|
Hi Robert,
I thought I would send a few more words concerning
atonement language in the OT and how it relates to Christ in the
NT.
Jesus Christ himself explained that he had come as
a servant to give his life in an act of sacrifice for us. Thus resting on
Christ's own self-interpretation, the New Testament concept of atoning
redemption assumes a central role in the doctrine of atonement. In order to
clarify the term atonement, we have to turn to the Old Testament. Behind the OT
conception of redemption there are three basic terms and their cognates.
Although all three denote different aspects of divine redemption they are all
profoundly interrelated.
1) Kipur — Together with its
cognates kipur is applied to express the expiatory form of the act
of redemption in the OT. It speaks of the barrier of sin and guilt which exists
between God and humanity as being done away by the sacrifice and
propitiation made between the two factions. Here, the subject of the
atoning act is always God. Thus even though in the OT it is liturgically carried
out by a high priest, the human act has to be seen as only a witness to the fact
that God himself makes atonement and blots out sin by his own judicial and
merciful act. Both God's judgment of wrong by offering an equivalent and the act
of restoration to holiness before him are involved here in the understanding of
atonement. This is brought out most clearly in the NT where we see Christ stand
in as both Priest and Mediator; e.g., "Therefore, He had to be made like
His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high
priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the
people." (Heb. 2.17).
2) Pedah — Together with
its cognates pedah is applied to express the aspect of the mighty
acts of God in the OT concept of redemption. Significantly these acts bring
immediate deliverance from oppression of evil and out of God's judgment upon it.
It also carries the notion of offering a life in substitution for another as the
cost of redemption and emphasizes the dramatic nature of the redeeming act as a
sheer intervention on the part of God in human affairs. When the NT writers
speak of Christ in terms of victory over the tyrants--sin, death, devil, the
world--they have in view the pedah aspect of atoning redemption;
e.g., "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself
likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render
powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil;"
(Heb 2.14).
3) Go’el — Together with its cognates
go’el is used to express the aspect of someone redeeming others out of
a situation of bondage or forfeited rights. The "redeemer" or go’el, upon whom the emphasis is placed
in this type of redemption, possesses a bloodline kinship to those in need, and
can thus claim the cause for their needs as his own and stand in for his kinsmen
who cannot free or redeem themselves. This ontological concept of redemption is
applied in the OT to God acting on behalf of Israel by virtue of its special
covenant relationship. That covenant was, of course, fulfilled in Christ in that
he stood in as go'el for Israel as Seed of Abraham and David and, by
way of kinship attachment to Eve, the entire human race in recapitulation (i.e.,
e.g., the gathering together language of Eph. 1-2; see also Heb 2.14a
-- "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise
also partook of the same").
As mentioned before, these three concepts of
redemption not only overlap each other in the teachings of the OT, but they also
modify each other within the unique relations of God with his people. Thus they
are quite different from secular concepts of redemption. It is significant that
all three concepts are applied in the OT paradigm event of divine
redemption—Israel's redemption from Egypt in the Passover and the Exodus. In
Isaiah these three concepts are also applied to God's servant—the Holy One of
Israel—who offers himself for the transgressions of Israel and intercedes for
them. However, the Israelites did not identify this servant with the divine go’el because the idea of God becoming
incarnate within the existence of humanity seemed impossible for them. This
identification was left to be made in the NT in God's incarnate Son. However, in
doing so the NT reinterpreted this OT concept of redemption in terms of what the
Son of God had actually become and had actually done while in the flesh.
Robert, I am sure you already knew all this. I hope
it can be helpful to others.
Bill Taylor
----- Original Message -----
From: Wm. Taylor
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Last words on Jesus had the same sinful
nature that we have Hi Robert (is that what you want to be
called?),
Thanks for the kind words; they couldn't have come
at a more opportune time. I see from the posts that you have
already met some of the others. I had actually unsubscribed from TT after my
last correspondence. A friend from the forum forwarded your message to me, so
I'm back for a second round. I must say, though, that I had about all I wanted
in the first. There's always a danger, I guess, of becoming so heavenly minded
that you are of no earthly good. I thought I would move on to something more
productive.
Yes, this teaching has a whole lot more to do with
how you've been raised and what you bring with you when you go to the text than
it does with whether it's actually in the text when you get there. A lot of the
passages are used by both sides to argue their points (e.g., the II Cor. passage
that you used). As for me, I didn't want to get caught up in the dueling-verses
game. I can't see where that is productive; what's more, I had already seen
what happened to David and Vince, when they tried that. I can't say it any
better than they did. I think it has to do with having ears to hear.
Nevertheless, I'd much rather have someone denying my words than God's on my
account, and so I didn't do much engaging on a textual level. If it means I
don't play fair, I can live with that.
Anyway, you mention the ontological connection
between us and Christ in the go'el. I can remember the first time this started
coming together for me. It was like a party inside my mouth! -- I was singing
and sending praises the Lord. I could finally understand what it meant to be
included in Christ; how it is that we can be here doing this while the real Bill
and Robert are seated in him next to his Father. Yeah, Wow is right! I'll
have more to say on that later, now I have to be on my way.
Thanks again,
Bill
Hello Bill, peace be upon you.
I've been watching this discussion for a long time and feel compelled to right you now and give you some encouragement. Wow! Good stuff, very visual. What a powerful summary of the Gospel of our Lord. You've spent some time in the Word, haven't you? Your association with Jesus' blood running through our veins is especially on the mark. The go'el or "kinsman redeemer" of the OT had to be a blood relative. Jesus is our Redeemer because he is our Blood relative. Through Mary back to Eve and forward again to every one of us. Now we see why Eve is the "giver of life" (that's what her name means). What Jesus did in his flesh, he did in all flesh "One died for all, Therefore all died". He had to be like sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh (rom 8:3). And the Son who knew no sin from eternity had to be made sin (nature) so that we could become righteousness in him (II cor 2:21). Before I go I want to encourage you, Bill. Difficult people abound. You were right in, I think it was your first email. This is a difficult doctrine for dyed-in-the-wool types to grasp. But oh so transformational when they do! And you're right, the way to deal with difficult people is to forgive them. That is loving them. Oh, I was really moved by your Psalms 22 interpretation the other day. Keep on teaching. This stuff is contagious. To His Glory, Robert Trump |
