Others, such as Anselm, Charles Hodge, and John Owen (after he changed his mind), have argued that the atonement was essential. There was no other way for God to forgive sin execept through the sacrificial and substitutionary death of his son.
There are problems with either view:
1. With the first view, if the death of Jesus was not essential then why would God choose such a violent and bloody way to bring about forgiveness? Listen to Jonathan Edwards:
[S]ince God could pardon the sins of men out of mere grace and bounty, now to make him require strict payment and satisfaction to his Justice before he do so; is, say they, an argument of barbarous and savage cruelty, rather than kindness and liberality (A Preservative against Socinianism [1698], p. 129).2. With the second view, if the death of Jesus was essential, then God is an accessory to murder. Listen to Henry Pinkman:
To say that his death was an indispensable condition of human salvation is to say that God's grace had to call in the aid of murderers in order that it might find a way to human hearts. I am not willing to acknowledge any indebtedness to Judas Iscariot for the forgiveness of my sins. Whatever necessity there was for the death of Jesus lay not in the justice of God, nor in God's regard for law, but in human sinfulness ("The Atonement," in Theology at the Dawn of the Twentieth Century, ed. John Morgan, p. 295)
It seems that either position presents insurmountable problems.
I never understood if we were supposed to be outraged or thrilled about the death of Jesus. It was such a mean, awful thing for people to do to him, yet was necessary to save us from sins?? Are we supposed to thank those who put him to death, since it made our salvation possible? And if God were just using them to accomplish his ends, how can they be guilty of anything? They were puppets?
ReplyDeleteAlso, if that was the only way, then God is not omnipotent.
ReplyDeleteI've said this before, but... the entire narrative of the Bible works a lot better if God *isn't* omnipotent. (Wandering around the Garden calling for Adam & Eve? Commanding His followers to war against other tribes? Requiring (?) the death of His Son-self in order to redeem Humanity from the Fall?)
ReplyDeleteTheologically, claiming omnipotence actually creates more problems than it solves.
Unfortunately, "Hand all your cares over to the Intergalactic Moron in Charge," doesn't quite have the same ring to it...
ReplyDeleteHi Ken,
ReplyDeleteFurther to my 3rd post (26) for Monday, 16 Aug. - Re: “Redemptive violence” (your usage). It still relates to the above:
You said: “Regardless of how one interprets the mechanics of the atonement, I don't see how one escapes the notion that in some way a violent death results in redemption, thus ‘redemptive violence’.” – Previously: ‘"...whether you hold to Penal Sub. theory or not, somehow and in someway the death of Jesus brings about salvation or makes it possible. There is no escaping that point in the New Testament. And thus in some real sense, Jesus had to die before I could be forgiven. Otherwise, why did he die? His death would have been unnecessary. So in some sense or another the Bible teaches the concept of redemptive violence."
Yes, redemption can result from a person undergoing violence. For example:
You come across a child being mugged on the street by a gang of ruffians who seem intent on either killing the child or doing serious injury. No one else is present to help. Rushing in, you pick the child up and run, carrying the child away to safety, while suffering blows and insults from the gang for your efforts. Saving the child’s life required that you made a sacrifice of your own – suffering violence that was not of your making, but necessary in order to save the child’s life.
We are the children suffering the violence of sin. Jesus entered our world and suffered the violence of man in order to achieve that redemption God now offers through His Son. Did He have to suffer? – Yes. But this was the violence of man against Man and God -endured that we might be saved. It was not the violence of God against His Son.
Norman,
ReplyDeleteI can see your point in your illustration but I am not sure it parallels what happened on the cross. First, in your illustration, it is not the violence that redeems; it is the individual who goes into save the child. Now, if the individual had used violence himself to free the child, then that would have been justifiable and could be seen as a case of redemptive violence. Second, the Bible presents both in the OT and the NT, the necessity of a blood sacrifice in order to redeem. This sacrifice is offered to God and somehow brings about the satisfaction of his wrath and allows the one for whom the sacrifice was made to be redeemed. So, it seems that there is something about the death of the innocent victim that satisifies God's wrath which means that God requires violence in order for his wrath to be assuaged. Third, even though it was evil men who put Jesus to death, there is no escaping the fact that it was God's plan (Acts 2:23). John 3:16 says that God "gave" his Son and Romans 8:32 says that he " spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all," which conjures up the image of Abraham offering up Isaac. It seems that God in some way is actively involved in bringing about the cross.
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. I will try to respond points (a) and (b) that you make, as given below:
"Second, (a) the Bible presents both in the OT and the NT, the necessity of a blood sacrifice in order to redeem. This sacrifice is offered to God and somehow brings about the satisfaction of his wrath and allows the one for whom the sacrifice was made to be redeemed. So, it seems that there is something about the death of the innocent victim that satisifies God's wrath which means that God requires violence in order for his wrath to be assuaged. (b)Third, even though it was evil men who put Jesus to death, there is no escaping the fact that it was God's plan (Acts 2:23). John 3:16 says that God "gave" his Son and Romans 8:32 says that he " spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all," which conjures up the image of Abraham offering up Isaac. It seems that God in some way is actively involved in bringing about the cross."
Ok, let’s take point (a) above:
The OT sacrifices were symbolic. They meant something other than being just ‘a sweet aroma’. It is written that it is not sacrifices God wants, but a changed life – repentant and desirous of holiness. The sacrifices had to be without spot and blemish – symbolic of purity. They neither did nor could pay for past transgressions – they merely symbolized a desire before God of the life a person desired to offer up. (Chapter 1 in my book - for any readers interested.) Yes, God does demand death for salvation – we are to desire the death of our old self, if we are to enter into life. By all means ‘crucify’ the old self with its passions and lusts. This is one death we should welcome. However, the death of Christ is indicative of selfless giving for the sake of others. The violence against Him was predicted and accepted as a price worth enduring that others might live. Again, this was violence by man against Man and God, not violence by God against Himself.
(b) I would like to use my first illustration again and expand upon it. This time, you come upon this incident in the company of your father. He has the power to hold you back and save you from being hurt, but doesn’t because he shares your compassion for the suffering child and knows that your suffering won’t last and that you will fully recover from the injury against your person. Knowing that there will be suffering is one thing, condoning it is another. We can gladly suffer for the sake of others if we have faith in the beneficial outcome of our sacrifice and believe that good will result. So it is with God – and we are called to follow His example.
“It seems that God in some way is actively involved in bringing about the cross.” – With this, I have to agree. Jesus confronted controversy, He didn’t run. The greater good demanded that He challenged the evil that held people captive. In modern times, Martin Luther King had a sense of impending death, but didn’t flinch from taking his stand against injustice and the evil that surrounded him. Those opposed to him might have said that he deserved to die – that he brought it upon himself. Suffering and death are sometimes unavoidable because we can do no other. The death of Jesus was inevitable and for God unavoidable for He must always be true to Himself and the love He has for mankind.
Norman,
ReplyDeleteThanks. Regarding the first point, you say: The OT sacrifices were symbolic. They meant something other than being just ‘a sweet aroma’. It is written that it is not sacrifices God wants, but a changed life – repentant and desirous of holiness.
Okay but a symbol is something that stands in place of something else. What is symbolized by the OT sacrifices? It is that death and specifically a bloody death somehow assuages his wrath. Yes, some of the later prophets cried out against the mechanical use of sacrifices without the repentance that was supposed to be associated with the sacrifice but that doesn't change the fact that God is the one who instituted the sacrifices and the one who said that "the blood makes atonement" (Lev. 17:11). The book of Hebrews definitely picks up on this ("without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness") and makes the sacrifice of Jesus the antitype of all the OT sacrifices. Paul says that the blood of Jesus propitiates God (Rom. 3:21-26). If the sacrifices were only to typify spiritual truths (which you seem to imply), then why did Jesus need to die physically?
Regarding the second point, you say: This time, you come upon this incident in the company of your father. He has the power to hold you back and save you from being hurt, but doesn’t because he shares your compassion for the suffering child and knows that your suffering won’t last and that you will fully recover from the injury against your person. This analogy seems to resemble closely the Christus victor view of the atonement. The suffering of Jesus somehow releases (redeems man) and defeats the devil.
You continue: Knowing that there will be suffering is one thing, condoning it is another. We can gladly suffer for the sake of others if we have faith in the beneficial outcome of our sacrifice and believe that good will result. So it is with God – and we are called to follow His example.
I agree but the question still remains, "why is the suffering necessary?" Was there not some other way to bring about redemption other than through a violent death? If not, why not?
Ken - thanks.
ReplyDeleteYour comment: "the blood makes atonement" (Lev. 17:11) - of course, you know it also states: 'the life of all flesh is in the blood' (same verse). So, we should see this as referring to a life given up in sacrifice. The sacrifices also prefigured the One who was to come and suffer a sacrifial death - hence these, as you are aware, are seen to be prophetic of Christ. That the punishment of God's Son by man was foreknown of God does not imply that God justified what man was to do. Remember, Jesus foretold of Peter's denial. He certainly didn't justify what Peter did. Foreknowledge of an evil does not suggest consent to an evil. Obviously, if there was another alternative, Jesus would not have suffered – such is shown by His garden prayer.
“I agree but the question still remains, ‘why is the suffering necessary?’” – the perfect opportunity to refer to the Introduction in my book, where I ask the same question: http://bible-study-online.org/jesus_christ_atonement/?page_id=1173
The print version: http://bible-study-online.org/jesus_atonement/
(I hope you don’t mind the redirect!)
The Intro. is relevant to our discussion, but I will await your response before adding again. Here, it's late - so, until tomorrow - have a good day.