Dear Daniel,
Thank you for the note. I would lake to make a few clarifications. First, I was very deliberate to say that Jesus was not sacrificed for all human sin - it takes God’s Grace, Jesus’ act of redemption and our acts to achieve eternal life. We have to love our enemies and become perfect, in addition to God’s Grace. Before Jesus’ act of Redemption, no amount of acts led to eternal life.
Secondly, Origen was not the first coming of the Spirit of Truth, but the first who fulfilled the task of explaining the Word in every detail, which he did in his “sweet wisdom”. The sheer volume of his work was miraculous.
Best Wishes, Shawn
I think that you were addressing @Daniel_Fisher. I did not write the note above.
I think that it’s appropriate to learn more about Origen. @Daniel_Fisher, did you listen to the podcast by Onscript? I got bogged down in the details in the end–somewhat to do with the interpretation, I think. I enjoyed the humorous analogy of how Fr Behr would place the Church Fathers on a football team (Irenaeus on defense, etc). It’s a bit disturbing to me that even then, they had so much disagreement.
I do come back to the commonality that we all rely on God for ultimate grace and forgiveness. That’s a failure I find when I look at atheism–we just can’t find the same resolution–though perhaps there is more to be said from their point of view. In Sunday School right now, we’re using Eric Metaxas’ video on “Mere Christianity” and the moral law–very interesting. We just had Alister McGrath’s portion, and then are going on to Jerry Root and, I think, Philip Yancey. It would be a good thread. I see that there are problems with our understanding of the moral law as a proof for God, but as McGrath said, it’s more of a clue of how things would work if we God exists.
God bless.
One certainly can’t deny the strong presence of that [blood sacrifice] theme as you’ve shown well with a long array of references. There is also a new theme prominently featured in scriptures - even from the old testament prophets already - that critiques the old theme. It is this “self-critique” from scriptures itself that catches my attention even more, since this is what Christ himself inaugurates as God’s new creation, now doing what the old systems could not and did not do.
I hesitate to push on this much more as it is not my desire (much less my place) to try to shake up settled and traditional convictions that people feel are at the core of their faith. I only bring it up so that any whose faith is already tottering (possibly because of atonement misunderstandings that they cannot in good conscience square with a just, loving God) may know that there are other scripturally-inspired views that faithful Christians have also embraced all through history.
George Macdonald (Lewis’ guide to salvation), Brian Zahnd, and Brad Jersak are in the vein of critiquing the understanding of the blood sacrifice, for example. Thanks.
I can’t speak of Zahnd or Jersak - have never read them. But yes, I’m definitely following scriptures here along the lines that Macdonald writes about. Alongside the undeniable theme of blood sacrifice there is also a superseding theme throughout much of the prophets and then especially in the New Testament of God being more pleased with obedience than with sacrifice. So we see scriptures themselves dealing the death blow (so-to-speak) to the old sacrificial practices that represent the old (and now revealed to be deficient) system of dealing with gods. There is no equity or balance to be had between these systems. One supersedes the other as its infinite superior. And while the authors of the New Testament (especially Hebrews, but elsewhere too) take great pains too help the Jewish peoples see in Jesus the penultimate conclusion to (indeed abolishment of) the old sacrificial system, they also take pains to help us see God in Christ himself. It just occurred to me this morning that the entire discourse of John 6 where Jesus speaks of his own flesh and blood as food and drink might be seen in a new (for me) light. The crowds and even Jesus’ own disciples were disgusted and repulsed, and yet Jesus persists. The thought of human sacrifice was already bad enough to them - to heap cannibalism on that yet too seems like the ultimate Jewish desecration. Not exactly apostolic material for wooing Jewish audiences toward recognizing, much less worshiping their newly arrived Messiah. I can’t help but think that Jesus was letting them all know in no uncertain terms just what bloody sacrifice looks like to God. Human sacrifice is a sacrilege. And yet he was willing to endure that very evil heaped upon him - not by God - but by evil humanity, rather than continuing to stoop down into our evil business as usual ways of dealing with neighbors and enemies. And that is the full and honorable sense in which Jesus allowed himself to be a sacrifice. Even though passages can be found that make it sound like his own Father was nailing him to the cross, we must understand those in light of early Hebrew understandings in which God does all things including all evil calamity we experience. They were still desperate to plug this crucifixion event back into that old understanding - and did so to build that bridge - a bridge to something new. Hebrews 9:22 shows this – tying it back into the old ways, but then the next verses [indeed the whole next chapter] deliver the consuming answer that renders the prior verse answered and now dismissed. Had the crucifixion been choreographed from the beginning then Jesus would not have been sweating drops of blood in the garden, pleading with God to not let it come to that. He would have known already that bloody sacrifice is what it’s all about, and he would just have his job to do. And indeed sacrifice is what is called of all of us (not just Jesus) - but it isn’t human sacrifice, except to the extent that we willingly give up our own lives. Never somebody else’s which wouldn’t be sacrifice. We have another word for that: it’s called murder.
So it isn’t about how much we can secure scriptural sanction - even seeming endorsement of old themes. It’s about what we continue to learn in regard to those old themes as we keep reading scripture! Scriptures themselves, and then finally the Spirit of Christ himself, deals with the old ways of thinking and mortally reveals it for what it is. And then finally Christ even conquers death itself - not by making it unnecessary, but by making it into a harmless- even an essential doorway for us. Sin is not merely forgotten (though in some sense it is - or must be). Far more importantly for us, we are cleansed of it and it is truly destroyed in our minds and hearts as we are actually taught to loath it as God does (quintessential Macdonald right there). Only then are we truly cleansed of our sins, and that is indeed the very thing Christ died for. 1 John 1:7-9
Let me register my strong disagreements with half of what you wrote, then I’ll post my strongest agreement with the other half…
Disagreements first…
Fist, a minor point, I’d object to simply dismissing the idea that this sacrifice was God’s eternal or choreographed plan… If our names have been written in the book of life of the lamb who was slain from the foundation of the earth, it sounds like this plan was in effect for some time. If the apostles say he was delivered over “according to the definite (ὡρισμένῃ - determined, planned, set, resolved, decreed, appointed) plan (βουλῇ - counsel, purpose, decree, design, determination) and foreknowledge of God… then I’d need some further strong evidence that this was not, in fact, choreographed from the beginning.
Not only “was this man handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge,” and Jesus came into the world “to give his life as a ransom,” but Jesus had been prophesying his death to his disciples for ages before it happened. But he was going to be tortured and executed, and if I understand rightly, underneath all that, enduring the unmitigated wrath of God in some manner as well, facing the time where the second person of the trinity would cry out, “my God, why have you forsaken me.” It is not odd to me whatsoever that he would be sweating blood and his soul being in torment when he was finally face-to-face with such torment.
Your argument proves too much, I fear… I could just as easily ask, “had Jesus known he would be dying and had prophesied it repeatedly it to his disciples, he would not have been sweating drops of blood in the garden, asking God not to let it come about… he would have known this was his job,” and thus prove that Jesus really didn’t know about his death and that his prophecies about such had never happened.
Have you never been ready to face something you knew it was your duty to do, something you had to do, something you knew there was really no other way, and still dreaded it? Maybe just being in the military, but that is the story of our lives. Facing things that we know we have to face, sometimes dangers, sometimes major inconvenience and major discomforts, sometimes long family separations… and the fact I know exactly when they are coming, and that it is nonetheless my duty to proceed, and knowing there’s no alternative, doesn’t keep these experiences somehow from magically being unpleasant. Or people that face a major surgery, perhaps required amputation, can know it is coming, know there’s no way out, yet on the verge of the event, feel extreme distress and start thinking about, “isn’t there some other way?”
“passages can be found that make it sound like his own Father was nailing him to the cross” are beyond simply the recognition that all things happen by God’s design. Judas’ betrayal was also part of God’s plan (even down to the silver prophecy,) and this was confirmed, but this is still different language than “he who did not spare his own son” (directly referencing Abraham and Isaac, of course. “God presented him as a propitiation” is certainly more than recognition that God is in charge of everything.
I must register my strongest disagreement (if I understood you properly) with the idea that the atonement language of Christ was simply trying to “backwards project” Jesus into that archaic sacrificial system. I know the idea of what you”re speaking of, and while I don’t agree, I can acknowledge that someone could read Matthews prophecies (for instance) and get the idea that Matthew was “backwards projecting” Jesus into Testament prophecies, showing that Jesus action was consistent with OT pattern. But Hebrews goes much further, and does so far more explicitly. If there’s anything we get from Hebrews especially, it is the idea that the sacrifices were a “shadow”, a “prequel” or “foreshadowing”, and needed to be “projected forward” as foreshadowing the real and true sacrifice that has now happened. Essentially saying, The blood of animals could never take away sins like Jesus’ blood can and has., they were merely a shadow to show what he would be accomplishing. The Old Testament sacrifices were discarded because animal’s blood was ineffective at actually forgiving sin…unlike Jesus’ blood which does accomplish such forgiveness:
They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. (Heb 8:5 ESVi)
According to this [former] arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper. (Heb 9:9 ESVi)
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) (Heb 9:11 ESVi)
he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. (Heb 9:12 ESVi)
For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Heb 9:13–14 ESVi)
the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. (Heb 10:1 ESVi)
For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Heb 10:4 ESVi)
…we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10:10 ESVi)
And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God… For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
(Heb 10:11–12, 14 ESVi)
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh. (Heb 10:19–20 ESVi)
Your thoughts here I find very insightful, and you highlight a tension I find in Scripture that I have not yet reconciled particularly well. (In many such tensions, i simply embrace both sides, and try to live both sides as situation warrants. But I am a bit fuzzy on how this plays out in practice).
—On the one hand, Jesus takes great gentleness with those whose faith is weak. “Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden… my yoke is easy/burden light,” “smoldering wick I will not snuff out,” “Lord, we believe, he’ll our unbelief,” etc.
Not to mention, he invited others into the kingdom without worrying much about their full theological orthodoxy or depth of understanding… the faith of the centurion, of the Canaanite woman, the woman at the well, etc.
So, I’m the one hand, I completely resonate with your thoughts that if someone has issues with atonement, part of me would not feel the need to demand their adherence otherwise they must leave the faith… how many things and doubts have I myself struggled with, and representing Jesus, I need to similarly show his same approachability, and willingness to embrace anyone and invite them into the kingdom no matter how weak or immature their faith and/or understanding. So yes, absolutely, if someone is struggling with atonement theology, I feel I ought not make that a point of contention, rather, I feel like I should invite them to come and see Jesus in their terms, where they are, and allow them to struggle.
—On the other hand, you have Jesus making it very difficult for people to follow Him. There is the “eat my flesh” passage you noted, and the observation that many of his disciples left him at this point (and the implication that even those who remained stayed out of some level of desperation… “where else am I going to go”?) He speaks in parables “so they won’t understand.” He tells us we must hate Father, children, etc. to follow him, love him more than anything else in the world, he must be our only treasure. Someone asked him how to inherit eternal life, and Jesus says, “sell everything you have and give to the poor. Otherwise, get lost.” Don’t even start on this road with me if you can’t commit to it. Consider the cost of building this tower, let the dead bury their dead, and follow me, casting all else aside.
So thus, on that hand, i feel like honoring Christ would entail warning people that we need to come to him on his terms, and if there are things we don’t like about him, or don’t understand, or things that are difficult, we submit those to him in repentance and follow him no matter the cost… coming tomJesus on His terms, coming to where He is.
Working out these two things, I think this is where i find myself. And I compare it with the tension between the numerous invitations (I’ve written of elsewhere) where God tenderly invites his people to come with all manner of ugliness to wrestle with him… and simultaneously he smacked the Israelites because of their grumbling. I think there is a place of honest wrestling and doubt that is still presented from a bowed knee, and doubts that come with our hands crossed.
So in getting the “right theology” for someone wrestling… I think, following Christ, I ought to give infinite room and space for people to wrestle with these questions while they are coming to him in humility and submission. An attitude of, “I don’t see how that could ever be just… however, If, despite every bit of study and wrestling I do, I realize that this doctrine is true and biblical and this is what God has done, then I will bow my knee to him and submit to him, and recognize that his wisdom surpasses mine.” This is the attitude I find in Abraham when he argued with God about the almighty’s justice.
I’ve probably quoted this before, but I find the wisdom herein inescapable…
Secondly, this scrupulous care to preserve the Christian message as something distinct from one’s own ideas, has one very good effect upon the apologist himself. It forces him, again and again, to face up to those elements in original Christianity which he personally finds obscure or repulsive. He is saved from the temptation to skip or slur or ignore what he finds disagreeable. And the man who yields to that temptation will, of course, never progress in Christian knowledge. For obviously the doctrines which one finds easy are the doctrines which give Christian sanction to truths you already knew. The new truth which you do not know and which you need must, in the very nature of things, be hidden precisely in the doctrines trines you least like and least understand. It is just the same here as in science. The phenomenon which is troublesome, which doesn’t fit in with the current scientific theories, is the phenomenon which compels reconsideration and thus leads to new knowledge. Science progresses because scientists, instead of running away from such troublesome phenomena or hushing them up, are constantly seeking them out. In the same way, there will be progress in Christian knowledge only as long as we accept the challenge of the difficult or repellent doctrines. A `liberal’ Christianity which considers itself free to alter the Faith whenever the Faith looks perplexing or repellent must be completely stagnant.
In short, I think we are most certainly invited to wrestle with our king… but it seems we are also required to wrestle with our king.
Being a recalcitrant believer in freewill (and the attendant personal and communal responsibilities thereof) I will never accept that God authors our evil. We do. So I hear in words like “decreed” or “foreordained” the point of view of somebody who knew the future even while not forcing it. So … old testament proclivities aside, I do not share completely in their willingness to see God’s hand behind everything - or at least not in those times when God grieves what we do. To accept otherwise is to make nonsense of even old testament exhortations such as Moses’ “Choose life…”, not to mention all the N.T. passages that would be made nonsense. So yes, the plan for the cross was foreseen even while that makes it not one whit less our evil choices (and not God) that puts him there.
I’m being summoned away … more to come later. Thanks for your extended and thoughtful response! Even among what you labeled your “disagreement section” I’m not so convinced that we’re so far apart as may have appeared to you.
Responding cautiously as I don’t want to get off on a predestination rabbit trail, but I would simply observe that even in this very passage, Peter’s “proclivity to see God’s hand behind everything” and attribute the crucifixion to the “definite plan” of God does not keep him from simultaneously, in the same breath, acknowledging the complete freedom and personal responsibility and free will of the individuals involved…
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
Sounds to me like Peter’s perspective is that “the plan for the cross was foreseen even while that makes it not one whit less our evil choices (and not God) that puts him there.”
Agreed - and I don’t put a lot of weight on my observation there, and can easily be negotiable here as would also apply to your points #3, 4 (where I fully agree that he had repeatedly prophecied his death). For one thing, I don’t think any of this weighs against my main thesis here that God does not orchestrate evil or injustice. He “only” uses it - to mighty effect, you’ll get no argument from me.
God is in charge. Amen to that. That is different than the claim that God is the author of evil. “Not sparing his own son” is appropriate language when God decides to send his messenger (and indeed his own son) knowing what would be done to him. Just as an admiral may send your fleet on a mission that he knows many of you won’t return from, but nevertheless orders it any way. Saying that the admiral did not “spare you” is a different claim than saying the admiral was the one who betrayed you and got most of your fleet sunk. The former action may later later be recognized and respected as a hard but necessary decision that the admiral had to make. The latter action (if discovered) gets the admiral court-martialled and tried as a traitor (and rightly so).
Here the rubber meets the road. I know that nonbelievers eager to see nothing but “backward projection” in virtually all scriptures probably push exactly this kind of language. While I don’t share in their anti-religious motives, I am nonetheless interested in wherever truth leads in all this. There is much precedent for God engaging in long term, less-than-ideal programs simply to meet his people where they are at. How long was it that Moses permitted divorce simply because “your hearts were hard”? So if idol worship and “my god is bigger and badder than your god” is the game in town, then God deigned to let his people play it while he “played along” as the “greatest of all gods”. We need not admit this as later evidence that other gods like Molech or Baal must actually exist then, because scriptures themselves tell us they were all shams anyway. But God lets them operate in that world (the only world they live in after all) and even gives them instructions about propriety and sacrificial practices. When their ancestral heritage is the only one they know, why would God not make use of their existing understandings to help them recognize their Messiah? [I know … the prophets often tell us that God is often in the business of clouding people’s eyes and hearts as much as opening them … I struggle with what to do with that too and strongly suspect it to be a divine “playing hard to get” so as to provoke the desired jealousy.] But taking God at his word that he actually does not wish for any to perish, I see no problem with God making full use of their sacrificial understandings, while at the same time also inviting them to look forward to what he really has wanted all along: for his people to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God. It’s like you taking the training wheels off your kid’s bike. You may have put them on at one time, but that doesn’t mean you wanted them there forever or that they were your final word on what you envision for their life-long biking experience. The new covenant is better than the old, and when the new comes, the old disappears. Don’t be trying to mess around with all the old wine skins is all I’m suggesting.
The rest of your references from Hebrews are all excellent ones giving (from my perspective) the very sorts of exhortations I’ve been discussing.
Your parting quip there might have been just a bit harsh. The actual passage (to my recollection, any way) says something more like “Jesus looked at him and loved him.” I would phrase it rather that here is a devout (but very rich) young man who wanted to “up his game” so to speak - maybe so he could feel or look more righteous perhaps. Jesus starts with a relatively low bar … keep these few commandments … but when the young man persists, Christ effectively responds: “Oh so you really want to get serious about this do you? … okay, let me just fill you in on what the next level would involve for you!” We see much the same addressed to all of us in the Sermon on the Mount. “So you’re feeling proud that you’ve never murdered or committed adultery, eh?” Feelin’ like you’re packin’ in some righteousness there? Let me show you what real righteousness looks like … you know those lustful or angry or greedy thoughts you’ve had? No matter how many rungs of this ladder you climb, there will always be more rungs above you. Let me just cut to the chase in case you think you’re still in the game: ‘be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.’
Amen! And well-stated.
One recent commentary I heard (from a contemporary Jewish Rabbi) about Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac intrigued me. While our western Christian sensibilities have so many of us bent out of shape trying to “exonerate” Abraham’s (not to mention God’s) apparent homicidal tendencies, Jews have apparently seen in this a beautiful and ever-applicable lesson about real sacrifice! That is, Jews [and so of course Christians too] ought to be willing to give up their children, spouses, loved ones [our very selves!] to God’s service. Whatever God calls them to do, we have to let them go and remember that God’s claim on them supersedes our own. Yeah - we sigh in relief when we get to the part of the story where Abraham notices the ram in the thicket and lowers his knife. But the lesson is no less real (and the ram is not always in the thicket!) It’s a hard truth, and yet God models it for us with his own son.
I love that turn of words - especially for the way it captures a deep truth in tension! What a fitting conclusion - and thanks for that.
@Daniel_Fisher, I wonder if here is a spot that Greg Boyd’s scholarship with “Crucifixion of the Warrior God” and “Cross Vision” would shed some light. In it, Boyd says that God used the imperfect perception of how He is to communicate what His greatest love is. I am still working on Packer’s “Knowing God,” and would owe you another book yet if you read the last of the 2–but if you find it interesting, you may want to read it. (not that I’m not finding Packer interesting; and I would be happy to listen to another book of your suggestion after discussion) Thanks.
Good thoughts in general, appreciated. Only one quick nitpick observation, but one I think critical…
Again, I refer back to Hebrews, and all his references as to the original law and sacrifices being offered suggest that God gave the original sacrifice system in order to eventually help us understand the Messiah. Not that God used something that, in some way, “happened” to exist in their world (how fortuitous), and decided to make use of it as it happened to make a great analogy. Rather, God specifically introduced said animal sacrifices for that very reason, to copy, reflect, or foreshadow the true and real sacrifice.
It is a bit like I try to tell people: God is called called a “Father” not because he looked down at how we developed, noticed the relationship between Fathers and sons, hit his knee and said, “wow, that’s perfect! That would be a great illustration for how I relate to people…” “Fatherhood” is not an image that originated in mankind that God found an appropriate analogy so he appropriated it… Rather, the reason human Fathers and sons even exist is that we are a copy of that original blueprint.
Similarly, it isn’t as though animal sacrifices happened to exist in this world, and then after what Jesus did, the author of Hebrews hit his knee and said, “that’s perfect, that would be a great illustration for what Jesus did.” No, rather, Jesus’ sacrifice was the “original.” The very reason animal sacrifices exist is because they were introduced as copies of that “original” (if temporally later) blueprint.
(And yes, I realize how loaded and pregnant my italicized words above are…)
The reason animal sacrifices were ever a thing is because they were introduced as copies of the one and final sacrifice… certainly is how I read Hebrews. He even uses the term “blueprint” in reference to the true sacrifice (OK, maybe he says, “pattern,”…). But point is, animal sacrifices were copied from “the” original sacrifice.
In the case of Hebrews, the timeline is backwards, so to speak, of course. But nonetheless, if all these things were always in our timeless God’s mind, it is not strange to think that his original plan entailed the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and the institution of animal sacrifices were there specifically to copy that “original” blueprint.
Again, author of Hebrews says as much, that the OT sacrifices were “copied” from the heavenly/eternal pattern…
They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the blueprint pattern that was shown you on the mountain.
Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.
If the animal sacrifices were a “shadow” and “copy” of a more perfect sacrifice, and the main problem with them is that they couldn’t actually accomplish forgiveness of sins like the true and final sacrifice would, then I am loath to say that their institution was some sort of divine accommodation to problematic or sinful behavior (as I totally grant In the case of slavery, divorce, etc.) especially as everything I read says they were carefully instituted, following exact specifications given by God, in order to properly reflect that said heavenly / perfect sacrifice.
Eventually I’ll read Boyd and give you a proper engaged answer. Will take some time, but it is on my list. I don’t want to give a shallow or too quick response without seriously chewing in it. But if I forget please feel free to remind me.
I’m not sure I fully understand here. Animal sacrifice was widespread in the ANE among pagans as well. It is also very common among pagans of today (and other animists; in Africa, at any rate). It seems a reading into the text to do this–somewhat of the error we as NT Christians commit by saying Isaiah’s prophecies were about Christ, or that the Genesis report of the biting man’s heel and man striking his head was necessarily about Christ–we forget that some of this was pertinent to the current time. A Jewish scholar would not necessarily accept what interpretation we foist on the OT.
Very good and true, by the way. I can’t speak for other Christians, but I have always understood it this way. Because that what God was impressed with, was Abraham’s willingness to give up (sacrifice) his son. And God didn’t require such ultimately, but His willingness to give up had to be real, and this (almost) physical sacrifice demonstrated said willingness
I have this suspicion regarding the rich young ruler (yes my words there was inaccurately harsh, was just trying to be a bit silly)… that, had he done so, as soon as he had loaded up all his worldly possessions on the cart and was driving them to the market to sell them, Jesus might well have stopped him and said, Do not sell your goods… Now I know that you fear God, as you have not withheld all your possessions from me…”
Elsewhere I shared I was struck that, in Luke, within the same section as the young ruler who Christ asked for everything, you had Zaccheus praised by Jesus with blessing of salvation after he had given half of his possessions to the poor.
I don’t think it is reading into the text in the least…
My assumption is that animal sacrifices were offered by God’s guidance, and with his blessing, from the earliest days of history, long before there was an ANE. If I remotely trust the biblical narrative (which you know I inerrantly do!) Then Abel offered animal sacrifices in the very first generation after creation (in approximately 3991 BC, of course! ). And, of course, God was “pleased” with Abel’s offering.
Then Noah also offered animal sacrifices also long before the other ANE cultures got ahold of the idea. I’d assume that was where the rest of the ANE derived the idea from.
I don’t expect we would need to agree about the theology itself, but I hope we can agree insofar as that a straightforward (dare I say literalistic) reading of the OT text as it is would affirm that from the OT’s perspective, animal sacrifices were going on long, long, long before there was an ANE?
Point is, animal sacrifices exist in the world as a result of God teaching his people to do so, because these were “copies” of Christ’s one sacrifice (to borrow Hebrews’ language)… these sacrifices did not simply exist as random “happenstance”, unintended by God, which he then appropriated in order to illustrate Christ’s sacrifice.
A Jewish scholar would not necessarily accept what interpretation we foist on the OT.
I would assume not. But he wouldn’t accept the interpretation of the author of Hebrews either!
Nonetheless, I’m completely shirking responsibility here and asserting it is the Author of Hebrews that is undeniably “foisting” this particular interpretation on the OT, not me. I happen to agree with him, but don’t blame the messenger…!
somewhat of the error we as NT Christians commit by saying Isaiah’s prophecies were about Christ
Next thing you know, you’ll be criticizing those Christians who claim that Moses was really writing about Christ, too. (I remember someone else saying something about that… something about, “if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me…)
Since we’re touching on it, I thought I’d share my larger understanding of atonement theology… I’d written this over on the inerrancy thread some time ago, copied here if interesting…
Thank you yet again, for bringing my mind back to some of the basic OT knowledge that I’d forgotten–for some reason.
“in the multitude of words there wanteth not sin” …(the sin of wandering from the subject) and I am re formulating some thoughts. Very well put. Thanks.
All very true. And far be it from me to deny the utility - indeed the necessity - of finding clarity and deepened understanding from varied theories of atonement. That is no guarantee that all that have ever been put forward (however historically pedigreed among the post-apostolic church) are all true, much less equal in accuracy or profundity. E.g. if someone put forward the conviction regarding your heroic mall police officer that he was a violent tempered man who abuses his family and was just looking forward to being able to shoot somebody on any provocation; then those who know that officer personally and know him to actually be a quite gentle man who loathes the use of weapons; they would be quite right to stand up and deny any standing for the charge of cruelty put forward (much less equal standing with all the other more truthful theories about his action).
Regarding your observations about our worldly situations being “shadows” or “copies” of their perfect counterparts in heaven (very ‘Lewisian’ echoes - that!) and as you say, very scripturally embedded too as we would expect from Lewis. As I recall (and without research that I’m not taking time for in a quick morning reply before work) I’ll insist just off the top of my head that I think the things referred to as being copies were such things as temple or tabernacle (Moses instructions for how the tent should be set up, or David/Solomon’s instructions for the temple). I suggest it would be a mistake to think that this applies across to the board to all our cultural trappings - even if it gets broad scriptural acknowledgment. Even regarding the things that are copies (like the temple) - are we not told finally in Revelation that in the everlasting City of God there will be no temple because God is its temple? Just as there will be no longer be any sun needed for light, etc. We are also told of all the things that will never enter its gates (liars, fornicators, etc.) In other words, there are some things left behind (some of them - good riddance; but yet others that weren’t bad but have now been superseded). My impression (again without research here and now) is that the sacrificial system was primarily installed to deal with sin. The cruel system of Roman torture and capital punishment has even less biblical sanction as a “God-installed” system than the old sacrificial system did. Far be it from any of us to think that Roman crosses are going to “be a thing” in heaven any more than we would expect to find wings in the mansions dedicated to being dungeons and torture chambers. Those are the wares of this world, courtesy of our own wickedness, and the very things that creation (and us!) groan to be set free from. God’s association with it is that he was willing to endure it all in order to reach out to us - rescuing us from all those things! That new life will in no way (other than as loathsome memories that we gratefully turn away from in our savior’s presence) showcase or celebrate those former things, much less be something that God, our loving father would somehow be “in to”.
). And, of course, God was “pleased” with Abel’s offering.