Featured Thinking about the Atonement or Reconciliation

I see. You have to understand I never claimed to be the smart man here. I do not mind your answer but I do not see how it answers the question.

Lets look at it this way,

Why the Cross rather than a a literal tree?

Why a secular death instead of one God's law?

Why the Cross?

 

They said for blasphemy. Scripture says it was also that they esteemed him stricken if God.

The political reason was diverse. The Sadducees were centered on the Temple and political power associated with Rome. It had not been that long since the clash when they had 500 Pharisees crucified before their family (after the water libation). So Christ was to them a threat to power.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed salvation was centered in the people. They focused on the law and purity. They looked for a messiah who would come at the appropriate time based on the state of Israel to set up an earthly kingdom (they looked for another "Yehudah ha-Makabi"... another Maccabæus). Plagued with constant revolts and false Christ's Jesus was a threat to the Pharisees but more in terms of internal politics.


This is a long weekend here, Brother. Tuesday ends the weekend.

 

Scriptures uses righteous and justbess interchangeably (it is typically the same word). The appeal is to God's nature.

This is the entire topic of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Christ shared in our sickness, our infirmity. Christ died by the will of God but unjustly at the hands of wicked men.

It pleased the Lord to bruise Him. Peter says the same - Christ suffered and died at the hands of wicked men. But this was according to the predetermined plan of God. This was God's will.


Now, again.... Why the cross? You give passages saying it was a "tree" but never once explain why it had to be an actual cross (a Roman cross under Roman authority, not under the law but the secular world).

Is there room for the cross in your position or would any wooden pole have worked in any public venue by any authority?

That is my question - was the actual cross necessary in your view?

 

I agree in part (as I offered the same passage). BUT there is an important distinction you are missing. The “we” in the passage refers to Israel. The Jewish leaders wanted Christ killed for blasphemy in a public arena which was public for the Jews, not the Romans, as it would be the Jews, not the Romans, who would have seen Christ as accursed. This could have been accomplished by the Jews and not the Romans (the Jews could have stoned Christ for the crime they accused him and hung his body on a tree until evening without Roman retaliation). That death would be a death under God’s law. What occurred was an unjust death under the law of God.

The question remains – is there a reason (other than the cross is made of wood and the crucifixion was public) in your position for the Cross itself? Or was it just the expedient way to meet those two criteria?

 

I did get Aulen’s book, but I have yet to read it. So I cannot comment on his position.

But this is at the heart of the issue. I do believe that there was a need for the satisfaction of God’s righteousness.

I am at a bit of an advantage in a way because I know your position (PSA) as I have held it for so long. But I am at a disadvantage because I know were I to be speaking to the me ten years ago I would not have persuaded myself as it is hard to “unlearn” long held errors. But I will try to explain.

I take it you have studied Judaism because of some of your past comments. In Hertzberg’s book “Judaism” he was very careful to explain the concept of sin for non-Jewish readers. “Sin is rebellion against God…Judaism considers it the debasement of man’s proper nature. Punishment is therefore not primarily retribution; it is chastisement, a father chastises his children, to remind them of their proper dignity and character. Repentance is therefore in Hebrew teshuvah, returning, man’s turning back to his truest nature.”

Now, I grant that the Jewish theology is not our criteria. But I submit it is important when looking at biblical terms like justice and righteousness.

The reason you are puzzled by my post #28 is the same reason I no longer hold to PSA. I believe the 16th century judicial philosophy hold by Calvin and PSA applies to Scripture is wrong. I do not believe it is the type of justice that should be applied to divine righteousness.

What we should be looking at it the Righteousness of God, not simply a contemporary idea of moral justness but to God Himself. What makes one right with God – not necessarily “what does the law require”. God is just and the justifier of sinners – not because God has made sinners morally just via the law but because God’s righteousness has been manifested apart from the law.

Because Scripture tells us that Christ suffered and died at the hands of the wicked, that this was victory over Satan and sin and death. To keep it short and avoid a tangent, I use the exact same passages that you use. Psalm 22, particularly, explains that the power crushing the Servant is evil, however it is by the will of God. I would use all of the passages you use.

I do not “dislike” your answer. It is your answer and not for me to like or dislike. I suspected it would be what you provided before I asked.

But at the same time we have to acknowledge that the verses you quote foretell Christ’s death. You have a reason for the Cross (for what occurred on the cross) but the Cross itself is insignificant in PSA. What is important is that Christ died on a pole where people could see (specifically, where Jews could see).

That was my previous comment that in PSA there is no reason for the cross. It was expedient, not necessary, in your view.

This is important because it is necessary in most other views. It had to be the cross, not just hanging on a tree in public.

 

You are incorrect. I know something of Roman and Jewish law, having studied at University. There was a balance between the religious and secular governments. Those who were going to stone the woman caught in adultery would not have been tried under Roman law for the execution. Those who stoned Stephen were not criminals in accordance to Roman law. Jesus was not considered a Roman citizen.

 

What is it you do not understand about Paul's appeal to his citizenship, the Jews prepared to stone the woman caught in adultery, abd the killing of Stephen?

The Jews needed the Romans to kill Jesus. The Roman law was not what stopped them (obviously). And Christ's death had been foretold (it would be the cross).

My point remains. The cross itself is meaningless to PSA. It was nothing but a location, an ecpiedent way for Christ to die in public where Jews would consider him as deemed accursed.

Were PSA not to empty the cross of its true significance I think you would see a more biblical atonement.

 

. No, that was an "inside jab". You said Christus Victor emptied the passage about the Atonement of meaning. It was no more a cheap and easy slur and a sign of desperation than was your earlier comment. I was playing tick for tack, not meaning it as a slur but my honest assessment.

 

You are missing the point. The Jews were appealing to Roman law. But they did not have to. They could have killed Jesus. They did so for their own reasons but ultimately it was that prophecy would be fulfilled regarding the type of death.

I never denied John 18:31. I agree that is what the Jews said. But I believe John 18:32 is also correct.

Which goes back to why. Your answer is that the Jews could not kill Jesus do the Romans did. That is fine. The cross just happened to be the method of the Romans. And that it be public on at least a type of pole (tree). But this is all prophesy. I agree here.

That makes the cross itself expedient, not necessary. I believe the cross is much more significant than you allow.

 

You said you" believe very strongly that Christus Victor evacuates the meaning from the Atonement." I am not saying that was a cheap and easy slur showing you are getting desperate. No need to remove the comment. It is a fair comment.
I said that I believe very strongly that PSA empties the cross of its true significance.

The issue is you say exactly the same thing to my view. But when I say it this it is somehow a cheap and easy slur showing signs that I am getting desperate.

My complaint is not the comment against doctrine. I know you believe Christus Victor empties the Atonement of its meaning. And I believe PSA empties the Atonement of its meaning. That is a given, brother. What bothers me is that you associate the exact same attitude and belief you have to a character flaw in me (offering a cheap and easy slur, getting desperate). I see no need to get so personal. We know we disagree with doctrine.