The fact that this is one of the only two go-to passages that people are forced to settle with for a demonstration of Christ’s alleged “violence” is itself revealing. Whereas those wanting to show his care for life - all of it - have pretty much the entire corpus of testimony about Christ for their basis of appeal.
2 Likes
He is still the Lion of Judah, and he’s not a safe lion. He will also be the judge, not handing lollipops to all.
1 Like
Oh Yes, those who of their own free will chose “not to know God”, God ultimately allows (with great sadness as illustrated by the posture of the father in the Prodigal Son) allow to go their own way on judgement day and thereby face the consequences built into their own choices (i.e., no life is possible apart from God). But this need not be seen as an act of retributive violence that God ultimately wills or which is initiated by himself. (Scripture rather says that God wills all to be saved). Unfortunately, humans with their free will have the power to bring death and violence on themselves by rejecting the source of life…
Those don’t sound like the King and Judge is being entirely passive, merely acquiescing to our choices.
Who said anything about God being entirely passive? Yes, God takes decisive action to draw this age to a close (at some point in time) in order to establish the New Creation, and he reveals the true intent of each person’s heart --as one who chose to know him or not “i.e. he judges righteously”, but I see nothing in the text inconsistent with the idea that our fate lies in him turning us over to the natural consequences of our own free-will choice.
We could talk about his omnitemporallity. 
“We have to believe in free will, we have no choice.” I.B. Singer 
Judas?
What about Judas? He chose to hang himself… ?
There is nothing here that needs to suggest that God caused Judas’s action. Jesus is simply stating, based on his foreknowledge, something that Judas will chose to do of his own free will.
1 Like
I don’t even see foreknowledge coming into play here. Judas, by his own choice, made his plans with the priests before Jesus called him out (Matt 26:14-16). God obviously saw that and told Jesus.
1 Like
Yes, that could be.
1 Like
As far as I understand it, the entire OT was meant to point to Jesus. God certainly had no illusions about Israel’s kings, their temples, or their sacrifices bringing His kingdom to earth. All of that and more was meant for Jesus to fulfill. Jesus fulfilled the Torah. He will bring God’s kingdom to earth after Armageddon. Jesus will reign over the earth as God meant for Adam. Of course, Jesus will do a better job of it!
John 1:45,
Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
John 5:39,
Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me;
Luke 24:27,
And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
I think that all the Jewish scriptures were written mainly so that Jesus would have his marching orders. He was the only man after Adam’s boondoggle with a chance of following them to the letter. The seed from which he was born came from God (Matt 1:18), as opposed to the rest of us who were born from the seed of Adam. He was born as the lamb without blemish. Of course, he being like the rest of us (Deut 18:15 & 18) was certainly capable of going the same route as Adam (Heb 4:15). Lucky for us he always made the right choices, every jot and tittle. Thus he remained the lamb without blemish required for him to be the last and true Passover lamb.
1 Like
It’s interesting that a lot of the sacrifices/offering were for things that just happen from being human. At the moment I’m not sure what that means . . . maybe when I’m not so short on sleep!
1 Like
I’d say the primary point of the sacrificial system was that it taught Israel what the death of the Messiah would mean. I read something once – grad school class, maybe – about how Jesus didn’t just fulfill the Passover lamb sacrifice, He fulfilled every type of sacrifice. I suspect that western Christians miss a lot by focusing on just the one and thus getting the substitutionary atonement as the only thing Jesus achieved.
Or understanding why it was good news at all.
Though the Torah wasn’t meant as a way to “salvation”, it was meant to set the people apart from all the others around them. I think that was understood for a long time, and when the salvation idea started creeping in I don’t know.
Besides which, there weren’t two atonement strategies, just one; the efficaciousness of the OT sacrifices was founded on the Lamb of God’s sacrifice.
But more, perhaps, to show what the work of the Lamb of God was.
But it was God’s true plan, until the fullness of time had come.
1 Like
Actions can be metaphors.
And also to sacrifice when HE said to, and how HE said to. The difference can be seen in the confrontation between Samuel and Saul: Saul was operating on the standard ANE assumption that more sacrifices make the deity happier, and that whoever could make a sacrifice could decide when to do so. The whole Mosaic system, on the other hand, was all about doing what God directed when He directed it.
He was a libertarian: He got violent in defense of His House.
1 Like
Yes, I agree that many of the Levitical laws and types of sacrifice were not only about 'Atonement for sin" (there were sacrifices of thanksgiving, for example). But the sacrificial system per se was not unique to Israel, I’ve read that the framework was common to most ANE pagan neighbours at the time. A few details were tweaked to distinguish the Israelite system (most notably sacrifices were made only to Yahweh, and human sacrifice was forbidden, instead animals were to be used).
I don’t know what you mean when you say it “was God’s true plan” though. Knowing ANE history, it suggests to me that the sacrificial system was an accommodation by God for a period of time–God took a common pagan human practice that “everyone was already doing and insisted on doing” and nudged it in the direction of it being a teaching tool that was less damaging and pointed towards himself (and Jesus) in certain aspects. What I see in the Levitical Laws is a probable mishmash of common human ANE ideas of the time, and the instruction/inspiration of God breaking through to human minds “seeing through the glass darkly”.
We (apparently) hear directly from God through the later prophets that God in fact did not desire sacrifices per se, but obedience (loyalty in covenant relationship). This makes me think that blood sacrifices of animals were not his “plan A” (and indeed Abraham was credited with righteousness because of his faith despite being prior to the sacrificial system), but a temporary accommodation to human culture of the time.