Thinking about the Atonement or Reconciliation

[JonC]

That is exactly what I have done. I can understand that you don't like the answer, but there it is. It was absolutely necessary that the Christ should die upon the cross, partly because it fulfilled the prophecies of Psalms 22:14-16 and Psalms 34:20, but mostly because our Lord had to be seen to be suffering the curse of God against sin.
I have accounted for the cross, and have now repeated myself. However, you show a curious lack of understanding of what was going on at the cross and just before. Who was it that was clamouring for Christ to be crucified? Was it the Romans or the Jews? Who was trying desperately not to have Him crucified? Have a little think about that and ask yourself why the chief priests especially wanted the Lord Jesus to die by crucifixion which, as you rightly say, was not part of their law.. I'm not going to tell you, not yet anyway; work it out for yourself.

No, the cross is absolutely vital. You just haven't worked out why.

Now. The weekend's almost gone. Surely you don't want to be seen to be breaking your word?

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?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

Well, ask yourself while you're answering my questions before the end of the weekend as you promised: why would the Jewish leaders be so eager to have the Lord Jesus crucified? I will tell you if you can't work it out, but only when you have answered my questions.

Lets look at it this way,

Why the Cross rather than a a literal tree?

Acts of the Apostles 5:30. '......Jesus, whom you [the Jewish leaders] murdered by hanging on a tree.'
Acts 10:39. 'And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they [the Jews] killed by hanging on a tree.'
Acts 13:29. 'Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb.'
Galatians 3:13. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.'
1 Peter 2:24. Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.'
The Holy Spirit says it was a tree.

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

Why the Cross?

So that it was plainly seen that Christ suffered under God's curse against sin.

 

[JonC]

Well, ask yourself while you're answering my questions before the end of the weekend as you promised: why would the Jewish leaders be so eager to have the Lord Jesus crucified? I will tell you if you can't work it out, but only when you have answered my questions.

Acts of the Apostles 5:30. '......Jesus, whom you [the Jewish leaders] murdered by hanging on a tree.'
Acts 10:39. 'And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they [the Jews] killed by hanging on a tree.'
Acts 13:29. 'Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb.'
Galatians 3:13. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.'
1 Peter 2:24. Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.'
The Holy Spirit says it was a tree.

So that it was plainly seen that Christ suffered under God's curse against sin.

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.

 

[JonC]

Do you see a difference between God's justice and His righteousness?

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

.
Will you please quote to me the verses you are using to substantiate this statement concerning the powers of this world falling upon Christ?

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.

Also, if Christ suffered unjustly, and it 'pleased the LORD to bruise Him' (Isaiah 53:10), then how is God not punishing the innocent?

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?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

The reason that the Jewish leaders wanted our Lord crucified is surely so that He would be seen by all to have died under the curse of God. In this, of course, they were unconsciously doing the will of God.
Yes, 'We esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted,' and in this they were absolutely right. What they didn't realise was that, 'He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities....etc.'

Something I learned nearly 50 years ago at University has come back to me. One of my 'special subjects' for my degree was 'The Age of Augustus.'* I remember reading a book by a Classical scholar who was also a famous (infamous) British politician, Enoch Powell. He said that it was very strange that our Lord was crucified, because that was usually reserved for more serious crimes. He would have expected Him to have been beheaded (c.f. Acts of the Apostles 12:2). It must have been at the insistence of the mob, spurred on by the Jewish leaders (Mark 15:11-15) that Pilate agreed to crucifixion.

*Of course I know that our Lord's death and resurrection happened under the Emperor Tiberius, but it is doubtful that things would have changed much in the intervening years.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

First of all, thank you for replying to my questions.
You are correct. Righteousness and justice are basically the same word in Scripture (Gk. dikaios, dikaiosune). So I am puzzled by your post #28

Satan's power does not consist of an appeal to justice but includes an appeal to God's own righteousness. This is a major point in the Christus Victor position.

You seem to be contradictimg yourself. Also, I pointed out that Gustav Aulen saw no need for the satisfaction of God's justice. Do you?

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.

So in fact you have no text that says that the principalities and powers etc. 'fell upon the Lord Jesus.' To say that He died at the hands of wicked men is, of course, true, but where exactly do you get the idea that the powers of darkness 'fell' upon Him?

This is important, because you are saying that the point of the cross is not that Christ satisfied the justice of God, but that He conquered these principalities and powers. However, you don't seem able to substantiate that.
He defeated Satan and destroyed His work (1 John 3:8) precisely because He satisfied the justice of God by bearing the sins of those God had given Him. 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,' and satan, the 'accuser of the brethren.' can no longer accuse them because Christ has redeemed us and has taken away our sin (1 John 3:5).

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?

First of all, may I direct you to Acts of the Apostles 4:8-11? Here the Holy Spirit tells us that it was specifically the rulers and elders of Israel who crucified Jesus. But of course a little later (v.27), we are told that it was 'Herod, Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel....' who were all guilty parties. Also, of course, it was your sin and mine that drove Him to the cross. If there had been no sin, He need not have died. So it was necessary, under the hand of God, that both Jew and Gentile should have a hand in our Lord's death, 'that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God' (Romans 3:19). So yes, it was necessary that He die under a secular as well as a Jewish authority.

But chiefly, it was necessary so that the Lord Jesus should be seen to have died under the curse of God against sin. This is spelled out very clearly in Galatians 3:10-14. I'm sorry you don't like this, but it's the only answer you are going to get, because it is the right answer. The Holy Spirit is happy that the cross of Christ constituted a tree, and so should you be.

 

[JonC]

The reason that the Jewish leaders wanted our Lord crucified is surely so that He would be seen by all to have died under the curse of God. In this, of course, they were unconsciously doing the will of God.

Yes, 'We esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted,' and in this they were absolutely right. What they didn't realise was that, 'He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities....etc.'

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?

 

[JonC]

First of all, thank you for replying to my questions.

You are correct. Righteousness and justice are basically the same word in Scripture (Gk. dikaios, dikaiosune). So I am puzzled by your post #28
You seem to be contradictimg yourself. Also, I pointed out that Gustav Aulen saw no need for the satisfaction of God's justice. Do you?

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.

To say that He died at the hands of wicked men is, of course, true, but where exactly do you get the idea that the powers of darkness 'fell' upon Him?

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.

But chiefly, it was necessary so that the Lord Jesus should be seen to have died under the curse of God against sin. This is spelled out very clearly in Galatians 3:10-14. I'm sorry you don't like this, but it's the only answer you are going to get, because it is the right answer.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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?

You are incorrect. I know something of Roman law, having studied it at University. The Roman Governor was the only one who could condemn a man to death. Have a look at John 18:31.

 

[JonC]

You are incorrect. I know something of Roman law, having studied it at University. The Roman Governor was the only one who could condemn a man to death. Have a look at John 18:31.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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 that you don't understand about 'It is not lawful for us to put a man to death'?
.

 

[JonC]

What is it that you don't understand about 'It is not lawful for us to put a man to death'?
.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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?

I thought you said you knw about these things. It was legal for the Romans to torture someone who wasn't a Roman citizen before his trial. There is no case in the NT or surrounding literature of anyone being stoned for adultery. Stephen's death was a lynching. That was against the law in 19th Century America, but it still happened and people got away with it.

Again, What is it that makes you deny the truth of John 18:31? FYI, Alfred Edersheim references a Talmudic tractate which confirms that the Jewish Sanhedrin did not have the power of capital punishment (details on request).

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).

The Jews certainly needed the Romans to kill Jesus (John 18:31), and they needed them to crucify Him so that He would be seen publicly to have died under the curse of God. In this, of course, they unconsciously fulfilled the will of God. Christ's death had certainly been foretold, and that His hands and feet would be pierced, but in your own strange logic, that need not mean crucifixion.

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

That is categorically untrue. You are clutching at straws. It was utterly, absolutely essential that Christ should die on the cross for reasons I have given you several times.

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

Cheap and easy slur. You are getting desperate.

 

[JonC]

Cheap and easy slur. You are getting desperate.

. 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.

 

[JonC]

I thought you said you knw about these things. It was legal for the Romans to torture someone who wasn't a Roman citizen before his trial. There is no case in the NT or surrounding literature of anyone being stoned for adultery. Stephen's death was a lynching. That was against the law in 19th Century America, but it still happened and people got away with it.

Again, What is it that makes you deny the truth of John 18:31? FYI, Alfred Edersheim references a Talmudic tractate which confirms that the Jewish Sanhedrin did not have the power of capital punishment (details on request).

The Jews certainly needed the Romans to kill Jesus (John 18:31), and they needed them to crucify Him so that He would be seen publicly to have died under the curse of God. In this, of course, they unconsciously fulfilled the will of God. Christ's death had certainly been foretold, and that His hands and feet would be pierced, but in your own strange logic, that need not mean crucifixion.

That is categorically untrue. You are clutching at straws. It was utterly, absolutely essential that Christ should die on the cross for reasons I have given you several times
.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.
They could not have killed Jesus legally. That is what the Bible tells us.

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

You have denied it, and now you're denying that you denied it. 'Therefore the Jews said to him, "it is not lawful for us to put anyone to death."' It take that to mean that it was not lawful for them to put anyone to death. How do you read it. Of course verse 32 is also true. Are you suggesting that I somehow deny it?

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.

It is the Bible that calls the cross a tree; I gave five examples. Do you deny that as well? It was God's will that both Jews and Gentiles should compass the death of the Lord Jesus (Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28). It was His will that our Lord should carry His curse against sin by hanging on a tree. It was His will that Christ's hands and feet be pierced to fulfill the Scripture (around 40 other Scriptures fulfilled at the cross). It was His will that the Lord Jesus' sufferings be prolonged until satisfaction for sin had been accomplished (c.f. John 19:28). If it was His will that the powers of darkness 'fall upon' Christ, you have produced no Scripture to back it up, and I do not see that He had to hang on a tree for that to happen. However, there are real reasons why the cross was necessary, and I have given them.

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

The cross was utterly necessary; no other way of death would have accomplished what God, Father, Son and Spirit, had determined (Luke 22:22) for the salvation of mankind so that God might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

. 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.

I offered to remove my comment.

 

[JonC]

I offered to remove my comment.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But you have not explained how the Jews hanging Christ on a tree within the Jewish congregation would not have served that same purpose. Why did Christ have to die under Roman law rather than God's law?

Yes I have. Several times.

It was God's will that both Jews and Gentiles should compass the death of the Lord Jesus (Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28).

But the Jews could not legally have executed the Lord Jesus (John 18:31); they were dependent upon the Romans doing it. They had previously tried to lynch Him and failed (Luke 4:28-30; John 8:59) because it was 'determined' that He should die on a cross.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You have denied it, and now you're denying that you denied it. 'Therefore the Jews said to him, "it is not lawful for us to put anyone to death."' It take that to mean that it was not lawful for them to put anyone to death. How do you read it. Of course verse 32 is also true. Are you suggesting that I somehow deny it?

It is the Bible that calls the cross a tree; I gave five examples. Do you deny that as well? It was God's will that both Jews and Gentiles should compass the death of the Lord Jesus (Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28). It was His will that our Lord should carry His curse against sin by hanging on a tree. It was His will that Christ's hands and feet be pierced to fulfill the Scripture (around 40 other Scriptures fulfilled at the cross). It was His will that the Lord Jesus' sufferings be prolonged until satisfaction for sin had been accomplished (c.f. John 19:28). If it was His will that the powers of darkness 'fall upon' Christ, you have produced no Scripture to back it up, and I do not see that He had to hang on a tree for that to happen. However, there are real reasons why the cross was necessary, and I have given them.

The cross was utterly necessary; no other way of death would have accomplished what God, Father, Son and Spirit, had determined (Luke 22:22) for the salvation of mankind so that God might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.
According to Scripture this is what the Jews said. It is not, however, the reason for their appeal. Read the following verse.

You say the cross was utterly necessary, and I agree. But you have not explained how the Jews hanging Christ on a tree within the Jewish congregation would not have served that same purpose. Why did Christ have to die under Roman law rather than God's law?

You have done the quotes all wrong in your post #98. You might want to edit it, as I have done to my post #96.