tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post5908364782019101257..comments2023-08-10T07:18:16.879-04:00Comments on Borrowed Light: Would Jesus Have Died For Only You? Your Thoughts Here…Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08034192017775511612noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-86449791177561862392012-05-27T09:48:46.492-04:002012-05-27T09:48:46.492-04:00The question eludes to a conflict of interest. If ...The question eludes to a conflict of interest. If there were only one person on Earth and Jesus still had to die to afford that one person salvation... who, among that single person, betrays him, tortures him and nails him to the cross to fulfill the prophesy... if not that single person?<br /><br />Matthew 26:24 invalidates the cause:<br /><br />"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."<br /><br />"Woe". Not a desirable outcome for the individual that must fulfill prophesy by betrayal. Not a desirable outcome for the only person on Earth requiring salvation.<br /><br />Therefore:<br /><br />1) How is such a statement helpful?<br /><br />As long as the listener does not consider the prophesy and as being the necessary "Judas Iscariot" of the scenario, the statement could be used to exemplify god's love for each individual.<br /><br />2) How might such a statement be harmful?<br /><br />If the listener considers prophesy and their place in it as the necessary "Judas Iscariot" character to fulfill prophesy, they realize, based on scripture, that the matter of their own salvation is rendered irrelevant and, therefore, the entire purpose of Christ along with it.<br /><br />To indemnify doctrine and faith, do not EVER ask any questions within the confines of christianity that might invoke actual logical thought. Therein lies the gateway to atheism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09071427052057050069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-15038792929585666002012-05-27T09:36:08.787-04:002012-05-27T09:36:08.787-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09071427052057050069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-54769833536017855752012-04-06T11:01:43.365-04:002012-04-06T11:01:43.365-04:00Where exactly in the bible does it say that he wou...Where exactly in the bible does it say that he would have died for one person?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-64076587009204097292009-06-02T13:03:26.231-04:002009-06-02T13:03:26.231-04:00I enjoyed the discussion as well, David. I'm sure ...I enjoyed the discussion as well, David. I'm sure we'll engage more on here, brother. Looking forward to future discussions.Tom 1sthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16281465700829698800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-48889881415249858382009-06-02T11:09:49.791-04:002009-06-02T11:09:49.791-04:00Tom,
Fair enough. Mike and I were actually talki...Tom,<br /><br />Fair enough. Mike and I were actually talking, just yesterday, about whether or not to continue this... discussion.<br /><br />If we are to stop this, I do want to thank you for challenging me. I haven't had a whole lot of mental exercise lately, so this discussion has been good for me. I have been looking deeper into scripture than I have in quite a while.<br /><br />Before we do quit, I just want to make something clear. Mike pointed out to me yesterday that I had been arguing from something of a polar position. So, let me state this for the record: I do believe that God does have need of being propitiated (which He does Himself), but this is done primarily through Christ acting as an expiation (as long as expiation is understood as paying the penalty for sin).<br /><br />πρός θεὸν μονὸν τήν δοξάν<br /><br />David S. DittmerDavid Dittmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06262207649152153999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-62974681524701922842009-06-02T09:52:41.715-04:002009-06-02T09:52:41.715-04:00David,
Here's the thing, man....why don't we just ...David,<br />Here's the thing, man....why don't we just call it a truce? <br /><br />We've been discussing this for 2 months with little or no head-way. <br /><br />I may disagree with your position, but I don't consider it 'un' or 'anti' Christian. <br /><br />While I think there is a dangerous side to it, I know that many believers through the ages have held to it and have served God while believing in it. <br /><br />So long as you can grant me the same statements, then I'm happy to lay down my logical and exegetical guns and let the conversation be lost to cyberspace and random googlers. <br /><br />What say you?Tom 1sthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16281465700829698800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-77385519824663386022009-05-31T23:13:16.827-04:002009-05-31T23:13:16.827-04:00David, thanks for the concession.
You are right t...David, thanks for the concession.<br /><br />You are right that words have various meanings and therefore sometimes it is difficult to understand the meaning of a single word in the context of other various words with various meanings. (This observations has infact led some to the pessimistic conclusion that you hint at - that there is no inherent meaning in language). <br /><br />That said, I don't think it's the either/or you seem to cast it in. God is a speaking God and he intends that his words be understood. But there are language rules and they must be acknowledged - they are difficult and nuanced! <br /><br />A word only means what it means within a given context. This is basic language study - be it Greek, English, or whatever. You cannot take the 'root' meaning of a word and apply it anywhere - language doesn't work that way. <br /><br />You and I both work with multifaceted language and assume we have understanding, even though we use words that have various meanings. The meanings of the words we use are determined by context. Epistemological humility requires that we always acknowledge that our knowledge of a given word is never 100%, but there ARE more likely and less likely options.<br /><br />Our discussion of the word hilasmos is exactly that - a discussion of what is more likely. It will not work with me to continue to assert that propitiation is the main or even root meaning. That's not how language works. And even if it was, what is determinative is the context. <br /><br />I do not 'start with expiation' as you assert. I start with the context of a passage, as I believe I have tried to assert over and over - and none of those contexts, as you have yourself admitted, is explicitly propitiatory (overtly saying that God poured out his wrath on his Son). <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />That said, I think we're going to run into the same problems that we are with hilasmos when discussion the 'justice of God' - you are already convinced of a fixed definition and have determined what the word means without looking at the context.<br /><br />If this were not so, then please begin by telling me you problems with my exegesis. You don't need my definition of God's righteousness to critique me, do you?<br /><br />The reason I'm saying that is b/c I feel like I'm doing all the exegetical leg work while you get to say, "No, that's not right because this person says this or this is what the fixed meaning is." <br /><br />So, instead, lets first finish our discussion of hilasmos (I do believe we can work with the other citations outside of Romans...if the idea of propitiation isn't in any of those, then surely it would not be present in Romans 3, won't you concede?). <br /><br />OR, lets at least begin our Rom. 3 discussion with your critique of my exegesis so it doesn't seem like I'm doing all the hard work here. <br /><br />Not trying to be rude, brother. I'm just mildly frustrated b/c I am trying to do careful exegetical analysis and you are coming back with your favorite scholarly opinion, but ignoring my contextual arguments and trying to justify your opinions through exegetical fallacies and faulty logic.<br /><br />I'm just being honest about what it seems like to me. I don't mean it in any way to be mean. If this is not the case, then please demonstrate the faultiness of my logic/exegesis by providing some of your own as a response to mine.<br /><br />If we continue in this vein of discussion, then it is really not worth my time and effort to work hard at the discussion b/c I don't feel like you're putting the same amount of effort in. <br /><br />Again - not trying to be rude or mean spirited. Just expressing some frustration. <br /><br />Cheers brother.Tom 1sthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16281465700829698800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-14498496289530051712009-05-31T17:50:42.731-04:002009-05-31T17:50:42.731-04:00Tom,
You are right that I was over-simplifying th...Tom,<br /><br />You are right that I was over-simplifying things in my last post. I understand that words have varying nuances in their meaning. I also understand that Jews were fond of taking Greek words and subverting their pagan meaning. Even in these instances, though, words have a root core meaning that they don't vary from. If the meaning of words was determined solely by their context, as you said, then words would have no meaning because then every word is determined by a bunch of other words whose meanings are only determined by the context of other words whose meanings are only determined by... you get the point. We have to have a starting point to determine what words mean. In Koine Greek, from everything that I have read, ἱλάσκομαι had a very narrow range of meanings. At its root it means to 'make gracious or merciful (i.e. to propitiate).' From there it moves to the nuance of meaning ‘to appease.’ This is the primary meaning of the word and should not be abandoned unless the context absolutely demands it. It appears that you start with expiation, only willing to abandon it if the context absolutely demands it. In truth, the burden of proof is on those that hold to the expiatory view.<br /><br />In your exposition of Romans, there are several things that I question the validity of. However, in order to engage your exposition, I need to know what your view on the phrase ‘the righteousness of God’ in Romans 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22; 10:3.<br /><br />πρός θεὸν μονὸν τήν δοξάνDavid Dittmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06262207649152153999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-81544440635830899612009-05-31T01:21:28.445-04:002009-05-31T01:21:28.445-04:00I would just like to add one more thing - the mean...I would just like to add one more thing - the meaning of lots of words in the NT were assumed to be clear before the 18th and 19th centuries. But the challenges to those words after that are often legit...which is why we don't use the Greek text behind the KJV anymore. <br /><br />So to argue that the word's meaning was assumed prior to the 19th cent. is not only probably a misrepresentation of the evidence, but actually demonstrates nothing concerning your argument b/c this is a common thing given our new understandings of Gk. words, language theories, textual criticism, and the discoveries of thousands of other biblical manuscripts and extra-biblical documents. <br /><br />So, I appreciate that you don't want to argue about it, but I don't think you've provided a sufficient reason for me to 'admit' that you are right. <br /><br />I think you're oversimplifying the matter too much and giving yourself a false sense of security in this matter. And that's fine - that's your choice, to be sure. But I'm still coming with legit challenges, I think, despite your clarity on the matter. <br /><br />Anyway, I will consider your thoughts more tomorrow. But for now - off to bed!Tom 1sthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16281465700829698800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-87348587249513641692009-05-31T01:12:39.580-04:002009-05-31T01:12:39.580-04:00David, let me take your first statement first. (I'...David, let me take your first statement first. (I'll respond to your second post later b/c it's late right now and I don't have time.)<br /><br />Forgive the bluntness...I'm pressed for time...<br /><br />I believe you are participating in a Word Study fallacy. Words do not have exact, static, fixed meanings. They have dynamic usages which can vary in small and large ways. <br /><br />Hilasmos does not have a single meaning. And meaning is never determined by how it is used elsewhere (that is called an Illegitimate Totality Transfer fallacy). Rather, meaning is solely determined by context. I have argued from context (in every citation of the word) that the hilasmos as 'propitiation' simply does not make sense. <br /><br />Instead of dealing with my argument from context, you have just placed your chosen meaning on the word and assumed that is final. But it is not so, brother. <br /><br />The syntactical range of hilasmos is pretty large - as I demonstrated. So if you're going to change my mind you've got to argue with me from the context of each passage. I know it's a lot of work, but this is a worthwhile discussion to put a lot of work into. It bears on the very nature of God! <br /><br />Next, aside from your assumption that words have fixed meanings (which even DA Carson debunks in his book on Exegetical Fallacies), you also assume that that fixed meaning must be used the same way in every citation.<br /><br />Here's the problem - it's simply not true that this is the case. The Hebrews (long before Paul and Jesus) were fond of taking pagan words and ideas and subverting them. That is, they would use the words and phrases of pagan religions, but they would invest them with new meaning to teach true theology. <br /><br />Consider, for example, the NT use of the word "Lord." Yes, it parallels the OT's "Yahweh" but it ALSO was a word used by the Romans to refer to Caesar (who was considered a diety). The first place Jesus is called Lord by one of his disciples is in Caesarea Philippi (a place named after Caesar!). In other words, every time the Christians said that Jesus is 'lord' they were not only referring to him as Yahweh, but they were ALSO proclaiming allegiance to a different empire and different God! <br /><br />So, take that same idea and apply it to hilasmos - they took a pagan word and used it (in contexts!)in a way which subverted the "angry deity" ideas and showed that the God of the Christians was a different kind of God - one that did not need to be continually appeased b/c he was arbitrarily angry. (Even consider OT passages where Yahweh's anger is assuaged through a broken heart and contrite Spirit, NOT a sacrifice!...see Moses's prayer in Exodus after YAhweh threatens to destroy the people.) <br /><br />If you've followed my argument thus far, you can see that this happens ALL OVER THE PLACE in the Bible and that (even if I am wrong) it is a plausible argument at worst and a great argument at best. <br /><br />So, in conclusion, there are two main problems I have with your argument:<br />1. It relies on an exegetical fallacy (Illegitimate Totality Transfer) where the meaning of a word in one place is stuck to the word in every other context. <br />2. It disregards both the context (which I previously argued from)of the usage of hilasmos AND fails to see the pattern of the NT writers subverting pagan religions in the use and re-definition of their words. So, yes, they most assuredly did change the existing language to fit their purposes...this is not even a question amongst biblical scholars. <br /><br />Sorry if any of this is 'blunt', it's 1 am and I'm tired from a 10hr. drive from MO to KY. I've got to go to bed! <br /><br />Will respond to your Romans 3 question later, but I would encourage you to re-read my formulation of Paul's argument in Romans 3 in my previous post. In the end, though, it's a great question you have asked. <br /><br />Cheers brother.Tom 1sthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16281465700829698800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-52869771484243926032009-05-30T19:58:24.485-04:002009-05-30T19:58:24.485-04:00Tom,
What do you take the phrase 'the righteousne...Tom,<br /><br />What do you take the phrase 'the righteousness of God' (Romans 1:17; 3:5,21,22; 10:3) to mean?<br /><br />πρός θεὸν μονὸν τήν δοξάν<br /><br />DavidDavid Dittmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06262207649152153999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-79740203994468599232009-05-30T15:43:41.675-04:002009-05-30T15:43:41.675-04:00Tom,
When the Bible was written, the authors did ...Tom,<br /><br />When the Bible was written, the authors did not use some a new language or change the existing language to fit their purposes. They used the ordinary language of the day to communicate God’s message. It makes no sense they would have used words that everyone knew meant one thing and then gave them a completely different meaning. To suggest so, smacks of Gnosticism. In Greek, ἱλάσκομαι did not mean expiation, it meant propitiation. This was virtually unanimously agreed upon until the early part of the last century, and then began to change primarily through the writings of C. H. Dodd (especially his <I>The Bible and the Greeks</I>). There have been enough other people, who were/are much more intelligent than I am, who have studied this and written upon it (see especially Adolf Deissmann’s <I>Bible Studies</I> and Leon Morris’ <I>Apostolic Preaching of the Cross</I>) that I am not going to spend time arguing it. You even admit that in Pagan contexts, this is what it meant. Instead of trying to argue around the natural meaning of the word (which is propitiation), why not just accept it and try to understand in what sense God’s wrath needs to be appeased?<br /><br />Πρός θεὸς μονὸς τήν δοξάν<br /><br />DavidDavid Dittmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06262207649152153999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-29419522363294523102009-05-29T18:13:14.363-04:002009-05-29T18:13:14.363-04:00Jeff,
First let me affirm God's passionate, unbrid...Jeff,<br />First let me affirm God's passionate, unbridled love for you. It's not something he 'has' to do - He wants to love you! (If you knew me, you'd know I don't say this lightly - I struggle with that idea of God's love for me too!) <br /><br />Second,<br />I can read the citation from Isaiah just as anyone else. I don't really think I have anything to explain from it. Notice how the 'smitten' of God thing is connected (not to wrath), but to exile...finding his lot amongst the wicked. Which is exactly what I was arguing in my post where I addressed Galatians 3. <br /><br />Third, I think it is important to read that passage FIRST in its original context - the Suffering Servant is Isaiah, not Christ. Only later is that passage read as a predictor of Christ. But I think we have an exegetical responsibility to read it first in light of Isaiah's suffering for the people. Did God send his wrath on Isaiah? No, of course not - the passage does not say these things, nor does it imply them. When read in light of Is. first, then we can see how the idea of propitiation is absent. Then when we get to Christ, it's not even a question...especially considering the lack of evidence for it throughout the rest of the Bible. Thus, I believe a reading of PS onto Isaiah's Suffering Servant passage is anachronistic at best, and eisegetical prooftexting at worst. You may disagree, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from. <br /><br />All that to say (and I say this often to folks who quote scripture in theological debates) - it takes more than a mere citation of scripture to settle these things. Every individual scripture is grounded in a larger structural argument (as I hopefully took into my argument with David in my analysis of Romans 3 and Gal. 3). <br /><br />This structural context MUST be engaged, not just an isolated text which seems to support our position by itself. I can make any isolated text say just about anything I want it to...as I'm sure you're aware from other discussions you've probably had with people.<br /><br />Those are my initial thoughts, at least. Let me think about them a few more days and maybe I'll have something else to contribute to that citation as it pertains to this discussion. <br /><br />Cheers brother, I appreciate the questions.Tom 1sthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16281465700829698800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-64186172875319504092009-05-29T10:34:34.147-04:002009-05-29T10:34:34.147-04:00Jeff,
For one I would absolutely love to have a f...Jeff,<br /><br />For one I would absolutely love to have a further discussion with you through e-mail. Feel free to e-mail me at fbcyouth AT rallstech DOT com.<br /><br />For now let me just say that I often feel like John when he exclaimed "what manner of love is this..." God's love is so intense that it is difficult to understand. I would like to dialogue with some of your comments but would prefer to do it through e-mail. So give me an e-mail and we can begin discussing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08034192017775511612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-90095957671658573192009-05-29T03:01:38.211-04:002009-05-29T03:01:38.211-04:00In the treasure hunter parable I have always assum...In the treasure hunter parable I have always assumed that I was the treasure hunter selling everything I have to obtain the treasure of heaven(not to earn it but to take hold of it). Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hid in a field at the start of that parable. At the next parable he changes things around. He does not say the kingdom of heaven is like a valuable pearl. He says the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant who finds a pearl of great price. He sells everything He has and buys the Pearl. Why does He not say that the kingdom of heaven is like a valuable pearl. Is Jesus the merchant who gives up everything for us(the pearl?)<br /><br />If I feel valuable in God's eye's(not righteous without Him) then I feel more like He loves me with an intimate, true love. If He calls me skeeterbug like my grandpa Kittle did or Jeffy like my Grandpa Hirschfeld did then I'll know He loves me. Or if He says you're the last thing I think of before I go to bed at night.<br /><br />If thats how He loves me, and I know I'm not spreading heracy I can tell other people about that. Maybe I can love them like that. For the most part they knwo the other half of the story.<br /><br />I read the entire blog about propitiation. Obviously I feel the need for understanding God's love more, but...OT...<br /><br />2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.<br />Isaiah 53:2-9 (KJV)<br /><br />I will read replies but I won't debate propitiation.<br /><br />Love in Christ<br />JeffAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-39904884863596650072009-05-29T03:00:38.144-04:002009-05-29T03:00:38.144-04:00Hello David, Mike and Tom.
I did a google search ...Hello David, Mike and Tom.<br /><br />I did a google search with the phrase in David's question and landed on his blog for the first time. I had the same question about whether or how strongly the comment was supported in scripture that Christ would have died for just one. If I knew the answer I would not have blogged it. <br /><br />The reason I was searching for this is that if it is true then I feel more strongly that God truly loves me. I feel at times that maybe He only loves me for what he can make out of me or because He has to(His duty). Or that He loves me but doesn't really like me. These are feelings, and feelings are influenced by information. Of course correct information is better than incorrect. The other statement made similar to this is that God loves you just the way you are. Again is the idea that they are expressing true or is it just because he can make something out of me. Maybe I am splitting hairs.<br /><br />Here are a few paragraphs I wrote a couple months ago expressing how I want to see God and love, but is it accurate?<br /><br />One man 's junk is another Man's treasure. There are many junkmen and treasure hunters out there, but the ultimate junkman is satan and the ultimate treasure-hunter is Jesus. Satan sees us as junk to be used or wasted at his whims. Jesus sees us broken treasure to be found, rescued, protected, appreciated, valued, and fixed. The Essence of love is beauty(or inner value since God looks on the heart). "Love" without beauty is pitty and I only want pitty if I can't have love. Jesus said God so loved the world. He has pitty on us also but that is another discussion, something like...."as a father pittieth his children so the father pittieth us." Jesus sees us as valuable and beautiful. If something or more appropriately someone is to be loved they must be seen as valuable and beautiful. If we look at someone a try to love them but see no value in them, loving them probably cannot be done. We must see them as Jesus sees us. Jesus sees us as a unique and beautiful part of His creation. Yes we are morally depraved and bound for hell. We are morally ugly. We need to be washed in the blood of Jesus and be born of the spirit. But God loves our quirkey personalities and thinks we are beautiful. If a human parent can look at a homely looking child and see the beauty of that child, how much more beauty can God see in a person. <br /><br /> <br />Ran out of space so I'll make two entries.<br /><br />Love in Christ.<br />Jeff KAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-73612284307711050532009-05-28T11:58:38.331-04:002009-05-28T11:58:38.331-04:00Tom,
Please forgive my slowness in responding, I ...Tom,<br /><br />Please forgive my slowness in responding, I had a busy couple of weeks and am just now getting back to our discussion. I am doing some reading on the topics that you have brought up and will then work on evaluation of your exegesis and then present my own. It may take a few more days, but hopefully I will have something up soon.<br /><br />πρός θεὸν μονὸν τήν δοξάνDavid Dittmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06262207649152153999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-25438193790147600552009-05-27T20:28:30.526-04:002009-05-27T20:28:30.526-04:00David,
Did you ever have an opportunity to conside...David,<br />Did you ever have an opportunity to consider my final arguments?Tom 1sthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16281465700829698800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-33343767869601497732009-04-28T10:42:00.000-04:002009-04-28T10:42:00.000-04:00Tom,
This is absolutely not what my original int...Tom, <br /><br />This is absolutely not what my original intentions were. However, I really don't care. I think whoever would have commented has so far. I would create another thread for you guys...but it'd be easier to just keep it here. So.......have at it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08034192017775511612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-56916236506990921962009-04-28T02:36:00.000-04:002009-04-28T02:36:00.000-04:00Mike,
Is this discussion at all even helping with ...Mike,<br />Is this discussion at all even helping with whatever it is that you were working on? I mean, clearly we've gone beyond your original question, but didn't know if we ever did actually contribute to your thoughts that you were forming.Tom 1sthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16281465700829698800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-77891538253392342372009-04-27T13:13:00.000-04:002009-04-27T13:13:00.000-04:00No problem, brother. I look forward to your respon...No problem, brother. I look forward to your response. And I will also continue to consider my own position to see if there's any weaknesses that need to be addressed or anything that destroy's my position.Tom 1sthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16281465700829698800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-90799206221912019502009-04-27T10:57:00.000-04:002009-04-27T10:57:00.000-04:00Tom,
This is just a note to let you know that I r...Tom,<br /><br />This is just a note to let you know that I read your post and need a few days to mull it over and do some research. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am not in school this year, so at the moment, I indisposed of scholarly sources. I am also getting ready to take a trip back to my hometown in northern Iowa to visit family this coming weekend; so, it may be next week before I can reply decently.<br /><br />θεὸς μονὸς δοξάζηται<br /><br />David<br /><br />P.S.<br /><br />It isn't a Greek font that I am using. I actually have Greek and Hebrew keyboards installed into Windows that <A HREF="http://www.logos.com/support/downloads/keyboards" REL="nofollow">I downloaded free from Logos bible software</A>. With the stroke of a couple of keys it allows me to switch back and forth between English, Greek, and Hebrew. It's pretty awesome for a Greek Geek like me! :DDavid Dittmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06262207649152153999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-61820185379829424622009-04-27T02:36:00.000-04:002009-04-27T02:36:00.000-04:00Be prepared...this is long! :)
GENERAL CLAIMS REG...Be prepared...this is long! :)<br /><br />GENERAL CLAIMS REGARDING ATONEMENT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION: <br /><br />PREFACE: I will be selective here of what I engage, as this turned out to be much longer than I expected. My central thesis is that the use of this word in the NT refers to expiation and that the idea of propitiation (appeasement of divine anger) is not only foreign to the NT, but actually originates in pagan religions where the arbitrarily angry gods needed to be assuaged by human sacrifice. While I believe the propitiation use has it’s origins in pagan religion, I recognize that this is NOT the intention of many contemporary believers who hold to a PS view. They are simply trying to be faithful to what they know of God and the Bible. My contention is not that they or you are pagan, just mistaken. <br /><br />OBSERVATIONS REGARDING WORD HISTORY<br />1. hileos, the root word, originally connoted ‘friendly’, ‘gracious’, or ‘favorable.’ <br /><br />2. in the LXX, hileos is added to ‘to be’ verbs to refer to ‘forgiveness’ or the accepting of hurt, and/or ‘to have pity on.’ <br /><br />3. hileos only occurs 2x in the NT – once in Matt. 16:22 as a negative protest, and once in Heb. 8:12 in citation of Jer. Where it clearly means ‘merciful’ or ‘fogiving.’ <br /><br />4. Hileos is employed in PAGAN literature to refer to placating divine anger. (I will argue later that this usage is foreign to the NT occurences and if I'm wrong about this, it is hardly explicit)<br /><br />5. The verb Hilasomai only occurs in the NT 2x – once in reference to a Pharisee crying out for mercy (Luke 18:13), the other time in Hebrews 2:17 where in context the metaphor in use is that of atonement as VICTORY OVER DEATH AND THE DEVIL (2:14-16), not appeasement of divine wrath. <br />*NOTE* - Even if the word is shown to mean propitiation in some biblical context, that does not mean it HAS to in EVERY biblical context. The Hebrews 2 passage, no matter what else of my argument is proven true or false, does in no way suggest appeasement of divine wrath is in contextual view. <br /><br />I make this claim mostly on exegetical grounds – The writer of Hebrews employs the infinitive form of the word (hilaskesthai) with an ACCUSATIVE noun harmartias. I don’t know what your greek skills are, but I’ll assume you have some (as you have used Gk. fonts!), so you should understand that this infinitive + accusative noun construction is called an ‘accusative of reference.’ The reference of the infinitive is to the sin, not God. Human sin is in view, not divine anger. <br /><br />OBSERVATIONS ON PARTICULAR NT OCCURENCES<br /><br />A. The nouns Hilasterion and Hilasmos each only appear twice in the NT. <br />-In Hebrews 9:5, Hilasterion refers to the physical Mercy Seat in the Tabernacle…This usage suggests that, insofar as Christ’s NT sacrifice parallels the OT model, the idea is more an illusion to the OT idea of provisions for the covering of sins precisely and is associated with the REMOVAL of sins (not the appeasement of God’s wrath b/c of sins). <br />Furthermore, this one use of the word in the book of Hebrews, combined with the lack of evidence that the idea of propitiation is anywhere in the book, suggests that the idea of expiation is what is in mind here. <br />*NOTE* - Expiation is not incompatible with propitiation, so that propitiation is not in Hebrews need not logically entail that propitiation is wrong!*<br /><br />B. The second reference is n Romans 3:25-26 where the word Hilasterion refers to the vindication of God’s righteousness in PASSING OVER former sins and justifying all who express faith in Christ. <br /><br />Paul’s contextual argument is important here:<br />P1 - The central question being asked in the book is about God’s faithfulness to his covenant promises, especially considering the fact that he has now rejected ‘the Jews’ and has moved onto the Gentiles.<br />P2 - Paul’s answer is that God IS just…meaning, that God is faithful to his covenant promises.<br />P3 - Paul argues in chpts. 1-3 that no individual or nation has ever deserved God’s promises (covenantal!)<br />P4 - Paul argues in chpt. 4 that the attainment of those covenantal promises were ALWAYS by faith.<br />P5 - Paul argues in chpt. 5 that Jesus is the embodiment of God’s faithfulness to the divine desire for communion an reconciliation, even when he was rejected by sinful humanity. <br /><br />Notice here that nowhere is God’s anger the stumbling block to humanity’s reconciliation. Rather, God is the one who has been working, from the time of Genesis, to reconcile with humanity. In fact, (by inference, not explication) that he has been doing this SO LONG suggests to me the patience, not the anger of God.<br /><br />But notice, again, that Paul is drawing on OT imagery. The idea is that Jesus is the Mercy Seat, the COVERING of the ark, the place where the blood of the covenant was sprinkled on the Day of Atonement. This is far from inferring that Jesus died to assuage God’s wrath. The subject is the restoration of relationships (Gentiles being reconciled to God!) between the Holy and the unholy. <br /><br />While the idea of ‘propitiation’ in this text emphasizes (rightly!) the justice of God. HOWEVER, I think the PS view misunderstands the meaning of God’s justice. <br /><br />The central question of Rom. 3 is ‘how can God be just (faithful to his covenant promises) and yet forgive sin and include Gentiles?’, the answer is this – God is so faithful to his promises that he sent his son to cover sins previously committed SO THAT his faithfulness to his covenant (his justice!) is displayed clearly. This is not about demonstrating God’s anger and justice (in the sense of retributive justice), but is about demonstrating God’s justice in the sense of his faithfulness to his promises! He did this to demonstrate that he is just (faithful to his promises!) and to justify (bring into those promises!) those who will believe. <br /><br />*NOTE* - I do not mean this to sound condescending. However, I think one of the major reasons this misunderstanding of God’s justice takes place is b/c God’s justice, as characterized by the PS view, looks A LOT like the Western, American justice system grounded in guilt and innocent. In as far as this is the case, it suggests that the PS view is more intimately tied to Western imagery and conceptions than biblical ones. When examining the biblical view of God’s justice, it is largely restorative (concerned with relationships and fellowship!...See I John 1:9 where God’s justice and faithfulness are tied, not to punishment, but to FORGIVENESS!), not retributive (the American model). <br /><br />This understanding, then, confuses American justice with biblical justice (a common mistake in American theology that extends way beyond discussions of atonement!). In doing so, it casts ‘justice’ in terms foreign to the biblical writers AND their world. <br /><br /><br />C. Galatians 3 (in short b/c I’m getting tired!)<br /><br />The point of this passage is not that there is a general curse on humanity or a wrathful disposition of God toward all humanity. Rather, the point lies in ETHNIC relationships within the early church….Jews and Gentiles and God’s redemptive purposes which are to make them a single, unified family. <br /><br />The logic of the passage goes something like this:<br />P1 – God made promises to Abraham in Genesis that his people are justified by faith, not works of the law. <br />P2 – the Galatians reception of the Spirit by faith signifies the fulfillment of these promises to Abraham…a fulfillment made possible by the death of Jesus.<br />P3 – The benefits of the death of Christ are justification (vs. 11) and redemption (vs. 13)…which are both OT Exile and Exodus images. <br />P4 – Formerly these covenant promises were made to Israel, but now they have extended to the Gentiles (a problem which plagued the early Jewish church…see Paul’s rebuke of Peter in this very book!)<br />P5 – The problem is that these Gentiles, who are now included, were formerly under the curse (that is, outside of God’s covenant promises), but now they are sharing in ABRAHAM’S covenantal blessing. <br />P6 – But Paul argues now that Peter and others cannot use the law to drive a wedge between the ETHNIC groups of Jew and gentile because the law PUT EVERONE ONE THE SAME LEVEL b/c the Jews, who had the law, were excluded form the covenant promises (just as the Gentiles) b/c of sin. <br />P7 – So the question is now – who can participate in God’s covenant promises since everyone is exiled from them? The answer is that Christ bore the curse of God…that is, HE HAS BEEN EXILED FROM THE COMMUNITY OF GOD’S COVENANT PROMISES. <br />P8 – He has taken this lot on himself ‘on our behalf.’ <br />P9 – the Christ (the chosen, anointed one) has actually become the rejected one, cursed one. The idea here is that the one who was once in intimate fellowship, not is excluded from God’s covenant promises<br />THEREFORE – If the messiah (chosen one) has identified himself with exiled humanity (Gentiles, first, then Jews who sinned…all of them!) and is outside the covenant of god’s people bearing the curse of the exiled, this means ALL EXILED ONES, BOTH JEW AND GENTILES are accepted with God!!!! <br /><br />The practical implications drawn by Paul are two fold (notice they suggest nothing about God’s wrath having been appeased, which, though is an argument from silence, seems to be a pretty big silence if the PS view is correct):<br />1. The blessings of Abraham are now available to the Gentiles<br />2. Jewish Christians (‘we’) are able to receive the promise of the Spirit by faith, not works of Torah. <br /><br />My point in this description of Gal. 3 is NOT to demonstrate that propitiation is unbiblical and expiation is biblical. Rather, it IS to demonstrate that that discussion has NO PLACE in the context of Paul’s argument. Paul is addressing a completely different idea altogether. He is not answering the question of whether or not Jesus appeases God’s wrath. He is answering the question of Christ’s identification with outsiders which practically works out in Paul’s argument to mean that if Christ can identify with outsides, then Jewish Christians can identify and be in relationship with outsiders (gentiles!). <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Okay, that’s the quick and dirty rundown. Critique away, brother. I look forward to your response. <br /><br />In grace and (hopefully) humility,<br />TomTom 1sthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16281465700829698800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-57631055018643148102009-04-26T15:57:00.000-04:002009-04-26T15:57:00.000-04:00Tom,
lol, you do have pretty high expectations fo...Tom,<br /><br />lol, you do have pretty high expectations for your daughter. My youngest, Isaac, is 16 months and at most will say DA-DA!!<br /><br />What you proposed will be fine. I will do what research I can on ἱλαστήριον and its cognates so I am prepared. Then we can move on from there.<br /><br />θεὸς μονὸς δοξάζηται<br /><br />DavidDavid Dittmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06262207649152153999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563948728142405444.post-37885470020342341652009-04-26T15:24:00.000-04:002009-04-26T15:24:00.000-04:00Oh man, there's no reason to feel shamed. It's not...Oh man, there's no reason to feel shamed. It's not a big deal, really. <br />I've totally been there before - I've intentionally and unintentionally been rude on blogs. I can have patience with someone who makes the same mistakes we all have and are capable of.<br /><br />Give me a day or so and I'll get back with your requests. Today is like the only day of the week I get to relax, so I'm going to take full advantage of it and spend it trying to teach my 5 wk. old daughter to talk...do I have high expectations or what? lol.<br /><br />Instead of starting with Gal. 3 like I said, I will probably start with the Gk. word for propitiation/expiation. Then move from there, after dialoguing with you, to the particulars of the exegetical work needed.Tom 1sthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16281465700829698800noreply@blogger.com