Post by stephen on Aug 26, 2018 15:57:31 GMT
“At the right time Christ died for the ungodly” – Romans ch5 v6
We will never understand the New Testament if we restrict ourselves to reading what Jesus said.
The gospel message, from the beginning, was always founded upon what Jesus did.
The Christian faith began with his death on the Cross and his Resurrection.
The teaching of the New Testament is that Christ died for a purpose, a beneficial purpose.
It expresses the fact by telling us that he died for his people, a group defined in several different ways.
This theme begins with a declaration made by Jesus himself at the Last Supper.
One version is found in Luke (and echoed in 1 Corinthians ch11);
“This is my body which is given for you…
The cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke ch22 vv19-20).
Both “body given” and “in my blood” are understood to refer to his death.
Mark’s version is that the blood is poured out “for many” (Mark ch14 v24, echoed in Matthew ch26 v28).
At the very least, this extends “you” beyond the disciples who were present on the occasion.
There is no real reason why “many” might not be expanded into “anybody”.
John doesn’t include this declaration in his description of the Last Supper, but he does record similar statements on other occasions.
Twice in the discourse on the good shepherd, Jesus declares that he lays down his life “for the sheep” (John ch10 vv15).
Later he observes to the disciples;
“Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do what I command you”. (ch15 vv13-14).
These remarks extend the benefit to those who belong to him, those who have committed themselves.
Other versions can be found in Paul’s teaching and in the other letters.
In the verse quoted at the beginning, the word translated as “the ungodly” means the alienated from God. In other words, the “lost sheep”, those who needed him.
A couple of verses later (Romans ch5 v8), Paul explains it as “Christ died for us”.
He applies this thought to himself;
“The Son of God loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians ch2 v20).
He applies it to the Corinthians, when he tells them that he himself was not the one who was “crucified for you” (1 Corinthians ch1 v13).
Christ gave himself “for the church” (Ephesians ch5 v25), and indeed God gave him up “for us all” (Romans ch8 v32).
“For us” and “for you” can also be found in 1 John and 1 Peter.
But the fullest version of the claim is in Hebrews, where we read that the Son tasted death “for everyone” (Hebrews ch2 v9).
The implication is that the benefit is available to anyone in principle, and available in practice to those willing to receive it.
In all these quotations, “for” translates HYPER, which frequently means “on account of” or “for the benefit of”.
In the gospel passages quoted, HYPER clearly means “for someone’s benefit”.
But many would prefer, looking at some of the other references, the alternative reading “in someone’s place”, which supports the traditional “substitution” teaching.
That is, Christ died instead of “the ungodly”, instead of “everyone”, and instead of Paul and the rest of us.
The high priest appears to propose a substitution when he says “It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people”. His conscious meaning may be taken as “instead of the people”; if the Romans take action against Jesus, the people will not die.
But we are not obliged, even so, to impose the same slant on his unconscious prophecy (as John explains it) that Christ should die “for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God”.
Taken as a whole, this description is about the benefit of his death. It is for the benefit of his nation and for a more general beneficial purpose, another example of the word-play that occurs in this gospel (John ch11 vv50-52)
Again, the theory of substitution draws on the statement that “one has died for all; therefore all have died” (2 Corinthians ch5 v14).
To my mind, this points towards “inclusion” rather than substitution, but that line of thought will have to be postponed to another time.
Another version of this fundamental New Testament statement is that Christ died “for our sins”.
This appears in the basic creed which Paul quotes (1 Corinthians ch15 v3, and again in Galatians ch1 v4).
In this case, HYPER really does have to mean “on account of”.
The point is that our sins provided the occasion for the death of Christ. They are the reason why the death of Christ was necessary. It happened on their account.
Since “on account of” also works for the rest of the New Testament, it seems to me that we can understand the message well enough without needing to bring in the concept of substitution.
The moral of this theme is that the significance of Jesus, when we are true to the message of the New Testament, cannot be contained by “he gave us good teaching” or “he set us a good example”.
His death must be understood as the key to what he achieved..
His death occurred on account of our sins, and it occurred for our benefit.
+++
This innocent looking inference gives away the fact that I am not a Calvinist. I am not making the choice dependent upon God’s will exclusively.
I’m aware that the Calvinist approach can make plausible claims of scriptural support, though the whole debate makes my head go round in circles.
However, the presence or absence of freedom of choice is really just a point of theory, an academic issue . We are clearly instructed and expected to behave as though we do have freedom of
choice, and to commit ourselves to God voluntarily. That is what matters, in practical terms.
The argument between Freewill and Predestination is best left to the fallen angels in Hell;
“Others apart sat on a hill retired,
In thoughts more elevate, and reasoned high
Of Providence, Foreknowledge, Will, and Fate-
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute-
And found no end, in wandering mazes lost.”
Paradise Lost, Book II, ll557-561, John Milton
+++
N.T.S. stands for New Testament Salvation.
This thread is one of a series, and I wanted to mark the fact without making the title too cumbersome.
The series is a sequel to, and the consummation of, the older series on Old Testament remedies for sin.
In that series, sin is defined as a relationship problem; the human will is out of alignment with the will of God.
We will never understand the New Testament if we restrict ourselves to reading what Jesus said.
The gospel message, from the beginning, was always founded upon what Jesus did.
The Christian faith began with his death on the Cross and his Resurrection.
The teaching of the New Testament is that Christ died for a purpose, a beneficial purpose.
It expresses the fact by telling us that he died for his people, a group defined in several different ways.
This theme begins with a declaration made by Jesus himself at the Last Supper.
One version is found in Luke (and echoed in 1 Corinthians ch11);
“This is my body which is given for you…
The cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke ch22 vv19-20).
Both “body given” and “in my blood” are understood to refer to his death.
Mark’s version is that the blood is poured out “for many” (Mark ch14 v24, echoed in Matthew ch26 v28).
At the very least, this extends “you” beyond the disciples who were present on the occasion.
There is no real reason why “many” might not be expanded into “anybody”.
John doesn’t include this declaration in his description of the Last Supper, but he does record similar statements on other occasions.
Twice in the discourse on the good shepherd, Jesus declares that he lays down his life “for the sheep” (John ch10 vv15).
Later he observes to the disciples;
“Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do what I command you”. (ch15 vv13-14).
These remarks extend the benefit to those who belong to him, those who have committed themselves.
Other versions can be found in Paul’s teaching and in the other letters.
In the verse quoted at the beginning, the word translated as “the ungodly” means the alienated from God. In other words, the “lost sheep”, those who needed him.
A couple of verses later (Romans ch5 v8), Paul explains it as “Christ died for us”.
He applies this thought to himself;
“The Son of God loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians ch2 v20).
He applies it to the Corinthians, when he tells them that he himself was not the one who was “crucified for you” (1 Corinthians ch1 v13).
Christ gave himself “for the church” (Ephesians ch5 v25), and indeed God gave him up “for us all” (Romans ch8 v32).
“For us” and “for you” can also be found in 1 John and 1 Peter.
But the fullest version of the claim is in Hebrews, where we read that the Son tasted death “for everyone” (Hebrews ch2 v9).
The implication is that the benefit is available to anyone in principle, and available in practice to those willing to receive it.
In all these quotations, “for” translates HYPER, which frequently means “on account of” or “for the benefit of”.
In the gospel passages quoted, HYPER clearly means “for someone’s benefit”.
But many would prefer, looking at some of the other references, the alternative reading “in someone’s place”, which supports the traditional “substitution” teaching.
That is, Christ died instead of “the ungodly”, instead of “everyone”, and instead of Paul and the rest of us.
The high priest appears to propose a substitution when he says “It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people”. His conscious meaning may be taken as “instead of the people”; if the Romans take action against Jesus, the people will not die.
But we are not obliged, even so, to impose the same slant on his unconscious prophecy (as John explains it) that Christ should die “for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God”.
Taken as a whole, this description is about the benefit of his death. It is for the benefit of his nation and for a more general beneficial purpose, another example of the word-play that occurs in this gospel (John ch11 vv50-52)
Again, the theory of substitution draws on the statement that “one has died for all; therefore all have died” (2 Corinthians ch5 v14).
To my mind, this points towards “inclusion” rather than substitution, but that line of thought will have to be postponed to another time.
Another version of this fundamental New Testament statement is that Christ died “for our sins”.
This appears in the basic creed which Paul quotes (1 Corinthians ch15 v3, and again in Galatians ch1 v4).
In this case, HYPER really does have to mean “on account of”.
The point is that our sins provided the occasion for the death of Christ. They are the reason why the death of Christ was necessary. It happened on their account.
Since “on account of” also works for the rest of the New Testament, it seems to me that we can understand the message well enough without needing to bring in the concept of substitution.
The moral of this theme is that the significance of Jesus, when we are true to the message of the New Testament, cannot be contained by “he gave us good teaching” or “he set us a good example”.
His death must be understood as the key to what he achieved..
His death occurred on account of our sins, and it occurred for our benefit.
+++
The implication is that the benefit is available to anyone in principle, and available in practice to those willing to receive it.
This innocent looking inference gives away the fact that I am not a Calvinist. I am not making the choice dependent upon God’s will exclusively.
I’m aware that the Calvinist approach can make plausible claims of scriptural support, though the whole debate makes my head go round in circles.
However, the presence or absence of freedom of choice is really just a point of theory, an academic issue . We are clearly instructed and expected to behave as though we do have freedom of
choice, and to commit ourselves to God voluntarily. That is what matters, in practical terms.
The argument between Freewill and Predestination is best left to the fallen angels in Hell;
“Others apart sat on a hill retired,
In thoughts more elevate, and reasoned high
Of Providence, Foreknowledge, Will, and Fate-
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute-
And found no end, in wandering mazes lost.”
Paradise Lost, Book II, ll557-561, John Milton
+++
N.T.S. stands for New Testament Salvation.
This thread is one of a series, and I wanted to mark the fact without making the title too cumbersome.
The series is a sequel to, and the consummation of, the older series on Old Testament remedies for sin.
In that series, sin is defined as a relationship problem; the human will is out of alignment with the will of God.