Tag Archives: atonement

Individual responsibility before God.

In the last few years, Christian writers have been taking a look at the phrase “forgiveness of sins” and relating it to the community of Israel. That is, Israel considered itself to still be in exile, waiting for God’s redemption. They were under the oppression of Rome, living as captives in their own land. This, Jewish religious leaders taught, was God’s punishment on the nation that would only end when there came a time of true repentance.

So, modern writers say, when we read about forgiveness of sins in the New Testament, we should be thinking in terms of the nation’s sins (Israel’s sins), not an individual’s sins. Because of this, the atonement is not a personal atonement, with Jesus bearing each individual’s sins, but community atonement. These scholars reject statements like, “Jesus went to the cross to pay for my sins.”

There are many moments in the story of the New Testament where this concept not only fits, but seems to be the best explanation. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 is focused on community guilt (and shame), not the individual. Few in the crowd would have played a direct role in the crucifixion of Jesus, yet the whole crowd reacted in horror when they realized what had been done. That’s community sin.

But there are other stories that focus on individual sin. When Jesus comes face to face with a paralytic and says, “Your sins are forgiven,” that’s not about Israel’s sins. He was addressing the man’s personal situation. The woman with a flow of blood. Zacchaeus. There are numerous instances where Jesus is seen to be focusing on an individual’s sin.

And when Ananias talks to Paul about being baptized to wash away his sins, those are Paul’s sins. He was blameless as regards the Law, he’d acted in good conscience throughout his life, yet he had sin that needed to be washed away.

If you want to get technical, I am closest to what is known as “covenantal substitutionary atonement.” (Don’t you love those theological terms?) As part of that, I believe that Jesus died for my sin, that I was separated from God by sin, and that my faith response allows me to be seen as holy. I also believe that individuals need to understand that they personally need a Savior, or they will not be able to live in God’s presence.

We need a better grasp of what it means to be part of the community of the saved. But we don’t get there by rejecting individual responsibility before God.

 

 

photo via Pixabay

God’s presence can destroy

Let me continue exploring this idea of God’s holiness eventually destroying sin (and sinners). I see this illustrated in the exodus story. When the Israelites made and worshipped the golden calf, God was on the verge of killing everyone except Moses and beginning again with a new people. When Moses interceded for the people, God said:

“Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way.” (Exodus 33:3)

Eventually God relented and accompanied the people. But this is when the tabernacle was established, with a system for cleansing the people of sin and protecting them from destruction. I think that describing this destruction as “God’s anger” is a bit of an anthropomorphism. I don’t think it’s an uncontrollable emotion that God feared would break out at any given moment. I think it’s a description of the very real fact that if God remained in close proximity to these people, the contrast between his holiness and their sinfulness could lead to their description.

God’s full presence was limited to the Holy of Holies (where he sat enthroned on the ark of the covenant). And a system of sacrifices and offerings was set up in order that that Holy of Holies could remain in proximity with the people without bringing about their destruction.

One day, we will live in the full presence of God. If our sins have not been removed/forgiven/atoned for, we will not be able to survive in that presence.

I’ve more to say, but I’d like to hear from you. Are you tracking with me? Does this make sense? Am I off base somewhere?

Thanks for the feedback!

How much room is there for bad news in the good news?

Question markI’ve been thinking about the gospel. The good news of Jesus. I’m wondering how much bad news is an inherent part of the good news.

There has to be some. For Jesus to be the answer, there has to be a problem that needs a solution. But what is the problem?

Is it sin? Is it personal sin or universal sin?

Is it the powers of evil? Is that the problem? Satan and his minions that have rebelled against God, deceived mankind, and sown seeds of death and destruction; is that what Jesus came to fix?

Why did Jesus have to die? Is his death part of the good news or the bad news? Some would argue that his death is the bad news and his resurrection the good. Is that it?

Why do people need to be Christians? To be saved from eternal damnation? To be part of God’s Kingdom? To find purpose and community? What’s the point?

I guess here’s what I’d like to hear your thoughts on:

  • What did Jesus accomplish with his death that couldn’t be accomplished any other way?
  • If Jesus is our Savior, what is he saving us from?
  • What do we gain by becoming a Christian that we couldn’t have otherwise?

How would you answer?