CHRISTMAS: THE SELF-HUMILIATION OF GOD

 Salvation begins with the self-humiliation of God.

Salvation does not begin with the Cross or the Resurrection.  The Cross is God’s ultimate act of redemption and atonement once and for all.  The Resurrection – Jesus, the first-fruit of the promised resurrection of the dead -- is the confirmation of the inauguration a new age of the Kingdom of God, of victory over sin and death, of life in the Spirit.  However, the Incarnation is the actual inauguration of that new era of the Kingdom of God.  And, it starts with God’s self-humiliation.

God's self-humiliation is this: The Creator of the cosmos condescends to offer a relationship with the lowly creatures of humanity.  In the beginning, God offered to “walk” and “talk” in the Garden of Eden with the Man and the Woman.  God offered Godself in relationship to Abraham as a way to create a people who would bless the world.  God offered Godself to the Hebrew slaves of Egypt to become God’s people.  Through multiple acts of merciful forgiveness and new starts, the Creator condescended to offer humanity a relationship with Life.  That is where salvation begins.

God's ultimate self-humiliation was to become Immanuel, “with-us-God,” in the flesh, in low esteem and lowly status, to live a life beneath other humans in order to lift them up toward that very salvation.  Christmas, the Incarnation, is when God’s rule and Kingdom was inaugurated in a new way, coming to us in utter weakness and humility.  Christmas is the ultimate Holy Day.

“Here am I, O God, of little power and of mean estate, yet lifting up heart and voice to Thee before whom all created things are as dust and a vapour. Thou art hidden behind the curtain of sense, incomprehensible power; yet here I speak with Thee familiarly as child to parent, as friend to friend. If I could not thus speak to Thee, then were I indeed without hope in the world….  But because Thou art my Father, I am not afraid. Because it is Thine own Spirit that stirs within my spirit's inmost room, I know that all is well.”*

Thank you, Lord Jesus.  Amen.

John Baillie, A Dairy of Private Prayer, Day 9, morning.

GOD IS NOT JUST: ATONEMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT*

If by “just” one means a forensic, abstraction in which every crime/sin must receive appropriate punishment, then God is not just.  [This post follows up on my post of 8/25/23 in which I looked at some of the justice vocabulary in the Bible.]  Moreover, much of what people presume is atonement language about Jesus in the NT, particularly in Paul’s writings, is not atonement language.  It is not drawing on the atonement language and concepts used by ancient Israel in the OT, but on later foreign concepts (e.g. by Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Bede.)  And, it matters.  What is often lost as people conflate God’s gracious offer of salvation with the more specific category of atonement is the order, the sequence, of God’s outreach of reconciliation.

The sequence in the OT is this.  First, God condescends in grace and mercy to offer relationship to Abraham, to Moses, to the people of Israel.  There is nothing said about those people being righteously qualified, and there is no atonement for their previous sin/s.#  In fact, Moses tells the people that they were chosen NOT because they were more righteous or powerful or numerous – in fact, they are “stiff-necked” (Deut 9:1-6).  God offered a covenant relationship with them simply because God was faithful to the promise he made to Abraham.

Second, when Abraham entrusted himself to God, God reckoned that response as righteousness (Gen 16:5); that is, a right relationship.  There is absolutely nothing in God’s dealings with Abraham, Moses, or Israel in which God responds as a courtroom judge who must first exact punishment for sin in order to make things “just.”#  That forensic concept is not there and should not be projected into the NT!

The third step takes us into atonement language proper.  As people in relationship with the Holy God, they are called to be holy as well, but they, like us all, fail.  So, God established the symbolic atonement system.  This system was basically adopted from the sacrificial symbolism of the surrounding cultures, BUT was changed to remove polytheistic, magical, and nature-god elements.  In brief, the atonement system attempted to convey the seriousness of intangible realities such as sin and forgiveness through dramatic rituals.  The seriousness of sin, disobedience to God, was portrayed as a kind of miasma that polluted God’s dwelling place, the temple, and was such an impediment, if not removed, that God’s Presence would depart.  Blood, represented life and was manipulated around altars to symbolically overcome and remove the filth of sin.  This system symbolized God’s mercy and grace to forgive and to reconcile.  Of course, those making sin offerings were to be repentant, to desire reconciliation, and to want to be obedient in the future.
Here are a couple of key corrective thoughts about the sin offerings and scapegoat rituals for atonement:

·        Sins were not transferred or “imputed” from the person to the animal; that would involve forbidden magical thinking.  [To follow in a later post: This is why, for example, Paul does not say that Jesus became sin, but rather that Jesus became the “sin offering” in 2Cor 5:21 (see Rom 8:3) and why a common assumption that our sin could be imputed onto Jesus would be a foreign concept to Paul and other Jews.]

·        The death of the sin-offering animal is not key; the blood is.  The “life” in the blood (see Lev17:11) was greater than the deadly effects of sin.  Jesus provided the blood of a spotlessly pure sacrifice.  [Again, for a later post:  The actual death of Jesus is key symbolically for other reasons, but not as being punished for our sins to satisfy a god who is bound to an abstract system of forensic justice.]

Note: In Rom 4:18-25, Paul includes Gentiles in the “hope” of Abraham (18) and applies atonement language to all “who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered over on account of our sins [understood as the sin offering] and was raised for the sake of our righteousness/justification” (24-25).

Application: The order, the sequence, of God’s outreach of reconciliation always demonstrates the grace and mercy of God who does NOT execute abstract justice on people (or on Jesus) but, rather, who lifts/cleanses/buries/casts into the sea, etc. the sin of those who entrust themselves, who repent and seek forgiveness, who walk in obedience with God.

Lord, help me to always cherish your unfathomable mercy and grace such that you would allow me to abide in your Presence.  Help me to show that mercy to others.  Amen.

#Some interpreters and translators misunderstand a reference in Rom 3:25 to God “passing over” sins of the past as leaving “unpunished” (see NIV Original, but rendered better in the later version).  The term paresin used here is about remitting a debt rather than negligently forgetting it.  It is another image of God’s offer of forgiveness.  Actually, anyone who has really forgiven another person knows what it is like not to exact punishment, but to “pass over” the transgression.

*I have a detailed exegetical treatment of some of the key statements of Romans 3 in Part 2 of “Hope for the Future of New Testament Theology,” in Religions 2021, 12(11), 975; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12110975

PREDESTINATION?

The popular, Calvinistic understanding of predestination is not biblical.  I'll explain. 

First Point: Biblical Interpretation

The two main passages from which a doctrine of predestination is obtained are Romans 8 and Ephesians 1.  Since Rom 8 begins in the middle of a long train of Paul’s thought and Eph 1 is the start of a train of thought, I'll focus on Eph 1.

The basic mistake that readers make is to identify themselves in the 1st person plural references (we, us) in Chapt. 1: 

·        has blessed us in the heavenly realms (3)

·        he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight (4)

·        predestined us for adoption to sonship (5)

·        he made known to us the mystery of his will …  which he purposed in Christ, (9)

·        In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him (11)

But, a close reader should note that Paul switches from 1^st person plural at verse 12 to verse 13: “in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory” (12) to 2^nd person plural (you – Greek has a plural form whereas English does not), “and you also were included in Christ” (13).  One needs to stop and ask: Who, then, are the “we” and who are the “you”?  As one reads further, it becomes quite clear that the “you” are Gentiles who have accepted Christ and that the “we,” therefore referred to Jewish Christians.  In fact, from 1:13 through Chapt 3, Paul basically explains how Gentiles in Christ have been included in the promises to Israel and how the two people have become one in Christ.

Therefore, in the preceding “we” passages Paul is recognizing that the calling and promises to Israel belong to Jewish Christians, “the first to put our hope in Christ” (1:12).  One should note that the divine choosing and predestination here do NOT refer to individuals being chosen for salvation.  Rather, the community of Israel was chosen collectively for the purpose of being holy as God’s children.  That calling belongs to Christians.  There is nothing here about individuals being predestined for salvation or damnation.  (In Romans 8, although the train of thought is more complex, Paul is again reflecting on how Israel was elected and predestined to a calling of being God’s holy people.)

Second Point: Logical Problem

Calvinists basically start with an abstract definition of the “sovereignty” of God that anything that happens must somehow be the will of God, and then logically deduce that some people must be predestined for salvation and others not.  The problem is that the language of Bible that attempts to describe God is metaphorical.  The only language that we can use to describe the metaphysical (beyond-physical), divine dimension comes from our physical dimension.  Therefore, when the biblical authors used the terminology of king/sovereign, rule/sovereignty, etc., they were using the language of their experience, not an abstract definition. In their culture, a king was not RESPONSIBLE FOR everything that happened within his realm; rather, he was RESPONSIBLE TO what happened.  A righteous king did not cause the actions of evil doers; however, righteous king was to address those actions and bring about peace, justice, and righteousness.  That is what they were saying about the nature of God.  One should not build doctrines from abstract definitions rather than from understanding the biblical language in context.

Devotional point: My “salvation” was not predestined as if I were an automaton.  I am saved in Christ when I receive his offer of relationship, when I to entrust myself to him.  But, having done so, I accept his call to be holy, to be for the praise of his glory, and to be a blessing to the peoples as Israel was to be (Gen 12:1-3).

Lord, thank you that I have included in the calling and promises to Israel.  I realize that I am called to be holy for your glory.  Work into me your character.  Sanctify me.  Amen.