Wednesday, November 10, 2004

God, War & the Cross... Pt 3

I've just realised in my two previous posts, I didn't explain why I put the Cross in the title!! (that's an overactive brain for you!)

I was going to respond to ur comment made Jonny saying that the Cross is not about a bloodthirsty God., taking revenge...

I agree, but it seems there's a lot of confusion about the Cross and it's significance at the moment. I've just finished reading a book by Steve Chalke called "the Lost Message of Jesus", which is really good... until you get to the Last Chapter. (in my humble opinion!)

The problem comes for me, in the last chapter where Steve says he doesn't teach anymore that the Cross was about a wrathful God punishing Jesus for taking on sin. This, I have to say I struggle with, as all the other points in the book I agree with: Jesus coming into the world to establish a new Kingdom, not of the world, one based on servanthood, not power, one based on an amazing Divine Love that conquers all evil.

All these things I would happilly say yes to, even where Steve says the Cross was about Jesus associating himself with us in our weak, powerless humanity, becoming one of us, yes!

Cutting out the idea that Jesus took the punishment for our sin on the cross however, is going too far. The Bible teaches that since the beginning, God set up a principle that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins". Hence, why in Genesis, we see this priciple very graphically illustrated immediately after the Fall: God kills an animal, (where else did he get an animal skin from?) therefore shedding it's blood, to "cover" Adam & Eve and the result & consequences of their sin.

Again, in Genesis, we see this when Cain and Abel start to offer sacrifices to God:

Abel's sacrifice of animals, is accepted by God, but not Cain's of crop. Perhaps this is not just because of the way in which it was offered, (Cain seems to demonstrate pride in that he's angry at God when all the produce he toiled over making is rejected) , but rather because of what the offering was.

After the flood, Noah builds an altar, and sacrifices animals to God as an offering of praise, and thankfulness.

When God calls Abraham, as a sign of the seriousness of the Covenant He is making between them, God kills animals, and blood is shed.

Then, we see in Leviticus Moses under instruction by God) sets up the Principle formally in the Law, and the Jewish Sacrificial System is begun.

In the Exodus, Judgement of Death (which is the result of sin remember) passes over the houses of those who smear animals blood on their doorposts.

This a constantly occuring theme throughout the Old Testament, and it's final fulfillment was in Jesus dying on the Cross. The problem for God, (if I can put it that way!) was that He is a Holy God, and cannot look upon sin, but loves His creation, and wants a personal relationship with each of them. The only way a Holy and Just God can accept us, is if the punishment because of our sin (which is death and bloodshed) was paid by Himself, i.e. His Son. In Jesus, we see the perfect sacrificial Lamb, broken for us, to make forgiveness, and new life possible for us.

The Cross doesn't show us a vengeful God, committing (as Steve controversially puts it!) "cosmic child abuse", rather it shows us the EXTENT that the Trinity would go to, to love us. Although I can't explain it, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus had a choice over the Cross, over whether to fulfill His Father's Will or not. This wasn't just Jesus the Son of Man, but also Jesus the Son of God. He chose, in the Garden, (which I'm sure wasn't the first time in his earthly life) to put His Father's Will first in all that He did. There was no ordering around from God the Father, Jesus the Son chose to go to the Cross. Why?

Because He loved us.

Simple.

That's why I can't accept defining the cross as just an excecise in God Identifying with us in our weakness. Certainly that was another powerful message we found in it, but If that's ALL it was about, we still would not know God, Heaven wouldn't be open to us, and all of Jesus' teachings about living as part of His Kingdom and receiving His Spirit, would have been null and void., because God cannot dwell with sin, and we are sinful.

Through Jesus taking our Punishment, we are clean in the Father's sight, as the price has been paid for sin.

For me, that's a FAR more positive message of God Identifying with us!! He didn't just become one of us, he did what none of us could do, He paid the price of Sin!! Because of Jesus, there's no more regrets, no more guilt, no more false hope: as He Himself said: "It Is Finished!"

Now if that's not worth telling people as Good News, I don't know what is!!

3 comments:

  1. Much to think about here. Two preliminary thoughts:
    1. The Bible may not always mean by "sin" personal immorality, though of course that is a factor. The atonement also had to do with Israel being restored to its original covenant purpose of being the light of the world, only now "Israel" could include the whole world, Jews and Gentiles. "Sin" in that context had to do with exile, "our sins" in the NT often meaning the state Israel was in - God not being "fully" present in the Temple because of the pagan occupation etc. I'm not an expert on this, but I'm sure there's more to sin than just our moral separation from God on a personal level.
    2. This may imply that "sin" isn't (or isn't entirely) something that requires punishment as such, in the sense of a violent sacrfice, but a form of reconciliation - the kind that comes through God identifying with humanity in its suffering.

    Not committing myself strongly to any of that (yet), just preliminary thoughts as I said. It's great to be able to talk these things through though. :)
    JB.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for taking the time to answer my blog,

    Some thoughts on 'cosmic child abuse', the trouble is with the whole doctrine of penal substitution is what you mean by it. I will explain the hard line penal substitution view as expounded by Johnathan Edwards (the puritan not the long jumper)see

    http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/works2/htm/xi.v.htm

    In brief it states that

    1)all men have sinned
    2)A punishment is directly proportional to the crime
    3)The greater the person the sin is against the greater the crime
    4)all sin is against the infinitely high god
    therefore
    5)mans sin is infinite as it is against the most high god
    therefore
    6)An infinte punishment is deserved as the sin is infinite (proportianlity)
    7)Man is not infinite
    therefore
    8)Man cannot pay for sin
    9)Jesus is the GodMan and is perfectly inocent
    10)As man he can take the punishment for us and as God he can take infinite punishment
    11) As he has no sin himself the removal of guilt is able to be applied to everyone

    Problem
    As it says in proverbs that it is a great wrong for the righteous to suffer for sins they have not commited.

    Problem
    As you rightly pointed out if christ does not take the punishment for our sins our punishment remains.

    Solution

    The problem with penal substitution is that it becomes the great cosmic equation 'stock exchange divinity'

    Certianly the judgement of God is dealt with but this is through the incarnation. Christ enters into sinful flesh and thus under the judgement of God. He is made part of the exiled Isreal, and the exiled humanity. As such he identifies completely with the guilty and takes upon himself the judgement on humanity viz death. By living in the humanity that is fallen, by the power of the Spirit, he bring our humanity which is at variance with God and reconciles it to the perfect will of the Father. The Fathers will including the judgement of God on fallen man. By following obediently through this judgement he is offers the perfect blood sacrafice to God.

    He then to be ressurected by the power of Spirt because he has in his person reconciled Man to God through his blood-obedience. The Act of the one righteous man. Humanity is finaly and ontologicaly reconciled to God through the ressurection.

    This is just a glimpse of judgement on the cross without penal substitution, but with substitution.

    Richard

    For thoughts like these read the actuality of Atonement
    by Gunton

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have just posted on this subject, and indlude the context of the "cosmic child abuse" quote from Steve Chalkes book. Steve has in my view rightly been criticised by the UK's Evangelical Alliance for his views.

    See my blog post at

    http://www.adrian.warnock.info/2004/11/steve-chalke-and-lost-message-of-jesus.htm

    ReplyDelete