This blog was put together by Leeanne. She wrote the first paragraph and compiled the rest from other sources. It is in response to my disbelief in substitutionary atonement in other posts.
This view makes me wonder what is driving this belief: i.e. many people do not believe in God for purely emotional reasons: a parent tragically dies or abandons them at an early age, and some time after, maybe subconsciously, they come to believe that God is not there. At all. Or He's not worth knowing. Or human nature takes over: we want what we want when we want it, and acknowledging God does not let us have our way all the time, so we turn away from Him, and don't know why. No doubt God can reach anyone in these circumstances. The point is that they occur. What is driving this belief, since we do have more than adequate revelation to support the substitutionary atonement?
From http://www.xenos.org/classes/principles/cpu1w4.htm#a1
God has apparently already instructed Adam and his children that they must approach him through sacrifice. Heb. 11:4
(Gen. 8:20,21) Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled the soothing aroma; (21) and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
Noah had obviously been instructed about animal sacrifice—including which animals were "clean" (i.e., of God's choosing). Gen. 7:2,3 says God had them take "sevens" of clean animals. This sacrifice is connected (in context) with the idea of avoiding God's judgment. It is an acceptable sacrifice, because God responds with a promise never to destroy the earth by flood again. Because of human depravity (8:21), we are dependent upon God's mercy and forbearance. The sacrifice is probably thus a picture of how God extends that mercy.
Summary: Death to cover shame and guilt? Provided by God?
(Gen. 4:3-5) So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. And Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. (4) And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. (5) So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell.
God orchestrated this event, in part, as a prophetic type of the way he would provide a sacrifice for our sins.
• Vs 14 is a prediction that God would one day provide his sacrifice on Mt. Moriah. Mt. Moriah is the site of Jerusalem, the Temple (2 Chron. 3:1), and Jesus' death.
• God, like Abraham, offered up "his son, his only son, whom he loved" (Jn. 3:16 probably purposefully echoes this wording).
• Jesus, like Isaac, carried the instrument of his own death to the site (Jn. 19:17).
• Isaac was old enough to carry wood for the sacrifice up the mountain. We can infer from this that he was probably in his teen years or older. It's unlikely that Abraham in his old age could have forced Isaac down on the altar. Isaac likely offered himself voluntarily in faith, just like Jesus did.
• Isaac's deliverance from death was a prophetic type of Jesus' resurrection (see Heb. 11:19).
... it is not intrinsically morally objectionable for God to require the life of human beings. He does this ultimately at judgment, and he required the life of his own Son.
Was Jesus referring to this incident in Jn. 8:56,57? "My day" may well refer to Jesus' crucifixion ("my hour;" "my time"). Jesus may be saying that Abraham saw in this event a picture of Jesus' most important act.
Ex. 12:1-14 - The good news is that God is going to judge Egypt so that Pharaoh lets God's people go. The bad news is that the Israelites will be judged also—unless they observe this ritual. If they do observe it, his judgment will "pass over" those houses. Note these key elements in the ritual meal:
• The sacrifice must be without physical defect (vs 5).
• It must be killed (vs 6).
• Its blood (proof of its death) is what causes God's judgment to "pass over" (vs 7,22,23).
• Displaying the blood, eating in haste (unleavened bread), and being dressed in readiness demonstrated their faith that God would deliver them through his appointed means. God's provision must be appropriated through faith.
• God commanded that they celebrate Passover yearly as a memorial (Ex. 12:14,26,27).
God commanded that they celebrate Passover in the land (vs 25). Deut. 16:5,6; 2 Chron. 6:6). This has prophetic significance, as we shall see (Deut. 16:5,6; 2 Chron. 6:6 - eventually God specified that Passover be celebrated in Jerusalem).
• Summary: Substitute must be without defect and be personally appropriated through faith to be effective; location of sacrifice (Jerusalem).
Lev. 4 - The tabernacle was a mobile tent that God ordered the nation of Israel to put up every time they pitched camp. It illustrated his desire to dwell among his people, the problem that prevented him from fully doing this—and the solution he would one day provide for this problem. The problem is human sinfulness, illustrated by the physical barriers (veils before the holy place and the holy of holies) and the necessity of priests. The solution is substitutionary atonement offered through God's chosen mediator-priest. Note the common elements:
• They must slay an animal of God's choosing that is without defect >> blameless substitute (vs 3,23,28,32).
• The offerer must lay his hands on the animal's head, symbolically identifying the sacrifice with his sins (vs 4,15,24,29,33).
• The priest must offer the animal for them >> mediator (vs 5,16,25,30,34). Because this was only a picture, the (sinful) priests had to offer a sacrifice for their own sins before they could act as a mediator for others.
• They had to go through these grisly ritual sacrifices virtually every day. This not only kept them focused on the problem of sin and God's remedy (substitutionary atonement); it also indicated that these sacrifices were ultimately insufficient (Heb. 10:1-4), in that the people had no direct access to God, and they had no assurance of complete forgiveness.
Isa. 52:13-53:12** - This passage clearly teaches that God never viewed the animal sacrifices as efficacious in themselves. They were always a prophetic picture of God's chosen Servant—a blameless Jewish Person whose voluntary death would pay for humanity's sins. Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is the culmination of four passages that progressively reveal more information about the suffering servant (42:1- 9, 49:1-13, 50:4-11). Note the sacrificial system/substitutionary atonement language:
53:5 "pierced through for our transgressions . . . crushed for our iniquities . . . by his scourging we are healed . . . "
53:6 " . . . the Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him . . . "
53:8 " . . . he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due . . . "
53:10 " . . . if he would render himself as a guilt offering . . . "
53:11 " . . . as he will bear their iniquities . . . "
53:12 " . . . he himself bore the sin of many . . . "
Jesus clearly understood that his substitutionary death was his main mission in the first coming... Jesus did not go to the cross merely to be the perfect expression or example of sacrificial love. The cross does communicate this (1 Jn. 4:10; Phil. 2:3-8), but its primary purpose was to actually pay for true moral guilt.
**** Paul insists that unless Jesus' death was atoning, it was needless (Gal. 2:21).****
• Summary: Jesus' substitutionary death was his main mission.
Matthew 26:26-30 - Jesus teaches his disciples that his death is the ultimate fulfillment of the Passover meal, and that the blessings of the New Covenant are possible only because of his substitutionary death.
Matt 26:26-30 And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." 30 And after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
****Note: Understanding the way the Passover was observed yields additional insight into Jesus' statements. The Synoptic authors seem to only mention the ways that Jesus diverged from the normal Passover liturgy. The head of the household normally passed the bread out in silence—but Jesus explained that it represented his body/physical death for them. They normally drank four cups—two before the meal and two afterwards. The third cup was called the "cup of redemption," and Jesus explained its significance in vs. 28. The fourth cup was called the "cup of consummation" looking forward to God's future kingdom. In vs 29, Jesus refuses to drink this cup until he comes back. The Jews customarily ended this meal by singing Ps. 116-118. Note especially Ps. 118:6-9,17,18,22,23, which speak prophetically of Jesus' death and resurrection. See William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1974), pp. 504-509.
(2 Cor. 5:21) (God) made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(1 Pet. 1:19,20) . . . but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you.
• This was God's plan of the ages.
(1 Pet. 3:18) For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God . . .
Heb. 9 - Point out how the Old Covenant sacrificial system was a temporary and incomplete picture of Jesus' sacrifice. Read Heb 9:11-14; 23-26.
(Rom. 3:21-28) (Rom. 3:23,24*) 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. (27) Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. (28) For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Vs 21 says that the Old Testament clearly taught and predicted salvation through substitutionary atonement.
Vs 23,24* explains the dilemma (our sinfulness and God's righteousness) and concisely explains Jesus' atoning death as the answer.
The Old Testament believers had their sins "passed over" (vs 25) until Jesus paid for them. They were not forgiven by the animal sacrifices (Heb. 10:4).
Vs 26 summarizes the dilemma we mentioned at the beginning. This is how God can accept sinful people while remaining righteous himself.
Note the repeated emphasis on faith and belief in this passage. This is not universalism (salvation for all regardless of belief), but salvation by grace alone, through Christ alone, through faith alone.
Concluding Observations
• Substitutionary atonement is the heart of biblical theology/soteriology. Apart from it, there is no salvation! Why is it that we no longer do animal sacrifices? Not because we now see they are primitive, barbaric, etc., but because they have been fulfilled by the most terrible sacrifice of all! Through substitutionary atonement and the cross, we see both how serious the sin problem is to God, and how much he loves us.
• There is important continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant: People have always been saved by grace through faith (Heb. 11:2), and always through Jesus' death. Old Testament believers were saved by faith through Jesus' future death; we are saved by faith in his past death. The main differences between us and Old Testament believers are that we know more clearly how God made this payment, we know it has been made, and we have the Holy Spirit.
• There is also important discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant: Now that Jesus has fulfilled the Old Covenant system, it is obsolete (Heb. 8:13)! One implication of this is that New Testament Christianity should not be ritualistic. In the Old Covenant, God prescribed hundreds of rituals in careful detail. In the New Covenant, he prescribes only two rituals and is so general about them that Christians have argued for twenty centuries about how to observe them! Old Covenant worship prescribed a ritualistic approach to God, both because people could not be indwelt by God's Spirit and in order to teach God's people the elements of redemption. But now that Christ has come and God's Spirit indwells us, God wants us to relate to him personally rather than ritualistically. See Paul's explanation of this in Gal. 4:3-11. Roman Catholic and Orthodoxy's insistence on a liturgical and ritualistic spirituality (and the increasing evangelical acceptance of this notion) runs directly counter to God's movement from ritual to personal relationship.
More:
Lev. 16** - The Day of Atonement is a clear example of substitutionary atonement for the nation of Israel.
Isa. 53** - This passage makes it clear that the Old Testament sacrificial system must be fulfilled by a Person—the Servant of the Lord.
Rom. 3:23,24* - All humans fall justly under God's condemnation because of their sins, but all humans are acceptable to God if they receive Jesus' atoning death for their sins.
I will respond briefly in a few ways:
ReplyDeletea. Your first paragraph confounds me. There is no psychological reason for my disbelief in substitutionary atonement. The main reason I don't believe in it is, despite your insistence to the contrary, I find no reason in Scripture to believe in it. Frankly, I find that Scripture doesn't teach it and that it teaches many other things about atonement that substitutionary atonement teachers neglect. I find it to be a completely inadequate viewpoint on atonement compared to the Scriptural teaching. It is as if someone took a jigsaw puzzle of the Statue of Liberty, put together the torch, and said, "What a wonderful puzzle of a torch!", neglecting all the other pieces that still lay, unsolved, on the table. Sure, the passages that the substitutionary folks talk about are important, but because all they are interested in doing is proving their point of view instead of trying to understand what Scripture actually says, there's a lot they're missing. And because of this, they draw wrong conclusions. That doesn't suffice for me. If it suffices for others, I'm okay with that, but don't blame me because I want to keep digging in Scripture.
b. I don't know if you want me to respond verse by verse with all that you have posted above. I will, if you want. It's no bother.
However, I don't know if this discussion will be fruitful, for it is clear to me that you haven't understood what I've already written about atonement (because I know you've read it). If you had understood, you would have known how I read many of the passages you quote above. And you would understand that my problem with substitutionary atonement is how these verses are used to make them say more than they actually say. So perhaps we should just agree to disagree? Again, I have no problem with a person holding to this interpretation of atonement, as long as they do not force everyone else to agree with them by their declaration of heresy.
c. There is one thing I wish to know from this. Since you have quoted that this one interpretation of atonement is so necessary to believe that "without it there is no salvation!", then do you hold that everyone who does not believe it is not saved? They are not really a Christian? Since the full substitutionary interpretation wasn't formed until the reformation, does that mean that all the Christians before the Sixteenth Century are all burning in flames now? Or, perhaps you believe that Anselm's form of this belief (which is not actually substitutionary atonement) was adequate, which would mean that only those believers who either died before Anselm (12th Century) or who didn't believe Anselm (most Christians until the reformation) will be damned because they didn't believe what you believe, but held to the Christus Victor interpretation instead? What about almost all Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians? Are they all going to hell because they don't believe in substitutionary atonement? Are you willing to condemn easily 90 percent of all Christians who have ever lived simply because they disagree with you and some evangelicals about the interpretation of the atonement?
And if you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, will you reject me, because I have been a Berean, studied the word faithfully and diligently and came to a different conclusion? If that is what you must do, if you must judge most of the church based on this, that's your choice. But I would like you to consider Jesus' point of view. What's more important-- the believe of HOW Jesus died for our sins or THAT Jesus died for our sins?
agreeing here: "Scripture... teaches many other things about atonement that substitutionary atonement teachers neglect." the atonement did many things, including heal us.
ReplyDeletewhen the whole/the flow of many verses taken together point to any specific concept, (and it's a very important concept) i don't see the point in fighting it. i have read your blogs, but really could understand your view much better by reading it again.
re: ""without it there is no salvation!", then do you hold that everyone who does not believe it is not saved?"
i don't know. i've heard this argument before, and do know that we are responsible for knowing what the Bible that we have now says.
re: "Are you willing to condemn easily 90 percent of all Christians who have ever lived simply because they disagree with you and some evangelicals"
i don't know at this point. for sure, i don't feel the need to condemn anyone anywhere. we all either agree with God, -or don't. but for sure the rationale that you're sharing here is not helpful in deciding truth: most of the world, (which bothers me very much, and is hard to reconcile with a good God) does not believe. according to the logic you're sharing, *i* am condemning these people. but clearly, their unbelief is not an issue with me: it needs to be worked out with God.
i do think that many people have not thought these concepts through, and that we answer to God for what we know, which is different from rejecting a truth that could be essential, and we've had the opportunity to believe. the two scenarios are very different.
re: "But I would like you to consider Jesus' point of view. What's more important-- the believe of HOW Jesus died for our sins or THAT Jesus died for our sins?"
is this view easier to conclude for people who hold to a graded canon? of course what Jesus says is right and Scripture. it's also true that Scripture interprets itself: that Paul's canonical words are also Scripture. the canon is safe to trust, because of Scripture's internal references.
The point I am making here has nothing to do with a graded canon. It has to do with interpretation of the Scripture as a whole. In fact, the problem is stronger with a "flat" Bible-- to over-interpret some passages to the neglect of others is a problem when we should be looking at Scripture as a whole.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say that "you" are holding this point of view, it is because even if you have proven that substitutionary atonement is the only interpretation possible in Scripture, no where in Scripture does it say that belief in that point of view is necessary for salvation, nor does your quotes above attempt to say that it does. So it is not God saying "you must believe this", but those who want to claim it is the only belief possible.
Perhaps I will work on a verse by verse response later this week-- but only if I don't have to spend time working overtime on an overnight shelter.