Monday, 22 June 2009
-
A Ransom
Christ was the ransom. We know that. But to whom did He pay that ransom? Most of us learned that Christ paid it to God to appease His wrath. But the church fathers say He paid it to our great enemy, Satan, to buy us back from the slavery we had sold ourselves into.
Just a quick verse or two for you to think about:
Psalm 107
1O give thanks unto the LORD, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. 2Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy;
Psalm 136
23Who remembered us in our low estate: for his mercy endureth for ever: 24And hath redeemed us from our enemies: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Why is this on a religious abuse site? Because I think our view of God powerfully affects how we behave to one another. It is human nature to emulate what we worship. We learn God's attributes and try to follow in His pattern. If God is just, we try to be just. If God is truthful, we try to be truthful.
On the other hand, if one of God's attributes is that He holds onto anger against His children when they do wrong and cannot let it go until a great payment has been made to Him, then isn't it natural for our religious leaders to tend to take on harsh judgmentalism? Isn't it natural for them to tend to magnify our sins rather than overlook them, and for them to demand great, visible shows of penance for our sins. Isn't it natural for them to tend to hang onto our sins until they feel 'satisfied.'? In a sense, I can hardly blame them.
I remember the reaction of one very judgmental man to someone's sin. The sinner's friend said to him, "Look at the situation he was in. Can't you kind of understand how he ended up doing what he did?" The judgmental man went ballistic. He was terrified of the idea of softening somone's offense. He had to be as harsh toward the sin as he could possible be, because he was afraid that he wouldn't be in agreement with God if he went easy on anyone's errors. That's what you get if take to heart the idea that God is so offended by our sin that He cannot even look at us until we're covered over by the infinite suffering of Christ.
But if our God is a forgiving God, a God who has pity on His children and goes on a great heroic quest to rescue then from their captors, well then, think how differently our religious leaders would act. They would tend to be gentle, patient, heroic themselves. They would forgive sins instead of magnifying them. They would encourage us instead of beating us down. Here's another Psalm passage for you:
Psalm 25:7:
7Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O LORD.Have a great week.
-
recommend
- recs 1
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to MrsDarcy_MrsDarcy_MrsDarcy's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in MrsDarcy_MrsDarcy_MrsDarcy's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (10)
To me the real problem with the view-- I mean with the one you're arguing against, of course-- is that it portrays God and Jesus at odds with each other. (God is never going to forgive us until Jesus steps in and covers our sin.)
George MacDonald: "The worst heresy, next to that of dividing religion and righteousness, is to divide the Father from the Son--in thought or feeling or action or intent; to represent the Son as doing that which the Father does not himself do. Jesus did nothing but what the Father did and does. If Jesus suffered for men, it was because his Father suffers for men; only he came close to men through his body and their senses, that he might bring their spirits close to his Father and their Father, so giving them life, and losing what could be lost of his own. He is God our Saviour: it is because God is our Saviour that Jesus is our Saviour. The God and Father of Jesus Christ could never possibly be satisfied with less than giving himself to his own!"
I'll have to chew on the idea of Jesus' death paying off Satan, but I think I can see how it might work. (In Romans 6-8 the idea seems to be that Jesus' death for us principally means we could "die" along with Him, which thus terminates our contractual obligations to the Law and Sin. I wonder how many more reasons we can come up with? C. S. Lewis's "Perfect Penitent" is another interesting one.)
"he was afraid that he wouldn't be in agreement with Go"
I don't know that I've seen this put into words this way, but I like it. I think it does embrace what I've seen many times over. You'll hear it in phrases like this:
"If you believe what the Bible says, ...."
"We need to defend God's Word."
"The KJV translation is the only true one."
And so on.
Frankly, I've grown to see that kind of viewpoint as a shackle that prevents the Holy Spirit from showing many wonderful facets that are hidden within scripture and applicable to many, very current situations.
@Pass_the_Aura - Wonderful insight and great quote from Chesterton! Thanks so much for that, Eric.
Regarding the paying off Satan, yes, I agree it needs a lot of thinking. I think Jesus' death did many things, though, not just open a way for us to die to our sins. The patristic view sees it as part of his war with Satan, his taking Satan's temptations and assault on Himself and staying obedient all the way to death, and in a great surprise ending, Satan finds that he swallowed not a worm, but the Divinity, the very poison he can't take. And there is Christ, in the grave, breaking it open and overcoming death which was the final unbreakable weapon of Satan's. He disarmed Satan by dying. He proved Himself God. And won Himself a people. There are lots of implications here and I am trying to peel away at them like an onion. And they make me cry, too, just like an onion!
I'm delighted you're joining this discussion.
@HumbleWalk - Yes, this fear of erring shuts down thought. We hear someone say: that's not scriptural, and we backpeddle in a panic. (At least I did.)
Jesus most certainly did NOT pay any debt to Satan! He paid OUR debt to the God, to satisfy His (Father and Son and Spirit) justice. Satan is a thief, and mankind owed Satan nothing. The debt we could not pay, but which Jesus paid for us, was owed to God alone.
The church fathers did not in any way ever imply that the penalty for sin was "owed" to Satan! In fact, Satan's own debt remains outstanding until he is thrown into the lake of fire prepared "for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41)."
Only God (who includes the Son who paid our debt) is or ever was owed anything!
But kudos on the anti-judgementalism. I like the way the Apostle James summed it up:
"The anger of a man does not accomplish the righteousness of God (James 1:20)."
@RobinzRantz - Believe, me, I know that the Christus Victor view is different from the one you hold and different from what most of us have been taught. And I know how unorthodox it sounds. We've only heard the one view. But the one we're familiar with (the substitutionary atonement or penal substitution view) was not developed until the medieval ages. See Christus Victor; a Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement, by Gustaf Aulen.
That's why I've started this series of blogs, to flesh it all out. I am all but convinced of it, but still open to seeing its flaws.
You are not the only one to react strongly to this idea. St. Anselm did, too, and he seems to have been the first to seriously develop an alternative view. Augustine, Chrsyostom, Origen, Irenaeus are all examples of church fathers who saw the devil as having been paid a ransom. I can give some quotes here if you want them, but I don't want to barrage you with info you didn't ask for.
In a nutshell, be were owned by Satan because he tricked us in the garden and we sold ourselves and our souls to him. We did it freely. He lied, yes, but we willfully believed the lie and so he became our Father of Lies. Jesus bought us back.
The ultimate enemy isn't Satan, it is death itself. We are redeemed from death.
@FKIProfessor - Yes, I think that death is the ultimate enemy, certainly. But isn't Satan a proximate minister of death, for a time, by God's permission?
@MrsDarcy_MrsDarcy_MrsDarcy - Very good point.
My intention was to shed a little different light on the question of to whom or what the ransom was paid.
@FKIProfessor - Yes, I'm glad you did. From the little I've read, it seems the patristics have three enemies: Satan, sin and death. I wonder if there is an inversion of the Trinity in this three-fold evil.