After reading "The Shack" and listening to "He Loves Me", written by the publisher of "The Shack", I wanted to check out to see whether the view of atonement given in those books was bogus or not. You see, they don't buy into the typical view of atonement that you will find most places any more.
The thing that strikes me about the Penal Substitutionary Atonement view is that the word "Justice" keeps popping up. Here is the odd thing about that. In the New Testament, "Justice" and "Righteousness" are the same word, translated to these as it makes sense.
Then, when you start looking at what God considers "justice" in the Old and New Testaments, it is rarely about punishment but about making things right with the widows and the poor, etc....
It is a waste of time to go looking to the endless speculations of theologians for an understanding of why Jesus had to die and what he accomplished by that death.
It is imperative to understand atonement from a Jewish perspective before the de facto canonization of the Talmud. The Bible verses cited in the Wikipedia article allude to what God already taught in the Tanakh*: Messiah's sacrificial death simply completes what was promised to those who believe.
* The Septuagint that Jesus and the Apostles cited, the Christian Old Testament.
Re: It is in the books of the Law and the Prophets
October 6 2009, 7:54 PM
Bornnude: That is a very interesting observation, and that is correct, Justice is to make things right. Turning man (humanity) back to God, which is something man cannot do on his own. Jesus took justice to a whole new level.
As broken humanity, we still view justice as punishment. "I want justice" means, "Beat them until I feel better".
Ramblinman: That may be the case RM, but also consider the fact that though Jesus was an OT prophecy fulfilled, he took the view of God and how God (Triune) operates, he turned the whole thing upside down.
God's "justice" and our justice, man in general, including the Jewish, is different. What is wise to man is foolishness to God, yet God's foolishness is far wiser than man.
Something man has seem to not notice is that everything points to Christ, not to the Torah. When we want to define justice, it is ok to look at the original Hebrew translations, but more importantly, we need to look to Jesus for the true definition of Justice. Grace, Mercy, Justice, all are defined by who and what Jesus is, more than what the Hebrew definition is. They used their words, but with the focus on Jesus, which changes the definition to something man has yet to grasp.
That is what The Shack was all about, redefining mans idea of God and as a result, showing what Justice is to God.
If you have not yet read The Shack, I would highly advice you to do so. If nothing else, it will give you more food for thought, even if it is "foolishness" to the reader.
Believe me, it took me reading it twice, talking to the author, and talking to other theologians about this book before I truly began to understand it....some.
The day Jesus was born as a babe in Bethlehem was not the first day God showed mercy on someone and for that matter it was not the first time Jesus spoke to man. Neither is the Old Testament the word of man. It was and is the Word of God (Jesus in print). It is true that it points to the the advent of God's Son to complete the sacrificial system. The Jews had four thousand years of training for the day Jesus came, and the preincarnate revelation included a lot about grace. Dust off that Old Testament and you'll see the Grace of Jesus in Eden while Adam and Eve were still shivering in their fig leaves.
The Jews had four thousand years of training for the day Jesus came, and the preincarnate revelation included a lot about grace.
And by the time of Christ, most of them still missed the boat! I often wonder if that is the case for us as "Christians".
Dust off that Old Testament and you'll see the Grace of Jesus in Eden while Adam and Eve were still shivering in their fig leaves.
While I suspect they weren't shivering, I bet they were itching. I agree, however, God's grace goes back a lot farther back than we often give it credit for. That is one of the things that caused me to dismiss "Dispensationalism" as a viable doctrine. A dispensationalist would say that Grace didn't exist prior to Christ's death and resurrection but, as you noted, it goes way back to Adam and Eve.
I guess I hadn't thought of justice your way in that, "Justice is to make things right," rather than, "I want justice means, 'Beat them until I feel better.'" I've found many Christians to be increasingly intolerant. I belonged to Naturist Christians where when an abortion doctor was murdered several months ago the attitude by many was joy. One poster even stated that all abortion doctors should be rounded up and executed. I tried to find out how you can justify a killing with a killing, but could never get a straight answer. Your concept also lends strength to the idea that capital punishment is wrong. I also tried to find out on the NC site how executions can be justified when we find so many not guilty of a crime many years later through new forensics techniques. How can you be absolutely sure they are guilty before killing them? And isn't execution the ultimate form of beating someone till we feel better?
I haven't been back to Naturist Christians for many months because I found them to be increasingly bigoted and intolerant which, to me, seem to be concepts contrary to Christianity. Maybe that's why I stopped believing in organized religion.
To a point you are correct. Past that point, however, I think it is worthwhile, especially when someone is promoting a view that is rarely heard -- is that something they just made up?
For instance, a bit of research on Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the view that seems to "rule" in the pulpits of our churches, traces back to the 10th or 11th centuries. The Curative (Healing) viewpoint traces back to a similar time frame. The view that shows up earliest is Christus Victor (Christ Victorious) which encompasses several other viewpoints.
The point of what I am trying to suggest is there is no one complete view of what happened on the cross. Throughout the OT, you see the three views above elaborated.
I'll just cut and paste the verses cited when one follows your own hyperlink to show that the doctrine originates with God through the prophet Isaiah and echoed in the words of St. Paul.
* Isaiah 53:6 - "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."
* Isaiah 53:12 - "yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors."
* Romans 3:25
* 2 Corinthians 5:21 - "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
* Galatians 3:13 - "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us -- for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree."
* Hebrews 10:1-4
At the risk of getting too deep in the quotation stack here...
Most of these are pretty ambiguous when it comes to what happens on the cross -- meaning, not supportive of a particular belief.
The exceptions: are the last two:
* Galatians 3:13 - "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us -- for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree."
* Hebrews 10:1-4
Let me throw out a one for the Christus Victor view::
1 Cor 15:55-57 - Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"[ 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ramblinman wrote:
"Boyd
The day Jesus was born as a babe in Bethlehem was not the first day God showed mercy on someone and for that matter it was not the first time Jesus spoke to man."
I don't think I remember saying that. Was it something I said here that cause you to come to that conclusion?
You are attempting to force Paul to argue against himself.
Christ's victory was not an act in isolation from it's Jewish context. The law required blood and the blood of sheep and goats and cattle was a sacrament of obedience that tided the believers over until Messiah could shed his blood. The law mandated this and allowed the victory you speak of.
It is regrettable that you can speak of doctrinal passages from the Word of God not teaching any belief in particular. May I suggest that Paul was not writing to theologians with some abstract message, but to an intended audience that included pagan and Jewish folks of the Roman world with the limitations imposed by those circumstances. If these passages are not plain in their intent, it is only ambiguous to those frustrated by the fact that it negates their erroneous theology.
When I say they are are ambiguous, I mean that they do not support a particular viewpoint of what happened on the cross.
Greater thinkers than I am have been discussing (or arguing?) these points for years. You seem to believe that things are pretty "black & white" when it comes to these issues. Were that so, we wouldn't have denominations Usually, it is the little things that divide as well because people can not see more than one side.
The book I read discussing this was called "Four views of the atonement". In the book, they were quite good at telling everybody how good their view was and how theirs was the "primary" way God works.
Does the Old Testament talk about Sacrifice as a payment for sin? Absolutely! Does the New Testament talk about Christ acting as payment for our sin? Absolutely.... That is not, however, the only view that any one of the authors paint.
Paul talks about payment for sin but also talks about Christ's death as victory over sin. We also see that Christ is our healer (I believe this is more than just physical healing). These concepts are also talked about in the Old Testament....
The Messiah was to be the victor over oppression -- what is more oppressive than sin.
These are not exclusive pictures. These are not contradictory pictures as it is Christ and ONLY Christ who did suffer and die on the cross (and rose again). These are probably not the only views that can be considered "orthodox".
A couple of the views from the book, Christus Victor and another, encompass many of the other ways these things are looked at.
Why do differing views exist? I believe it is because each view speaks to different people. There are some who need a view of a "Judge dismissing the case" to understand what Christ did. There are others who need a Christ who healed their sin. Others need a victorious Christ... While you can favor a particular viewpoint (I do and, from what I see it is not the same view as the one you favor), to not allow other viewpoints or to criticize someone who holds a different viewpoint is to limit what God actually did because I suspect we still haven't gotten a full picture.
re: Finding the scriptures ambiguous and frustrating?
October 9 2009, 1:47 AM
By the way, I don't find the scriptures (even the ones you gave us) frustrating -- not sure where you got that idea.
I did a little research on views of the atonement on a site called Theopedia. Granted, they may have the same issues that Wikipedia does as far as accuracy so you must use Scripture as a final authority.
There is a list of 12 varying views of Christ's atonement here. Their list of views by origin don't exactly line up with what I understand but that is how things go sometime... Looks like I need to check them out better -- or maybe this site should be updated -- or both.
The healing view of atonement is not on this particular list.
Re: re: Finding the scriptures ambiguous and frustrating?
October 9 2009, 6:09 AM
As you read the Old Testament, you will find God revealing himself more and more. One generation will learn about God and call him "Provider", another will begin to see God as "Healer" and another "Protector" and so forth. As the Old Testament progresses, humanity is beginning to get a larger, though still incomplete, picture of God.
Jesus came to reveal one other aspect, The Father. In all of the history of the Israelites, even back to creation, it has never entered the mind of man to actually call God "Father". Or that God is three persons in one. A Trinity.
Our aspects of God come as a revelation in our personal lives. It says that Jesus learned obedience. So do we. We learn that God is Father, not just my Father, but "Our Father". Jesus probably shocked the disciples after they asked him to teach them how to pray, when he opened up with the most controversial (and in their minds, blasphemous) words in human history, "Our Father". Jesus is opening the doors to all of humanity to accept God as Father. And God is the Father of all humanity. That is what I meant by inclusion. (Not to be confused with the Universalist movement).
God's grace is far more reaching and universal than we Christians imagine simply because we are still stuck with an old testament view of God. We still look to human definitions of who and what God is, when what we read is a limited view according to their current understanding. What they saw was a Pre Crucifixion God. What we should be seeing is a Post Resurrection God.
There is the big difference. I am trying to help us understand the magnitude of God which is far greater than our limited view according to broken humanity of the OT. Not that we are perfect now, we are still broken, but we are broken and in Christs hands. We are the humpty dumpty's that no human can put back together again, except Jesus.
And sometimes scriptures are ambiguous and frustrating, if we read them outside of who and what we are in Christ. When looking at scriptures, always start with who and what Christ is, start with the Trinity. Not with Hebrew definitions of justice, though we do need to know them. Their definitions are still based on how they understand God in their current growth. Our understanding should start and end with Christ. Use those lenses to read the old testament and you will find a whole new definition.
re: finding the scriptures ambiguous and frustrating?
October 9 2009, 7:34 AM
Our understanding should start and end with Christ. Use those lenses to read the old testament and you will find a whole new definition.
That is so true... Also the thing we so often miss... Last year (or maybe the year before) I finally realized that we need to read and study Scripture in a Christ-centric manner....
What does Genesis point to? Not Israel but Christ. What does Revelation tell us about? Not the future but Christ. It's ALL about Jesus.
As I mentioned previously, there are portions of scriptures that allude to each of the varying views of what happened at The Cross.
Let's look at the healing view for a bit.
This view looks at sin sort of as a genetic disease, something we all get. It also views sin, not as offending God as much as it keeps us out of a relationship with him.
If we read Isaiah 53, especially verse 5, we get a view of what Christ would be doing that is healing...
Verse 5 reads:
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.(KJV)
But he was pierced for our rebellion,
crushed for our sins.
He was beaten so we could be whole.
He was whipped so we could be healed.(NLT)
While some use this verse to justify a healing ministry or a prosperity gospel, it doesn't apply to that in context. The short version of how this works is that Christ took the "cure" for our sins that we could now stand without dying (remember the discussion in Exodus with Moses wanting to see God). That "cure" is then offered to those of use who would trust Christ for salvation.
Again, this is only one of the many views that are out there.
In order to be fair and more complete, I wanted to address the Penal Atonement thought.
Let me first say that I will try to be fair while describing the view, even though it is not my favorite viewpoint. Also, the reason that I don't add "substitutionary" in the name is that nearly every viewpoint in the pages referred to has some sort of thought of Christ substituting himself for our sins.
The Penal Atonement viewpoint is largely a "legal" view of atonement.
The thought is that
We have all sinned and deserve death (Rom 3:23)
Christ was sent as the person who, as sinless, is the only one who could pay the penalty for all our sin
God abandoned Christ on the cross while he was taking on our sins
Christ's resurrection provided a way for us to avoid the "death" our sins would normally require
We see a lot of "examples" of this in the sacrifice of animals mandated in The Law, especially in the picture of the "scapegoat".
