- Jesus, the Christ, died on the cross in the place of sinners – as a substitute for them.
- On the cross Jesus took upon Himself our sins and endured the separation and punishment (the penal bit) that was ours.
- And the shedding of Jesus’ blood and His death pays the price of our sin – and cancels its debt.
- Thus man and God are reconciled and the relationship is restored (atonement making amend, restoring relationship) in this one atoning act.
Now this is great, news and pretty simple to understand, or so you might think, but in fact this is a most contentious topic!
In and around there are so many areas of disagreement and much debate (so any peace Jesus brought can immediately be tossed in the bin!). I’m going to try to see what safe passage through the rocks, sirens and storms might be found. I will undoubtedly (as some will tell me) get it wrong, but hey ho, wouldn’t be fun if I didn’t would it? I have been told by some that I adopt a classic PSA stance whilst others tell me that I need to adopt exactly that whilst more still tell me I'm *!*!** (well, shouldn’t swear, should we? So we’ll merely pass that one by)!
My understanding is that sin causes separation because, to quote that great theologian and engineer, Montgomery Scott (Star Trek), ‘You can’t mix matter and anti-matter!’ Indeed, as even the Gnostics realised, God is all good and man is corrupt and flawed and because of this the two had to have a degree of separation or else – kaboom! So this is where we found ourselves separated and without any hope until Jesus decides to get down there and sort stuff out.
Now this is an important issue for I believe Jesus came as man because He saw the need and decided to do what was needed rather than found Himself merely following orders from the Father (with whom He [and the Holy Spirit] are equal) because if He didn’t then those who beat their breasts and scream about ‘cosmic child abuse’ might just have a point. So this is something we need to visit on our journey (Sent/Went).
Within this issue we come to the sticky issues of ‘satisfaction’ and ‘wrath’ because some would have it that in Jesus death on the cross ‘satisfied God’s wrath’ – now this is an area that causes some real angst because regarding ‘wrath’ and ‘God’ I have to say that I don't see God's wrath being aimed at, or poured out, on Jesus and with regard to sin have also to point you to Scotty once mor. But this does indeed highlight another issues for investigation (God/Wrath).
Some will point us to a quote from Hebrews 9.22 which tells us that:
‘without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.’
So Jesus is sacrificed for us to atone (pay) for our sins – handy that because this fits well with the Passover and stuff we derive from there. (Pascal Lamb/Shedding of Blood).
God wants to forgive but, as some would have it, He isn’t big enough to do so without the debt caused by sin and the rift being mended – So He holds His breath until it’s sorted (and He can you know). If we are not careful we can make God just a little petty here and yet it also makes Him pretty consistent too (and I like consistent) – but it’s a consideration we need to have had and resolved I reckons (petty/legalistic/loving).
All in all as I struggle with this (and believe me, I will struggle) there is the tension between the accountant and lawyer God and the loving and compassionate God to be dealt with. Cold and calculating versus warm inclusive – Not going to be easy is it?
It will not be a quick journey because I’m going to have to read and think (aaargh) and pray (phew!) and get into all that sort of stuff that makes my head hurt before we reach a conclusion that some/may/all* will disagree with. But it will be an honest journey and if on the way it causes you pain, frustration or something else – I apologise for being unapologetic.
Pax
ps. here's a little something to start the journey:
* delete as applicable
3 comments:
I was brought up (in the Jehovah's Witnesses) on the pawn shop theory of the atonement. Adam, having sinned, had put the whole of humanity in hock to the devil. In order to redeem the pawned goods it meant that the full value of what was pawned, no more, no less, had to be paid. But there was no way fallen humanity could find a perfect human life – hence Jesus. It seemed so very simple to me as a kid.
Years later, within mainstream Christianity, I discover the various other “explanations” of the atonement. The penal substitution theory always struck me as far from adequate – how could God determine that he would only forgive humanity their sins if he could punish someone who was not guilty of any that sinfulness? The trouble was, none of the theories seemed to fit. The idea of sacrifice, certainly in its historical cultic sense, was barbaric and I could never believe that it was God-given type of the coming great sacrifice. Ransom, which is not the same thing as cultic sacrifice, was no better – after all, to whom was the ransom paid? The great ransom poem of Isaiah 53 seems to point to a besieging despot who demands a human life – but don't think you can get away with sending him one of the convicted criminals. Only an innocent victim will do; hence the need for a volunteer, not a press-ganged victim.
It seemed the problem was one of metaphor, in particular the way that metaphors have of breaking down and not fitting the picture when pushed to their limits. Like the bicycle tire which, when you push it into the rim of the wheel, always pops out further along. And that was captured in the succinct idea of “the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.” Several ideas are rolled up into that expression. The (Passover) lamb is, if any sort of sacrifice, a fellowship not a sin offering though in the liberation story it is central to averting the wrath of God. The great sin offering is not a lamb; it is the bull of the atonement. And the victim which does in a nearly literal sense take away the sin, is the scapegoat – which being made to carry the sins of the people is therefore cursed and not fit for cultic sacrifice. Hence it is driven from the camp along with those sins.
And finally there was this business of punishment – how did this fit in? Here, I thought, it was surely the case under the cultic sacrificial system that punishment for sin and the making of amends was something separate from sacrifice and had to take place before a wrongdoer became fit to offer a sacrifice – something hinted at in Jesus words in Matt 5:23, 24: “...if you are offering your gift and remember your brother has something against you, leave the gift... be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.”
Such was my thinking on the topic by the time I had traversed to the liberal end of the spectrum – and beyond.
Rob - thanks for this excellent start to what I fear might be a long journey.
I will digest and return,
Vic
You certainly believe in challenging yourself, let alone us. To be honest, I've tried to get my mind around this, but disbelief kicked in early.
I couldn't believe in the wrath bit or that God deliberately set out to have Jesus Crucified. It seems to me that the conjunction of the Trinity was at work here somehow. Jesus saw what was needed having come as man, and rather than overturn the world in rebellion, realised the redemptive nature of his submission to death for our sakes was the option that would work.
Simplistic I know, but despite the evidence of the old testament of a both merciful and at times merciless God, that view is tempered for instance by Moses intervention with God, who relented from destroying the Jews who were dissenting.
I believe that God is ever merciful, and Jesus came to represent that mercy once and for all, for our sake's. He provides the example for us when he tells us to take up our cross and follow him.
Not sure that this makes any sort of sense, but it's a bit of a stab in the dark really.
Post a Comment