Comments on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity]: Matthew 8:16-17 and Substitution atonement

I think you mixed me up with Dan on the entangleme...

2009-05-13T18:59:00.000-07:00

I think you mixed me up with Dan on the entanglement thing, but no big deal.

Yes, I think you zoomed into what I was thinking, God gained "special rights" to these men which is a different concept than simply transferring punishment.

Now that I think about it, I think I see something here. In Jewish (or all OT) culture, the male (esp first born son) was an extremely important figure. He held birthrights as well as maybe the only son the family had (to continue the lineage). God putting "special rights" on them was a way of showing the Jews just how much they owed Him their worship and honor for redeeming them. Because when you read the instructions they plainly say do this so you will remember you were redeemed from Egypt.

Ex 13: 14 "In days to come, when your son asks you, 'What does this mean?' say to him, 'With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed every firstborn in Egypt, both man and animal. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.' 16 And it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the LORD brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand."

Their life, their lineage, hung on God's gracious act in Egypt, the future generations would not be there today without this freedom of 450 years of bondage. God HATES when people forget his good works, and these regular feasts and instructions were wake up calls.

Nick, You raise valid points regarding the differe...

2009-05-13T18:46:00.000-07:00

Nick,
You raise valid points regarding the difference between the redemptive sacrifice and the passover one, but it is going to far to say that they are only entangled due to centuries of systematic theology.

Centuries of systematic theology did not write Exodus 13:15, Numbers 3:13, and Numbers 8:17.

All 3 specify that the consecration took place on the night of the passover.

Thinking about this more, I would say that two things are going on:
i) God has a right to the first born because they were those that were not killed.
ii) The mechanism by which this right plays out involves substitution offerings.

With this reasoning, the passover itself was not a substitution, but did confer to God special rights over that which was spared. The substitution offerings show up only in the outworking of that consecration. [And, as Nick has pointed out, those are merely "sub" not "Psub"]

[Note I don't think the part about their being a burnt sacrifice really holds. After all, that only went for certain animals that were not redeemed.]

I think all of us have learned a lot from this! Great dialogue.

LOL, I'm falling behind in my reading! David: "Gu...

2009-05-13T18:29:00.000-07:00

LOL, I'm falling behind in my reading!

David: "Guys, I think we have to consider the passover as substitutionary and redemptive"

There is no argument from me here, because the escape from Egypt is clearly called a redemption. A redemption requires not so much a substitution but an exchange of valuables (a 'buy out' price). That's why in just using the terms "ransom," and "redeem," and "purchased," and "bought with a price," all through the NT I see as a huge blow to Psub, because these "commercial" terms contradict the notion of a judicial transfer of punishment.

I'd be careful about making a direct link between lamb and death of the first born because one of the arguments I made in my debate was that if a family was too small then they would share a lamb with the neighbor (Ex 12:4). This doesn't make sense if it is life-for-life substitution. I think it is very important to keep in mind that Ex 11:4-7 is clear that this is to teach Egypt a lesson for mocking God 9 previous times.

As for the connection between the Passover and redemption of the sons, I did find clear evidence of this, Ex 13:11-15...however, it does not appear that this redeeming is on par with the Passover Lamb itself. In Ex 13:2 it seems that redemption is equivalent to "consecrate to me every first born son," so this isn't a matter of transferring punishment as it is God setting apart certain classes. The fact first born animals had to be redeemed goes against the notion of transfer of punishment as well (an animal doesn't have sins to transfer). Further, it does not appear to be a life-for-life redemption either, because Numbers 18:15f explicitly uses a coin value for redemption price (impossible if punishment is being transferred).

One final note, the whole nation of Israel is said to be redeemed from Egypt, so we must not loose sight of this and focus on first born only.

I think it is impossible to untangle the redemp...

2009-05-13T17:19:00.000-07:00
I think it is impossible to untangle the redemption of the first born from the passover.

With all due respect, Dave, that's only true if you don't let the original Passover narrative speak for itself. As I said above:

(1) The sons were to be spared at passover, not just if a lamb was killed, but if the blood was marked on the doorway. Sacrifice was a necessary, but not sufficient part of this process.

(2) The redemption sacrifices described later were to be offered to God as burnt offerings, not eaten as the Passover lamb (and, for that matter, some other sacrifices such as "fellowship offerings" were).

(3) Most importantly, the redemptive aspect of the lamb's slaughter is simply not part of the Passover account. The focus of Passover, like the focus of so many things throughout the Bible, is on the work God is doing (in this case rescuing his people from bondage), and when we turn our focus to something that's dying in the process, we are cheapening God's actual work.

The events are only "tangled" because centuries of systematic theologians have tangled them.

Dan, but the redemption of the first born extended...

2009-05-13T17:01:00.000-07:00
Dan, but the redemption of the first born extended to humans. (Exodus 13:2)
At first God demanded the first born of all Israelites, and then in Numbers that was switched to the Levites...and then evidently there was some confusion because in Numbers 18:15 we are back to both man and beast.

And I do think this consecration goes back to the original because we are told that the consecration took place on the day that the first born were killed [even before the Israelites were drawn out] (Numbers 3:13 8:17).

I think it is impossible to untangle the redemption of the first born from the passover.

My take-home point being, there is a lot that may ...

2009-05-13T16:25:00.000-07:00
My take-home point being, there is a lot that may be logical, that still is not textually-supported. It may not be textually-contradicted, but the absence of contradiction is not enough upon which to hang a doctrine or dogma.

Re: Passover as redemption, OK, yes, as long as yo...

2009-05-13T16:23:00.000-07:00
Re: Passover as redemption, OK, yes, as long as you don't confuse the old notion of redemption (buying back from slavery, death, whatever) with the modern misuse of the word, as a synonym for "saved from sin/hell." Not saying you do confuse the two, but the words have been so confounded in modern English.

But, though redeeming all firstborn with sacrifice in subsequent years is taught in several of the places you cited as referring back to Passover, the two are still different (witness, the Passover lamb continues to be slaughtered every year in remembrance, even if there are no more firstborn to redeem).

Further, the Numbers passages you cite also refer to God reserving to himself the Levites--not bought with a similar sacrifice, but described as "mine" in the same verbiage as the firstborn.

Can you infer a substitutionary death of the lamb for the firstborn from the events of the first passover? Sure, it's not illogical. But it is not the only explanation--the blood as a seal of identity being another (and note it's not the existence of a dead lamb, but blood on the door, that was the sign to the destroyer).

The OTHER substitutionary death to which you refer--that of the firstborn of animals, without whose redemption they die--that really IS substitutionary. But I don't think we want to extend Jesus' death to saving the necks of our livestock. . .or else Exodus 13:13 gives a whole new meaning to "saving your ass."

Guys, I think we have to consider the passover as ...

2009-05-13T15:58:00.000-07:00
Guys, I think we have to consider the passover as substitutionary and redemptive [though perhaps not atoning for sin].

Here's the issue. Reading the discussion of the passover requirements in the Torah, I think we do in fact have to think of the lamb as a substitute for the death of the first born. The passover can hardly be separated from the redemption of the first born of every womb. Numbers 3:13 and 8:14 [among others] indicates that all the first born were made God's beginning the night of the passover. Those first born that were not redeemed by the killing of a lamb were dead.
Indeed, it appears that the redemption of the first born is seen as a continuation of the passover sacrifice ad infinitum. [Note where it falls in the instructions each time it is brought up. Exodus 13:12, 34:20 and the two Numbers references above]

This redemption of the first son is quite clearly a substitutionary one, one where death is absolutely demanded by God. This goes for all animals. Each one had to either die or be redeemed by the sacrifice of another.

Now, the above does not specify on what ground this payment is made. We are only told that the firstborn are God's, and they became God's before Israel was ever brought out of Egypt.

My point is this: many of the passages that the...

2009-05-13T14:02:00.000-07:00
My point is this: many of the passages that theologians parse ad nauseum for clues to systematic theology, may really have been Paul in exasperation trying to drag the church away from the clutches of those who didn't want to let go the rituals of the temple.I think you will enjoy my chapter on Paul.

When reading Paul, we must keep in constant focus that Paul wrote to Gentiles about Gentiles in a world where Gentile believers had been influenced by Jewish believers.

Paul himself kept the Mosaic Law until the day he died, as did all the Jewish Christians. Paul's contention is that there is no reason for Jews to impress those laws on non-Jewish Christians (and he gives several different reasons for this).

I was under the impression that you were agains...

2009-05-13T13:38:00.000-07:00
I was under the impression that you were against Christ as any type of sacrifice [expiatory or propitiatory]...that you were against the idea that a sacrifice was needed at all.No, Paul clearly links Jesus' death to having fulfilled a variety of sacrifices. To divorce the concepts entirely would be unbiblical, and I am not advocating that.

I do question whether sacrifice was "needed," at least as the concept is usually explained. Not long ago I read the entire compendium of Paul's epistles in the space of only a couple of days, and it jumped out at me that Paul's letter-wide context, even from one letter to the next, seemed to be around defending the nascent Christian faith against the Judaizers who were trying to re-assert circumcision in particular, as well as other aspects of Jewish practice like dietary laws and (I presume) the sacrifices. To this assault, Paul answers that whatever elements of the old system existed, they were fulfilled and completed in Jesus.

My point is this: many of the passages that theologians parse ad nauseum for clues to systematic theology, may really have been Paul in exasperation trying to drag the church away from the clutches of those who didn't want to let go the rituals of the temple. Paul's explanation of how Jesus fulfilled all these things does not NECESSARILY mean that they carry the freight with which the Judaizers then, and Evangelicals now, have laden them.

The notion that somehow the precise mechanism of Christ's atonement is absolutely central to Christianity is on the same level as the notion that hell is part of the gospel.Yeah. What you said. Exactly.

Sorry, Dan. I was not trying to link together Chri...

2009-05-13T13:27:00.000-07:00
Sorry, Dan. I was not trying to link together Christ's sacrifice with God's wrath [I think I mention later that I'm just showing that expiation was definitely involved here.]

I was under the impression that you were against Christ as any type of sacrifice [expiatory or propitiatory]...that you were against the idea that a sacrifice was needed at all.

So the verses I had cited were meant to support Christ as a sacrifice for transgressions and the effects thereof.

[I do agree that people spend too much effort on the method or mechanism. The notion that somehow the precise mechanism of Christ's atonement is absolutely central to Christianity is on the same level as the notion that hell is part of the gospel.]

The question is, how does Christ 'make an end t...

2009-05-13T13:05:00.000-07:00
The question is, how does Christ 'make an end to sin' and 'take away the sin of the world'?

And maybe this is what really bugs me the most about all the various atonement fights (and fights they often are) out there. While this may in fact be an interesting question, in the final analysis WHY DOES IT MATTER???We are told that Christ took care of sin and calls us to follow him. The mechanism, however interesting it may be to the inquiring mind, is not even peripherally key to faithful following of Jesus, or gratefully accepting the incredible gift of grace he offers.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the debate as much as (or more than) the next guy. But I do think at some point we have to face up to the fact that Jesus called us to discipleship, not to theory.

My biggest objection to PSA is that the purveyors of it seem to think it's such a bloody big deal (pun intended) to think the right thoughts about it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that those "right thoughts"--if right they are--don't predicate much that God defines (throughout the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Epistles) as holiness. Holier-than-thouness, yes. . .

Not accusing you guys personally. Just suggesting that a little perspective may need to be reasserted. . .

But remember that the "cleansing" that was associa...

2009-05-13T12:57:00.001-07:00
But remember that the "cleansing" that was associated with Passover was clearing the leaven out of the house. Leaven, of course, is all over both OT and NT as a type or symbol of earthly (or Gentile, or sinful) corruption of the faithful. The removal of leaven was done by the householders themselves, in preparation.

While sprinkling of blood has definite cleansing purposes in some sacrifices--as Dave correctly pointed out that's key to temple cleansing--the blood on the doorposts of the homes at Passover was a sign of identity, an indicator to the angel of destruction to pass over the house. I suspect (though this is conjecture w/o a reference I can come up with at this moment) that the Holy Spirit sealing the believer may be more analogous to the passover blood, than any sacrificial cleansing. In any case, it's erroneous to assume that, because blood is used in cleansing in other rituals, that this was its purpose at Passover.

Unless you are claiming that, because Jesus in some way fulfilled all these dissimilar symbols, that they must have been linked beforehand. I think that's also erroneous--in him all things come together, but that doesn't mean they were previously related.

And Dave, your Ezekiel reference is clearly about cleansing. But the fact that "doors" and "blood" occur in both rituals is not enough to tie them together. That sort of logic could have all kinds of weird ramifications.

Interestingly, Ezekiel 45:20, just a couple verses down, says this is (in addition to addressing unintentional sin of the people) making "atonement for the temple." Huh. . .you think the temple sinned and was also a target of wrath?

Nick, The question is, how does Christ 'make an en...

2009-05-13T12:57:00.000-07:00
Nick,
The question is, how does Christ 'make an end to sin' and 'take away the sin of the world'?

Drawing on the work in the Later Prophets, I'm led to say that John and the other NT writers are not referring to a "scapegoat" type removal of sin (after all...they would have said "the goat that takes away the sin from the world" if this were in view.)

I claim the "making an end to sin" refers to allowing and encouraging repentance (Note the super-critical verse Acts 3:26 which defines not only Jesus' role but the blessing of Abraham as "God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one from your wicked ways."

with regard to "cleansing" from sin, this should be read as both a reference to "everyone" being given the opportunity to become "ritually clean" and join the temple of the New Covenant (Acts 10:15) [as opposed to just the Jews] and the "cleansing of our conscience" described in Hebrews.

Neither one of them is a "removal of sin from the accounting books." They refer to the state of a person. Those who are "Unclean" are not allowed in the Temple and have not had their souls sanctified to do good works [Hebrews 9:15]. Those who are clean are both ritually allowed in this heaven temple and internally cleansed.

There very well may be "room" for repentance... bu...

2009-05-13T12:42:00.000-07:00
There very well may be "room" for repentance... but the indication is that that repentance never really came [and perhaps could not have come.]

It seems hard to get around Ezekiel 45, which obviously refers to the coming Messianic age. We read that the "Prince will provide for himself and all the people of the land a bull for a sin offering."

And note where the blood of the offering in Ezekiel 45:19 will be placed: The door posts, the "ledge" of the altar (these "ledges" the LXX translated with the word generally used for "Mercy Seat") and on the gate of the inner court. That certainly appears to be a combining of the "Day of Atonement" sacrifice and the Passover sacrifice [in no other sacrifice is blood put on the door posts.]

Compare this with Hebrews which pictures Christ sacrifice as standing in lieu of repeated sacrifices. These sacrifices were offerings made for sin, to cleanse the people and the temple from sin.

In particular Hebrews 9:11-15 is hard to read as not indicating Jesus' death was for the "redemption of transgressions"

Note that Hebrews 9:14 says Christ "offered Himself without blemish to God"

Maybe I'm misreading your point, but I don't think you can get away from Jesus as sacrifice for transgressions.

Hebrews 9:22-26 appears similarly to paint a clear picture of Jesus "suffering" as a sacrifice to cleanse the temple of our transgressions.

Now, none of this puts a focus on God's wrath, but it certainly indicates that expiation was (at the minimum) required and accomplished through Jesus blood. [Hebrews 9:22]

David, That passage from Heb 11:28 is pretty neat...

2009-05-13T12:11:00.000-07:00
David,

That passage from Heb 11:28 is pretty neat, though as you said it's indirect evidence at best. It appears this term only appears once in the NT, which doesn't help build a case to Levitical sprinkling. As it stands, I can only see it talking of putting the blood on the door posts.

I totally agree that it marks freedom of physical and spiritual bondage. But now I have to rethink things a bit because I'm now seeing the Passover was not directly tied to sins and atonement.

In the past I've always associated blood with sanctifying, and as you know the OT and NT make this clear, but now I think that "redemption" and "cleansing" are two distinct (though not totally unrelated) concepts. Hebrews seems especially focused on the Levitical angle.

What is interesting now though is that John says Jesus is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" and Jesus died on the Passover...yet I just said "taking away sin" was not directly associated with Passover, unless it refers to redemption from spiritual bondage (though "taking away sin" still sounds like cleansing). Also interesting is that 1 Jn 1:7-9 says the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin, which again I just said was not Passover specifically.

Then again, I very easily could be improperly imposing ONLY the Passover onto John's writing.

I agree there was plenty of wrath against other th...

2009-05-13T11:33:00.000-07:00
I agree there was plenty of wrath against other than Israel, and I think a fair case can be made that those other targets suffered contemporary defeat and destruction as well. I didn't mean that Israel took the brunt of everybody's sin, just their own.

But don't forget that along with the wrath, the prophets are also full of redemption. . .and while a great deal of it is unquestionably Messianic, there's also plenty of room for plain-old repentance.

I certainly understand your feeling that there's a lot in the prophets that's a whole lot more cosmic than any one country or region. I agree, though I think that people draw the lines in odd places.

But if I see where you are going with this (and I may well be wrongly reading a lot into your comment), I still think that the degree to which Evangelicals tie Jesus' death & resurrection to some reserve of stored-up wrath against humanity, is a stretch at best and unbiblical at worst. Fundamentally, I believe that the notion that Jesus died to satisfy his Father's wrath is at odds with the N.T. testimony.

Hey Nick and Dan, Would either of you be intereste...

2009-05-13T11:17:00.000-07:00
Hey Nick and Dan,
Would either of you be interested in a review copy of "The Gospel You've Never Heard"?

[Full title:
Who Really Goes to Hell? --- The Gospel You've Never Heard: What a Protestant Bible Written by Jews says about God's work through Christ]

Of course, if you have sufficient means, you can just buy it from Amazon [I don't sign or personalize that particular book], but I do think you'd be interested in it...plus I'd like to hear your voices on the forum that is specifically for those who have read the book.

Email me [David@authentic-christianity.net] if you are interested.

I would disagree with that. Firstly, there appears...

2009-05-13T11:13:00.000-07:00
I would disagree with that. Firstly, there appears to be no lessening of the wrath even after getting into post-exile books. Secondly, a great deal of the wrath is specifically prophesied on other nations after the exile for how the sons of Jacob were treated.

Thirdly, the type of imagery used in much of the prophets just seems a bit too fantastic not to be something much greater. Indeed, often it is the land and creation itself that wrath is prophesied against.

My point was that the prophets teach of the pro...

2009-05-13T11:08:00.000-07:00
My point was that the prophets teach of the prophesied wrath that must be engaged, not that they necessarily teach of substitutionary atonement.

Fair enough, Dave. But I would argue most of the wrath the prophets prophesied was in fact fulfilled in the exile. That would certainly be the plain reading of it, not so?

Nick, Actually, the passover is also associated wi...

2009-05-13T11:01:00.000-07:00
Nick,
Actually, the passover is also associated with cleansing through sprinkling [albeit rather indirectly]. Hebrews 11:28 is interesting in its choice of wording.

The passover marks being freed from physical and spiritual bondage. But the way that freedom occurs [as Hebrews, particularly 9:14, makes very clear] is through the consecration of the Heavenly temple.

Dan,
I think I might have confused you a bit by responding partially to Nick's question while answering your comment. My point was that the prophets teach of the prophesied wrath that must be engaged, not that they necessarily teach of substitutionary atonement.

I think a great deal of wrong-headed theology w...

2009-05-13T10:42:00.000-07:00
I think a great deal of wrong-headed theology would be averted throughout history if every Christian had to diligently read the prophets and come to grips with the salvation history presented there.

And here, my friend, you could not have me in fuller agreement if you tried. Interestingly, though, most of what the prophets have to say about sacrifice is how much God hates sacrifices (and rituals in general) in the absence of true repentance and justice. So while I agree that the prophets have a great deal to teach us about what God desires (and what pisses him off), they are a lousy place to build a penal-substitutionary, sacrifice-requiring understanding of sin and redemption. In fact, I am often stunned to discover how much of what I thought was "only" New Testament theology is not only foreshadowed, it's stated outright, in the prophets.

Dan, That is very interesting. It does show how s...

2009-05-13T10:40:00.000-07:00
Dan,

That is very interesting. It does show how sloppy things have become. While Jesus DOES in fact represent all the sacrifices in Himself, not all sacrifices were the same. Thank you for pointing this out to me, the Passover is not linked to atonement. Why did I not see this earlier? The Passover is associated with ransom, while the Day of Atonement is associated with "sprinkled with blood" for cleansing. From what I can see just at a glance, the Gospels and Paul focus really on the Passover, while Hebrews focuses on Levitical sacrifices. We obviously believe Jesus takes on all roles, but the concepts are still distinct.

Why did I not see this earlier? It just goes to show what can be invented and then read into the text for generations. You hit a home run on this point.

Dan, I think you have my rabbit trail wrong. My r...

2009-05-13T10:34:00.000-07:00
Dan,
I think you have my rabbit trail wrong.

My rabbit trails starts in the Later Prophets, which describe why a savior is needed and what the savior would do. These later prophets are (I would contend) the least appreciated books in the Old Testament (much like Acts and the epistles of Jesus are the most under-appreciated books of the New Testament).

I think a great deal of wrong-headed theology would be averted throughout history if every Christian had to diligently read the prophets and come to grips with the salvation history presented there. Unfortunately, modern Christians rather plunder these books for the scraps that identify Jesus as the Christ without appearing to care for the purpose and reason for the Christ described there.

Keep in mind there is a significant difference between the sins for which the sacrifices in the Torah were prescribed and the sins done by Israel and the nations documents in the Later Prophets. The cultic sacrifices were designed to deal with uncleanliness and to preserve the sanctity of the Temple.

However, what we see in the prophets is not merely a need to cleanse defilement (expiation), but actual prophesied wrath against not individual sinners but all of creation for the generational sin of both God's people and those who oppressed them.

And that, as my friend Patrick likes to say, is another kettle of fish.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. . .you are right ...

2009-05-13T10:01:00.000-07:00
OK, now we're getting somewhere. . .you are right that I read into your statements a meaning I see you did not intend. My apologies.

That sin CAN be the cause of infirmity, I agree. To assume the converse, that infirmity is necessarily caused by sin, no. I believe you just said the same thing.

That Israel, at any given point in their history, had sin issues that needed dealing with, is indisputable. They were, as previously observed, human.

But this whole rabbit trail is working on a theory/doctrine/understanding of atonement. If I correctly understand you, you are suggesting that since Israel indisputably had sin that needed to be dealt with, the passover sacrifice must have in some way been intended (at least in part) to deal with that sin. That is an assumption, pure and simple. Reasonable, perhaps, but not textually supported.

You are then drawing a line from that assumption, to the contention central to PSA, that blood is a necessary element of the atonement for sin. This is where I think you're off base, in that Passover, pregnant as it is with powerful symbolism and lessons (many of which are biblically transferred to Jesus), is not linked to atonement within the Biblical text. That it has been so linked by later generations of systematic theologians, is merely a testament to what happens when one starts with a premise and then looks for proof texts to back it up.

Other texts require different interactions to determine whether or not there needed to be a blood element to atonement. I maintain, however, that Passover texts are irrelevant to this discussion, as sin and its atonement aren't the Passover story.