the stability of God’s universe. Nevertheless, I discovered that Ellen White emphasizes the fact that the risk of Jesus’ mission failing was very real with eternal consequences for God and the universe.
--
I think one of our big problems is that we rely too much on Ellen White. The fact is she was wrong a lot and not just about science but also theology. In your reference above Ellen wants to make the sacrifice of coming from Heaven and being made like man not risky enough so she wants to make it seem that God could somehow no longer have the character of God because He became incarnate. Yet at other places she wants to show that Jesus came to show us the character of God.
If God is all knowing and knows the end from the beginning He knew what would happen and knew of its success. Clearly Jesus in the words recorded by His disciples indicated that He knew of His success. Of course if Ellen was right and God could have failed in the incarnation the consequences would be significant. God would be shown to be inconsistent, not as loving as He said etc. But God is God, so He knew what He was doing and there was no chance that sin of some type would mess Him up and change His character. In other words there was no chance of failure anymore then there is no chance that He will return. Both are predicated upon His Character and His love.
I am glad that Ellen has helped you move past penal substitution. But you have to learn to move past her numerous other errors as well. As long as you use Ellen as an addition to the Bible you are going to get confused and conflicting answers. The Bible on its own is hard enough it hardly needs to be made more confusing by the insertion of Ellen Whites fanciful ideas.
1. If God is all-knowing: past, present and future, there are stories in the Bible that do not correlate with that title: Abraham's persuading, or arguing with God before the destruction of Sodom.
2. Did God know that Job would be restored again, and was he merely using him as a pawn?
3. Had he known that following his death, Jesus was assured of his resurrection, it would not have been treated as eternal death, or a no-return ending.
There are others. But one must either assume that God was "tempting" Abraham, and Job's outcome was not known by him, and Jesus' resurrection was not a known and planned event.
How can it be both ways?
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 04 December 2008 at 4:27
Its not both ways.
Do you have any familarity with the predestination issue?
The same argurments against that teaching answer yours.
But some of your questions do not need that level of insight.
The arguing with God before the destruction of Sodom thing is not a conundrum. Did Sodom get destroyed? Yes. The "argueing" gave him a deeper insight into Gods mercy. It was for his benefit not Gods. God didnt change his mind, he just knew there werent 5 worthy people there.
THe same dynamic is in other examples you cite.
Michael
I agree, but there are instances which state that God repented. It would suggest that He changed His mind!
I handle those problem by thinking that Scripture was frequently written from an anthropomorphic viewpoint. Particularly when viewed against statements that God changes not.
We have a lot to learn, don't we? Tom
Rc,
Thanks for your comments dated on 05 December 2008 at 3:18. My answer to you is: I am not dependent on Ellen White writings for establishing my view of atonement. There is plenty of support in Holy Writ for such a view. The problem is that we tend to overlook much of what is recorded in the Bible.
Tell me: Why do you think that Jesus, following his triumphal entry to Jerusalem, was overcome with emotion and lamented: “If you had known what belongs to your peace.” This statement of Jesus tells me that the future of the Holy City could have been much different had God’s chosen nation accepted the promised Messiah as their rightful King.
The Old Testament abounds with promises and admonitions describing what could have been a glorious future for God’s people had they decided to be faithful to their God. Notice the following promise: “If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed no innocent blood in this place,... then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever” [Jer. 7: 6-7].
Do you think that, had Israel of old accepted Jesus as their rightful king, that God would have said: “Whoops! We have a problem! How can I keep my promise to bless them, since they have rejected my plan of salvation which was contingent of the killing of Jesus?
Jesus himself stated the following: “If I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” [John 12: 32 KJ] And even prophet Isaiah described the death of the Messiah on a contingent basis: “If he gives his life as an offering for sin ...” [Is. 53: 10 NAB].
I believe that there was a real possibility for Israel of old to remain faithful to God. Had this been the case, the death of Jesus would have been superfluous. God saved sinners not because human beings rejected and killed the son of God, but rather in spite of the way they treated him.
What we need to understand is that after the fact explanations cannot be fully reliable. Take the case of Joseph of old. When he revealed himself to his brothers in Egypt, he told them not to feel sorry for selling him as a slave: “Be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God sent me before you to preserve life.”
My question: Was God responsible for instigating the cruel treatment Joseph experienced when he was sold as a slave by his own brothers? Was this the only way the Lord had for saving Jacob’s family from the coming famine?
My view is that God saved them from famine this way in spite of their cruelty to their own brother. In his merciful providence he transformed a cruel act into a blessing. This is what happened at Calvary. God offered forgiveness and salvation to sinners in spite of the cross, and not thanks to it.
The one who instigated the crucifixion of Jesus and demanded his death was not God, but rather the one who has been a “murderer from the beginning.”
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Post new comment