Help me think this through...

[BBgrey]

My theology of atonement is under construction these days, and I've been looking again at the covenants to help me sort things out. I'd really appreciate any insights you might have to offer.

Here's where I'm at so far.

Before Abraham, the sacrifices made were acts of worship that reflected an attitude of submission and stewardship rather than ownership. These sacrifices didn't atone for sin.

When God made his covenant with Abraham and they passed between the split carcasses, it was like swearing on one's life to keep the covenant.

From this point on there were still worship offerings, but there were sin offerings, too. As Paul wrote, these offerings couldn't really take away sin. We know that they pointed toward Christ, but I think they also were a way for people to reaffirm and remember the original covenant made with Abraham. The sacrifices helped them see that sin was very serious since it was breaking that covenant, which was sworn on their lives.

So, I see these sacrifices as reinstatements of the Abrahamic covenant (which was broken by sin), and not really payment for sin. The life and death of Christ, then, was God himself taking on the consequence of breaking that oath. It was also a fulfillment of the covenant, since, through Christ, the people of God became quite numerous as gentiles were grafted in.

I'm still wrestling with the idea of appeasement and satisfying the wrath of God with sacrifices. I'm pretty sure God is capable of forgiving without the need for blood. I need to work through Romans a few more times to figure that out. I don't want to dismiss sacrificial atonement, I just think it might be one way of many to describe what happened.

bbgrey

 

[heymikey80]

Hebrews describes the roles of sacrifices to some extent, and it makes one statement in particular:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. Heb 9:22-23
​

The basic idea of Hebrews is that God instituted sacrifices as a foreshadowing of what was necessary -- a "great" or "good" from whom the "greater" or "better" would come to supplant them.

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Heb 10:1-4

Hope it helps.​

 

[ddub85]

@ BBgrey

My theology of atonement is under construction these days, and I've been looking again at the covenants to help me sort things out. I'd really appreciate any insights you might have to offer.
Here's where I'm at so far.
Before Abraham, the sacrifices made were acts of worship that reflected an attitude of submission and stewardship rather than ownership. These sacrifices didn't atone for sin.

There has been atonement since Christ. Noah found grace before Abraham. Grace is only through Christ. The only atonement is, and has always been, through repentance and acceptance of Christ.

When God made his covenant with Abraham and they passed between the split carcasses, it was like swearing on one's life to keep the covenant.

Not quite right. Abraham never passed between the carcasses. GOD passed through the carcasses while Abraham was in a deep sleep. God made His covenant with... GOD. Therefore, the covenant is obviously unbreakable.

From this point on there were still worship offerings, but there were sin offerings, too. As Paul wrote, these offerings couldn't really take away sin. We know that they pointed toward Christ, but I think they also were a way for people to reaffirm and remember the original covenant made with Abraham. The sacrifices helped them see that sin was very serious since it was breaking that covenant, which was sworn on their lives.

The sacrifices were God allowing man the oppportunity to atone, which man cannot do. An unrighteous man attempting to keep a righteous law can only end in failure, and it did. The sacrifices helped them see that there is only one true sacrifice, and it is a righteous sacrifice with righteous blood. There can be no other, since there are no others who are righteous. The covenant wasn't made with Abraham or mankind, it was made with Christ. The covenant was not "made" with Abraham, the covenant was "given" to Abraham and mankind.

So, I see these sacrifices as reinstatements of the Abrahamic covenant (which was broken by sin), and not really payment for sin. The life and death of Christ, then, was God himself taking on the consequence of breaking that oath. It was also a fulfillment of the covenant, since, through Christ, the people of God became quite numerous as gentiles were grafted in.

The covenant was never broken, could never be broken, because the covenant was made between God and Himself. (Anyone looking for real proof of the trinity?). Christ enacted, began, "obtained" the covenant at His death and resurrection, and fulfilled the promise He made and gave to Abraham to both Jew and Gentile.

I'm still wrestling with the idea of appeasement and satisfying the wrath of God with sacrifices. I'm pretty sure God is capable of forgiving without the need for blood. I need to work through Romans a few more times to figure that out. I don't want to dismiss sacrificial atonement, I just think it might be one way of many to describe what happened.

Again, sacrificial atonement is just God giving man what we all want, the opportunity to do it ourselves, the opportunity to make ourselves righteous with our own blood, something we just can't do. God shed His own blood for us, that we may live in eternity with Him.

God Bless!

 

[BBgrey]

Thanks for your insights!

Abraham never passed between the carcasses. GOD passed through the carcasses while Abraham was in a deep sleep. God made His covenant with... GOD. Therefore, the covenant is obviously unbreakable.

This is an excellent point. So, I guess this means that the sin offerings weren't initiated by this covenant. Hmmm. So, the death of Christ really has nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant. Too bad, I thought I had some good thoughts rolling there. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

The sacrifices were God allowing man the oppportunity to atone, which man cannot do. An unrighteous man attempting to keep a righteous law can only end in failure, and it did. The sacrifices helped them see that there is only one true sacrifice, and it is a righteous sacrifice with righteous blood. There can be no other, since there are no others who are righteous.

Again, sacrificial atonement is just God giving man what we all want, the opportunity to do it ourselves, the opportunity to make ourselves righteous with our own blood, something we just can't do.

Okay, pardon my sacrilege here, but doesn't this seem kind of silly? After God delivers them from Egypt, the Israelites are required to start killing animals for their sins, even though it doesn't actually bring about forgiveness (but no one tells them this). How would they come to the conclusion that their sacrifices were insufficient if they were told to do this to take care of their sins? Wouldn't the practice of animal sacrifices give the people a false sense of security in the wrong thing?

The covenant was never broken, could never be broken, because the covenant was made between God and Himself. (Anyone looking for real proof of the trinity?). Christ enacted, began, "obtained" the covenant at His death and resurrection, and fulfilled the promise He made and gave to Abraham to both Jew and Gentile.

Wait a minute though...

7 From the time I brought your forefathers up from Egypt until today, I warned them again and again, saying, "Obey me." 8 But they did not listen or pay attention; instead, they followed the stubbornness of their evil hearts. So I brought on them all the curses of the covenant I had commanded them to follow but that they did not keep.' "


9 Then the LORD said to me, "There is a conspiracy among the people of Judah and those who live in Jerusalem. 10 They have returned to the sins of their forefathers, who refused to listen to my words. They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers. 11 Therefore this is what the LORD says: 'I will bring on them a disaster they cannot escape. Although they cry out to me, I will not listen to them. -- Jeremiah 11:7-11 (NIV)


It seems to me that God made the covenant with Abraham with the expectation that Abraham's descendants would be keeping their end. So what was their end? Whatever it was, God must have known they wouldn't follow through.

So, maybe there is a link between sin offerings and the Abrahamic covenant after all. To me, it makes more sense out of the atonement -- to see God as unifying himself with a people through a covenant and ultimately fulfilling it with his own life while at the same time securing that union forever. I know substitutionary atonement is also true, but I think there's more going on there.

bb

 

[ddub85]

@ BBgrey
Quote:
Abraham never passed between the carcasses. GOD passed through the carcasses while Abraham was in a deep sleep. God made His covenant with... GOD. Therefore, the covenant is obviously unbreakable.

This is an excellent point. So, I guess this means that the sin offerings weren't initiated by this covenant. Hmmm.

The intention of God has always been that there is to be only one sin offering, Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. All other offerings, no matter how good intentioned, fall short of the glory of God.

So, the death of Christ really has nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant. Too bad, I thought I had some good thoughts rolling there. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

The death of Christ has everything to do with the Abrahamic Covenant, as it enacts the covenant at that point. The passing between the carcasses ratified the covenant, solidifying it's happening.

Okay, pardon my sacrilege here, but doesn't this seem kind of silly? After God delivers them from Egypt, the Israelites are required to start killing animals for their sins, even though it doesn't actually bring about forgiveness (but no one tells them this). How would they come to the conclusion that their sacrifices were insufficient if they were told to do this to take care of their sins? Wouldn't the practice of animal sacrifices give the people a false sense of security in the wrong thing?

If you reject God and decide you're capable of atoning yourself, why would a righteous God deny you the opportunity? If you can find your own way to heaven, won't God allow you that opportunity? You will be lost until you find and accept the truth. This was no different. God won't deny you your opportunity to do it your way. However, the consequences can be severe.
**

Wait a minute though...
7 From the time I brought your forefathers up from Egypt until today, I warned them again and again, saying, "Obey me." 8 But they did not listen or pay attention; instead, they followed the stubbornness of their evil hearts. So I brought on them all the curses of the covenant I had commanded them to follow but that they did not keep.' "
9 Then the LORD said to me, "There is a conspiracy among the people of Judah and those who live in Jerusalem. 10 They have returned to the sins of their forefathers, who refused to listen to my words. They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers. 11 Therefore this is what the LORD says: 'I will bring on them a disaster they cannot escape. Although they cry out to me, I will not listen to them. -- Jeremiah 11:7-11 (NIV)
It seems to me that God made the covenant with Abraham with the expectation that Abraham's descendants would be keeping their end. So what was their end? Whatever it was, God must have known they wouldn't follow through.

You already stated their end in v.7; "Obey me." They neglected to do that and suffered the consequences of their actions. God obviously knew they wouldn't follow through, so before any of this, way back in Gen 12 in His covenant with Abraham, He included us Gentiles. He definitely knew that they wouldn't follow through AT THAT TIME.

So, maybe there is a link between sin offerings and the Abrahamic covenant after all.

No, there is only a link between the Abrahamic covenant and the sin offering (singular).

To me, it makes more sense out of the atonement -- to see God as unifying himself with a people through a covenant and ultimately fulfilling it with his own life while at the same time securing that union forever.

I couldn't agree more.

I know substitutionary atonement is also true, but I think there's more going on there.

--You mean in terms of Christ?

God Bless!

 

[heymikey80]

This is an excellent point. So, I guess this means that the sin offerings weren't initiated by this covenant. Hmmm. So, the death of Christ really has nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant. Too bad, I thought I had some good thoughts rolling there. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

If you check Genesis the covenant as stated there is a covenant with Abraham.

Okay, pardon my sacrilege here, but doesn't this seem kind of silly? After God delivers them from Egypt, the Israelites are required to start killing animals for their sins, even though it doesn't actually bring about forgiveness (but no one tells them this). How would they come to the conclusion that their sacrifices were insufficient if they were told to do this to take care of their sins? Wouldn't the practice of animal sacrifices give the people a false sense of security in the wrong thing?

Hebrews says they could see that sacrifices were insufficient because they were repeatedly performed. The blood sacrifice might be misunderstood (and was, btw) when people presumed that their sinfulness was only "skin deep" (ie, not a heart issue), or when people presumed that they were basically good people, just needing to get rid of one action or another that they were deceived into.

But repeated sacrifice the way Moses instituted -- that's a tough thing to get past. When God sends through laws cutting to the heart, when God talks repeatedly about heart issues, it can't get past notice that the sacrifices were not fixing the heart of man. The Scriptures still condemn humanity explicitly, word upon word (cf Rom 3:9-20, which is a series of OT quotations), and that couldn't be missed. The sacrifices were not overcoming that condemnation.

Wait a minute though...

7 From the time I brought your forefathers up from Egypt until today, I warned them again and again, saying, "Obey me." 8 But they did not listen or pay attention; instead, they followed the stubbornness of their evil hearts. So I brought on them all the curses of the covenant I had commanded them to follow but that they did not keep.' "

9 Then the LORD said to me, "There is a conspiracy among the people of Judah and those who live in Jerusalem. 10 They have returned to the sins of their forefathers, who refused to listen to my words. They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers. 11 Therefore this is what the LORD says: 'I will bring on them a disaster they cannot escape. Although they cry out to me, I will not listen to them. -- Jeremiah 11:7-11 (NIV)

It seems to me that God made the covenant with Abraham with the expectation that Abraham's descendants would be keeping their end. So what was their end? Whatever it was, God must have known they wouldn't follow through.

Well, the forefathers of the house of Israel & Judah were those in the Exodus tribes of Israel & Judah. I don't see this to be Abraham.

So, maybe there is a link between sin offerings and the Abrahamic covenant after all. To me, it makes more sense out of the atonement -- to see God as unifying himself with a people through a covenant and ultimately fulfilling it with his own life while at the same time securing that union forever. I know substitutionary atonement is also true, but I think there's more going on there.

There's more going on, yes. What's going on is an establishment of a relationship, where the party seeks the benefit of the other on the basis of their lives. Historically that's the treaty-type that God establishes with Abraham. This action of God in passing through the sacrifice would mean, "May I be killed like this sacrifice if I do not seek your benefit as I have vowed."

Moses doesn't seek a new relationship with every sacrifice, so it's not quite the same thing. Moses is a foreshadowing of the sacrifice that would be required to benefit us. Abraham is a declaration that God is prepared to undergo death for His relationship with them.

 

[BBgrey]

Thank you both so very much for your thorough responses. I'm going to try to include both of them in this post, so sorry if it is a bit confusing.

The intention of God has always been that there is to be only one sin offering, Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. All other offerings, no matter how good intentioned, fall short of the glory of God.

I fully agree that Christ was/is the only one perfect enough to atone for sin. All previous sacrifices were a foreshadowing of his death on the cross. What I'm wondering about is whether these sacrifices accomplished anything else (besides atoning for sin, which they did not do). How did these sacrifices shape God's people into the kind of people he wanted them to be? Did sacrifices cultivate humility and repentance in them or just make them feel like they were "off the hook" because they could kill an animal to absolve them of guilt?

Quote:
Okay, pardon my sacrilege here, but doesn't this seem kind of silly? After God delivers them from Egypt, the Israelites are required to start killing animals for their sins, even though it doesn't actually bring about forgiveness (but no one tells them this). How would they come to the conclusion that their sacrifices were insufficient if they were told to do this to take care of their sins? Wouldn't the practice of animal sacrifices give the people a false sense of security in the wrong thing?
If you reject God and decide you're capable of atoning yourself, why would a righteous God deny you the opportunity? If you can find your own way to heaven, won't God allow you that opportunity? You will be lost until you find and accept the truth. This was no different. God won't deny you your opportunity to do it your way. However, the consequences can be severe.

I know God gives people over to their pride and allows them to make their own choices, but my problem here is that the practice of animal sacrifices wasn't their way. God commanded it through Moses when he gave the law. So it's not like they started doing animal sacrifices and God just let them go ahead with it -- he required it.

Quote:
I know substitutionary atonement is also true, but I think there's more going on there.
--You mean in terms of Christ?

I mean in terms of the big picture. I understand atonement to mean God bringing us back to Himself and uniting us with Him. Certainly the death of Jesus is central part of that picture, but God has been bringing it about since we first sinned in the garden. One part of the picture is substitution -- Christ dying one death for the sin of everyone. I'm suggesting that substitutionary atonement (the whole process involving the death-debt of sin and propitiation) is not the only kind of atonement going on.

There's more going on, yes. What's going on is an establishment of a relationship, where the party seeks the benefit of the other on the basis of their lives. Historically that's the treaty-type that God establishes with Abraham. This action of God in passing through the sacrifice would mean, "May I be killed like this sacrifice if I do not seek your benefit as I have vowed."

Moses doesn't seek a new relationship with every sacrifice, so it's not quite the same thing. Moses is a foreshadowing of the sacrifice that would be required to benefit us. Abraham is a declaration that God is prepared to undergo death for His relationship with them.

Right. This is why I am primarily focused on understanding the Abrahamic covenant. I am curious about the atonement going on in the relationship between God an his people. I think there's more than a declaration of promise going on. We know that marriage is a covenant that God uses multiple times to describe our relationship with him. Maybe like marriage, this covenant unites us with him. The Eastern Orthodox view of atonement (Theosis) sees the trinity as a community that we are invited into (not that we become God, but that we share in that intimacy and are shaped by the love in that community). I think both are at work in the story of God, but I am still figuring out how they work together.

A lot of my friends have completely abandoned the idea of substitutionary atonement because it seems so violent. It seems strange for God to require blood as payment for sin. Even though the theology of substitutionary atonement wasn't really developed by church leaders and theologians until around the time of the reformation, I still don't think substitutionary atonement can be denied. It is strongly supported by many scriptures. But I do think it shows just one side of God's character and our relationship with Him. I do think it is overemphasized by churches so much that the incarnation and life of Christ is sometimes completely passed over to get to his death. Likewise, the story of God with Israel is often preached with substitutionary atonement being the only theme.

The trouble is, my friends have thrown substitutionary atonement by the wayside for theosis theology, and everyone else I talk to thinks substitutionary atonement is the only thing going on. I feel like my understanding of God and his relationship with us would be so much richer if I could understand how they fit together. I thought the covenants were the link, but maybe not.

bb

 

[heymikey80]

Right. This is why I am primarily focused on understanding the Abrahamic covenant. I am curious about the atonement going on in the relationship between God an his people. I think there's more than a declaration of promise going on. We know that marriage is a covenant that God uses multiple times to describe our relationship with him. Maybe like marriage, this covenant unites us with him. The Eastern Orthodox view of atonement (Theosis) sees the trinity as a community that we are invited into (not that we become God, but that we share in that intimacy and are shaped by the love in that community). I think both are at work in the story of God, but I am still figuring out how they work together.

Yes. In my theological heritage this view is critical to an understanding of the Atonement being union with Christ (cf. Rom 6, Eph 1). However it's not as if God is trying to make small divinities out of us, but rather making a place, a temple for Himself in the inferior "jars of clay" that He has created Himself. I appreciate a lot of the reasoning of the Eastern Orthodox. I think it tends to fly a little to close to the Sun (or Son as the case may be). But in my view, I think just short of that is the truth.

A lot of my friends have completely abandoned the idea of substitutionary atonement because it seems so violent.

Violence is reality. It's a common error of our day that violence is always unjust. It's not true, and it's destroying the very concepts of justice in our world around us. If we aren't perfect, then we will chafe against the boundaries of the Good, and deserve a stiff and painful response for it.

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. 12Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, 13and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Heb 12:7-13
​

It seems strange for God to require blood as payment for sin. Even though the theology of substitutionary atonement wasn't really developed by church leaders and theologians until around the time of the reformation, I still don't think substitutionary atonement can be denied.

Um, for history, I'd point out the Hebrews passage I pointed out in post #2, before. Substitutionary ideas are prevalent throughout the ancient world in explaining sacrifice. No Apostolic writing was offended with this idea, and other early writings can be brought to bear to describe different aspects of substitutionary atonement.

Everyone I know admits that St. Augustine and St. Anselm had well-developed views of substitutionary atonement. Even Justin Martyr offers a substitutionary explanation for Christ's Crucifixion.

And of course there's Paul talking about "scarcely would someone die for a good man, but God demonstrates His own love for us in that, while we were sinners, Christ died for us." This is paraphrased from Romans 5

It is strongly supported by many scriptures. But I do think it shows just one side of God's character and our relationship with Him. I do think it is overemphasized by churches so much that the incarnation and life of Christ is sometimes completely passed over to get to his death. Likewise, the story of God with Israel is often preached with substitutionary atonement being the only theme.

The active obedience of Jesus Christ is a common theme in my denomination -- that's a Presbyterian view of another side of the character of Union with Christ. The action of the Spirit of God is another side. Our present union with Christ and living out our lives in dependence on Him are other aspects.

The trouble is, my friends have thrown substitutionary atonement by the wayside for theosis theology, and everyone else I talk to thinks substitutionary atonement is the only thing going on. I feel like my understanding of God and his relationship with us would be so much richer if I could understand how they fit together. I thought the covenants were the link, but maybe not.

I would think the Covenant is the link here, yes, but the covenant actually relies on this sacrifice having substitutionary meaning. You may need to get involved with some books dealing directly with what covenants and sacrifices are about. I ran across a book, "Covenant Marriage", that seems to help describe what's going on in a covenant relationship. 'Haven't bought it yet, but what little I've perused makes me think it could be a good book for this.

And marriage covenants don't make wives husbands, or husbands wives. They set up a relationship, a relationship of unity that both can identify with, while at the same time being individual people, too.

Finally, this may be a little off-subject, but I was swayed years ago by a little sermon about the people of God that resulted from faith in Christ. It gets to the idea of Christianity not being ideological advocacy, but the gathering of God's people:

http://www.hornes.org/theologia/mark-horne/of-the-church

 

[ddub85]

@ BBgrey
**

I fully agree that Christ was/is the only one perfect enough to atone for sin. All previous sacrifices were a foreshadowing of his death on the cross. What I'm wondering about is whether these sacrifices accomplished anything else (besides atoning for sin, which they did not do). How did these sacrifices shape God's people into the kind of people he wanted them to be? Did sacrifices cultivate humility and repentance in them or just make them feel like they were "off the hook" because they could kill an animal to absolve them of guilt?

I believe the main purpose of the sacrifices were to
1) show the people that it would take a true sacrifice in order to have atonement, it displayed to them what must take place in order to atone. Someone was going to have to sacrifice what was most precious to them, and that sacrifice was going to have to be perfect. Hence, you had Abraham with Isaac's head on the chopping block, and you had the people of Israel seeking out the perfect sacrificial animal.
2) The people learned that no matter what sacrifice they brought, it was less than perfect. It only covered their problems for a limited amount of time and/or sin. No matter what they brought, the problem never went away. And no matter what, no matter how hard they tried, they couldn't stay away from sin, as the law was impossible.

So God began with repent, and I will make you righteous. They answered with "Well, we can make ourselves righteous. We can have a hand in this." God showed them that they have no hand in this, as they (we) aren't capable because we aren't righteous.

I know God gives people over to their pride and allows them to make their own choices, but my problem here is that the practice of animal sacrifices wasn't their way. God commanded it through Moses when he gave the law. So it's not like they started doing animal sacrifices and God just let them go ahead with it -- he required it.

He first required it of HIMSELF. That was the plan from the beginning. When man decided he should have a hand in it, that he can atone, God simply told him what the plan for atonement is. God told him how it had to be done. A lamb without blemish, a pure and righteous lamb to be sacrificed. (It's actually deeper than this if we consider the offerings of Abel and Cain, and the like). Guess what? The world offered no such thing. But God accepted their less than perfect sacrifices. Not for atonement, but for the "covering" of sin. The true requirement couldn't be met by man, but God had to give man his opportunity to do it.

I mean in terms of the big picture. I understand atonement to mean God bringing us back to Himself and uniting us with Him. Certainly the death of Jesus is central part of that picture, but God has been bringing it about since we first sinned in the garden. One part of the picture is substitution -- Christ dying one death for the sin of everyone. I'm suggesting that substitutionary atonement (the whole process involving the death-debt of sin and propitiation) is not the only kind of atonement going on.

I only know that any atonement requires righteousness, and that pretty much eliminates our (mankind) best efforts. It's why the law is a nail in our coffin.
**

Right. This is why I am primarily focused on understanding the Abrahamic covenant. I am curious about the atonement going on in the relationship between God an his people. I think there's more than a declaration of promise going on. We know that marriage is a covenant that God uses multiple times to describe our relationship with him. Maybe like marriage, this covenant unites us with him. The Eastern Orthodox view of atonement (Theosis) sees the trinity as a community that we are invited into (not that we become God, but that we share in that intimacy and are shaped by the love in that community). I think both are at work in the story of God, but I am still figuring out how they work together.

Amen.
**

A lot of my friends have completely abandoned the idea of substitutionary atonement because it seems so violent. It seems strange for God to require blood as payment for sin. Even though the theology of substitutionary atonement wasn't really developed by church leaders and theologians until around the time of the reformation, I still don't think substitutionary atonement can be denied. It is strongly supported by many scriptures. But I do think it shows just one side of God's character and our relationship with Him. I do think it is overemphasized by churches so much that the incarnation and life of Christ is sometimes completely passed over to get to his death. Likewise, the story of God with Israel is often preached with substitutionary atonement being the only theme.

Without Christ dying for us, how could we possibly be with God? If God is righteous and therefore can't co-exist with unrighteousness (i.e. when you turn on the light, the darkness must leave), how could we sinners spend eternity with Him? We couldn't. But since Christ is righteous, our way is in Him. But our sins must be paid for, and it must be eye for eye, tooth for tooth, or it's not just. It is because of OUR sin, OUR violence, OUR spilling of blood, that the price paid must be in blood. Since the wages of sin is death, the payment must be death. wE, not God, have decided what the price is. God has declared the law, and we (mankind) have declared the price.

The trouble is, my friends have thrown substitutionary atonement by the wayside for theosis theology, and everyone else I talk to thinks substitutionary atonement is the only thing going on. I feel like my understanding of God and his relationship with us would be so much richer if I could understand how they fit together. I thought the covenants were the link, but maybe not.

Again, I feel it is US (mankind) who has decided that blood be shed for atonement. If the law declares eye for eye, tooth for tooth, then the penalty must fit the crime. Since Christ died for our crimes and our crimes are violent, then the atonement has to be that way also.

God Bless!

 

[tyyppi13]

great