Scripture Text (NRSV)
Luke 23:33-43
23:33 When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there
with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.
23:34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are
doing." And they cast lots to divide his clothing.
23:35 And the people stood by, watching; but the leaders scoffed at him, saying,
"He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen
one!"
23:36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine,
23:37 and saying, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!"
23:38 There was also an inscription over him, "This is the King of the Jews."
23:39 One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying,
"Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!"
23:40 But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under
the same sentence of condemnation?
23:41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for
our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong."
23:42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
23:43 He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
Comments:
The true Kingship of Jesus is revealed in the Cross. There can be no
true disciple who does not follow Jesus to the Cross because it is at
the Cross that we see who Jesus truly is and what He does for us. In
our own lives the Cross and the shadow of the Cross must pass. As the
shadow comes over us we need to look up to Jesus, we need to look up
as the Jewish people looked up to the bronze serpent and we too will
have life. With the issues going on in our country and world we need
this Christ Crucified and the message of the gospel to see us through
difficult moments and to come to victory in Christ.
I'm gone this week, Happy Preaching and Good eating to all. Thanks for
the great discussion last week. Nancy-Wi
Recognizing our King. In our pain can we be as gracious and
encouraging as this thief hanging on his cross. Remember He suffers
along with us as we walk our journey. "His Cross before His Crown."
this might be my title. Just musing for now. LPinPA
In intercessory prayer we are reminded by the liturgical theologian
Don Saliers that we are to 'remember' the world to God. As we make our
prayers this week, I believe last week's dialogue, especially in the
heart-felt reflections of Nail-bender, provide a prelude to this
week's Golgotha confrontation with the Cross unveiling the King of
Kings. I am greatful, as in Thanksgiving, as in Euchrist, for all your
contributions serving as the prolegomena to this week! I believe a
review of those prayerful reflections will provide a "stream of
consciousness" enabling us to "pray the scripture" at hand concerning
the victorious King of Kings who hangs from the Cross... I again
invite us to see the world God so loved through the eyes of Jesus who
hangs from the Skulls' ugly Cross of death unveiling the God who makes
Advent out of despair's darkness, who embraces the world in spite of
its tragedy with victorious resurrection. Holy Ground and the Burning
Bush of Golgotha continue to reveal the "I-AM-God-Self" being/becoming
the Wounded Healer, the Suffering Servant, at work in the bleeding,
broken, world he so loves. (PaideiaSco in the north ga mts)
I would just like to recommend that you read through the "Previous
Discussion" .... it is interesting reading and quite instructive.
Blessings, Eric in KS
In the previous discussion from 1998, one of the posters referred to
"an Argentine Church Baptism ritual where the parents, usually the
mother, wears black mourning clothes as she presents her child for
baptism."
Does anyone else know of this custom and, if so, have reference to any
documentation of it? We're baptising an infant on Christ the King and
I think I'd like to refer to this custom, if it is verifiable....
Thanks and blessings, Eric in KS
Good Monday morning to you all!
Does anyone have any information on the two women, Heather Mercer and
Dayna Curry? I've been searching. I thought that on Christ the King
Sunday they were be good, current illusttration. They kept their faith
after a long 104 day ordeal. I waas reading the press releases on the
Antioch Community Church in Waco, TX but was unable to find any
statements from the women themselves. Any ideas? By the way I'm
preaching on Colossians this week. Paula in sunny Fl
To Paula in Fla.
I saw the two ladies interviewed on CNN ... you might check the
CNN.com website to see if there are any transcripts of their comments.
Blessings, Eric in KS
Try http://www.crosswalk.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID74088|CHID194343|CIID1154010,00.html
So what kinda Savior is this that cannot even save himself???
Indeed, if the Church had created Christ they would not have created
this one!!!!
tom in ga
The people say,"If you're the Messiah of God, save yourself." The
soldiers say,"If you're the King of the Jews, save yourself."
The criminals have a better understanding of what it means to be
Messiah. Even the "bad" criminal gets it, and says,"If you're the
Messiah save yourself AND US!" The "good" criminal leaves off the "If"
and simply asks,"Remember me when you come into your kingdom." It
isn't self-preservation that makes you God's servant. It is in saving
others(even at your own peril) that you become the agent of the
Almighty.
On 9/11, those who ran from the buildings, and those who didn't make
it, we called victims. Those who ran into the buildings, or stayed
inside and helped get others out, we call Heros. Same as it ever was.
No application yet, just tossing around for ideas. It's only Tuesday.
tom in TN(USA)
Eric in KS I have not heard that tradition, but have heard that there
are baptism fonts in the shape of coffins, as a reminder of the death
of Christ, and of our dying to sin. A nice slooooow immersion baptism
would give the same feeling of almost dying. I suppose the black dress
is because the mother is taking her child to his/her death, either
spiritually, or because, in some places, being a Christian is very
likely to lead to death. I also have an infant baptism. I am working
with the question: Is Christ your King? In this world, the kingdom of
God has no definite boundaries. Believers are in the midst of
unbelievers. Baptism is a mark of the kingdom. God puts his mark on
us, and we live into what it means to be baptized. JRW in OH
Hi all.
Re: baptism. I heard the story from John Westerhoff (sp?).
The service began with the congregation singing a funeral dirge. The
family processed in slowly. The father carried a child-sized coffin he
made himself. The mother carried a bucket of water. The sponsors
(God-parents) carried the child.
When the family arrived at the front, the priest poured the water into
the coffin. He took the baby, put it under the water and said, "I kill
you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!"
He then lifted the baby out of the water (soaking wet, of course, as
when it had been born, covered with the waters of birth; crying, of
course, just as when it was born, filling its lungs with the breath of
(new!) life!), and the priest proclaimed, "And I raise you up to new
life so that you may love and serve the living God!"
The congregation sprang to its feet and began singing an Easter hymn!
Think that congregation knows what baptism is all about?? You bet!!
Rick in Canada, eh?
Thanks for the link to Crosswalk. Paula.
Hi. I'm placing this in a couple of lectionary discussions. Can anyone
help me find a new/different liturgy for doing the "Hanging of the
Greens" during worship on Dec. 2? I'll gladly swap you the one I used
in 1998! Thanks for any help. LL in L
What did the second thief see that all the others didn't? He asked
someone who was beaten, bloody, and about to die to "remember him."
What a statement of faith! Or...did he just not have anthing to lose.
"If you are King, save yourself...and us," the first thief said. After
all, a king is supposed to get me out of all my messes,
right...deliver me from the pickle I've gotten myself into...maybe
even give me a last minute pardon from my death sentence. A king has
the power to do that, right? In the book Reaching for the Invisible
God, Yancy talks about how that if you are uncomfortable with
paradoxes, then you'd better stay away from Yahweh, and you'd better
stay away from Jesus Christ. A King who is executed with criminals?
Dying in order to live? Powerless in order to save? Going to Hell in
order to go to Paradise? I'm not sure where this is going yet...just
ramblin' out here. NBC Preacher
Today you can buy a 4 day trip to the Bahama's on a cruse ship for
$199. Paradise for eternity is paid in full when you believe in a man
who forgives you for killing him on a cross. Everyone is looking for a
bargain but our fears speak louder to cloud the truth. As we face
death in our final moments what's true.. becomes clear and we cry out
for a Savior. Why do we wait so long to make our reservations? Why do
we kill the one who loves us? Jesus said it best when he said, "they
do not know what they are doing." Tragedies have a way of bringing
what is true into clearer focus. I guess we mock what we don't
understand.
Just some thoughts... KB
Does this fit this week's lectionary? I think so...
Proclaiming the Gospel John Stott
Preaching the law
Before we preach the gospel we must preach the law. Indeed this has
never been more necessary than it is today when we are witnessing a
widespread revolt against authority. The gospel can only justify those
the law condemns. These are the respective functions of law and
gospel; as Luther puts it, it is the work of the law to 'terrify', and
the work of the gospel to 'justify'(1). Thus every man's spiritual
history becomes a microcosm of God's dealings with the human race. God
did not immediately send his Son; nor can we immediately preach him. A
long programme of education and preparation came first, in particular
the giving of the law to expose the fact and gravity of sin. And the
law still performs the same function. 'It is only when one submits to
the law', wrote Dietrich Bonhoeffer in prison, 'that one can speak of
grace ... I don't think it is Christian to want to get to the New
Testament too soon or too directly.'(2) To bypass the law is to
cheapen the gospel. We must meet Moses before we are ready to meet
Christ.
(1) "Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians" (Clarke, 1953), p.
423. (2) "Letters and Papers from Prison" (ET SCM Press, 1959), p. 50.
--From "Our Guilty Silence" (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1967), p.
98.
---------------------------------------------------- --Excerpted from
"Authentic Christianity", pp. 334-335 by permission of InterVarsity
Press.
Posted by Rick in Va
KB,
Have you entertained the possibility that Christ's killers were doing
the will of God? If so, does that change your focus at all?
Rick in Va
To me the two criminals (sinners) who were crucified with Christ
repesent all of us. We all desirve to die for what we have and have
not done and only Christ can grant the gift of life at the time of
death. Here again Luke is emphasizing that we do not deserve anything,
but God does give us Love, grace and forgiveness. BD in Chicago
In his commentary, Craddock says that the second criminal was able to
identify Jesus as a king in spite of His circumstances because only
kings can offer pardons. That's exactly what Jesus did in verse 34.
Also, in his devotional book, "My One Hour with God," John Maxwell
tells the story Keith Miller tells on himself. It seems that Miller
had planned an adulterous renedezvous at an out-of-town hotel. He was
to call the woman he was to meet on checking into his room. But as he
tried to call her, Bible passages kept flashing through his brain.
Interestingly, they weren't the passages that condemn adultery.
Rather, they were the passages that speak of God's love, given to us
through Christ. Three times Miller tried to make the call and three
times he put the transceiver back in its cradle. He finally called out
to God, "I love you too much to do this."
It was God's grace and love that prevented Miller from perpetrating a
sin that would have had a devastating impact on him spiritually and on
many others.
That's like the criminal. He was observing incredible love: a wrongly
accused Savior praying for those who mocked and killed Him. That's
what brought him to repentance, I think.
Just some thoughts. I'm enjoying the discussion.
God bless all with a wonderful Thanksgiving!
In Christ, Mark in OH
What is the first thing you think of when you hear the word “King?”
What images does it bring to mind for you?
Do you think of fairy tales and nursery rhymes? King Midas and Old
King Cole?
Or maybe the word King conjures up notions of a place like Camelot
where kings like Arthur rule over a blissful medieval golden age.
Perhaps it brings to mind more modern images – people like King
Hussein of Jordan or other modern-day kings.
How do those images change when we say the term is not just King, but
Christ the King? Jesus Christ as Ruler, Sovereign, Supreme Being.
Maybe you think of a triumphant return in clouds of glory, where Jesus
Christ eradicates evil forever and establishes a reign marked by peace
and joy. Living in world that has been forever changed by the horrific
events of Sept. 11, that image holds a lot of comfort and hope.
But do your images of Jesus Christ as Ruler of the Universe include
images like we find in our story from Luke today?
Images like the humiliation brought on by taunts and jeers. The
emotional pain caused by the denial of your closest friends. The sheer
physical agony of being tortured and then nailed to a cross.
Above is the opening for my sermon. I plan to play off the contrasts
between the Luke and Colossians readings, and end with the notion of a
king defined not by his physical might and wealth but by his unbounded
love.
Thanks to all for wonderful, thoughtful musings. I find these
discussions very helpful.
Blessings, RevRoger in OH
After any tragedy, the question people all ask is, "Why did God do
this to me," or at least, "How could God let this happen?" We fail to
understand the nature of the power of God. It is not power over others
- forcing us to do his will; rather it is the power of self-giving
love, reconciling the world to himself. That is why his power is seen
most clearly on the cross - in the words of one of the church fathers,
"God reigns from a tree."
I think of the new understandings being developed in quantum physics -
that our universe is intricately connected in ways we do not yet even
understand. We are not surrounded by empty space; rather, even the
movement of an atom light years away has an effect on us. The whole
universe is in fluid motion. When one part moves out of sync, the rest
gently attempts to pull it back. Perhaps this is true also of the
spiritual life - a description of God's self-giving. When evil rears
its ugly head, God expresses his reign in love, reconciling the world
to himself, pulling things back into a balance, moving things back
into his will and toward the coming kingdom. The cross expresses how
he does this by taking the burden of it upon himself - not forcing his
will upon the world, yet leading it inexorably toward the completion
of his own purposes.
Just a few thoughts.
Gary in New Bern
I don't know about you, but when I prepare for a sermon, I do the
exegesis and usually end up with more ideas than I can encorporate. It
helps me to think of a creative presentation idea. For this pericope,
I'm going to ask the congregation to imagine two easles, each with a
canvas. I'll introduce characters in the story, such as each criminal,
the crowd, etc., discuss briefly what characteristic they represent,
and tell which canvas I would place them on. Like a painter you might
see on PBS, I'd say that this person needs certain colors or textures,
and for what reason, (being careful, of course, not to imply
ethnicity). One canvas would represent earth's kingdoms, and the other
the reign of Christ. There should be quite a contrast in the end!
Thanks, by the way, to those who discussed Robert Frost's "Out-Out".
What a commentary on the crowd! MTSOfan
To Rick in VA and KB
Were Christ's killers doing the will of God? Unwittingly, yes.
Was Peter doing the will of God when He struck Malchus "in defense of
the faith"? Clearly he was continuing in his earlier thinking when he
said "This will never happen to you," and Jesus replied, "Get behind
me, Satan."
For some reason this doesn't make sense to us. For some reason, a
dying Savior also makes no sense. I've come to the conclusion that
there is a kind of thinking which, if it makes sense to the world's
way of thinking, it isn't God. God always thinks differently than we
do. I guess that's why He's God.
As usual, my thoughts go more toward children. I'm thinking of
discussing the signigicance of Christ the King Sunday -- that we don't
always celebrate it. Some years, Advent begins the Sunday after
Thanksgiving. But Christ the King is more than just an extra shopping
day.
I'm using the image of a teeter-totter. Christians teeter-totter
between the secular world that sees this as an opportunity to sell
more, and Christ's world that says "love is all you need." Sometimes
we are firmly planted in one world, sometimes in the other. The
question is not, how do we find the balance, but SHOULD we find the
balance?
Glad to be back to lectionary preaching.
RevJan
Mark in OH, Is it blasphemy to say Fred Craddock was wrong? I tremble.
But in fact Jesus did not grant any pardons in v.34, he asked
God(Father) to pardon them.
The Maxwell/Miller story is terrific. The power of love to draw us to
doing right can be stronger than the power of threatened punishment to
keep us from doing wrong.
All these weeks since 9/11, I've been avoiding the topic of forgiving
your enemies and what that might mean for us and our enemies. I think
now we have enough distance so that this will be a good week to tackle
that question from the viewpoint of one who regretfully and with
sadness supports the military action in Afghanistan. Larry cny
It is so often true of humans that the first thought is to "save
yourself" and/or "those whom you love." Sometimes even to ask, "How
can you save others if you don't save yourself first?"
This thinking is evident every time you board an aircraft: "...In the
event of an emergency, please place the oxygen mask over your own face
first and then help children or others around you!" It only makes
sense.
But in God's kingdom, Jesus understood that IF he saved himself...
then he could NOT save those whom he came to save. He came to save
us... NOT save himself.
Terry T. in Nebraska
Larry cny: I don't know if it'll help, but here's a link to a list of
quotations about forgiveness:
http://www.pulpit.org/articles/forgiving_quotes.asp
Best wishes as you extend pastoral love in a tough time. mtsofan
Rick in VA asked, "Have you entertained the possibility that Christ's
killers were doing the will of God?"
Although the question was not directed to me, everytime I access this
site and see that question, I bristle.... Yes, I have entertained this
traditional notion (thank you, Paul; thank you, Anselm) and (some will
say heretically) dismissed it. I am convinced that we need to rethink
the doctrine of the atonement, what was done in the whole Holy Week
event, from triumphal entry up to and including the post-resurrection
appearances. The idea that God would require the death of the
incarnate Son is simply abhorrent -- Paul was right when he said his
sacrificial understanding of the crucifixion was "a stumbling block to
Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." (1 Cor 1:23) Anselm's "ransom"
theory (based on medieval feudalism) appears just as foolish to modern
sensibilities.
To suggest that Christ's death was "God's will" seems to make Paul's
and Anselm's theologies even more unpalatable! I find nothing in
Scripture to suggest that God's will for his people (or his messiah)
is EVER death! Death came into the world as a result of the Fall, not
by the will of God. God's desire for his people is LIFE! Last week's
reading from Isaiah makes that so apparent: "No more shall there be in
it an infant that lives but a few days, or an old person who does not
live out a lifetime; for one who dies at a hundred years will be
considered a youth, and one who falls short of a hundred will be
considered accursed." (Isa. 65:20)
Rather than a doctrine which requires us to believe that God would
require a death, I prefer to understand the crucifixion as "the
world's will" overwhich God wins! Jesus died because the "powers that
be" of Rome and Judea could not understand and, therefore, could not
tolerate his message, nor the people's acceptance of him. They thought
they could defeat him by killing him. His death was not God's will,
but the world's....
God's will was, as always, LIFE and thus God _used_ the world-ordered
crucixion to accomplish God's ends -- God "redeemed" Jesus' death on
Calvary, turning it against the powers of the world, against death,
but God did not require it.
I am still working on this, but I think it very important that we do
this kind of theologizing rather than parrot theologies that grow out
of ancient societal norms that no longer apply. Paul's emphasis on
sacrifice grew out of the Temple practices -- my studies in Judaism
and the history of Judaism have taught me that sacrifice was
considered the least efficacious of the ways a Jew could approach God
and receive divine forgiveness and blessing, a sort of last resort.
Paul elevated it well above its regular place in Jewish understanding
(perhaps that is why his theology was found by his Jewish
contemporaries to be a stumbling block). Anselm's theories grew out of
the feudal relationships and obligations of his society. Neither makes
much sense to a modern (or postmodern) generation. If we are going to
make sense of the "Christ event" to our contemporaries, we very much
need a new theology of atonement. (I should tell you that I came to
appreciate this while taking a course in Judaic prayer at our local
Conservative Synagogue -- the comments of the rabbi and of other
students, who were converting to Judaism, convinced me that a
rethinking of the "sacrifice of the cross" should be a significant
priority for modern Christian theologians.)
Blessings, Eric in KS
Ooopss! In my treatise above, I referred to Anselm's "ransom" theory
... wrong! Anselm developed the "satisfaction" theory ... the "ransom"
theory originated earlier with the Cappadocians. I was writing from
memory -- and I always get those mixed up. (I should mention, also,
that Grotius's "governmental" theory is equally unpalatable. Nearly
all traditional atonement theories lay the blame for the sacrifice of
the cross at God's feet and it is that element that I believe we need
to rethink.)
Blessings, Eric in KS
Rick in Va's question: Were Christ's killers doing the will of God? I
think of the crucifixion as God's will only in that the alternatives
were NOT God's will. For Jesus to take everything he said back, change
his teaching, or go into hiding was not God's will. The only
alternative for Jesus that would be true to who he was as God's Son,
would be to face evil head on and suffer the consequences. It was
"God's will" in that God knew what was in people's hearts and that
this would happen if he were to live on earth. The important part of
God's will is the resurrection, as Eric said above.
I also find the question of forgiveness (above)interesting. I have a
rabbi friend who claims that the only ones in the position to forgive
terrorists are the ones who are killed. Therefore there can be no
forgiveness for them. As Christians we believe that we can forgive
others because we are all sinners, and Jesus has forgiven us. But that
doesn't mean we necessarily have to allow them to keep killing people.
A hard question.
DGinNYC
For Eric in KS, DG in NYC or anyone else "bristling" at the thought of
Christ's death on the cross being an act of sacrificial atonement for
the sins of the world and deciding that new "theories" must be drawn
to explain the cross to a post modern world...
I am less surprised these days as the "modern" and "post-modern" of
today's enlightened decide to trample on Scripture and on the faith
that has served so many so well over the last two millennia. And given
this mind-set, I truly wonder why I even bother attempting to defend
that faith, but nevertheless, for those who have ears...
I ask you to read John Piper's 'treatise' or 'theory', one that unlike
others we've been exposed to, has the support of Scripture, on this
issue.
Here's the excerpted introduction, one that goes along way toward
defining Christ as King:
"One of the reasons it is hard to communicate Biblical reality to
modern, secular people is that the Biblical mindset and the secular
mindset move from radically different starting points.
What I mean by the secular mindset is not necessarily a mindset that
rules God out or denies in principle that the Bible is true. It’s a
mindset that begins with man as the basic given reality in the
universe. All of its thinking starts with the assumption that man has
basic rights and basic needs and basic expectations. Then the secular
mind moves out from this center and interprets the world, with man and
his rights and needs as the measure of all things.
What the secular mindset sees as problems are seen as problems because
of how things fit or don’t fit with the center – man and his rights
and needs and expectations. And what this mindset sees as successes
are seen as successes because they fit with man and his rights and
needs and expectations.
This is the mindset we were born with and that our secular society
reinforces virtually every hour of the day in our lives. The Apostle
Paul calls this mindset "the mind that is set on the flesh" (Romans.
8:6-7), and says that it is the way the "natural person" thinks (1
Corinthians 2:14, literal translation). It is so much a part of us
that we hardly even know it’s there. We just take it for granted –
until it collides with another mindset, namely the one in the Bible.
The Biblical mindset is not simply one that includes God somewhere in
the universe and says that the Bible is true. The Biblical mindset
begins with a radically different starting point, namely, God. God is
the basic given reality in the universe. He was there before we were
in existence – or before anything was in existence. He is simply the
most absolute reality.
And so the Biblical mindset starts with the assumption that God is the
center of reality. All thinking starts with the assumption that God
has basic rights as the Creator of all things. He has goals that fit
with his nature and perfect character. Then the Biblical mindset moves
out from this center and interprets the world, with God and his rights
and goals as the measure of all things.
What the Biblical mindset sees as basic problems in the universe are
usually not the same problems that the secular mindset sees. The
reason for this is that what makes a problem is not, first, that
something doesn’t fit the rights and needs of man, but that it doesn’t
fit the rights and goals of God. If you start with man and his rights
and wants, rather than starting with the Creator and his rights and
goals, the problems you see in the universe will be very different.
Is the basic riddle of the universe how to preserve man’s rights and
solve his problems (say, the right of self-determination, and the
problem of suffering)? Or is the basic riddle of the universe how an
infinitely worthy God in complete freedom can display the full range
of his perfections – what Paul calls the "riches of his glory" (Romans
9:23) – his holiness and power and wisdom and justice and wrath and
goodness and truth and grace?
How you answer that question will profoundly affect the way you
understand the central event of human history – the death of Jesus,
the Son of God."
Humbly but confidently,
Rick in Va
Rick in VA: I've read Mr. Piper's writings before, as you have
referred us to them in the past. I find nothing in Mr. Piper's papers
that is original. Mr. Piper's thought is pretty standard Biblical
literalist, which you obviously know I will reject as I come from a
denominational tradition that believes the truth of Scripture is not
found in factual literalism. Be that as it may, let me reply briefly
to just one point in your quotation of Mr. Piper, specifically:
"And so the Biblical mindset starts with the assumption that God is
the center of reality. All thinking starts with the assumption that
God has basic rights as the Creator of all things. He has goals that
fit with his nature and perfect character. Then the Biblical mindset
moves out from this center and interprets the world, with God and his
rights and goals as the measure of all things."
I do not disagree with this at all. What I disagree with are theories
which I find entirely at odds with this, to wit, theories of the
atonement that include within them the assumption that God's "nature
and perfect character" demands the death of any of God's creatures,
including (and especially) the Incarnate Son! I reject the notion (put
forward by the Cappadocians whom I otherwise highly regard) that God
is some sort of cosmic fisherman dangling his son like a worm before
the evil-fish-Satan, supposedly ransoming his creation from the evil
by the death of his Child (whom God then snatches back from death). I
likewise reject the Anselmian notion that God is some sort of medieval
feudal sovereign demanding a debt that humans cannot pay and therefore
beneficently offering to kill off his Son to pay the debt! Likewise,
Grotius's "governmental" notion of God the Judge demanding a sacrifice
to uphold the dignity of his Law. I find no Biblical warrant in any of
these, regardless of what Mr. Piper (or these esteemed theologians)
may write. God's "nature and perfect character", as Scripture clearly
shows, is as creator and champion of Life, not as demander of Death.
I believe that an understanding of the atonement which acknowledges
that God's purpose does not require, although God may allow, death is
not contrary to Scripture. Rather such an understanding would uphold
God's "nature and perfect character" while these "ransom,"
"satisfaction," and "governmental" notions actually fail to do so. As
to whether my thought, as friend Rick has obliquely suggested, does
not have the support of Scripture ... I respectfully suggest it does,
but also note that this is neither the place, nor an easy forum within
which to argue these points in depth. I merely here resond to Rick's
question whether one has considered that "Christ's killers were doing
the will of God." Again, yes, and I cannot and do not accept that
notion. God's will is shown in Scripture, time and time again, to be
in favor of Life -- God permits death, God uses death when it happens,
but God cannot be the creator and champion of life and at the same
time demand death. And this is a position which begins and ends with
God as the center of the universe and all creation.
Blessings, Eric in KS
By the way .... everyone here ought to consider Mr. Piper's exegesis
(or, more correctly, IMHO, eisegesis) of Romans 3:25 -- Here is a
quotation from his paper:
"'God put [Christ] forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood,
effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness,
because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins
previously committed. (Romans 3:25)'
"Boil that down to the most basic problem the death of Christ is meant
to solve. God put Christ forward (he sent him to die) in order to
demonstrate his righteousness (or justice). The problem that needed
solving was that God, for some reason, seemed to be unrighteous, and
wanted to vindicate himself and clear his name. That is the basic
issue. God’s righteousness is at stake. His name or reputation or
honor must be vindicated. Before the cross can be for our sake, it
must be for God’s sake."
I think just about anyone can see that this is simply the
"governmental" theory of the atonement -- Piper argues in terms of
"vindicating righteousness" whereas Grotius (and those who follow him)
refer to the "dignity of the Law" but the basic analysis is the same.
Somehow, God isn't God without death! I'm sorry, but that just isn't
God and I don't believe that that is at all what Paul had in mind when
he wrote the letter to the Romans!
However, I do think we'd better figure out what he did have in mind
and interpret it for our contemporaries, or we are going to lose more
of them!
Blessings, Eric in KS
The underlying nature of atonement is neither a "demand for death" nor
is it abhorrent. What God demands is that wrong be set right. The OT
focus of this was the sacrifice. But it was never really the sacrifice
per se which atoned - it was the penitent attitude of the sacrificer
(cf. Psalm 51). Christ's atoning work frees us from the necessity of
sacrifice. The sacrifice has been made. But it wasn't God's demand,
either, that Jesus die. It was God's decision to willingly give up his
life to save the lives of God's creatures. "Greater love hath no man
than this..." Sacrificing others IS barbaric and horrible. Sacrificing
one's self, however, is an act of love. Atonement is about love, not
death. John's gospel makes it explicit that Jesus willingly lays down
his own life, that it isn't taken from him. His suffering is
intentional, and, contrary to the apparent circumstances, quite his
own doing. This is what makes this text so appropriate for Christ the
King - it reveals the true nature of Christ's kingship. He is the king
who serves and saves. Ken in WV
p.s. - The acts of self-sacrifice by the men and women of the NYPD &
the FDNY would make perfect illustrations of the inspirational beauty
of Jesus' act of sacrificial love, one that our listeners could relate
to in a fresh and powerful way. Ken in WV
Eric in KS
Thank you for your brave and challenging comments – you have at last
caused be to make contribute!
I do believe that we should be constantly challenging our traditional
explanations of how doctrines such as the atonement 'work'. It is
surely our task as preachers to interpret afresh the ways of God to
our generation. We always fail - how can we do otherwise - but we must
surely always be striving to make sense of God for our own time. Of
course, we will risk being called heretics, but then that's what
religious people called Jesus.
The doctrine of the atonement is bound to be the most sensitive of all
Christian dogma, it is after all about our salvation. I agree entirely
with all that you have said above, but may I also point you to a book
that was exceedingly helpful to me on the subject. 'Atonement and
Incarnation', by Vernon White, 1991. Vernon is a good Anglican
theologian and his slim volume, though not an easy read, tackles the
problems with all the classic theories (for that is what they are)
head on and then comes up with a new and, to me most helpful,
explanation for our own times.
Many thanks for all your postings in the past - you have often been a
great help to me.
William in Guernsey
