The Atonement Contextualized E-Brick

[jpholding]

http://www.amazon.com/Atonement-Cont...8233158&sr=1-1

Yep. It's up and running after over a year of digging to get books any way I could. This one's a bit longer than the hell one, and like that one it's got some older material in it which is added in for ease of reference. But it also offers a somewhat more detailed presentation of the Patronage-Transference model of atonement I worked up, as well as using some of the interactions I had with FormerFundy when he was here. Enjoy.

[Chrawnus]

http://www.amazon.com/Atonement-Cont...8233158&sr=1-1

Yep. It's up and running after over a year of digging to get books any way I could. This one's a bit longer than the hell one, and like that one it's got some older material in it which is added in for ease of reference. But it also offers a somewhat more detailed presentation of the Patronage-Transference model of atonement I worked up, as well as using some of the interactions I had with FormerFundy when he was here. Enjoy.

I bought it a few seconds ago. I might actually comment on it after I'm done reading it.

[Chrawnus]

Writing about propitiation you note:

Holding, James (2012-09-19). The Atonement Contextualized (Tekton E-Brick) (Kindle Locations 276-277). . Kindle Edition.

Under this rubric, Jesus is said to have taken God’s wrath upon himself for our sake. And yet, nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus said to have suffered God’s wrath.

© source where applicable

Admittedly, there is no place in the NT where it is (explicitly, at least) said that Jesus suffered God's wrath. There are however, in all the gospels records of Jesus mentioning a cup, which the Father has given him to drink. (Mat 26:38-42; Mar 14:35-36; Luk 22:41-42; Joh 18:11) And in light of the various in the OT where there is a mention of the cup of God's wrath/anger (I.e Isa 51:17,22; Jer 25:15) would it not be easy for someone with prior knowledge of the OT to connect the cup of God's wrath with the cup that Jesus was given to drink at his crucifixion? Or is this too big a stretch? (As a side note, Hab 2:16 is quite interesting in light of the honor-shame model)

[Chrawnus]

Additionally, I have a minor quibble with what you write in the chapter about Jesus being a human sacrifice. You write that the NT compares Jesus "sacrifice" to the OT sacrifices in the sense that Jesus' sacrifice was like these sacrifices in some way, but in light of the typological nature of the various comparisons between Jesus and events and objects in the OT, would it not be more proper to say that it is the sacrifices of the OT that are like Jesus' self-sacrifice in some way? I.e the ritual sacrifices of the old covenant were merely shadows of the self-sacrifice of Jesus.

[jpholding]

Admittedly, there is no place in the NT where it is (explicitly, at least) said that Jesus suffered God's wrath. There are however, in all the gospels records of Jesus mentioning a cup, which the Father has given him to drink. (Mat 26:38-42; Mar 14:35-36; Luk 22:41-42; Joh 18:11) And in light of the various in the OT where there is a mention of the cup of God's wrath/anger (I.e Isa 51:17,22; Jer 25:15) would it not be easy for someone with prior knowledge of the OT to connect the cup of God's wrath with the cup that Jesus was given to drink at his crucifixion? Or is this too big a stretch? (As a side note, Hab 2:16 is quite interesting in light of the honor-shame model)

Good question. None of the scholars that I read, as I recall, addressed that, and here's maybe why. Cup imagery is used in other ways in the OT as well, such as for blessing (Ps. 23:5), salvation (Ps. 116:13), and consolation (Jer. 16:7). We can also note that in Matt. 20:23 Jesus says the disciples will drink of the same cup he did, and no one thinks the disciples had God's wrath poured on them (but some of them were martyred/executed as Jesus was).

So there's good reason not to connect it to God's wrath.

[jpholding]

Additionally, I have a minor quibble with what you write in the chapter about Jesus being a human sacrifice. You write that the NT compares Jesus "sacrifice" to the OT sacrifices in the sense that Jesus' sacrifice was like these sacrifices in some way, but in light of the typological nature of the various comparisons between Jesus and events and objects in the OT, would it not be more proper to say that it is the sacrifices of the OT that are like Jesus' self-sacrifice in some way? I.e the ritual sacrifices of the old covenant were merely shadows of the self-sacrifice of Jesus.

It would be, except chronologically, that wouldn't make sense -- although arguably, you could say that from God's outside-time perspective.

[Chrawnus]

Good question. None of the scholars that I read, as I recall, addressed that, and here's maybe why. Cup imagery is used in other ways in the OT as well, such as for blessing (Ps. 23:5), salvation (Ps. 116:13), and consolation (Jer. 16:7).

Though given the context of the prayer of Jesus, I.e his anguish ("my soul is troubled to the point of death") and the upcoming crucifixion, would it not be quite a stretch to try and connect the cup which Jesus is given to drink with the various cups with positive connotations, which you mention above, instead of the cup of anger? (which, by the way, seems to be to be a way for the prophets of the OT to speak of the judgement of God.) And it seems quite absurd that Jesus would be so anguished over the cup which he was to be given, or that he would pray for it to be taken away from him, if it was a cup of blessing for example. I.e, if we assume for a minute that the cup can be connected to any cup imagery of the OT, would not the cup of God's wrath/anger/judgement be the most appropriate, in light of the context of Jesus prayer?

We can also note that in Matt. 20:23 Jesus says the disciples will drink of the same cup he did, and no one thinks the disciples had God's wrath poured on them (but some of them were martyred/executed as Jesus was).

So there's good reason not to connect it to God's wrath.

In light of your view that believers are represented on the cross with Jesus, sharing a corporate identity, could one not escape this objection by noting that James and John did drink the cup of God's wrath, by being represented by Jesus on the cross?

[Chrawnus]

It would be, except chronologically, that wouldn't make sense...

Which is why I mentioned typology. As I understand it, in typology, that which comes after chronologically, is always the "real thing" so to speak, while the thing prior to it is always the shadow. Of course, this assumes that there is a typological connection between Jesus death on the cross with the sacrifices of the OT.

[Chrawnus]

Also, a quick comment about the footnotes in the book. In some kindle books which I've read, the numbers where actually linked to the footnote and vice-versa, so you could just click on the number to get to the footnote, read it, and then either click on the corresponding number in the footnote, or click the back button on the kindle to return to the actual text (if that makes any sense). Maybe you could consider that for a future edition of the book?

[jpholding]

would it not be quite a stretch to try and connect the cup which Jesus is given to drink with the various cups with positive connotations,

Yes, but that's not what i was doing -- I was merely pointing out that "cup" does not have the singular connotation of wrath, oor even exclusively negative connotations.

That said, I'd rate Jesus' cup as being that of suffering and humiliation. So likewise James and John in their lifetime as persecuted believers.

Re footnotes: I didn't see any instruction for that on the Kindle pages. Do you know of any? (I don't like that anyway, since it can get readers sidetracked.)

[Chrawnus]

Yes, but that's not what i was doing -- I was merely pointing out that "cup" does not have the singular connotation of wrath, oor even exclusively negative connotations.


That said, I'd rate Jesus' cup as being that of suffering and humiliation. So likewise James and John in their lifetime as persecuted believers.

Right.

Re footnotes: I didn't see any instruction for that on the Kindle pages. Do you know of any? (I don't like that anyway, since it can get readers sidetracked.)

Researching it a bit further, it seems like the way to do it is via a third-party application, namely this site.

Additionally, they have an excerpt from a book describing the process a bit more in-depth:
http://www.kindlenotes.net/excerpt.html.processed.html

[Kristian Joense]

That was a very nice read. Very well written and argued.

[nightbringer]

Purchased.

[Sir Wilshire]

I have a couple of questions about your points on the wrath of God and propitiation/expiation. You write in Chapter 1,

Jesus in some way undergoes the penalty of shame and exclusion for our sake. [7] The critical question for this step is: Does Jesus act as a substitute in our place, as is held by the standard penal substitution model of the atonement? Or does he in some way represent us, such that we are “on the cross” with him? Certain considerations point to the latter as the more likely model...

And then in Chapter 2 when discussing God's wrath, you write,

On the other hand, there is a certain difficulty with respect to God’s wrath. Under this rubric, Jesus is said to have taken God’s wrath upon himself for our sake. And yet, nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus said to have suffered God’s wrath. [4] At the same time, statements about the wrath of God applied to humans outside Christ’s covenant tend to be “broadly impersonal.” Green and Baker assert that in Paul, God's wrath is a matter of "letting us go our own way" (e.g., Rom. 1:18, 24, 26, 28, where people are said to be handed over to some effect of their sin).

Is your point that we can say Jesus did suffer a Romans 1 type of wrath, but not wrath in the sense of God's active anger (in consideration of your footnote about God's emotions), and we can't say Jesus meant the cup signified the wrath of God. This seems to be the takeaway since Paul's point in Romans 1 comes across as God's wrath being his letting the sinners go their own way to their shame.

Further, you write,

Perhaps what is needed is a fresh look at what exactly “propitiation” means. Atonement theory takes from “propitiation” a meaning of appeasement, but the word’s semantic range is inclusive of showing grace and being merciful.
In terms of the atonement, then, propitiation does not mean appeasing God, or placating His wrath. Rather, it means an entering into of covenant with God, and the establishment of the “circle dance” of grace and favor that was at the heart of client-patron relationships.

and if I paraphrase that definition into these verses below, we get...

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a [offering of a covenant relationship, makes first step in circle dance of grace] by his blood, to be received by faith

-Romans 3:23-25a

He is the [offering of covenant relationship, makes first step in circle dance of grace] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

-1 John 2:2

Which syncs well the context. However, in light of what I said above, wouldn't it also make sense to say the definition of propitiation is a both/and entailing the offer of the "dance of grace" covenant relationship and appeasing Romans 1 wrath? If I think of it that way, in Romans 3, the offer of a covenant corresponds well with "are justified by his grace as a gift" and the appeasement of Romans 1 wrath corresponds to "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" because it is by being in Christ that we are represented by him and share in his crucifixion and resurrection.

My last question has to with your last statement in Chapter 2,

Critical objections to propitiation, which turn the crucifixion into an Aztec-like sacrifice to appeal a blood thirsty deity, are therefore off the mark.

with "by his blood" in those Romans 3 verses, and Hebrews 9:22,

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

I already thought the blood comments just meant death, which would show it's not like an Aztec sacrifice you mentioned. Just wondering why the shedding of blood wasn't mentioned. It seems like Hebrews 9:22 requires us to think death is another requirement besides the shaming?

[jpholding]

Is your point that we can say Jesus did suffer a Romans 1 type of wrath, but not wrath in the sense of God's active anger (in consideration of your footnote about God's emotions), and we can't say Jesus meant the cup signified the wrath of God.

I didn't think of it that far ahead, but although that could be argued indirectly, I wouldn't do so since Jesus was on "active duty" so to speak,not going "his own way". I'd keep it as shame being put on Jesus, not wrath.

I already thought the blood comments just meant death, which would show it's not like an Aztec sacrifice you mentioned.

Keep in mind there I'm answering ignorant people like fundy atheists and emotional wrecks. No serious scholar would compare Jesus' death to an Aztec sacrifice. That said, though shedding of blood was required, death in such cases was an incidental effect of it rather than a required part of the ritual.