Apostolic By-lines (2)
Christ paid the price to free us from the curse that the laws in Moses’ Teachings bring by becoming cursed instead of us. Scripture says, “Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed.” Galatians 3:13 (God’s Word translation, 1995, God’s Word to the Nations)
Paid the price– Once more we examine the miserable translation of exagorázō as “paid the price.” We noticed yesterday that the LXX never uses the Greek term exagorázō. That’s important. But maybe we need to dwell on this a bit longer.
The LXX does not use ἐξαγοράζω for “redeem,” but it is found in secular speech, e.g., Diod. S., 362, Dindorf, V, 213: ἐξηγόρασεν (a Roman knight) αὐτήν (a slave). No examples have been found in non-Christian cultic speech. Nor is it found in Josephus. On the Jewish estimation of the suffering of the pious as an expiation, see ἱλαστήριον and λύτρον. Among the Jews the particular image of manumission is lacking in this connection.[1]
Unfortunately, the total absence of this idea in Jewish thought didn’t stop the Church from making it a critical tenet of the faith. Why? Because it was thoroughly a Greek-Roman idea. Notice the connection to Delphi and the Greek gods:
“In sacral manumission, as particularly attested by the Delphic inscriptions, the god buys the slave to freedom from his owner. For the legal establishment of the liberation a purchase by the god is pretended. The owner actually receives the purchase price from a man, even if only mediately. The god does the slave no real favour, but simply mediates the freedom which he has mostly won for himself. Sacral manumission is for the most part only a legal form of self-manumission.”[2]
So we discover that Paul’s slogan, a quick sound-bite that would have been easily understood by the Gentile, Greco-Roman world, might just have been a way to attract Gentile attention. Why? So that the real idea of Hebrew atonement could be taught every Shabbat in the synagogue. If this is true, how does that make you feel?
Now let’s see what happens when two thousand years of Christian theology teaches the Greek idea of redemption. Here are some citations from a popular Messianic site. Read carefully and notice, if you will, how much Christian theology is incorporated into these thoughts without the slightest acknowledgment that there might be a problem:
“Our Lord’s resurrection was our Father’s testimony and confirmation that Christ’s crucifixion was accepted as full payment for the sinful debt we could never pay ourselves . . . Beginning with His disciples our Lord Jesus inaugurated a worldwide movement which centered on living as brothers and sisters in a spiritual family. Adoption into His family begins with entering into the new Covenant our heavenly Father offers mankind, which our Lord’s crucifixion made possible through His blood shed on our behalf . . .
It’s in commemorating and joyfully celebrating our Lord’s crucifixion for us as a choice of love which we can never fully fathom that we are reminded of what He accomplished on our behalf.” [emphasis in the original][3]
Just some brief remarks will do. First, the author clearly accepts the penal theory of atonement (Christ paid the price), a theory that was developed by the Reformation icons and was not even present in the early Church fathers. Secondly, the author believes that adoption begins with the new covenant, but Jeremiah’s reference to the “new” covenant clearly shows that it hasn’t yet happened. Finally, according to this author we “can never fully fathom” the choice to love us. Do you think this is true? Do you think God would concoct a plan to rescue us that we just can’t really grasp? I know it’s popular to say that God’s ways are beyond us, but I wonder if we would really commit ourselves to a God who couldn’t explain what He was doing in terms we would understand.
Ah, but maybe I’m a bit too critical.
Topical Index: redeem, atonement, exagorázō, Galatians 3:13
[1]Vol. 1: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (126). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
[3]Restoration Ministries International, email message, 19 April 2019
The church may be thoroughly Greek on its interpretation of the atonement, but if both sides of this argument think that sin is something that can be set right by man if he only had a ‘good enough example’ – as well as somebody who made it back from the grave, of course – then I would want to say what a waste of a whole bunch of perfectly good blood: from the first sacrifice in front of Eden, on.
Is God really just out some short change with us sinners? What is sin? What needed to be set straight with us? Did we just lack an ability to see what being good was like? Were we merely lacking Somebody raising from the dead to be able to do resurrection, too? Were the cross and the blood just unfortunate, unnecessary blips in what Yeshua really came to do, which was to be a good man (to show us how) and to merit being raised from the dead? Was His death meaningless except as a way to get Him back out of a grave?
I think the real problem with choosing to engage with someone who is incorrect (such as a Greek interpretation of atonement being a pagan idea of a god’s meaningless interference in human affairs) is that you cannot argue against something without agreeing with the premise that they hold. If they are holding the idea that payment is required for sin, then if you try to ‘correct’ their idea, you, too, must agree with the premise that that payment idea is based on. To engage, you must, of necessity, be accepting the basis for their paradigm as the basis for yours, too.
I ask again: what is sin? Is it merely a deficit in the heavenly bank? If we just needed a really good example to follow, as well as a way to get us back out of our graves, then I think that premise is being shared by both sides of the argument, and BOTH sides have agreed (at least implicitly) that there could have been a less messy way to go about it.
Leviticus 17 . 13 doesn’t only remind us but makes the statement. That the life of the creature, animal, is in the blood, coupled with Hebrews 12:2 … For the joy that was set before him he took up his cross. I know this can be dissected in expounded on. But the Simplicity of it. Are we willingly laying down our lives everyday because Christ blood who pumps through our mortal . Bodies. When I realize that I am crucified with Christ yet I live it is not me but Christ in me he does the works. The more and more the Lord shows me. The path of most resistance oh, so his power can become evident in me.. Ouch. It’s not about me it’s about what he wants to do through me. So paying the price, or ransomed me. Has plucked me out of one world view, and placed me and do his Heavenly perspective. And 3.1, Peter and John were on their way to the temple one afternoon, paraphrase joyfully approaching the temple,. Whenever we approach the Lord we do it with joyfulness and Thanksgiving.
Skip, I don’t know about everyone else but I never received “Apostolic By-Lines” Part 1…..
By the way this is an incredible TW. Of course I love it when we agree.
I am trying to fix this problem now.
It’s been fixed and send out.
I’ll begin by addressing the two Greek words referenced by the TDNT (first footnote), regarding “the Jewish estimation of the suffering of the pious as an expiation” and their usage in the NT.
Ιλαστήριον (ilastērion), “propitiation”, “mercy seat”, “place of forgiveness”, is found in Rom. 3:25 and Heb 9:5. The Romans passage is a clear reference to Christ: “whom God purposed as propitiation, through faith in His blood” (my translation). See other translations, especially the overly-literal Young’s Literal Translation.
Heb 9:5 references the Ark of the Covenant (the word is prefaced by the Greek article here): “and the cherubim of glory were above it [the Ark], overshadowing the mercy seat…” (my translation). In reading the rest of the context (9:1-10), it becomes clear that this form of atonement was only temporary (9:1, “Now even the first covenant…” “…imposed until the time of reformation [diorthōseōs]”, 9:10). This is because Christ obtained “eternal redemption/ransom” (aiōnian lytrōsin, 9:12) and in this new covenant Christ’s death was for “the redemption for the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (9:15)
Λύτρον (lytron), (note the similar term in 9:12 in bold above) “ransom”, is found in Matt 20:28 and its parallel passage in Mark 10:45. Both refer to Christ: “…the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for/in place of many”.
From the TW (first footnote): Among the Jews the particular image of manumission is lacking in this connection. Perhaps this is because there’s a difference between the “first covenant” (Heb 9:1) in the Tanakh (OT) and the new one in the NT.
“From the TW (first footnote): Among the Jews the particular image of manumission is lacking in this connection. Perhaps this is because there’s a difference between the “first covenant” (Heb 9:1) in the Tanakh (OT) and the new one in the NT.”
Gotta wonder why God spent so much time laying out a plan of redemption and reconciliation particular to Himself and absent of this concept, only to jump ship and engage in a system common to pagan understanding. How are we to determine what’s of God if no fingerprint has been given? Perhaps we need to go back and reread the law of the kinsman redeemer as laid out and note the system and purpose of it.
Robert,
You state, in part, that the Tanakh is “absent of this concept”. I direct you to the prophet Isaiah:
It’s not what is said that’s the issue. It’s how it’s understood. Take all the text that you highlighted and apply it to the law of kinsman redeemer. See what you come up with. Got some things I need to do right now but I’ll give some thoughts to consider a bit later.
While I await your response here, or you may include the following in your response: Is their a Jewish historical precedent for a kinsman-redeemer who dies for (an)other(s)? A sacrificial death was clearly part of Yeshua’s mission (see John 10:17-18, 18:11, 19:8-11, etc.).
I finally put a response together but I’m attempting to get Skip’s permission to post it because of it’s length. My apologies to you for the extended time frame, it’s an extremely busy time of year for me.
I shall wait, then. Thanks for your efforts.
So, here are a few considerations in regards to how the law of the kinsman redeemer that would apply to the ministry of the Messiah, including His death and resurrection. I’ll attempt to lay this out as a sketch only, as the details are extensive and the time required to fill in the gaps would be a study in its own right. Also, it’s not my intention to debate this, only to present it as a biblically accurate pattern, void of some of the complications (ie, human sacrifice) inconsistent with revelation. All that being said, if you don’t agree or it doesn’t help, dismiss it. Perhaps it will help someone else.
The purpose of the law of the kinsman redeemer is to restore the inheritor and the inheritance to it’s proper place within the economy of Israel (the people/prince of God) which was lost due to the mismanagement (sin) of the gift of inheritance. Note that the issue is restoration to the one who had lost it, not to his prodigy. That is rectified by the year of jubilee. The requirement for the one who needed redemption is that they asked and that they were willing to submit to a six year servitude under the supervision of the one who redeemed. The requirement of the redeemer is that they were willing to bear the burden of the debt (sin) accrued as well as the potential of the production of the inheritance. The other requirement is “simply” that they had the wealth to be able to do so. Notice again that the intention is not to take possession of the land or persons, only to “cover” (atonement) until rectification is accomplished. At the end of the servitude, (6 years) the redeemer is required to not only return the inheritance, but also to supply the owner abundantly with flocks, etc. If you do the math you can see that the only “profit” gained is the soul of the one redeemed to their rightful state within the community of Israel. Of course there’s the final caveat of a free and willing decision to stay in the continuing service of the master as signified by the piercing of the ear. Note that this doesn’t surrender his “ownership” of the land, only that he has submitted it to the direction of the good master so that they are “enjoined”.
If you follow the pattern as given in scripture, you begin to see the similarities between the exodus, Ruth and Boaz and the redemption as provided by the Messiah. First the purchase providing a covering of sin, then a “retraining” of the of the one who lost the inheritance toward security. It also contains the idea of reparation, as the labor engaged in is part of the “repayment” (due service rendered) to the master, which again is in no way sufficient, ending in the salvation/deliverance of the indebted one.
So, this brings up the sacrifice on the cross. You asked me if there was an historical precedent for a kinsman redeemer giving their life for another, and the answer is obviously no. So what, if anything, does it have to do with the kinsman redeemer? Obedience. The Israelites lost their inheritance through the sin of disobedience. How does a redeemer acquire the purchase price? Through obedience, it was God who crushed the Messiah and He was obedient to death. It’s in the same vein as the reference given at the beginning of this tw. There’s a reason that the prophecies (born in Bethlehem, called out of Egypt, etc.) are in reference to Israel in their context, He is the true Israel (prince of God) in activity. But it goes further as in, He is the propitiation (atonement/covering) for the sins of us, and not for ours only but indeed of the whole world.
Robert,
Thanks for sketching this out. I’m not sure if I fully understand you here. I’m stuck on this: “The requirement for the one who needed redemption is that they asked and that they were willing to submit to a six year servitude under the supervision of the one who redeemed.” Isn’t it only ex post facto that Messiah followers submit to servitude, not before? Or am I missing something?
Take a close look at the Exodus. Moses told Pharaoh to let the people go so that they would serve God. That was before the “redemption” occurred, so there was already an expectation of service by God and the people. The TERMS of that service (covenant) were spelled out later at the mountain. This is one of the things that more Christians need to study so that they can truly understand covenant. But it’s really no different now, we don’t get all the “terms” up front either. We only know that we need and He can supply. On the 6 years of service (if that was part of the question) I wrote it that way because it says that IN the 7th year was the release. The 7 is significant but the 6 had to be fully complete. Think of it this way, when entering the sabbath at sundown no more work was to be done. If your preparations are lacking, you lack through the sabbath. No picking up sticks for the fire after that. Apply that to the six years.
Robert, thank you so much for completing your response to Craig in the (semi)-fullness that you did. I have been following this issue of redemption for a long time, in many respects because I disagree with my brother Dan and his universal redemption stand.
Is the work you are doing to be published in some format? If so, I would like to read it fully. Thanks.
Yes Sir, I just don’t know what format. That’s so far down the road that I can’t let that occupy my mind right now. The only thoughts I have on it is that, I’m not interested in making money on it so I’m thinking about some kind of download that can be copied and sent out to the associates of those who do read it. Kinda like underground sorta stuff. ?
Robert (June 3, 2019 6:49 pm),
Not to be too much of a stickler, but it was God who ‘remembered’ the Abrahamic Covenant (Ex 2:24-25)—in response to Israel’s crying out due of their slavery (Ex 2:23)—that prompted the Burning Bush, which set off the events of the Exodus. In this, God/YHWH was both ‘landowner’ and Redeemer (Ex 6:6; λυτρόω, lytroō).
In any case, I do recognize a kinsman-redeemer analogy—I recall going over the book of Ruth in Bible study about 15 years ago, with the instructor making this connection—however, the analogy is incomplete. Things can be fleshed out more fully with the Abraham/Isaac near-human-sacrifice, which is fulfilled in Christ’s sacrifice, in concert with the OT sacrificial system (see “present himself as a guilt offering” in Is. 53:10), fulfilled by Christ (see Heb. chapters 7-10). The shadows/types are in the Tanakh; the fulfillment is in the NT.
As I wrote, if it doesn’t help, dismiss it. I’m not here to debate. Everything can be torn apart but God says that scripture can’t be broken. The question for all of us is, are we doing that.
You don’t need permission. But I will say that the longer they are, the less they are read.
Thank you, and I am aware of that. ?
The changes in me are NOT due to me.
And the changes have been monumental!
I DO know how these changes have come
about: “because I know whom I have believed
and am convinced He is able . . .”
Was it because of what He did on the cross?
Absolutely.
Do I understand that in my flesh?
Absolutely not.
That’s why I’ve been given my faith.
I’m with Abraham. By faith we understand.
And obey. And go forth. And continue
to change.
I asked earlier “what is sin”? That is the same question, I believe, as the question “what is law”? If law is merely an arbitrary test of loyalty (which all heathen “works” such as rituals, or sacrifices or even good deeds clearly exist to establish), then once the test is ‘satisfied’, that god would be “happy”.
But if law is, instead, a valid reflection of how reality – how life – really works; then, while obedience might also serve to establish the question of loyalty, it also, MORE IMPORTANTLY, serves to hold the entire creation – not just sentient beings – together in that creation. Law, in this sense, would also apply to the rest of creation, and not just sentient beings who can choose. Isn’t this what we actually find? In no false religion do we see that the loyalty ‘tests’ (laws of ritual or sacrifice or obedience) correlate with reality except at its god’s capricious whim: they have no actual ties to creation; but in the God of the Bible, we see that law is the same for sentient and non-sentient creation: there is law that works for me the same as it does a tree. Love holds everything together in life and in creation. Obedience to love (which is allowing God’s will to be acted out through us) works the same for your dog as the bacteria in your stomach as it does for you or me. The big difference between us and the rest of creation around us is that we are the only ones refusing to let love have its way in us. This is a game changer.
I believe obedience to the law of God is about putting us in right relation not only with ourselves and others and God, but also with the rest of creation. Obedience is not just a loyalty test: it is a prerequisite to be able to live in creation. Disobedience cuts us off not only from God, but also from that creation, too. Death is a ‘natural’ consequence, then, of the inability to stay connected to the rest of life, which is how life actually works. Life is about much more than just a loyalty question or even whether or not God is ‘happy’: life is not even possible if obedience to all the laws about love is not gluing it together. At this point, we have a real problem, Houston! At this point, sin is not about if God is ‘happy’ or not: sin directly cuts me off from the life supply, which is only possible if I am in right relationship with all the rest of life. I need to be hooked back up to my life supply!
I believe the work of Yeshua was about gluing reality back together: not just about making God happy.
I agree with all the above and it largely agrees with one of my mentors, Art Katz who defines the motivating spirit behind “the law” in his profound and classic message on “the cross of the crucified Christ” found here…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyMu68lYxB0
In it he suggests that one can consider “the law” to be any activity or effort that one does believing they will “earn” favor or right standing with God.
He goes on to suggest that Christendom has more believers bound up in the law than all the generations of Israel put together even as they profess they are “free from the Law”.
Gotta love Art Katz, when a son of Arron speaks we should listen…
I personally see a distinction between Torah=the teachings and it’s Christian interpretation as the Law.
I’ll leave the exegesis on the two uses in the scripture up to more able men than my self, I’m just an architect. One who looks for solid and reliable structure and order to build my spiritual house with.
I stand with Moses when delivering the Torah, (the oral version I think) to Israel he said. “Today I set before you life or death, blessing or the curse…choose life that you and your children might live… for He is life” (YeHoVaH) Dut. 30:15-20+-. Yet I also respect the work of Restoration Ministries and know they have done much good (as gentiles) to bring to mind the Hebraic roots of their faith. I expect as their work started about 30 years ago and they are not theologians, rather counselors; they will be informed, enlightened and changed if they read your work Skip. I know I have been….
Mark, I was wondering.
The Ten Commandments are God’s initial instruction to Moses. The laws were then introduced to help and guide the Israelites out of Egypt through the desert into the promise land… Or were they introduced to guide them to achieving the Ten Commandments by addressing the shortfalls of the time.
Yes a lot of those shortfalls are still present to this age. Think of reasons for divorces, escalation of violence, in fact the dominance of the 7 deadly sins in human kind. Skip addresses them as addiction…
Failing to guide the audience of the time into the promised land or to living out the Ten Commandments seems to have resulted in an ongoing struggle to justify the laws of Moses existence… it does not state these laws will be useful to guide the next generation,
The next consideration is that the prophets called the Israelites back to God they did not call back to obedience of the law. I wonder why…
The Law is good as it chastises into annointing. This implies learning through fear or feeling punishment. I have no problem with that as I often need a shove and harsh reminders to reflect on what I did so that I can change my ways. Given this, I can confirm that I agree with the intent of the laws but those intents are also achieved by caring enough not to harm others…
Laurita once made the statement about the fight between Jews and Christians is no longer about being acceptable for God but about upholding the laws intent above the intent of love. I myself will gladly suffer consequences of not adhering to a law but me facing that dark wrath of failing to love when that was all I needed to do. That for me is living in the realm of the haunting ghost as that is what creates real guilt not breaking a law…
Just my 2c.