Print
God as Redeemer
The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible uses the title “Redeemer” eighteen times and all of these are in the OT, hence Jesus is not once addressed as “Redeemer.” It’s quite amazing really how quickly Christians began using “Redeemer” as a title for Jesus, especially considering that the title is never applied to him in the NT.[1] All eighteen of the OT texts use the Hebrew participle (go’el), which is from a verb found within family and ancient social customs (for example, slavery, property). The go’el was a kinsman who delivered a relative from debt or some other predicament (for example, a childless widow). Boaz is the classic example of a “kinsman redeemer” (Ruth 4:1-8). So the basic idea is Deliverer, Rescuer, or even Savior.
Generally the title is applied to God: “O LORD, my rock and my redeemer” (Ps 19:14); “Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel (Isa 43:14). God is the redeemer of the oppressed, the widow, the orphan, the alien, and the poor (Deut 24.17-18; Ps 72.12-14 [referring to the king as God’s agent]; Prov 23.10-11). To translate go’el,the Septuagint (the ancient Greek OT) used the participle of lutroō (emancipate, redeem, deliver, rescue) or rhuomai (rescue, deliver, preserve). However, these words are not common in the Gospels with one outstanding exception where the cognate noun lutron (ransom, payment for release) is used, namely, Mark 10:45 (Matt 20:28).
“For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom (lutron)for many” (Mark10:45). The first thing we should note is that “many” does not mean “most,” but “all” in contrast with one—the one for the many, that is, all others. This is developed in Paul’s inimitable style in Rom 5:15-19. In these few verses “one” is used 11 times and “many” or “all” is used seven times.[2] The fact that “many” (vv. 15c, 19) and “all” (v. 18) are used interchangeably confirms that “many” means “all” both in Rom 5:15-19 and in Mark 10:45.
Secondly, the idea of payment should not be over-emphasized. Some early church leaders thought it meant payment to the devil. The reformers (especially Calvin) had the idea of a payment to God’s justice. It is truer to the nature of God to think more of cost (intransitive) than payment (transitive). The pamphlet correctly notes that “the atonement of Christ was not offered to persuade the Father to love those whom He otherwise hated. The death of Christ did not bring forth a love that was not already in existence. Rather, it was a manifestation of the love that was eternally in God’s heart” (Sunday’s comment).
Thirdly, of course the “one man’s trespass/sin/disobedience” (vv. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19) is the transgression of Adam in Genesis 3.[3] In contrast, the following phrases--the free gift in the grace of the one man, Christ (v. 15), the free gift of righteousness (v. 17), one man’s act of righteousness (v. 18), one man’s obedience (v. 19)--all refer to the single act of Christ’s death on the cross (vv. 6-11). The background for the word “ransom” is diverse and rich, but at a minimum it indicates that Jesus was willing to give up his own life to release those in bondage to the evil one.
The pamphlet also rightly observes that the Eucharist, which Jesus himself instituted, is a memorial not so much of his incarnation as of his death. The Synoptic Gospels (the first three) present this powerfully at the commencement of the Passion Week. Yet the Fourth Gospel gives scant attention to the Lord’s Supper. Furthermore, if lutroō (including the nouns lutron, (apo)lutrōsis and lutrōtēs) and rhuomai are rare in the Synoptics (see for example, Luke 1:68-69; 21:28; 24:21), they are totally absent from the Fourth Gospel.[4] Yet it is to this enigmatic Gospel that we now turn.[5]
I grew up in an urban and entirely secular environment. Nothing in my childhood or youth prepared me for some of the more vivid Christian images. Neither the sacrificial death of my father in action during WW II, nor the sight of my farmer cousin humanely slaughtering a sheep, readied me for William Cowper’s words:
There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains, lose all their guilty stains;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
Maybe my mind is too imaginative, but a swimming pool filled with blood bled from Jesus’ veins sounds grotesque to me.[6] Hence my sympathies are very much with the many disciples, who protested at the words of Jesus: “This teaching is difficult who can accept [hear] it?” (John 6:60 NRSV). What had Jesus said to cause such consternation among his followers?
Well he had pointed out that the Hebrews who ate the manna in the wilderness had died (vv. 49, 58), but “whoever eats of this bread will live forever” (v. 51a). There’s nothing too offensive in that. But Jesus went on to say the bread that came down from heaven, the bread that he gives for the life of the world, is his flesh (v. 51b). The identifying of his flesh with the true bread from heaven (v. 32), which Jesus urged the Jews to eat (vv. 50-51), caused a dispute[7] among them and the more skeptical asked: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (v. 52).
Jesus’ reply was calculated to make his words even more offensive. Previously Jesus had spoken of the bread from heaven that satisfies so that none would be hungry or thirsty (v. 35), which language comes from the Exodus period when God provided manna and water for the Hebrews in the wilderness (see Exod 16:4; 17:3; Deut 8:15-16; Neh 9:15; Ps 78:15-16, 20-25). Eating bread and drinking water is one thing, even eating flesh (Deut 12:15), but eating “my flesh” is another thing entirely. But worse is to come.
“So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you’” (v. 53). Then to make sure the shock is sustained, Jesus repeats the indispensible nature of this ingesting of his flesh and blood (see vv. 54, 55, 56, 57), and this was said to a people who was forbidden by the Law of Moses to eat meat with its blood, let alone drink it! (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10-14; Deut 12:16, 23-25). Notice the repeated “my” or “me” in these verses; the “unless” of verse 53 is emphatic (as it was to Nicodemus in John 3:3)—“my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink” (v. 55), and “so whoever eats me will live because of me” (v. 57).
Three days ago I had a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses arrive at my door. We talked about this and that including whether the Law of Moses was really addressing blood transfusion. I then asked them how they understood Jesus’ words that unless we drank his blood we have no life in us (v. 53). “It’s symbolic,” they said. “Yes,” I agreed, “but can you not feel the pain of the Jews on hearing such symbolic language?” “And why,” I added, “use such an offensive metaphor in the first place?” I think the young lady saw my point, but the young man was satisfied with his learned response, “It’s symbolic;” that solved the problem for him, but not for me, a secular convert to Christianity.
Aware that his disciples were complaining about this saying, he asked them: “Does this offend (skandalizei) you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” (vv. 61-62). Clearly Jesus expected his return to the Father to cause more offense than the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood--but why? It is because in John, the ascension always includes his death. His going up to (katabainō) and his departing to (hupagō) the Father always infer his being lifted up or exalted to the cross.(3:13-15; 7:37-39; 8:28; 12:23, 28, 32-33; 13:31-32).
John has been guiding us towards the offence of the crucifixion (Gal 5:11; 6:12; 1 Cor 1:23) from the beginning of chapter six when he casually mentions that the time of the Passover was near (v. 4).[8] The Passover in John is always redolent of the Passion. This hint is reinforced when Jesus speaks of giving his flesh for the life of the world (v. 51). It is then expanded through the intense use of eucharistic language (given thanks, v. 11; bread, flesh, eat, blood, drink, vv. 53-58). This is coupled with the title “Son of Man” (v. 53), which generally in John implies Jesus’ death (3:13-14; 8:28; 12:23, 34; 13:31), so again we are pointed to the cross.[9] John’s use of eucharistic language does not mean he had a sacramental view of the Lord’s Supper. Verse 63 (“It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless”) warns us against taking that view. No, “this is how John presents the offence of the cross. The hard saying therefore is the talk of Jesus’ incarnation and his death.”[10]
Jesus opens the discourse with a question (“Where are we to buy bread for these people to eat?” v. 5), and he finishes it with a question (“I chose you twelve, didn’t I? But one of you is a devil,” v. 70).[11] However, the final question seems odd and out of place, until we recall the steady emphasis on Jesus’ death throughout the discourse. Jesus obviously spoke of Judas Iscariot, who was going to betray him, despite being one of the twelve that he himself had chosen. The narrator makes sure that the reader does not miss the obvious by stating it (v. 71). Now added to the nearness (eggus) of the Passover is the ominous imminence of Jesus’ betrayal (“this man was going to (emellen) betray him,” v. 71) and the not-too-distant Passion Week.
The link for John with chapter six is the way in which Jesus identified his betrayer. The sign was the giving of a piece of bread, and as Judas took it Satan entered into him (John 13:26-29). “So after receiving the bread, he immediately went out. And it was night (v. 30). John then forthwith informs us that the Jews in Jerusalem were earnestly seeking to put Jesus to death (7:1). “He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him” (1:11). Yet he gave his life, his flesh, for the world (6:33, 51).
It is true that we eat his flesh and drink his blood by coming to him or seeing him and believing in him (vv. 35, 40, 47). However, we must not tame Jesus’ provocative language in vv. 53-58, nor must we try to deny that his words are indeed “a hard saying” (v. 60). To do so is to pretend a crucified Savior or Messiah is not at all offensive. In 1857 a piece of graffiti was uncovered near Rome. It depicts a crucified human with the head of an ass and has an inscription in poor Greek (good grammar not being a requirement for graffiti scribes) that reads “Alexamenos worships his God.” That tells us what the ancients thought of Christians, who call their crucified Savior, Lord; and I suspect it is the view of some of Christianity’s celebrated contemporary opponents. So be it, “for Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:22-24).
[1]The earliest extant occurrence is in Justin Martyr (circ 160 C.E.), Dialogue with Trypho, 30. 3. This is not of course the earliest occurrence as Justin seems to use it as a term already in circulation among Christians.
[2]I exclude the idiom “much more” in v. 17.
[3]Paul’s use of the Adam story does not necessarily require modern readers to treat Genesis 3 as history.
[4]That is “I redeem” (“ransom,” “redemption,” “redeemer”), and “I rescue.”
[5]My use of “John” leaves open the issue of the Fourth Gospel’s literary history.
[6] Calvin’s language is hardly less extreme: “In the presence of the Father the blood of Christ is always in a sense distilling for the irrigation of heaven and earth” (Calvin Commentaries, ed. by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance [Grand Rapids, 1963] 12.140-41).
[7]The Greek machomai has the basic meaning “to fight,” indeed to fight in combat, so the altercation was rather serious. See also verses 41, 43, 61, which use the Greek word for “grumble” or “complain” (gogguzō).
[8]In fact “throughout the Gospel we hear the steady drum-beat of approaching death (ii.4; vii.30; viii.20; xii.23, 27; xiii.1; xvii.1)...” (J. D. G. Dunn, “John VI -- A Eucharistic Discourse?” New Testament Studies 17 [1970-71] 336).
[9]C. K. Barrett correctly links the Son of Man reference in John 6:53 with the Son of Man in Mark 10:45, so we still with the pamphlet (page 26) (“‘The Flesh of the Son of Man’ John 6.53,” in C. K. Barrett, Essays on John [London: SPCK, 1982] 48).
[10] Dunn, “John VI -- A Eucharistic Discourse?” 331. Italics are original.
[11]Author’s translation. The question anticipates an affirmative reply.
User login
Recent
- Joe Erwin Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Anonymouswon Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Carrol Grady Should Seventh-day Adventists be Republicans?
- Sirje Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Fred Eastman The Role of Institutions in Evangelism – A Call to the Adventist Business Community
Newsletter
Organizations
Fri, 08/31/2012 - Sun, 09/02/2012
Job Dybdahl, Sigve Tonstad, Harri Kuhalampi
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
When I was a student (of Dr Young's) many years ago, the texts of the Bible seemed so plain and inoffensive. We were studying them with the help of a couple years of tutorials in koine Greek and a smattering of ancient cultural knowledge. At that time I could not see that I was being educated by my culture and my church to see them from a palatable viewpoint. Theology consisted of making sense and we believed that the best theology was the one that made rational sense of religion. Other people's texts and faith were suspect because they were held together by not-so-common sense, by world views that seemed strange to me. We were never outraged by what we read; we always found a way to smooth the rough edges, providing palatable explanations, or at least ones that did not offend what we otherwise held to be true.
None of this was Dr Young's fault. In his exegesis of the parables, in particular, he brought my fellow students and I to the brink of the unreasonableness of faith. I later read Kierkegaard and others and discovered how faith takes us beyond what is reasonable to what is deeply true, albeit via paradox, contradiction, metaphor, mystery. It took me years to lose my mind and fall over that brink.
Fortunately I am not as smart now as I was then. I admire Jesus not for his answers but for his queries and I've learned how relationships thrive by taking on difficult and pointed problems: I ask them of my patients and still of myself.... "What do you seek?" (John 1:38), "Do you now believe?" (John 16:31, "Do you love me?" (John 21:17), "What is that to you?" (John 21:23).
"It is truer to the nature of God to think more of..."
How do you know that? Isn't it at least circular reasoning?
Re: redeemers. How about Numbers 35? Isn't Job 19 based on the "vindicator" semantics of go'el? Until when (Rev. 6:10) are we going to wait for a theology that takes God the Avenger seriously?
"Theology consisted of making sense and we believed that the best theology was the one that made rational sense of religion."
Sounds an aweful lot like cognitive dissonance :)
"I later read Kierkegaard and others and discovered how faith takes us beyond what is reasonable to what is deeply true, albeit via paradox, contradiction, metaphor, mystery. It took me years to lose my mind and fall over that brink."
It's always exciting to hear someone label the unreasonable, nay, even the irrational, as the "deeply true". Paradoxes need to be verified too. Scientists haven't arrived at the particle-wave duality of light (and more recently other things) through a mystical love for paradox. As for metaphors, they help us be smart, they don't establish truth. I can say "my body is a real food" all I want. It doesn't mean sin is anything else but a pernicious rationalization of shame. It doesn't mean humans self-propulse anti-gravitationally. And so on.
Thanks Norm ... I enjoyed your brief essay. However, I was a little dismayed that you felt the need for a disclaimer regarding; 1) the historicity of the Genesis 3 account and 2) the authorship of the fourth gospel. While it will most likely minimise negative comment on Spectrum I would like to think that you do believe that 1) Genesis 3 is a reliable historical account of what took place, and 2) that the author of the fourth gospel is none other than John, the beloved disciple of Jesus.
"that 1) Genesis 3 is a reliable historical account of what took place"
You do realize, I hope, that there is no Satan in Gen. 3, only a smart serpent. That no snakes live on a diet of dirt. That no moral reason makes human childbirth painful. That the God of Christianity doesn't walk through no garden, especially not in order to enjoy the light evening breeze. Etc.
" and 2) that the author of the fourth gospel is none other than John, the beloved disciple of Jesus."
Why would it matter?
Bogdan: While I respect your right to post your divergent views on this forum, it should be remembered that this is a Christian forum, thus intended (in the main) for those who believe that God exists and that the Bible assists in providing Christians with a world view different from those who don't believe in God. It is also recognised that Christians of various hues on the theological spectrum interpret the Bible in various ways. I choose to believe the Genesis 3 account to be a revelation from God to Moses who recorded it in the words of his choosing to provide humanity with some understanding of how we came to be how we are today - fallen. It also provides hope for fallen humanity in the promise that the Seed of the woman would ultimately come and crush the one who introduced sin into this world.
BTW - there is ample internal evidence of the authorship of the fourth gospel if one has eyes to see.
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, so I wouldn’t expect an atheist (Bogdan) to understand many of the things that seem plain to a Christian reader of Scripture.
Revelation clearly ties Genesis 3 to Satan ("that old serpent, the devil and Satan" Rev. 20:2), so if he's going to argue against our beliefs, he ought to at least do his homework.
I agree with Pr Big Kev about the historicity of Genesis. I believe the point questioning Genesis as history brings into question the legitimacy of the whole article. If you don't believe Genesis is true history, then what you believe about the 4 gospels becomes irrelevant, since Jesus clearly believed in the historicity of Genesis. Or was He also "culturally conditioned," and "unenlightened?"
"...those who believe that... and that... interpret the Bible in various ways. I choose to believe..."
What exactly does it mean that "this is a Christian forum"? That you expect everyone here to confirm what you already "know"? Don't you have enough places for that already? And since when does belief equal truth? Muslims believe too. Yet you don't ascribe truthfulness to many of their beliefs, do you? And aren't there any wrong, abusive interpretations of any given text? Since when is "I choose to believe" a useful hermeneutics? Why should I respect any of your views?
I know all there is to know about the internal evidence for the johannine authorship of "according to John". My question was "why does it matter if John or anyone else wrote this gospel?" And why ever would you care for evidence of any type when you can always "choose to believe"?
And why does it matter if Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address, or if Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's progress? Why does anything matter? Just because it isn't important to you, Bogdan, doesn't mean that it isn't important to others. And you may not be capable of understanding why it's important to them anymore than I can understand why you're oblivious to all the evidence for the existence of God.
Given the amount of skepticism exhibited toward Scripture on this forum it is not always easy to tell that it is a Christian forum.
"Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, so I wouldn’t expect an atheist (Bogdan) to understand many of the things that seem plain to a Christian reader of Scripture."
This is the dumbest thing a Christian can say (I don't care if it sounds like Jesus or Paul). Because it implies that truth (or legitimate interpretation) can be established only on the basis of belief. Which is, pardon my language, utterly stupid. Let me remind you that I have been a believer. I was born into belief. I have given decades of my life to understanding the grounds of my belief. I wanted to be able to give a reasonable defense of my faith (which is an ideal EGW herself encourages). My atheism is not a convenient or an easy choice. It's no choice at all.
The "things that seem plain" are most often the most grievous delusions one can hold on to.
"Revelation clearly ties Genesis 3 to Satan ("that old serpent, the devil and Satan" Rev. 20:2)..."
So you believe that Satan is a dragon or a serpent. The language of Genesis is not symbolic, is it? According to your approach either the fruit and the tree of knowledge of good and evil are symbolic in Genesis; or the 144,000 are actual virgins in Revelation.
"...since Jesus clearly believed in the historicity of Genesis. Or was He also "culturally conditioned," and "unenlightened?"
Why would what Jesus believed be an argument for the historicity of Genesis? If he was not culturally conditioned, he was not a man. And there is plenty of evidence in the gospels that he was culturally conditioned.
"...all the evidence for the existence of God."
Would you please point me to that evidence?
If you can't tell the difference between symbolism, allegory, and literalism, then nothing I say will make any difference. Obviously the serpent in Eden was real, and the devil used it as his medium to deceive Eve. Why is that so difficult? The Revelator simply called him what he was, a snake. We do the same today, with the expression, "snake in the grass." This is silly. And if you really knew your Bible you'd know that the term "virgin" is often a symbol for a pure church, uncorrupted by false doctrines.
Why am I even bothering to argue with you? You clearly don't believe that Jesus was the Creator, so any point I make will be lost on you. You don't have to believe it, but anything that Jesus believed had to be truth, since He was the source of all truth. But I don't expect you to accept that. I can only hope that you'll have a Damascus Road experience some day.
Evidence for God? It's everywhere. You're just blind to it.
Bogdan: 1) being a Christian forum, it is to be expected that those who write the articles, blogs, etc write from a Christian perspective. Those who comment on those various articles, blogs, etc would by and large be coming to the conversation with a Christian world view. As I previously stated, "I respect your right to post your divergent views on this forum". You ought not be surprised that you are at times challenged by those who disagree with your approach to the various discussions.
2) I don't need anyone, "here to confirm" what I have come to accept as (know) truth. I am on a journey and feel comfortable that others are on a journey also.
3) Jesus said, "... if you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." On this basis, it is impossible for you to know the truth unless you believe in Jesus and faithfully follow His teachings.
4) I agree with you that some (perhaps even myself) wrongly interpret, "any given text". That does not necessarily in any way diminish their/my sincerity in endeavouring to understand and follow what I believe to be a revelation from God to humanity.
5) It is written, "he who comes to God must believe that He is ..." I choose to believe in God on the basis of abundant and varied evidence, thus I am able to come to Him - something that is currently impossible for you, an unbeliever. (I will be praying that this changes) Now that I have come to Him I am able to interpret the Bible as spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
6) Whether you respect my views or not is not relevant to the discussion. I am not seeking your respect. My initial comment was a note of gratitude to Dr Young, a friend of mine. I am more interested in his respect - but ultimately (by God's grace) only interested in what God thinks of me.
7) It is quite a big call to state that, "I know all there is to know about the internal evidence for the johannine authorship of "according to John"."
8) Regarding your penultimate question - it matters because the weight of evidence indicates that John the Beloved did write the fourth gospel - it is the truth, that is why it matters. Why settle for any alternative?
9) And finally, my choice to believe is not made in a vacuum. I base my choice to believe on evidence readily available to all who are willing to look for it with an open mind.
"Obviously the serpent in Eden was real, and the devil used it as his medium to deceive Eve. "
Nothing of the kind is obvious in Genesis 3. The text speaks only of a literal, speaking serpent. And, by implication (in contrast with the curse to crawl), of a very legendary serpent. There is no devil in Genesis 3. Just as Satan (whoever he is) is only symbolically a serpent in Revelation. Later symbolic treatment of Genesis 3 says nothing about Genesis 3. Just as no later messianic interpretation makes any OT text speak about Jesus.
"And if you really knew your Bible you'd know that the term "virgin" is often a symbol..."
I never argued otherwise.
"...since He was the source of all truth..."
How do you know that?
"Evidence for God? It's everywhere. You're just blind to it."
Evidence for the spaghetti monster? It's everywhere. You're just blind to it.
"You ought not be surprised that you are at times challenged by those who disagree with your approach to the various discussions."
Not surprised at all. I do think though that disagreement should be based on something more than "I choose to believe". Is that unreasonable?
I have "continued in [Jesus'] word". It has lead me to atheism.
"...my sincerity in endeavouring to understand and follow what I believe to be a revelation from God to humanity."
Your sincerity is not the issue here, but the grounds for your belief that you are in possession of "a revelation from God to humanity".
Don't waste your breath. I have prayed for understanding myself. That's why I am an atheist.
"It is quite a big call..."
No, it's not. The Johannine corpus is my favorite are of study in the NT. "Hebrews" comes next.
"it is the truth, that is why it matters"
Theologically, it makes no differnece. I don't need to argue for a Maccabean authorship of Daniel to see that any historicist interpretation is misguided.
"an open mind"
Are you sure your mind is open enough?
As I have explained elsewhere, theology is not trivial to me. I have studied with some of the best in Adventist theology. I still admire people like Jon Paulien, Richard Choi, Ranko Stefanovic, Roy Gane, Jacques Doukhan, Richard Davidson, Fernando Canale. They have offered me the tools I needed to "think theologically". I still agree with all of them on various issues. Just as I disagree with many of them in significant ways. More importantly, they have opened up for me a horizon of theological investigation that is not limited to the Adventist tradition. My atheism is not a visceral response, nor a poorly informed decision. It is the current, inescapable station in my theological pursuit. I'm still looking for reasons to believe. But ignorant rehashing of discredited platitudes or bare assumption don't make the cut.
I'm not here to mock. But I do find mockable things here.
It might be useful to some to reread this: http://spectrummagazine.org/review/2011/02/15/creation-untamed
Bogdan, you write: "I'm still looking for reasons to believe."
I invite you to read Why Believe? (The Question of God - Alt. S.S. 5 of 11), which is my attempt to tackle that issue personally. I don't set it up as a model, but you might find it food for thought.
Cheers,
RichH
Oh (editor, feel free to kill me), I sided with prof. Young against Rick Davidson over Hebrews ten years ago (I wrote prof. Davidson a lengthy email at the time and had a pleasant conversation with him later on, agreeing to disagree).
Rich,
Tx for pointing me to your article. I hope you won't object to my commenting on it :)
Norm, thank you for this excellent essay. I see there has been some discussion regarding some of your footnotes. I find them perfectly reasonable. One of the things I've always respected about you is your commitment to integrity in dealing with evidence. To those who question your disclaimers, I'd simply say "Don't assume anything about what Norm believes, simply because he doesn't assert certain things." Like many of us, I'd guess there's a fair amount you believe by faith, but that you don't assert things for which there is insufficient evidence. (Certainly that's my impression, from my recollection of occasional discussions we've had over the years).
On a side note, I well remember a Friday night vespers sermon you preached at Royal Oak church in NZ. It must have been in the early 80s - I was a late teenager at the time. The thrust of your message was the question of whether we could live without sin. That message became a defining part of my faith, and I thank you for that. As a result, I never got caught up in the whole issue of last generation theology, as I realise how superfluous the question actually is.
I notice that some Christians get very prickly when their beliefs are challenged, especially when they are forced out of their comfort zone to actually hear what they are saying; it can often be very scary, so to make it go away, get mad
Horatio wrote:
"If you can't tell the difference between symbolism, allegory, and literalism, then nothing I say will make any difference. Obviously the serpent in Eden was real, and the devil used it as his medium to deceive Eve. Why is that so difficult? The Revelator simply called him what he was, a snake. We do the same today, with the expression, "snake in the grass." This is silly. And if you really knew your Bible you'd know that the term "virgin" is often a symbol for a pure church, uncorrupted by false doctrines.
Why am I even bothering to argue with you? You clearly don't believe that Jesus was the Creator, so any point I make will be lost on you. You don't have to believe it, but anything that Jesus believed had to be truth, since He was the source of all truth. But I don't expect you to accept that. I can only hope that you'll have a Damascus Road experience some day.
Evidence for God? It's everywhere. You're just blind to it."
Wow, at least you didn't try to call fire down from heaven.
P.S. The expression "snake in the grass" has nothing to do with anything in the Bible. It refers to an sufering a negative consequence (though unforseen) of one's own actions; specifically walking through high grass and stepping on well camoflaged snake.
.
Reading many of these comments is an excellent tutorial in fallacies. Particularly, circular reasoning: "I know there's a God because He walks beside me." I know that God lives and the Bible describes him just as he is." "The Bible is the only source for what one knows about God." (What was the source all the centuries before the Bible was finally written???
Which one of the many Bible writers is relied on? Job? Ecclesiasties? Song of Solomon? There are so many who contributed to the Bible that, being human, they descibed him as they believed him to be. Why can't people today describe God as they believe?
Elaine
Thank you, Dr Young, for reminding us of the scandalous nature of the gospel - as Paul says, to preach Christ crucified is foolishness to the gentiles, and that will never be other than true. Neither will the fact, implicit to preaching Christ crucified, is the necessity of Christ's blood for salvation - disturbing as that is - and Dr Young does us a service in reminding us of how raw and (almost literally!) visceral that is.
In light of this, it is unfortunate that Dr Young seems to find other parts of traditional Christian orthodoxy also foolishness! But let's not lose sight of the valuable points he makes.
I find this most fascinating. Spectrumites don't like conservative Adventists, "believers" in the true sense. They love stirrers, pseudo-Adventists, non-Adventists, ex-Adventists, anti-Adventists, Fordites, Elaine et al. And here comes along Bogdan, an atheist, one you may think would be welcomed with open arms, but we find he may be too much even for the Spectrumites.
Who knows, maybe the atheist will turn out to be the true Adventist :)
I'm puzzled by one thing, Bogdan. As an atheist why do you include the quote from Jefferson, since you don't believe anything was given to us by heaven?
Norm
An excellent essay. It is fascinating that the irony of a statement from last weeks lesson that has been aired on another thread seems to be so easily glossed over in this weeks lessons which properly returns to Gospel themes.
"Otherwise, what? The Lord would have incarnated into an evolved ape created through the vicious and painfully murderous cycle of natural selection, all in order to abolish death, “the last enemy” (1 Cor. 15:26)? But how can death be the “enemy” if it were one of God’s chosen means for creating humans, at least according to the evolutionary model? .................... What this would mean, then, is that Jesus came to save humankind from the very process He, as Creator, used to create it in the first place. If that sounds ridiculous, it’s because it is. "
That death should be used to create life apparently is offensive and ridiculous even to Christians washed in the blood but as you point out so well the idea of the redemption through blood and the need to eat the flesh and drinking the blood of a God was truly offensive and distasteful to a Jew. The crowning offense of the death of diety is truly offensive and foolishness to Jew and Gentile. That the power of an almighty powerful and omnipotent God is shown in his servitude and death. It is the foolishness of the Cross that power comes from servitiude. That is the truly the core of the most offensive part of the Gospel to western 2st century culture. We idolize the powerful, the winners the monopolists, those with the most not those who follow the ethics of a Kingdom of Heaven based on self sacrificing love.
"As an atheist why do you include the quote from Jefferson, since you don't believe anything was given to us by heaven?"
Would you be surprised if my signature line were a Bible quotation? I have many friends without agreeing in everything with most of them. Jefferson makes a good point, which in my opinion is true irrespective of whether "heaven" has anything to do with our reason or not.
David Trim - Fri, 01/20/2012 - 08:28
In light of this, it is unfortunate that Dr Young seems to find other parts of traditional Christian orthodoxy also foolishness! But let's not lose sight of the valuable points he makes.
*******************
Hello David,
Would you like to give us some examples where Dr. Young finds other parts of traditional Christian orthodoxy also foolishness? (To my knowledge he was a Professor at Avondale College and is still preaching in prominent Adventist churches in Australia. Correct me if I am wrong, David.)
Cheers,
Mike
i think we need people like bodgan. his challenges are a "blessing" to our faith, of whatever shade it might be. he expresses himself in very direct way, to say the least. so what? if we "have the truth", why not let him challenge it? and us? putting down the depth of his thinking and the breadth of his knowledge is a mistake. he is not lacking in either. asking him to leave the site because he is not christian is ridiculous. since when is our conversation to be limited to those who agree with us? bogdan, i welcome you (back) to our world.
I look forward to reading many of the blogs, and the comments tied to them, but over the last weeks, I have found that many of them have been dominated by one individuals posts, that have drawn the conversation away from the topic at hand, into his narcissistic world view. Why do say it that way?...because all the conversation becomes about him, and it has become wearisome. The same arguments over and over in blog after blog, post after post.
In my S.S. class, there at times come people who want to dominate the class, not allowing others to have a voice. So it has happened here, and as long as you engage Bogdan, it will continue.
I agree that everyone can have a voice here, but they should not dominate the threads, to the detriment of the discussion at hand.
God isn't interested in behavior modification, He's interested in life transformation!
Hello there,
The discussions and issues with an atheist will be as deep as you want and will end up in one point... to either you have faith to believe the basic two points of view. If God exists then... and we have the explanation of morals, ethics, creation, salvation and hope in the future and the idyllic place called heaven. I do believe in that. If God doesn't exist then... morals, ethics, evolution and another perception of the future and my personal responsibility for my fellow human beings will occupy my mind hopefully for the benefit of them. Simply... we have a case of parallel worlds. We will never convince Bogdan in any case he is the hands of God. Bogdan as David said is full of his narcissistic world view because he has no other life after this one. His impact has to create a legacy somewhere. He is not looking for the truth he already chose one. My 2 cents of common sense indicates to simply avoid addressing his comments... if he is as smarts as he appears to be he will choose not be in this forum.
May the Lord bless you all,
Miguel
Guys,
Even if I "leave", the questions remain. But I won't leave, since I'm a narcissist and couldn't care less about your happiness. Tough. Yeah, I'm stupid that way :)
Please, do not leave, Bogdan! I admire your logic, and the fact that the conservatives do not have arguments to counter yours is very telling. Honest Christians do not treat atheists as enemies - they welcome them - even as God's prophets:
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/2018
http://michaeldowd.org/media/files/82890dc8b7595fd71432ebf3f4d4f391-74.php
I don't feel compelled to deny the honesty of most Christians. But even most Christians believe one can be honestly mistaken. I simply take religion to its ultimate consequence, which is atheism. I could agree with Bonhoeffer: "The God who lets us live in the world without the working hypothesis of God is the God before whom we stand constantly. Before God and with God we live without God."
"Paul’s use of the Adam story does not necessarily require modern readers to treat Genesis 3 as history."
No one is required to believe anything. If that's not obvious to you now, try reading Sprectrum for a couple of years.
Getting back to Romans 5, if you don't treat Genesis 3 as history, Romans 5:12-21 isn't going to make any sense to you at all. If Genesis 3 is not actual history, Paul is making a completely invalid, nonsensical argument in that passage. He is arguing that trespass and death came into the world through the act of one man, Adam, and redemption and life came into the world through the act of one man, Jesus Christ. But if the part about Adam isn't true, then what's the point of even mentioning Adam? The whole argument is nonsense, to be skipped over without comment, at best. At worst, it nullifies everything Paul ever wrote, because he harbored pre-scientific views of origins, and was obviously culture-bound in every other way as well (which is how liberals usually treat Paul).
"if you don't treat Genesis 3 as history, Romans 5:12-21 isn't going to make any sense to you at all"
You can't establish facts about origins by trying to keep a statement in Romans coherent. It's like arguing that Santa is real, 'cause otherwise most Christmas carols wouldn't make any sense.
Bogdan: 1) Genesis 3 has nothing to say about origins, but rather describes the introduction of sin into this world and God's response. 2) One of the primary evidences for those who accept the Bible as the Word of God is its internal consistency. If we are to dismiss Genesis 3 as a reliable historical account of what took place we are going to step onto the slippery slope you are on and soon abandon our faith in the Bible and thus belief in the existence of God. (that would please you I am sure) 3) As for Santa and the Christmas carols ... most carols don't make sense anyway.
"if you don't treat Genesis 3 as history, Romans 5:12-21 isn't going to make any sense to you at all"
You can't establish facts about origins by trying to keep a statement in Romans coherent. It's like arguing that Santa is real, 'cause otherwise most Christmas carols wouldn't make any sense.
There is no slippery slope. You guys are in the air :)
Now, seriously. "The introduction of sin" sounds a lot like origins to me (I didn't use the term in a strict cosmogonical sense). Any good lie is internally consistent. This is a lame argument for faith. And, more importantly, the Bible is far from internally consistent. Christmas carols make plenty of sense - they speak about ideals of generosity and happiness.
Jag said, "Please, do not leave, Bogdan! I admire your logic, . . ."
Uh, what logic? Most of what I've seen so far is merely one attack after another against any belief founded upon Scripture. He does claim to be an atheist, after all. If I were an atheist, though, I wouldn't waste my time debating (although most of it is attacking, not really debating) in a forum that claims to be Christian. I'd be off engaging in my favorite escape mechanism, so as to forget that my destiny is compost.
Maybe my "escape mechanism" is "attacking" you :) The transcendence of not really debating the faithful.
I remember your words as a student in a chapel you took: "When I look at myself, I wonder how I can be saved. When I look at Jesus I wonder how I can be lost." "Beyond reason does not of course mean arrant nonsense. Thanks for your insightful comment.
Editor's Note: Norman Young is having trouble posting on the comments and asked me to put this on for him.
____________________________________________________________________
Response to Comments to my Essay on the Study “God the Redeemer” for Sabbath 21 January 2012
I wrote a response last Sabbath evening to the many bloggers who commented on my essay on the topic “God the Redeemer.” However, due no doubt to my own incompetence, my comments disappeared without a trace. As best as I can recall them here is what I said.
Graeme, I remember from a chapel you took while a student at Avondale College the following quotation. “When I look at myself, I wonder how I can be saved; but when I look at Jesus I wonder how I can be lost.” Thank you for that excellent thought. Of course, being “beyond what is reasonable” is not, as I’m sure you’ll agree, the same as arrant nonsense.
Bogdan, my you do have a lot to say! Yes you are correct the qal participle of g’l occurs 44 times in the OT including Num 35 in the sense of “blood avenger.” The idea of “pay-back” is common even in some cultures today (for example, Papua-New Guinea). It works as a deterrent to committing murder, for the potential perpetrator knows that his or her clan in consequence of the felony will suffer a reprisal. It can easily lead to feuds, of course, hence the introduction in Num 35 of cities of refuge in an attempt to curb this tendency. I looked only at the 18 times that the NRSV translated the qal participle of g’l as “Redeemer,” as that was my given topic, and yes Job 19:25 was one of the 18.
BigKev (and many others), I accept the tradition that the apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel as highly probable. However, it is a tradition; neither the internal nor the external evidence for it is absolutely coercive. See even a conservative scholar like D. A. Carson to become aware of the difficulties. My attitude to the dialogue re creation in Gen 1-3 is a pastoral one. I believe how members, whether scientists or not, hold together their faith and learning is entirely their business. There are various models that work for some, while others just live with the tension or put the two into separate boxes. How we practice within a community and not how we theorize is the test of belonging, and Eph 4:32 provides an excellent guide for how to discuss our different ways of resolution. Adam dug a hole, but Jesus didn’t just fill it in; he covered it with a gigantic mountain of grace. That to my mind is the point of Rom 5:15-21, and how one harmonizes ancient texts with modern knowledge must not be allowed to prevent us from grasping or rather being grasped by the wonder of that gospel truth.
Horatio, I assure you I have enormous respect for Scripture; too much indeed to read it woodenly or as if it were an encyclopedia of general knowledge. I thought my interpretation of John 6 demonstrated my commitment to Scripture.
Robert, what a lovely memory; it would gladden any preacher’s heart. It certainly did mine. I remember part of the sermon (the sermon note books got lost with the advent of the computer). I opened with the question, “ought we to live without sinning?” and I concluded “yes.” I then asked “do we live without sinning?” and I concluded “no.” How I resolved that tension I have forgotten, but today I’d stress the relationship with God in Christ as an un-earnable gift; and the life within that relationship as a necessary responsibility—living seriously re behavior, but not sinlessly. I tried then as now to keep the balance between freely receiving the Son and then walking faithfully with him. Alden Thompson currently has a Spectrum post on this issue that is well worth reading.
I appreciated all the comments, though the relevance of some of them to my essay was too hard for me.
With kind regards to all,
Norman