I wrote earlier about what a Christian believes. But to be a follower of Jesus is a completely different task. It is not a matter of intellectual assent or understanding the right facts. Rather, to be a follower of Jesus is a lifestyle, a commitment, an undertaking. And it is this that saves one, not whether one believes in this or that creation theory or atonement theory.
Some Christians will disagree with me— heck, MOST of them will dislike at least a portion of my presentation here. This is why I count myself as only nominally a Christian. I’m not a great Christian, because that’s not my goal. My goal is to be a follower of Jesus. And to be a follower of Jesus is, as I understand it, the following:
I am committed to Jesus as my Lord.
This isn’t just a belief, but a living reality by which I shape my life. Jesus is my King and my God, the one whom I obey, the one on whom I rely, the only one who I believe in without question. Jesus uses the Bible, and so do I, but if Jesus says something that a part of the Bible disagrees with, I hold to what Jesus says. Because it is Jesus, not Moses, not David who is my Lord. If society around me holds to something that Jesus disagrees with, then I stand with Jesus, because it is Jesus, not the government, not my friends, not my church who is my Lord.
I trust in the God who is merciful and powerful
The God and Father of Jesus is not an angry God, but a God who is sad that his creatures took the freedom and powers He gave them and squandered them. God wants all people and the rest of creation to live in harmony and justice. This will only be accomplished by God’s unlimited mercy and power, because humanity’s power, although sufficient, is too focused on short term, selfish ends. I also believe that God’s power acts to fulfill the needs of the poor and will help my deepest needs whenever I trust Him enough to cry out to Him.
I believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead due to my sins to create God’s perfect kingdom
I believe Jesus was a utopist. He was all about creating, living in and ruling God’s utopia. And while my sin—and the sins of all of God’s people—drove him to the cross, he did this to create a new people, a new government and a new law. In this new law, my repentance and confession offers me absolution. And I have the opportunity and responsibility to offer that absolution to others who, in Jesus’ kingdom, enact repentance and confession. This new kingdom is based on God’s mercy and power, and so is about changing the whole world to be as merciful, forgiving and assisting to the poor as God is.
Jesus’ power to change the world by the Spirit is in me
I have the power of prayer, which isn’t about words, but about the radical change of reality. The Spirit isn’t ethereal, but changes the world we live in for good. And I, when submitting to Jesus by faith, have the power to enact that power on those who will receive it.
Jesus’ insane morality is my own
Jesus’ life and death is mine to follow by example. As Jesus surrendered his privileged status, loved his enemies, hung out with sinners, gave to the poor, healed the sick, welcomed the outcast, rejected hypocrisy, was a thorn in the side to the religious establishment, accepted persecution, and did whatever crazy thing God told him to do, it is my responsibility that this outline will also describe my own life. This will not necessarily make me popular, and I’m okay with that.
I Expect A Great Life, but Not Yet
I am not living for this life, but for the next one. So my life may be filled with discomfort, rejection, poor health, and poverty for now, but I fully expect God to make this up to me. Because I have sacrificed my life for His, I expect a second chance, granted me by His own power. And in that second chance, Jesus tells me I will rule with Him on earth, in a body like His new body, assisting Him to bring peace, justice and mercy to both earth and heaven.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Guest Blogger: Why I Believe In Substitutionary Atonement
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.
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.
What Christians Agree About
What all Christians believe, without exception:
By this I mean, if you call yourself a "Christian" of any shape, this is the minimum belief. Some may call themselves "christian" but if they don't believe these minimum items then they are a Christian in name only, not a real one. I don't mean this to limit, it's just that a definition has to be set up some where, and this seems to me to be the minimum.
What we believe is important.
The Bible—both the Hebrew and the Greek Canonical Scriptures—is significant for the believer to understand truth and morality.
There is a world of the Spirit which is more powerful than our world.
There is one God and he is the creator of all things.
Jesus is Lord.
Jesus died for our sins.
Jesus was resurrected from the dead.
There is life after death.
Where there is room for disagreement.
A main characteristic of Christians is not just that what they believe is important, but that it is important enough to argue with others. And so we discuss, disagree and debate about many points of doctrine. And we can accuse many others, who don't share our point of view, as being heretics or heterodox, at least. Here are some of the main points Christians have never been able to come to agreement on:
What we believe. All Christians say belief is important, which separates Christians from almost all other religions. Other religions emphasize action, or morality, or ritual, or tradition, but for Christians religion is about belief. Whether that belief is intellectual or moral, about facts or life realities is up to debate. But we all agree that belief is the significant thing.
What the Canon is: Well, for the most part Christians believe in the Old and New Testaments as found in most bound Bibles. However, some groups want to add this or that book and other groups (especially in the past) wanted to expel this or that book, but generally the 66 books of the Bible are agreed upon.
Why the Bible is important: We all agree there is some truth and morality in the Bible, but we often can’t agree on what that truth or morality is. It is interesting that different Christians can use the Bible to uphold opposite ethical systems.
What the Spirit world is made up of: Yes, the spirit world is important, and it is different than the world we live in, but the nature of it is not agreed on. Some say the Spirit world is only God and his servants. Others say the spirit world is ethereal, completely unphysical. Others think that the Spirit world is super-physical.
How creation came about: We all agree that God did the creation, but how He did it is up to debate by Christians. Did God create all the universe in seven 24 hour periods of time, or over eons? Did he do it directly by His word, or indirectly through mediators? And we disagree as to how much control God has over the universe. Some think that every action in the physical world was planned by God ahead of time. Others think that God directs certain actions, but has surrendered at least part of his control to others, especially humans.
What it means that Jesus is Lord: “Jesus is Lord” is the earliest, simplest of Christian creeds, the basic belief that makes one a Christian. However, we can’t even agree as to what that means. Is Jesus the historic personage or the resurrected spirit-being at the right hand of the Father? Does “lord” mean king or God, is it personal or universal? Is Jesus of the same essence of God, the same nature as God or just of the same will? Lots of discussion there.
How does it work that Jesus died for our sins: We all agree with the statement, but we disagree with about everything about it. Why did Jesus die? What is a sin? How does it work that we have a “fresh start” because of Jesus’ death? Thousands of years of discussion there.
How Jesus rose from the dead: Was Jesus risen physically or spiritually? Was Jesus risen historically or outside of space/time? What is the significance of Jesus’ rising? That’s all debated.
Many of the same questions about Jesus’ resurrection surrounds life after death: Is it spiritual or physical? Is the future set in stone, or do we already live in the end times? Is there a judgment day and what is the judgment based on?
Needless to say, to be a Christian is pretty vague. Sure there’s a foundation, but that foundation has been picked apart for 2000 years in almost every possible way so that to be a Christian pretty much doesn’t mean anything specifically.
By this I mean, if you call yourself a "Christian" of any shape, this is the minimum belief. Some may call themselves "christian" but if they don't believe these minimum items then they are a Christian in name only, not a real one. I don't mean this to limit, it's just that a definition has to be set up some where, and this seems to me to be the minimum.
What we believe is important.
The Bible—both the Hebrew and the Greek Canonical Scriptures—is significant for the believer to understand truth and morality.
There is a world of the Spirit which is more powerful than our world.
There is one God and he is the creator of all things.
Jesus is Lord.
Jesus died for our sins.
Jesus was resurrected from the dead.
There is life after death.
Where there is room for disagreement.
A main characteristic of Christians is not just that what they believe is important, but that it is important enough to argue with others. And so we discuss, disagree and debate about many points of doctrine. And we can accuse many others, who don't share our point of view, as being heretics or heterodox, at least. Here are some of the main points Christians have never been able to come to agreement on:
What we believe. All Christians say belief is important, which separates Christians from almost all other religions. Other religions emphasize action, or morality, or ritual, or tradition, but for Christians religion is about belief. Whether that belief is intellectual or moral, about facts or life realities is up to debate. But we all agree that belief is the significant thing.
What the Canon is: Well, for the most part Christians believe in the Old and New Testaments as found in most bound Bibles. However, some groups want to add this or that book and other groups (especially in the past) wanted to expel this or that book, but generally the 66 books of the Bible are agreed upon.
Why the Bible is important: We all agree there is some truth and morality in the Bible, but we often can’t agree on what that truth or morality is. It is interesting that different Christians can use the Bible to uphold opposite ethical systems.
What the Spirit world is made up of: Yes, the spirit world is important, and it is different than the world we live in, but the nature of it is not agreed on. Some say the Spirit world is only God and his servants. Others say the spirit world is ethereal, completely unphysical. Others think that the Spirit world is super-physical.
How creation came about: We all agree that God did the creation, but how He did it is up to debate by Christians. Did God create all the universe in seven 24 hour periods of time, or over eons? Did he do it directly by His word, or indirectly through mediators? And we disagree as to how much control God has over the universe. Some think that every action in the physical world was planned by God ahead of time. Others think that God directs certain actions, but has surrendered at least part of his control to others, especially humans.
What it means that Jesus is Lord: “Jesus is Lord” is the earliest, simplest of Christian creeds, the basic belief that makes one a Christian. However, we can’t even agree as to what that means. Is Jesus the historic personage or the resurrected spirit-being at the right hand of the Father? Does “lord” mean king or God, is it personal or universal? Is Jesus of the same essence of God, the same nature as God or just of the same will? Lots of discussion there.
How does it work that Jesus died for our sins: We all agree with the statement, but we disagree with about everything about it. Why did Jesus die? What is a sin? How does it work that we have a “fresh start” because of Jesus’ death? Thousands of years of discussion there.
How Jesus rose from the dead: Was Jesus risen physically or spiritually? Was Jesus risen historically or outside of space/time? What is the significance of Jesus’ rising? That’s all debated.
Many of the same questions about Jesus’ resurrection surrounds life after death: Is it spiritual or physical? Is the future set in stone, or do we already live in the end times? Is there a judgment day and what is the judgment based on?
Needless to say, to be a Christian is pretty vague. Sure there’s a foundation, but that foundation has been picked apart for 2000 years in almost every possible way so that to be a Christian pretty much doesn’t mean anything specifically.
Friday, January 7, 2011
What We Do And Might Not Believe
Below is a discussion that I have explained with the Bible text. But, as usual, C.S. Lewis describes the truth far better than I:
“Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make.
“What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity. The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this is another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work.
“I will tell you what I think it is like. All sensible people know that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you good. But the modern theory of nourishment—all about the vitamins and proteins—is a different thing. People ate their dinners and felt better long before the theory of vitamins was ever heard of: and if the theory of vitamins is abandoned is some day abandoned they will go on eating their dinners just the same.
“Theories about Christ’s death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works. Christians would not all agree as to how important those theories are. My own church—the Church of England—does not lay down any one of them as the right one. The Church of Rome goes a bit further. But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanations that theologians have produced. I think they would probably admit that no explanation will be quite adequate to the reality.”
C. S. Lewis
“Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make.
“What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity. The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this is another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work.
“I will tell you what I think it is like. All sensible people know that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you good. But the modern theory of nourishment—all about the vitamins and proteins—is a different thing. People ate their dinners and felt better long before the theory of vitamins was ever heard of: and if the theory of vitamins is abandoned is some day abandoned they will go on eating their dinners just the same.
“Theories about Christ’s death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works. Christians would not all agree as to how important those theories are. My own church—the Church of England—does not lay down any one of them as the right one. The Church of Rome goes a bit further. But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanations that theologians have produced. I think they would probably admit that no explanation will be quite adequate to the reality.”
C. S. Lewis
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Lewis' Classic "Poached Egg" Argument, Part 2
However, Lewis is certainly right. You can’t look at Jesus clearly and call him a good moral teacher, but not because of some claims of divinity. Rather, it is because of the reasons for his morality. You can see that his morality has a pretty crazy streak—
“Bless those who persecute you”
“Do good to those who harm you”
“Love your enemies”
“Lend money and do not expect it back”
“Give to those who ask of you”
“He who is angry at his brother is guilty”
“He who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery”
“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off”
“If you hold a feast don’t invite your friends or family”
“Sell all your possessions and give to the poor”
“He who becomes my disciple must surrender all their possessions.”
“If anyone would come after me he must… take up his cross…”
This is frankly an insane morality. This is the reason that Christians have been spiritualizing and explaining it away for millennia. They can’t make sense of it, either. Almost every Protestant reformer simply dismissed it and every orthodox Christian faith marginalizes it because it makes no sense for a community that is trying to live in the world, to make some progress. It is the morality of anti-progress. It takes the basic moral ideas of reciprocation, responsibility and personal survival and dismisses them out of hand. Frankly, if this is the teaching of a “great moral teacher”, then morality really is a personal preference.
There is only one way, one piece of the puzzle of the foundation of Jesus’ morality, that makes any of this make sense: That this world is not where justice is contained. Jesus made it clear that the rewards and benefits of living out his morality is not in this world, but in the next. Rewards come in “the kingdom” or in “heaven”. All benefit comes, not from society, but from the Father, who rewards what is not seen. The heroes of Jesus’ morality, those who achieved the highest goals, are prophets and martyrs.
This means that Jesus’ morality is based on a completely spiritual basis, with no benefits to this world. This doesn’t mean that Jesus’ doesn’t give the occasional nod to benefits in the present life. Jesus says that the community of faith will be so strong as to give each apostle the wealth of a hundred people, but it is so noticeable, first of all because it is rare, but secondly because he says that these benefits come “with persecutions” (Mark 10:29-31).
Jesus’ morality is so heavenly-minded that it has no personal earthly good. It could be of great benefit to others, potentially. The poor, for they gain great benefit, and the persecutors because they don’t have to go looking for you. But the one who follows Jesus’ morality gains their only real benefit after their life is over. This is truly living by faith, and only faith. This is the confidence that Jesus’ morality is based.
Thus, Lewis is completely correct. Either Jesus has some amazing revelation from God and knows more than any human could know about the nature of reality, or Jesus is insane. No other teacher has been so out of touch with the reality we see and touch. So we cannot call Jesus a “great moral teacher” and still hold to our materialistic ideas. It’s either one or the other.
“Bless those who persecute you”
“Do good to those who harm you”
“Love your enemies”
“Lend money and do not expect it back”
“Give to those who ask of you”
“He who is angry at his brother is guilty”
“He who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery”
“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off”
“If you hold a feast don’t invite your friends or family”
“Sell all your possessions and give to the poor”
“He who becomes my disciple must surrender all their possessions.”
“If anyone would come after me he must… take up his cross…”
This is frankly an insane morality. This is the reason that Christians have been spiritualizing and explaining it away for millennia. They can’t make sense of it, either. Almost every Protestant reformer simply dismissed it and every orthodox Christian faith marginalizes it because it makes no sense for a community that is trying to live in the world, to make some progress. It is the morality of anti-progress. It takes the basic moral ideas of reciprocation, responsibility and personal survival and dismisses them out of hand. Frankly, if this is the teaching of a “great moral teacher”, then morality really is a personal preference.
There is only one way, one piece of the puzzle of the foundation of Jesus’ morality, that makes any of this make sense: That this world is not where justice is contained. Jesus made it clear that the rewards and benefits of living out his morality is not in this world, but in the next. Rewards come in “the kingdom” or in “heaven”. All benefit comes, not from society, but from the Father, who rewards what is not seen. The heroes of Jesus’ morality, those who achieved the highest goals, are prophets and martyrs.
This means that Jesus’ morality is based on a completely spiritual basis, with no benefits to this world. This doesn’t mean that Jesus’ doesn’t give the occasional nod to benefits in the present life. Jesus says that the community of faith will be so strong as to give each apostle the wealth of a hundred people, but it is so noticeable, first of all because it is rare, but secondly because he says that these benefits come “with persecutions” (Mark 10:29-31).
Jesus’ morality is so heavenly-minded that it has no personal earthly good. It could be of great benefit to others, potentially. The poor, for they gain great benefit, and the persecutors because they don’t have to go looking for you. But the one who follows Jesus’ morality gains their only real benefit after their life is over. This is truly living by faith, and only faith. This is the confidence that Jesus’ morality is based.
Thus, Lewis is completely correct. Either Jesus has some amazing revelation from God and knows more than any human could know about the nature of reality, or Jesus is insane. No other teacher has been so out of touch with the reality we see and touch. So we cannot call Jesus a “great moral teacher” and still hold to our materialistic ideas. It’s either one or the other.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Lewis' Classic "Poached Egg" Argument, Part 1
“I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” -C.S. Lewis
In looking at this paragraph, we must first of all realize what Lewis was not saying: He was not using this argument to convince anyone that Jesus is God. He is simply saying it is hard to have a good opinion about a man who claims to be God Almighty unless he really WAS God Almighty. Either we have to take him deadly serious, or we need to ignore all he said. Lewis isn’t saying which one we should choose, simply that we have to make the choice. So Campus Crusade’s use of this passage as a proof for Jesus’ divinity doesn’t really work.
The only weakness of Lewis’ argument is what if Jesus didn’t claim to be God. Certainly a couple of Jesus’ first century disciples claimed this for him. John (or John’s student) says right off the bat that Jesus is God (John 1:1). Paul says that Jesus created all things, is before all things and sustains all things (Col. 1:16-17).
But did Jesus himself claim to be God? He said, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30), but we can see later in John that Jesus’ idea of “oneness” also includes all of Jesus’ disciples (John 17:11), so it can’t be the sharing of the Father’s essence that is often described in Christian theology. Thomas proclaimed Jesus his God, and Jesus didn’t stop him, but that’s a little less than the “man who claims he is a poached egg.”
Jesus did claim to be the Son of God (John 11:4), but we can see that the Son of God really just meant the Messiah, or Christ, or king of Jerusalem (John 1:49; 11:27). Jesus did proclaim himself the King of Jerusalem, clearly, as he rode into Jerusalem on a fowl, which fulfilled the prophecy of Jerusalem’s king (Matthew 21:1-9). It is interesting that when Peter made his bold, but private, proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah, that while Jesus approved of this, he also told his disciples not to tell anyone (Matthew 16:16-20). During Jesus’ ministry, it wasn’t clearly stated that he was the Christ, which would explain the confusion of all who listened to him as to his identity, and in John it says he only pointed to the miracles to explain who he was (John 10:24-25). Only to the Sanhedrin, which was a court, but it was only semi-public, did he finally make a clear statement that he was the Christ (Matthew 26:63-64) and that is only clear if you know and have understood Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 7:13). Jesus’ statements about himself were an enigma wrapped in a controversy.
But even then, his statements were about him being king, certainly not clearly about being God. That was left to His disciples. I am not denying it’s truth, I am speaking about Lewis’ argument. His argument is that Jesus clearly called himself God, which means it is either true or he was insane. (It’s frankly not likely that Jesus was a liar, since it would be a very ineffective lie in first century Judaism, as well as pretty much any other monotheistic culture). But if Jesus was only hinting at his divinity, not stating it clearly, then that makes him neither here nor there. Jesus was smart enough—sane enough—not to come down clearly on his divinity, let alone his messiahship. If he is sane enough to dance around these subjects, surely he is sane enough to be a good moral teacher.
In looking at this paragraph, we must first of all realize what Lewis was not saying: He was not using this argument to convince anyone that Jesus is God. He is simply saying it is hard to have a good opinion about a man who claims to be God Almighty unless he really WAS God Almighty. Either we have to take him deadly serious, or we need to ignore all he said. Lewis isn’t saying which one we should choose, simply that we have to make the choice. So Campus Crusade’s use of this passage as a proof for Jesus’ divinity doesn’t really work.
The only weakness of Lewis’ argument is what if Jesus didn’t claim to be God. Certainly a couple of Jesus’ first century disciples claimed this for him. John (or John’s student) says right off the bat that Jesus is God (John 1:1). Paul says that Jesus created all things, is before all things and sustains all things (Col. 1:16-17).
But did Jesus himself claim to be God? He said, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30), but we can see later in John that Jesus’ idea of “oneness” also includes all of Jesus’ disciples (John 17:11), so it can’t be the sharing of the Father’s essence that is often described in Christian theology. Thomas proclaimed Jesus his God, and Jesus didn’t stop him, but that’s a little less than the “man who claims he is a poached egg.”
Jesus did claim to be the Son of God (John 11:4), but we can see that the Son of God really just meant the Messiah, or Christ, or king of Jerusalem (John 1:49; 11:27). Jesus did proclaim himself the King of Jerusalem, clearly, as he rode into Jerusalem on a fowl, which fulfilled the prophecy of Jerusalem’s king (Matthew 21:1-9). It is interesting that when Peter made his bold, but private, proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah, that while Jesus approved of this, he also told his disciples not to tell anyone (Matthew 16:16-20). During Jesus’ ministry, it wasn’t clearly stated that he was the Christ, which would explain the confusion of all who listened to him as to his identity, and in John it says he only pointed to the miracles to explain who he was (John 10:24-25). Only to the Sanhedrin, which was a court, but it was only semi-public, did he finally make a clear statement that he was the Christ (Matthew 26:63-64) and that is only clear if you know and have understood Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 7:13). Jesus’ statements about himself were an enigma wrapped in a controversy.
But even then, his statements were about him being king, certainly not clearly about being God. That was left to His disciples. I am not denying it’s truth, I am speaking about Lewis’ argument. His argument is that Jesus clearly called himself God, which means it is either true or he was insane. (It’s frankly not likely that Jesus was a liar, since it would be a very ineffective lie in first century Judaism, as well as pretty much any other monotheistic culture). But if Jesus was only hinting at his divinity, not stating it clearly, then that makes him neither here nor there. Jesus was smart enough—sane enough—not to come down clearly on his divinity, let alone his messiahship. If he is sane enough to dance around these subjects, surely he is sane enough to be a good moral teacher.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Goodness and Righteousness, Part 3
Is there any connection between righteousness and goodness? Only this: the greatest goodness comes in connection to righteousness. There is a goodness without righteousness, but it is not the greatest goodness. But righteousness without goodness is no righteousness at all. This doesn’t mean that a righteous person cannot be a sinner—in fact, it is a requirement that the righteous person recognize their sin. Rather, it means that a righteous person, if she truly has a relationship with God, will certainly have goodness. Because when one really has a relationship with God, it changes all other relationships for the better.
Righteousness doesn’t make one perfect, but it does lead one closer to the goal of being good.
Righteousness doesn’t make one perfect, but it does lead one closer to the goal of being good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)