Glen,Then how, as a historian, would you show that...

2006-06-14T13:14:00.000+01:00

Glen,

Then how, as a historian, would you show that Jesus died for our sins?

I'm not denying that he did, I'm saying that it is a theological truth, not a historical one, but it is still the truth nonetheless.

As far as the main question goes, it is quite clear that historically human beings were responsible for the death of Jesus. They put the nails through his hands, not God. Saying that "God killed Jesus" is a theological interpretation of this event.

Sven, you said "Perhaps you should try and disting...

2006-06-13T10:41:00.000+01:00

Sven, you said "Perhaps you should try and distinguish more clearly between what is history ("Jesus dies on the cross") and what is a theological interpretation of that history ("Jesus died on the cross for our sins")."
I fail to see how you can separate this out.
It is 'historical' fact that Jesus died on the cross, why did He die on the cross?, for our sins.
There is no 'interpretation' here, theological or otherwise. One is the event and the other is the reason for that event.
The event and the reason for that event are both historical fact.

I'm sorry Sven, I truly am, but if you think that ...

2006-06-13T10:33:00.000+01:00

I'm sorry Sven, I truly am, but if you think that Steve Chalk is right on this issue then you are the one who needs to rethink their position.

The problem that Isaiah does not take into account...

2006-06-13T07:06:00.000+01:00

The problem that Isaiah does not take into account of course, is that the one being crushed is, in the final event, the Lord himself. In the light of further revelation, we need to factor the incarnation into our interpretation of Isa 53. And it still doesn't actually say that God killed Jesus.

"Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause...

2006-06-13T04:53:00.000+01:00

"Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand" (Isaiah 53:10, NIV).

"It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief" (same verse, NKJV).

"The Roman soldiers were surprised; the death itse...

2006-06-13T01:15:00.000+01:00

"The Roman soldiers were surprised; the death itself seems to have been so much part of God�s plan that it happened prematurely at the right moment � presumably when Jesus had suffered just the right amount of punishment that would purchase forgiveness for all that would believe on him."

I don't wish to be one who discourages you, far from it, but I don't see how on earth you can substantiate the claim I've quoted above.

Perhaps you should try and distinguish more clearly between what is history ("Jesus dies on the cross") and what is a theological interpretation of that history ("Jesus died on the cross for our sins").

I'm also troubled by the expression "when Jesus had suffered just the right amount of punishment that would purchase forgiveness for all that would believe on him". How does the cross "purchase" forgiveness??? Forgiveness is of grace, always. It is never a question of merit, earned either by Christ or by ourselves. Perhaps John Stott would be helpful here:

"We must not, then, speak of God punishing Jesus or of Jesus persuading God, for to do so is to set them over against each other as if they acted independently of one another or were even in conflict with one another. We must never make Christ the object of God's punishment or God the object of Christ's persuasion, for both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taken the initiative together to save sinners."

I don't think that actually MLJ, or indeed any of the scriptures you quoted in the previous atonement post, actually teach that God the Father killed Jesus. That kind of atonement is pagan, not Christian, and is essentially the kind of view of the atonement that Steve Chalke rightly criticised.

The Father and Son are never opposed to one another, they are always in agreement and the Son reveals the Father perfectly.

Perhaps then a better way of explaining the atonement and forgiveness is this: if you wronged me and did me a great deal of harm, and I wished to be reconciled with you and to forgive you, I could force you to make recompense for the damage you have done to me, but that would not be forgiveness. What I ought to do instead - and what I believe God does in Christ - is to take the cost of the damage upon myself, to bear it myself out of love for you. That is the cost I bear if I am to forgive you. God bears the cost of our forgiveness himself, and in doing so puts and end to our debt and our entire sinful state.

That is a million miles away from saying that God had to kill Jesus in order for him to be persuaded into forgiveness, or that Jesus' death had to be painful and long enough in order to purchase the forgiveness, or that God decided to make Jesus a whipping boy instead of us.

Jesus reveals the Father fully - and what he reveals on the cross is the divine cost that God pays in taking all our sin upon himself.

With the death of Jesus, not only is our debt cancelled and reconciliation freely available, but the sinful and corrupt humanity of Adam is also put to death forever. With the old sinful humanity gone, so is the divine wrath that it provoked.

The resurrection is beginning of a new humanity, one free from sin and death, no longer in Adam and under wrath, but in Christ and heirs of life. This is the Good News of the Gospel that we ought to proclaim. We are certainly saved from God's wrath in Christ (Rom 5:9), but not in the way that you suggest. We are saved from wrath by being transformed and made new, not by having Christ endure an equivalent punishment in our place. Punishment is all very well, but it does not stop humanity being in Adam, it does not alter human sinfulness, and it does not put our old nature to death.

I don't think people are trying to discourage you, but it is very important that we articulate the Gospel correctly, and saying that "God killed Jesus" is both technically inaccurate and also misleading. As has been mentioned here already, Peter attributes the death of Jesus not to God, but to "wicked men" (Acts 2:23). God's action in the atonement, according to Peter, is to vindicate Jesus by raising him from the dead (2:24) and thereby showing everyone who killed him to be in the wrong and that they stand condemned.

Paul also attributes Jesus' death not to God, but to the evil powers (1 Cor 2:8). The world foolishly attempts to kill and crush the Son of God, but in doing so they bring about their own end. If the apostles attribute Jesus' death to evil men and evil powers, we should not in any way attribute Jesus' death to the Father whom he perfectly reveals.

Comments on adrianwarnock.com: Monday Musings . . . and a Sermon About God Condem...

Glen,Then how, as a historian, would you show that...

Sven, you said "Perhaps you should try and disting...

I'm sorry Sven, I truly am, but if you think that ...

The problem that Isaiah does not take into account...

"Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause...

"The Roman soldiers were surprised; the death itse...