Expiating propitiation

An email from my son arrived with this simple subject line: thought you might like this. And then a link in the body, with this statement: "I found it fascinating."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/06/22/the-wrath-of-god-satisfied/
To which I answered that I would spend some time considering what I found there. Here are my thoughts.

The discussion McKnight launches in his blog posting is intriguing for its theological significance and the richness of his readers’ thoughtful and civil responses (for the most part, until the bitter end where it decays somewhat). On that topic, I’ve apparently been stuck in too much popular culture or higher ed article feedback loops with ornery or angry respondents; this community is really refreshing for the level of respect they have for each other.
What most intrigues me about this discussion is how it draws me close to the core of the gospel message: that Jesus came to pay the price for my sins that I had no resources to make on my own behalf. His work is expiation for my default. But the issue can get lost in technicalities of language and doctrine in a heartbeat, and lots of this discussion goes there.
What’s the real soul of this issue? In my opinion, it’s relational. It starts with recognition of a sovereign God whose grandeur and character reasonably deserve awe and worship from his creatures. When that happens, the corresponding behavioral responses include gratitude for his gifts (like life, provisions, relationships, and even trials and afflictions) and obedience to his directives (see John 14:23).
Well, because of our fallen nature, that doesn’t happen naturally or consistently, so the old testament story resolves/evolves to the new testament revelation of the incarnation of the God/man Jesus Christ: God who came in the flesh to fulfill the Passover requirement that couldn’t be fulfilled except symbolically and religiously every year with a spotless lamb (offspring of two sheep), compared to Jesus who was the spotless lamb (offspring of God/Holy Spirit and a woman of the tribe of David).
Reflecting back to that original situation that triggered the sacrifice that protected the Hebrews from the avenging/wrathful angel in Egypt that struck down all the firstborns in the realm, the blood covered them. In the same way, the failure of our appropriate appreciation for God’s greatness can’t be tolerated by God forever without erosion of his glory, something that the Psalms (not to mention the Law and the Prophets) declare will not go unaddressed. Hence the need for the blood of Jesus.
I think the whole article and most of the responses are a stubbed toe on the term wrath. Most of us have a hard time reconciling (that is really a telling term: based in accounting) the God who gave us the words of Matt. 5:38-42 being the same God who would exact such harsh retribution from offending subjects as described in Matt. 21:40-41 and lots of other parables, not to mention the entire book of Revelation.
This has been and always will be a point of tension. It’s what the faith piece of Christianity is, and must be, in my opinion: tension. Paul opens and closes the letter to the Romans with the phrase, “the obedience of faith” (1:5, 16:26). For me that means that faith isn’t something that can be relegated to reason that compels logical acquiescence. That’s why it’s called faith; that’s why our faith is relational. Relationships are always faith-based. Sure, we’ve got some trends that set up reasonable expectations in our relationships, but we end up stepping out in ways that are completely unreasonable: we believe for way more than we have historical data to support. And the love of God isn’t negated by his judgment on those who have violated his requirements, nor is his holiness negated by his forbearance. This is most perfectly resolved in Rom. 3:25 (as noted in the end of McKnight’s posting). Here’s a wonderfully interpretive version of that verse from Peterson’s Message:
“God sacrificed Jesus on the altar of the world to clear that world of sin. Having faith in him sets us in the clear. God decided on this course of action in full view of the public—to set the world in the clear with himself through the sacrifice of Jesus, finally taking care of the sins he had so patiently endured.”
Lovely. Held in taut tension with the King in the parable of Matt. 22:11-14: throw that rascal (??) into outer darkness for an offense that doesn’t seem obvious in the text; what did he do wrong?
There’s the relational piece landing with the same intense demand that Cain didn’t grasp in Gen. 4. This is yet another stubbed toe. The fig leaves of Gen. 3 needed to be up-leveled to skins to provide a real covering: blood needed to be shed to cover the offense of the first parents. So the inference that Abel got and Cain didn’t was that the recognition God required had a life-blood price to it. Why does this God require so much? Such a high price! Because the reward he offers us has such a high value, it must be paid for with the greatest treasure available.
So based on all these forgoing thoughts, McKnight’s concluding statement quoting C.F.D. Moule that “Nowhere in the NT is it said that the wrath of God was satisfied by the death of Jesus” appears to me a quibbling point, not much different in quality from the perspective that the crucifixion was divine child abuse, although much different in quantity. But even the logic of that quote doesn’t square with the texts that are then immediately referenced, especially the version I pasted above from Rom. 3:25. (It’s fascinating that the six references he notes are the complete catalog of NT occurrences this Greek root and its variants.) You may call forth comment #6 where McKnight seeks from a prior commenter a text in the NT where there is clear evidence that Jesus’ death satisfied the wrath of God (and not in such a way where he isn’t the initiator but the receiver of that propitiation?). I tend to agree with fb in comment #19 who says:
“the difficulty of this debate is that most of us (myself included) don’t have the linguistic chops to adjudicate this conflict, so it quickly moves to a discussion on more theological grounds. but i wonder: are the two ideas mutually exclusive? is the fact that God is the one who initiates reconciliation and removes the barrier incompatible with the notion that he has wrath against sin which must be satisfied?”
And the final summary comment for me is http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/06/22/the-wrath-of-god-satisfied/#comment-359909. This truly was a refreshing exercise. Thanks for passing it along.
Dad

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

simple update

Well, Margy got out of the hospital after only three days. Not that she was well. She'd gotten rehydrated, the pain was more or less under control, and she was eating again. That's a lot to be thankful for; and we were. Today, almost two weeks after her release from the krankenhaus, she had her first real treatment of her back/neck problem. She went to Dr. Jeff, a doctor of osteopaty in Madelia, who put her on a monster machine called a DRX9000 for about 30 minutes. Her head was placed in a special molded form connected to a strap that exerted up to six pounds of pressure designed to decompress her herniated discs. When we drove home, she said she was free of pain in her left arm for the first time in three weeks. Praise God! If she continues to improve with this treatment, she'll probably be visiting Madelia twice a week for the next eight weeks. And then we hope she never has to return again!
Read more

behold, a puppy

Image
The conversations with Jasmine and Margy have been going on for months and months, but taking care of Pouncer and Lucy brought it all to a head: they wanted a dog... badly. And there were lots of good reasons for their argument. Jasmine would benefit from the added responsibility, companionship, and after the dog grows up, protection. A nine-year-old girl in today's world needs some protection if she's going to walk down a street, even a safe midwestern street. On my side, I pointed out all the downside challenges I could think of, knowing that one day each of them would wonder in her heart-of-hearts, "What was I thinking when I said I wanted a dog?!?" I made sure they heard my warnings, but the cry of their hearts was for a dog. Fast forward: adoption day for Esty, our new Brittany, was Thursday the 23rd. Nine weeks old, she's just getting into the gangling puppy stage. Margy and Jasmine were delighted with her. Before the sun had set, she had my heart, too. Jasm...
Read more

soon and very soon: a new address

Image
Yesterday I drove home from work and saw a "SOLD" sign on the For Sale sign on our house. What an amazing transition from the discouraged place Margy and I were at only two weeks before. She was in the hospital with terrible back/neck pain, and the prospect of cleaning up the house for showings at the drop of a hat stirred up even more pain. So we agreed we'd just take the house off the market and wait until we did all those things on our "to-do" list that was nagging at us. We got the deck done (thanks to Nic), and cleared out the storage room in the basement so it wasn't wall-to-wall junk (thanks to Josh--and us!), but the list included painting, recarpeting the family room, etc. Lots of work. And now we don't have to! But we do need to find another place to live. This weekend we'll start a marathon of looking at other people's houses in the vicinity of the university. Open doors... soon one of them might be ours.
Read more