T(r)oy's Marbles
how God atones (3rd part)
In review: We're looking at how God brings about our forgiveness. The question is: "Did Christ have to die in order for God to forgive? Why couldn't God have just forgiven us without 'having to pay for it'?" At this point, we've stated that there have been three main ideas put forth throughout Christian history--and demonstrated in the Bible--describing how God atones for sin. Yesterday, we gave a brief introduction to the "classic" idea. Today, we'll look more in depth at the classic idea.
Go here to start this exploration at the first part.
Go here to read yesterday's installment: part two.
And now, part three...
Some currents within the classic idea
You can see in the classic idea a few themes, then.
First, you can see that the classic idea is dramatic. A divine battle is going on in the heavenly realms between the adverse powers and the army of God.
Second, you can see that the classic idea is more concerned with the devil’s grip on our lives than it is concerned with satisfying the wrath of God. The latter idea suggests a God-ward action, while the classic idea is directed primarily at the devil.
This means that our salvation is primarily thought of in terms of a liberation from sin, death and the devil. Jesus is our Hero. We were held in bondage because we had sold our soul to the devil; and the devil, in keeping with his character, would not release us from his grip. Without mercy, the devil staked his claim on our lives. But God, in his infinite mercy, made the ultimate sacrifice in becoming Man, so that He could set us free. God, as it were, put on humanity’s uniform so that He could move freely behind enemy lines, disguised.
And God had to do this, so that He could rightfully, fairly stake His claim on our lives. Had God not taken on mortal flesh, the devil could have rightfully accused God of a great injustice. In order for God to recruit us to His army, He had to become part of our army. To bring us out, God had to enter in. God had to risk identification with the prisoners in order to free us from the devil’s prison.
The cross and the classic idea
Keeping in mind that the classic idea conveys primarily a liberation from the devil’s prison, note that a payment was made to set us free from our bondage. Jesus refers to this “payment” when he says that the Son of Man came “to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28; emphasis added) And, in Hebrews we are told that Jesus “died as a ransom to set them free.” (Hebrews 9:15; emphasis added)
In the ancient church, the question was asked, “To whom was this payment made?” We shall see later that, in the height of the medieval period, this payment was thought to be made to God (and we shall examine later why they thought this), but in the first centuries of the Christian church this payment was thought of as one made to the devil.
Remember, the devil held us in his prison. And remember, the fact that the devil staked his claim on our lives was perfectly just. After all, we had surrendered the deed of our lives to him by our own free will. Because of that, the devil’s claim on our lives was perfectly within bounds. So, to gain our release rightfully (so that the devil could not accuse God of injustice and thus stake his claim on our lives again) a ransom had to be paid to the devil. Our release had to be purchased. The question now was, “What was a fair purchase price?”
Well, a life for a life seems pretty fair. Anything less and the devil is getting shafted. Yes, “the devil will have his due.” To purchase our freedom, then, Christ had to give up his life. You see, the devil would simply not accept anything less. It is in this light that we understand why Jesus was in such anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane. What was it He asked the Father? “If there is any other way…?” And, “Please let this predicament pass from me.” But “nevertheless, not as I will but as You will.” Believe me, if there were any other way, Christ would have taken it. But there wasn’t any other way. The devil would have his pound of flesh and no trickery about “flesh-but-no-blood” would satisfy him. There was no other way. Christ would have to die to purchase our freedom. A life for a life.
So, it seems, the classic idea, in addition to seeing the necessity of the Incarnation, also centers itself on the death of Christ. Keeping the centrality of the cross in mind, then, the early Christians go on to explain the resurrection in the light of the cross.
That's what we'll look at tomorrow.
Until then, God bless.
teachings | Comments (1) | March 12, 2006
Comments
This is such well researched stuff!! The first two installments made me feel like I was beginning to grasp something in some way, which is very encouraging. Looking forward to "hearing" the other two theories, and maybe your own thoughts on the subject???
Posted by: Sarah at March 12, 2006 09:44 PM