When working with the atonement, possibly the most important faith-element is the cluster of ideas, themes, values and belief that could be put together under the heading of Justice - justice, judgement, righteousness, rightness, indebtedness, purity, holiness, ritual, sacrifice, redemption, restoration, punishment, restitution etc.
It is important that we thoroughly understand what this fundamental concept of justice is all about, what the pardigms on offer through the bible are and the theological, doctrinal, hermeneutic, ethical and apologetic consequences might be.
These questions may be helpful…
- What was the First Testament and contextual Jewish conception of justice?
- What was the language used in the Law and the Prophets to describe Yahweh’s justice?
- In what sense is the First Testament concept of justice about retribution for wrongdoing? In what sense is it about Yahweh ‘putting things right’?
- What is the point of Yahweh’s justice? What is Yahweh trying to achieve? How do the elements of God, Satan and sinful humanity interact as Yahweh exercises justice? What is the goal? Does Yahweh’s ends and means fit together appropriately?
- What help or hinderance does modern western adversarial justice offer in working with this subject?
god's righteousness
to me this really is the crux of the whole debate. stulmacher helpfully talks about the righteousness of god in terms of god’s faithfulness to his relationship with the whole creation. (he suggests that this is the centre paul’s preaching and thinking). so god’s righteousness means the activity of god through which he creates well being and salvation in history (specifically that of Israel) in creation and in the situation of the earthly or eschatological judgment.
this righteousness is not only a gift of god but through the ministry of christ, the righteousness of god can thus even refer to a state of being determined by a power here designated with the same power which determines it, namely the righteousness of god.
so the point of rom 1.17 is that god’s manifestation of his justice, which creates new, has broken into the old world and has begun its triumphal procession.
so justification is not primarliy a forensic act in heaven which transcends time. Instead, it is the eschatological saving act of god on behalf of his people and by his power in which they are freed from the power of sin and incorporated my means of the spirit into the body of christ. as a result, the one who believes is forgiven in the present and is already a part of Christ’s body. at the same time, the believer also looks forward to the future judgement as one who has been empowered and enabled to stand in it by the power of christ’s resurrection and by virtue of being in christ.
god through christ reconciles the world to himself. this is the reversal of the horror of the human condition which is not ultimately that we are sinners, but that we no longer dwell with god. as paul says, we have all fallen with adam and have all be driven out of the garden. the centrality of the concept of god’s presence can be traced through gen3,4, ex40, 2kings17.18 and Jer52.3 to the exilic hopes of ez 43 etc and to their fulfillment in christ the “emmanuel” and through to the eschatological hope of rev 21.3.
perhaps this understanding of justice, constrasted with a purely forensic transfer of guilt, would guide us away from some of the unhelpful images of a distant, retributive god that plague some expressions of the penal model.
The Courtroom and The Sermon on the Mount
Just a thought: I know that the courtroom metaphor is common in the hebrew language about Justice and the like, as well as in the greek. Nonetheless, it seems to me that many of our concepts of the justice of God have been influenced to much towards this courtroom model.
Is the goal of justice to have two sheets that when tallied give a zero? This implying that somehow if all the evil is matched with good, or punishment(?), justice has been done? I don’t want to say to much more about that side of things, as my thoughts are a bit muddled, and probably underinformed. I know that God’s wrath exhibits itself plenty in the bible, and that a future judgement is looked forward to in many places as well.
But, I wonder if we might get further with the model offered by Jesus in the Sermon on the mount. Here he does not recommend the idea of an eye for an eye, or a balanced sheet, but of forgiveness, mercy, love, taking the first step, etc. etc. Is God exempt from this standard (as seems so often the case, especially in the penal substitutionary atonement theory), or is Jesus revealing the character of God? And if He is, and this sermon is applicable to the issue of justice, then what does it mean?
Not guilty M'lud, forever
Is justice served by punishing one’s self, and why would God want to?
The convoluted and hyperbolic nature of this particular debate would in a human conceived justice system raise eybrows, at least. Long before now (two millennia into the debate) the powers-that-be would have called for a review and a white paper and public enquiry. There must be an easier answer. I suspect too much historical investment in entrenched positions will hamper this important debate.
If the purpose was to save us from the crime of our sins was his self-flagellation tantrum truely just?
Perhaps the scales were balanced by him punishing himself for making us sinful, for a second time. Wiping out humanity in a global tsunami did not reduce levels of sin after Noah. Perhaps creating a Son and offering him up before the bloody alter is His own attonement for the mass murder He committed, and had not answered for.
He says, “I was wrong on two counts: I created you and I punished you for being created. This act of self destruction creates an automatic get out of jail card for you all for ever because it was my fault in the first place. My only other choice would be to destroy you all and try again (but I do reserve the right to try that if this doesn’t satisfy me in the fullness of time).”
This would mean that there is no need to believe in anything to have been saved, and that will raise a few more eyebrows.
His creation is flawed by the existence of us, which is God’s crime and there is no higher court of appeal.
"Paid in full! Forever, once and for all.
Albannach writes, “His creation is flawed by the existence of us, which is God’s crime and there is no higher court of appeal.” and “Perhaps creating a Son and offering him up before the bloody altar is His own atonment for the mass murder He committed, and had not answered for.”.
I am perplexed at his reliance on coffee house paradox and, quite frankly, what seems to be blasphemous charges against the Almighty in what I assume he believes is a serious discussion.
I admit I am not very nuanced in my thinking and writing, but if he has a trick up his sleeve here to further enliven debate or advance a new argument, I am missing it. It must be so because I can not see how one of Christ’s disciples could talk about God in the way I have perceived him to have done. I will leave it at that for now and hope I have missed something that will be made clear later.
To the discussion at hand.
St. Paul write to the church at Colosse: “And you are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumscion of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumscion of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, forgiving you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;…”. Colossians 2:10-14
No matter how you look at this passage, looking past the quite remarkable covenantal/sacramental linkage of circumcision and baptism, it paints a remarkable picture of a condemned criminal sitting in his/her cell, awaiting punishment with a list of crimes, offenses and penalties nailed on the cell door for all to see. This indictement/sentence seems to stand between the guilty and their freedom and very life. That it is taken up by Jesus and nailed on his cross seems very like a penal substitution. I once read that Jesus’ words, “It is finished!” could as easily be translated “Paid in full!”. How appropriate when applied to St. Pauls statements in this passage.
More at a later time when work is not so pressing.
Your brother in Christ Alario
Who judges the judges?
Alario, two questions: Can only ‘brothers in Christ’ be involved in discussions on Christian theology? Surely the whole concept of an open source theology, with its potential for change, has potential also to redefine what might be considered blasphemous?
God is my only judge.
Two questions?
Albannch:
I do see how signing off, ‘your brother in Christ’, on a comment directed to a general audience rather than an individual could seem an attempt to exclude and, consequently, be offensive. Accept my apologies if this has been the case and my explanation that this was not my intent.
Of course, dscussions of Christian theology are not limited to Christians only.
Your second question is a bit more of a statement than a question but you seem to be asking if OST has the potential for change, and as part of its capacity for change, does it also have the capacity to redefine what is considered blasphemous.
My answer is a wholehearted, unreserved yes. However, this redefining may vastly expand those boundries, it may leave them standing or it may draw them in a bit. This redefining may not be a good thing.
As you suggest, OST has potential for change, but change can be revolutionary, radical, retrogressive and maybe even imperceptible at times. Change is not always a good thing.
Two questions for you. 1. Is accusing God of mass murder and blaming God, essentially, for the sins of mankind, blasphemy? 2. What is your response to the scripture I offered in defense of a somewhat orthodox view of penal substitution?
(someone’s)brother in Christ, Alario