Of course a discussion like this rests on some assumptions about reality; but we talk about all sorts of incredibly deep and important realties between ourselves without the need to firmly establish exactly what we mean by “reality”. And the caveat for Christians is always that we see through a glass darkly. The nature of reality is necessarily subjective to some degree – objective as we might believe ourselves to be. (Sort of the point of my post “We see things not as they are, but as we are”.)
Be that as it may, the relational reality I see is that violence very logically and predictably leads to fear; yet God comes to us and says things like “fear not”. Further, He says things like Love casts out fear – which implies to me that fear and love don’t mix well – if at all. We also agree that Love is the only acceptable motive for the kind of worship of God that He wants. This presents what seems to me an obvious tension which begs resolution. So right now my dream book would be one co-authored by J Denny Weaver (The Non-Violent Atonement) and Thomas Talbott; (with maybe you editing and with contributions from Green and GM also!) I see the twin truths of God’s ultimate reconciliation with His creation as well as our return to the non-violent ethic of His reign (as revealed in Christ) to compliment each other very well. I’ve just never read anyone flesh these convictions out so thought it’d be fun to try here.
To be sure, many are quite comfortable with a loving God who incorporates violence into His methods. I’m just not one of them. This dynamic is similar to the fact that many are quite comfortable with a God who can incorporate the knowledge of loved ones eternally suffering in hell, or eternally missing due to annihilation, into the state of blessedness that He has promised. That doesn’t compute for me either. Though of course for both of these states (accepting violence as part of God and accepting true blessedness knowing of loved ones eternal lostness) are theoretically possible – given a new paradigm which I do not now have – but that possibility seems to me vanishingly unlikely.
As for the use of the term “myth” I hope that does not offend or distract. Myth is here used in the sense of collective cultural expressions of the way things are. Myth is the shared, personal, experiential representation of what is. Myth is the story which best encapsulates the perceived realities of a people.
That you listed the 5 items which you did suggests you wonder if these themselves are under some attack or revision. Not at all; I can affirm with you the necessity that the Crucifixion of Christ was a historical reality, it was not only very violent but also was intended to demean and degrade, and the victim was in fact the second member of the Triune God. I think we’re in full agreement that the identity of the victim is the prism through which all aspects of Christianity must be seen and that this event is the central revelation of God that enables and facilitates redemption and reconciliation with the fallen creation.
Where I would part ways with you is this notion that the violence was “required” by God upon Himself;
To me, this treads far too close to pagan ideas of a god who needs to be appeased; a god who can be “altered” or effected into being more favorably disposed toward us. God neither orchestrated the violence against Christ, nor needed it. If God’s hand was involved in this act against Christ it would follow that if the events of the cross were willed by God then the perpetrators of this horror should be honored as heroes who fulfilled the will of God and praised for helping facilitate our redemption!
Such an observation is not only perverse, but abhorrent. That God did not will His son to die is confirmed by the words of Christ himself who said, “he that delivers me unto you has the greater sin.” (John 19:11) The killing of Christ was not only a sin, it was a great sin. Yet from this sin, from this horrible evil, profound and extraordinary and redemptive good was drawn.
Christ came as witness to God’s character of goodness. When Jesus submitted to the will of His Father, He committed himself to being faithful, even unto death. When evil threw everything it had at Him, He revealed a God who does not retaliate nor seek vengeance, but who loves even to the end. And though evil killed Him, that very evil was rendered impotent in the reality of the resurrection. That’s a truer picture of the realities of God’s reign it seems to me.
Here’s just a clip of J Denny Weaver in The NonViolent Atonement:
So here, I am operating from the conviction that God’s method and goal is nonviolence. From that premise, I see great coherence with the additional conviction that God will eventually redeem, reconcile, and restore His entire creation. For me, the combination of the two, which I see as complimentary, are more powerful than either alone. Of course, if one sees coherence in God’s violence, I guess this cannot work for them. For me however, it was my discovery of God’s Universal ethic of nonviolence that lead, in part, to my embrace of UR. I had imagined, perhaps, that others also had arrived at UR via this route. (There are actually many routes to UR I’m discovering) UR and non-violence are very natural allies it seems to me.
Last thought: it seems that frequently that which God allows He is said to cause. That is, He takes “credit” for everything. Maybe that also then applies to His “punishing” acts??
So, when Wink uses the term “myth”, is he using it in only this sense, or does he also mean the concept is false?
I agree of course (as a good Lewisian mythopoecist) with what you stated. But if the term is introduced under particular constraints, then I reserve the right to use the term under those constraints as well. Some kind of myth of redemptive violence, true or false (to whatever degree), starts early in the Bible (i.e. Gen 1:2) and runs the length of it (i.e. Rev 22).
Not so much; but in lieu of being able to start with a metaphysical analysis of God’s relationship to creation, I had to start somewhere else, and the crucifixion seemed the most obvious place. I just wanted the data on the table for discussion. (Edited to add: also, I didn’t want to exclude non-trinitarians from discussion on the topic; so, in a roundabout fashion this allowed me to invite commentary from them in distinction from whatever we would be talking about. )
I somewhat wondered if this was at least one of the places; but I thought it would be best to let you bring that out first (if so) rather than making a pre-emptive guess on my part.
Obviously there are points of, let us say, flavor contact. (Which in themselves would undoubtedly have helped connect, rightly or wrongly, with Jews and pagans both during evangelism.)
But I know that I never said that this in any way would involve a god (much moreso a God) who can be effected into being more favorably disposed toward us. In fact, I would be more than a little interested in hearing why you would think that God, enacting violence upon Himself (and even requiring it), would in any way necessarily involve God having to appease Himself or effect a change in His attitude toward us, etc.
As to whether He needed it, I don’t suppose He did; as to whether we needed it, the scriptures seem pretty unanimous that we did. Something worth considering; but be that as it may.
I have to call narrative and thematic fault on the first clause, though: it is blatantly obvious that God orchestrated the violence against Christ. He plans it and brings it about from on high, from beyond the foundation of the world itself; it sure as hell doesn’t take Him by surprise. On the contrary He’s anticipating it the whole time. As Christ, God spends the whole story acting in ways to bring this event about at the proper time, not before and not later. Christ lays down His life, and takes it up again, with the authority given to the Son by the Father. No one takes His life from Him.
I could go into this in vast detail; although, from a universalistic perspective, I will point out as a handy summary that one of the key thrusts of St. Paul’s plea to his Jewish/Gentile congregation in Rome (Romans 9-11) is predicated on Christ’s death being a deed of God for the sake of all, Jew and Gentile alike.
There is an ontological necessity in this being primarily a deed of God as well: otherwise some other entity (Satan? Caiaphas the mere human!!?) was primarily responsible for something happening to God. And now we’re talking about a very different theology than that which we both agree is true.
Is this done without human cooperation? Certainly not. But note (and this is mentioned by St. Paul in those chapters from Romans, too, in his own way), God is cooperating with sinners, with His own worst enemies (and with some who are not specially His enemies, like the Roman soldiers crucifying Him), in order to get this done–and for their own sakes (or for at least some of their sakes, per Arm or Calv soteriology ). Which, in turn, has major thematic connections to the idea of Christ, though sinless Himself, being reckoned in solidarity with sinners.
As it happens, this is not far from one of St. Paul’s key points in Rom 9-11! No, they are sinners; but “all have been shut up into stubbornness, that God may have mercy on all”. We are not to intrinsically despise the vessals of wrath, even if it happens that we must fight against them. They are not heroes who have fulfilled the will of God, but villains who have (by God’s grace) cooperated with God in fulfilling the will of God and helping facilitate our redemption: even in this key event, the sacrifice of God Himself for our (and for their) sakes.
I am fully convinced that we should, in fact, honor them: not as heroes (for they weren’t), and not as villains (for they were); but as people, with whom God in His grace has cooperated for our sakes. Judas is more to blame than Pilate, yes; but due to Judas’ intentions, not because Judas was more causally responsible for what was happening there. (Pilate and the Sanhedrin both had far more causal power than Judas, in the final situation.)
And, am I not myself a sinner?–should I not rightfully pray that God will, in saving other people from my sin, make use of my sin for His own purposes? That does not mean that we should sin so that grace will increase–may it never be! (as St. Paul emphatically says.) Our crime is the abuse of the grace of God. God’s grace includes cooperation with us, so that even our abuses will someday help fulfill love and justice. (Indeed, God fulfills love to us by stooping to cooperate with us, the sinners.) The pervasive power and love of God is such that He actively cooperates with even the worst of us, for His purposes: a theme occasionally mentioned in the Old Testament, too.
(To give one of several OT examples: Cyrus the tyrant himself is no less than a messiah of God!–and is spoken of in language prefiguring the King Messiah to come, YHWH Himself! But when speaking of what Cyrus will accomplish, a man who does not even know the Lord, Cyrus soon drops out of sight, and YHWH ADNY ELHM insists upon the recognition that He, He Himself, is doing this thing. Through Cyrus, yes; even with Cyrus, yes. But primary responsibility remains with God.
One of the most beautiful scenes in all the OT, meanwhile, is that of the reconciliation between Joseph and his murderous brothers: Joseph consoles them not to be afraid of him, for he loves them and understands that it was God’s doing for them to throw him down into the pit, to be sold as a slave of no identity into pagan Egypt. Are they to blame? Yes–but where their sin exceeds, the grace of God superexceeds. God not only works within their choices of evil; He Himself accepts and reveals His own responsibility in what they do.)
Let us say (which is true) that I reject the idea of God having to change His core attitude toward us (by enacting violence upon Himself or otherwise–secondary situational attitudes toward us notwithstanding); while still recognizing and acknowledging (hypothetically, if you wish) that God is, in various critical ways, enacting the crucifixion upon Himself: an event we both already agree to be a violence.
How else (beyond what I’ve written so far) might these two concepts combine together? I can see a dozen ways easily, especially in conjunction with wider data. (But I don’t want to flop down a book-length set of macroposts on the topic; so, your turn. )
Incidentally, whatever agreements or disagreements I may have with him in the other parts of that quote, I quite agree with those two statements.
I’ll do both of us (and those who might be listening ) a favor and not pretend I understood everything you said ; much of it went right over my head. If that was your intent, or if that disqualifies me from further discussing this topic here, best let me know now. To clarify, me – Anesthesiologist; you - Theologian. And you’ll have to trust me on this but I do anesthesia much better than I “do” theology!! (Which begs the question: was the bible written for theologians? or for regular folks? – just curious)
Specifically, for example, must I know what a “Lewisian mythopoecist” is?
or what “narrative and thematic fault on the first clause” means? to properly continue?
You call “narrative and thematic fault on the first clause” – then assert it is “blatantly obvious that God orchestrated the violence against Christ.” – Really? If it’s so blatantly obvious, and it’s not obvious to ME at all, that certainly does exclude me from where you go next. God orchestrating violence against His own Son?? This chills me to the core; you find it wondrous and inspiring. Shall we just chalk this up to another difference in interpretations? If this is how you see it, how do you avoid the charges (of certain feminist theologians) of divine child abuse? (Just wondering )
Jeff A brings up a very central point in that we humans, all of us, can be seen as participating in the killing of God. But I can no more think of honoring the ones who actually killed Christ than I could honor one who killed a member of my own family. That seems to me wildly discordant.
Jason: If you accept the God of the bible in all His glorious and salvific violence, just tell me so and we shall disagree straightaway. I’m afraid of such a God; you seem not. That’s certainly fine with me; I’ve been interacting with believers who embrace a violent God all my life. It’s just surprising to me to find that conviction here on such a prominent UR site. The fault is all mine of course; I have not let you be who you are and have assumed incorrect things about your theology. My bad; I’ll cope.
I find your assertion of “Christ’s death being a deed of God” appalling beyond belief; so let me ask you, (for clarification) in your theology, did GOD kill His own Son? If so, this plays enormously into the question I have asked of TT.
(On a very related note; it seems to me that in your scheme of things sin, rebellion, the fall, was necessary for God to complete and perfect His creation. You’re not saying that – are you??)
Again, Really?? You lay the death of Christ at the feet of God – instead of at the feet of wicked men? Wow – we are way disconnected here. The way you speak of Gods activity in men’s affairs it sounds as if men have little choice of their own; it is all God’s will. I’m hearing in you far more Calvinism and determinism than I had previously detected. Though hey; I’ve been wrong before.
And I confess I am really quite taken aback by your suggestion that God acted in those evil men’s lives to effect the death of His own Son. (Are we simply disagreeing on the difference between God allowing to flourish the evil which was already there? or God actively influencing to DO this evil?) God shutting up in stubbornness the ideas and impulses of evil men is far far different from what I hear you positing; God willing and causing and determining their evil choices. You actually do find their acts somehow noble and admirable?? Because they are us and have been effectual in our salvation?
Another window into our differences here is your take on the Joseph story – which I agree is a beautiful example of Gods activity in a sinful setting. But to say
seems to me monstrous and not grace at all. The Genesis 50:20 principle (for some reason, the Charismatics I’ve known love this text ) is that YOU meant it for evil but God meant it for good. God taking that evil and bringing good from it need not mean He ordained (orchestrated) the evil in the first place.
Oh well…
Let me sum up where it seems we are in relation to the title of this thread:
“CAN UR TRUMP THE MYTH OF REDEMPTIVE VIOLENCE”
From what I’m hearing, it sounds to me that the question itself is incoherent for you since for you violence by God is not only His but it is necessary! So of course the MRV cannot trump UR because UR NEEDS God’s violence to become a reality! For you UR and the MRV are not in tension at all – with Violence being Necessary for UR.
Apologies if I am bewildered in the extreme by your response. Your answers present a density which I freely confess seem to me impenetrable. Please do not take my befuddlement at your conviction on violence as hostile in any way. What seems to “work” for you simply doesn’t for me. That’s all.
I wrote an essay a year or two ago which I’ll post over on the essay section which lends a bit more insight into my bias on this topic.
As always, fun discussion Jason! I realize I use strong words but use them on ideas – not people. We understand that – right??
(Raining here in FL so can’t take my morning Harley ride. But that just means more time for EU )
No, and no. But in the first phrase I mean that any advocate of C. S. Lewis’ understanding of myth, which I am and which I thought you might be from the way you put the quote I was agreeing with, would (of course) quickly agree with your quote. Mythopoeics is the study and application of mythical forms in conveying ideas, including in relation to historical events.
The content of the second phrase I discussed at some length afterward, so it isn’t important that it be understood there. I only meant that I disagreed strongly, due to narrative and theme details in the scriptures, with the statement: God did not orchestrate the violence against Christ. Some fencing language accidentally crept in, however, in my use of “fault” there.
Also, I must heartily apologize (and to some extent recant) for the “blatantly obvious” comment, since after all it is blatantly obvious (including to me) that such an idea in the scriptures isn’t blatantly obvious to you. I am admittedly surprised that such a thing isn’t blatantly obvious to someone else who has studied the material, but I should have put my surprise another way. My fault completely.
Because I keep firmly in mind that the Son is Himself God Himself. The Persons of Father and Son are distinct, but the Deity is One. There are not two entities, the Father an entity and the Son an entity, whether both are ultimate Gods (bi-theism) or both are derivative gods (polytheism) or one is God and one is a created super-angel (Arianism) or something of that sort.
This is precisely why I made sure to stress in my opening statement that it makes the most crucial difference possible whether Jesus was (and is) God Most High or not; and I made as clear as I concisely could make it, that I would be answering along this line: what difference does it make for God Himself to be sacrificing Himself?–an action which must be an action of God upon Himself in regard to Himself.
I avoid the charge (from certain feminist theologians, among others), by not having a theology where someone other than God Himself is on the cross. Although, I would suppose that even non-trinitarian Christians would avoid the charge insofar as they agree (and I think most of them would) that the Father and the Son were both in agreement that this should be done and that the Son was acting in full knowledge, comportment and responsibility with the will of the Father in this regard. “Child abuse” involves a parent schisming against the child. Orthodox trinitarian theology is almost as different from this as could possibly be. (Modalism might be a little farther away from this, by denying any real distinction between the Persons of God.)
If God Himself is not the one primarily sacrificing Himself for our sake on the cross, then Who (or who, or what) is the one (or ones?) primarily sacrificing God Himself for our sake?! Any answer at all throws us instantly into, again, a very different theology from Christian trinitarian monotheism.
Aside from whether this is something to be chilled to the core about, or to find wondrous and inspiring: would it be better perhaps to go back for a minute and make sure we are agreeing (or perhaps not) about who or Who is on that cross? I thought it would be at least a little (if not blatantly) obvious, that if God Himself is on the cross, then it is not someone other than God Himself on the cross. If I am talking consistently about God willingly sacrificing Himself for our sake (and I think I was), then why are you asking how I would defend against charges of divine child abuse??
A point I very much agree with.
And yet, you honor your father and mother per the commandment, and love your neighbors as yourself (which requires honoring him and her), do you not? Yet, by that same central point that you and I agree on, those whom you honor also, in effect, participate in the killing of God–even in the murder of God.
I do not find it to be wildly discordant, although I do believe it is challenging. By honoring, I do not mean praising someone for participating in the murder of God–of which all we sinners everywhere are participants. But honoring and loving someone doesn’t require that we agree and approve of a sin they are doing.
Moreover, in the Lord’s Supper (in its various forms, especially those which involve a belief in transsubstantiation or something similar), we are in fact exhorted and even required to participate in the death (and resurrection) of God Himself–the killing, though not the murder, of God. All Christian authorities everywhere would agree, however (or so I suppose and have found from experience), that this death is not done primarily by us; but primarily by God Himself, in which (by His grace) we are allowed and encouraged to share: so that our own deaths, and so our lives, may be (in our derivative degree) like His.
This week, in Catholic churches, the elect and the catechumin are specially praised as they leave the service for the final time before the celebration of the eucharistic mystery (in which they may not yet participate). Next week, they will be baptized into the death and life of Christ, and will for the first time take communion, never more to leave the congregation (except in case of profession of non-communion). They are praised and encouraged and celebrated for their choice to share faithfully in the killing and raising of God Himself–slain by whom or by Whom? Raised by whom or by Whom?
By sin we participate in the murder of God. By faith we participate in the killing of God. But by grace, even those who participate in the murder of God, participate in the sacrifice of God by God for the sake of all.
I accept the God of the Bible in having done this violence anyway. Should I be afraid of such a God? Maybe. But I think it does make the greatest difference in the world, to consider Whom God is doing this to. I would be far more afraid if God was doing it to someone not God; and I would be far more afraid (even moreso perhaps?!) if someone other than God was primarily responsible for doing this to God. (And either way, I reiterate, we would then be talking about a very different theology than orthodox trinitarian monotheism.)
I also think it makes a huge difference when turning from this to consider other claims of violence (of God, and by God) in the Bible–not all of which I feel particularly obligated to believe that they are what, on the face of it, they seem to be. But I have my reasons for starting with a consideration of the central violence of all scripture.
And I do want to focus on clarifying the theology of what we are talking about. Since I believe orthodox trinitarian theism to be true, I am going to be very careful not to deny it (without sufficient reason anyway); not because I think accidentally (or even in many cases intentionally) denying it is a sin, but simply for sake of theological consistency. It is a rich but very complicated set of doctrines, and it is easy to accidentally go off in another theological direction, even when one doesn’t mean to. (For which I hold myself far more responsible than any non-specialist. I have special need to be careful about being consistent, so that I don’t mislead anyone who may be looking to me for help and guidance. May God and other people, even those who don’t believe what I do, help me on that. {taking a moment to pray} )
I don’t know for sure what Tom will answer. But I would say it is more accurate to say that God killed Himself. And that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, cooperated together in the death (and the resurrection) of the Son.
I would also say that other, not-God persons acted as well in the death of God. In sin, this action was (and still is) murder; of which we all are complicit. But in fidelity to God we are still called and expected to participate in the death and raising of God.
I do not believe that God was murdering Himself; God was not sinning to sacrifice Himself in love for us, even for the people who sin in murdering God. The difference is in intention. God does this for love of us. Ironically, when we sin we do this in love of us, too!–not in love of God.
We wish to take the life of God, as sinners. As sinners, we do not want to receive the life of God. But even as sinners we cannot in fact take the life of God. He lays it down for us (even as sinners), and takes it up again for us (even as sinners). We cannot take the life of God. We can only receive it, or not. God gives His life for us, in His dying and in His living. We murder Him in our hearts; we try to murder Him with our external actions of rebellion and non-fair-togetherness. But His grace is superior to our sin, in His dying and in His living.
Even in trying to sin, against cooperation with God, God finds a way for us to cooperate with Him. My sin is heinous; God’s love includes me anyway.
Maybe Tom will say this better than I can do. (I hope so. ) Maybe he will say something substantially different. (I hope not! ) I don’ t know. But it is one of the most important questions a Christian theologian can be given to answer.
And that is why I didn’t want to try to do it myself, in a thread addressed to him.
I don’t mean to push this on you, either. If you don’t understand, it would be better to reject it. But I have tears on my glasses now for contemplating it, in gratitude to God. So, even if you don’t understand, I still thank you for the opportunity to consider it (again) for a few minutes.
No. (Insert any level of emphasis imaginable. )
But, I am saying (and other theologians before have also believed) that the sacrifice of God for our sake is fundamentally necessary for us, whether fallen or unfallen, not only to complete and perfect His creation but even for us to exist at all. Of this eternal sacrifice, one sequence in history specially illuminates the whole. (Although some Christian mystics, and I tend to agree, would say that if we had the eyes, we would see how every sequence in history illuminates the whole. But none as centrally as the Life and Death and Resurrection of Christ.)
I could easily expect an Incarnation and a Passion and a Resurrection even for an unfallen Nature, simply as part of God’s loving communion with us. Some details would necessarily be very different. We wouldn’t be trying to murder God, for one thing! But I think I could expect a tomb, and a rising from the tomb; for much the same reason that I would expect a Virgin Birth. (The thematic meaning is much the same. ) The marriage feast would likely be quite literal, in honor of one woman chosen to represent us all (as in the Birth one woman is chosen to represent us all).
But I don’t want to speculate too far. We live in a fallen world, and look for its redemption. If other realities are unfallen, we may learn someday how God specifically enacts His relation to them. It still must be self-sacrificially.
I thought I had written extensively, in the comment to which you are replying, about the cooperation of us derivative persons–for better and for worse. All my talk about the importance of God’s cooperation with sinners wouldn’t mean much if the sinners weren’t acting, too.
But I do agree with Calvinists (and Arminians, usually, for that matter) that even sin happens within the will of God, in a very real way. Otherwise, we’re talking about cosmological dualism or polytheism or any of several worldviews which are not an ultimate theism. “Within” is the key word there. If God did not allow me to sin, I wouldn’t even be able to sin. It is by God’s grace that I am able to sin; it is even by God’s grace that I do sin. The sin is no less heinous; I consider it to be even moreso, as an abuse of the grace of God.
I am free to sin, or not. But I am not free, in a fallen world, not to be influenced toward sinning. I am very much not free to be free from God’s grace in allowing me to sin. I am very much not free from God at all; and I am not free to ever be free from God. My freedom is derivative, and depends upon God. There is no changing this. It is a real freedom; but it is not the freedom of self-existence. That freedom is the freedom of God and God alone.
Um… (reading back what I had written, among other things.) No?
Honoring my neighbor, even though he is my enemy, does not mean I must find all his actions somehow noble and admirable. And I don’t.
I do find it noble and admirable of God that He should stoop to act in cooperation even with sinners so that something good will eventually come of (I hardly dare say it) their sin. If God waited until we were not sinners before cooperating with us, then no one would be saved (to say the very least). Neither would Christ have come. It was the Pharisees who stressed among the people that if Israel would just keep Torah perfectly for one single day, then God would send the Messiah to save them. If only they could be perfectly faithful to God for one day, God would be faithful to them!
But God was faithful to them first. God is faithful to us first, Jew and Gentile both. The only reason our repentance is of any good at all, is because God is already reaching toward us first, cooperating with us first, bringing us toward Him first, sending the Spirit of the inheritance into our hearts crying “Abba, Father!” making supplication in groans too deep for words, gardening in us the fruit of the Spirit, which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control: against which things there is no law.
If we insist on volunteering for the post of Pharaoh or Esau or Judas or Satan (or the prophet Jonah for that matter!), God will work with that choice as well, to His own ends, against our rebellion. This is why He can complain about us squinting our eyes and stopping our ears and hardening our hearts so that we will not repent and be saved by Him, while also acting for a time to confirm us in those choices: for which He proclaims His responsibility. (A horribly striking example of this is the violation of the wives and concubines of David by his rebel son Absalom, prophesied ahead of time by God as something He Himself would be responsible for accomplishing. The link goes to an Easter sermon I wrote for the Cadre a few years ago, following a train of discussion between myself, an Arminian and a Calvinist on the topic.)
When Joseph says that God meant it for good, however, even though the brothers meant it for evil (and that’s important, too), he does so in the context of God orchestrating the event. (Gen 50 happens after the death of Jacob, when Joseph’s brothers fear that Joseph wasn’t serious about what he had said around twenty years earlier in Gen 45.)
Gen 45: 4b-8a.
JPS Tanakh: “I am your brother Joseph, he whom you sold into Egypt! Now, do not be distressed or reproach yourselves because you sold me hither; it was to save life that God sent me ahead of you… God has sent me ahead of you to ensure your survival on earth, and to save your lives in an extraordinary deliverance. So, it was not you who sent me here, but God.”
Werner: “I am Joseph your brother. You sold me to Egypt. Now do not grieve and do not flare in your eyes for selling me here: for God sent me in front of you for your life… God sent me in front of you to set a remnant for you in the land, for you to live as great refugees. Now, God sent me here, not you.”
Holman: “I am Joseph your brother, the one you sold into Egypt. And now don’t be worried or angry with yourselves for selling me here, because God sent me ahead of you to preserve life… God sent me ahead of you to establish you as a remnant within the land and to keep you alive by a great deliverance (or, to keep alive for you many survivors.) Therefore it was not you who sent me here but God.”
New American Standard: “I am your brother Joseph whom you sold into Egypt. And now do not be grieved or angry at yourselves (lit. in your eyes) because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life… And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant in the earth, and to keep you alive by a great deliverance (lit. escaped company). Now, therefore, it was not you who sent me here but God.”
New International: “I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! And now, do not be distressed, and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you… But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God.”
New International, super-literal: “I Joseph brother-of-you whom you-sold me into-Egypt. And-now not you-be-distressed and-not let-him-be-angry in-eyes-of-you because you-sold me here for to-save-life He-sent-me ahead-of-you… But-He-sent-me God ahead-of-you to-preserve for-you remnant on-the-earth and-to-save-life for-you by-deliverance great. So-then not you you-sent me here but the-God.”
Green’s literal: “I am your brother Joseph whom you sold into Egypt. And now do not be grieved, and let no anger be in your eyes because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to save life… And God sent me before you to put a remnant in the land for you, and to keep alive for you a great deliverance. And now you did not send me here, but God.”
Green’s super-literal: “I (am) Joseph your brother whom you sold me into into Egypt. And now not do be grieved and not do be angry in your eyes because you sold me here; for to save life sent me God before you… And sent me God before you to put for you a remnant in the land and to keep alive for you a deliverance great. And now not you did send me here, but God.”
Do you know of any translation where God is not said by Joseph to have been responsible for sending Joseph into Egypt?!
There are several key points to this claim (and I’ve skipped over the specific results in the middle of the paragraph for brevity; anyone can look them up who doesn’t already know the story of Joseph):
1.) the brothers did sell him into Egypt.
2.) this is something they were panicking about, now. (Especially since in the preceding story Joseph had set them up concerning a death threat, to test whether they would be willing to sacrifice Benjamin to save themselves.)
3.) moreover, it’s something Joseph expects someone there to be angry at them about. (Benjamin or Reuben is the logical guess. Reuben tried to save him; Benjamin wasn’t complicit in the plot but was the one being ostensibly threatened in Joseph’s ploy earlier and was the direct brother of Joseph.)
4.) but they shouldn’t be afraid, and whoever is flaring his eyes in anger shouldn’t do that either. Why?
5.) because it was God, not them, who sent him into Egypt; in order to save their lives.
So it was them, and also not them. But the really crucial point for our immediate discussion, is that due to God’s complicity in the action, which God meant for good, even though (as Joseph agrees later in chp 50) the brothers meant it for evil, peace should be made between them: which Joseph, as their victim, longs to do (and expects whoever is eye-flaring over there to join him in doing, too. )
There are excellent reasons why Christians of old identified this story (and this scene especially) as being a typological foreshadowing of the sacrifice of the Messiah. One difference being, of course, that Joseph wasn’t complicit in his sacrifice. But how much more does God do for us?
(Also, this has huge relevance thematically, even though it isn’t mentioned directly, with Rom 9-11 again.)
No, no, not at all!–have no worries about that.
Have a good week; it’s late here, so I’ll have to read your new thread (extending this topic apparently) later!
As a followup note, Bob presents a related essay on the topic on our forum here.
Also, I strongly recommend reading back through the comments and original posts prior to my discussion of Absalom’s story (plus the two comments after my post there.) It’s a lot of material, and about half of it isn’t written by me but by the other two people in the discussion (a convinced Calvinist and someone on the fence between Arm and Calv, taking the Arm side for purposes of discussion–he also wrote the three prior original posts in the series.) But it covers a lot of importance topics, and my comments in the threads have major relevance to my comments here: and to orthodox trinitarian universalism.
You do honor me by your lengthy and detailed response. Thank you for that. Further, thank you for not letting my bluntness and perhaps crudeness of expression get in the way of facing the important topic at hand which you have so delicately handled.
But I do confess that I had not thought it possible to describe God’s violence quite so… beautifully. If that is the correct word. For me that’s cognitive dissonance to say the least. Still working on it though. As I intend to for the rest of my life.
Straightaway let me suggest that I don’t see your formulations of God’s activities in the midst of our sins taking into account two texts/ideas;
First, in the story of the Tares among the Wheat Jesus says:
“An enemy has done this”
He does not say the enemy participating with God, nor that God will bring good from this evil act. The deed is simply wrong. End of story. No sense of God’s participation here. This recognizes a whole category of things that are “not God” at all. Regardless that He brings Good from it.
Second would be in James where he says (1:13)
“Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God…”
Again, the clear dissociation of God from that evil. It’s as if James says that we act apart from God – all on our own.
These ideas then play right in to the Joseph story the way I read it; the act was an evil one – not at all to be conflated with the good which God brought out of it. Now after the fact, when everything had all worked out, and Joseph SAW the change the brothers evil act had wrought in their lives, and Joseph considered the endless creativity of God in redeeming sin, Joseph could speak AS IF God had intended the entire series of acts. Joseph was adopting a manner of speaking in order to assuage his brothers shame and guilt. Which makes Joseph not only a gentleman and fine brother, it makes him “God-like”. For Joseph only wanted healing for his evil brothers – just as does God. This is Joseph the gentleman speaking; giving his brothers incredible forgiveness for their egregious act. (That’s God too of course.)
So, a major problem I have with what seems to me your conflation of God’s redeeming and saving responses to evil with the evil itself is that it doesn’t know which evils come from God so can only say ALL of them do. (I realize you do not intend to say the evils came from God, but the way you have described God’s enabling activity, I do not see how God can escape this charge.)
(Now I am sure you mean more than just that God, because he is creator and therefore responsible for all this in that sense, hasn’t abandoned us. For me it is necessary for God to “weep” with each evil we choose – even as He busies Himself redeeming our rebellion.)
Here’s how that plays out in my life;
Yesterday on call, I cared for a little blue eyed, blond haired, 2 year old boy who has an inoperable and terminal type of cancer. And his young mother is at once distraught and yet in denial. The cancer doctors have told her the chances of survival are remote – yet she consoles her baby murmuring in his ear that everything will be OK; mommy will help make him better.
My response here is, “AN ENEMY has done this ma’am!”
Understand Jason, I really DO want to scream this for mom and the rest who also wonder about this evil tumor. (ie the onlooking staff)
My response is NOT EVEN CLOSE to “God did this” (a la God did this to Joseph)
I hope you understand my stance here; of course I see that God really is angry with this state of affairs and UR has helped me see even MORE how involved He is in our affairs. But for me, He’s intervening in decisions not even remotely His will. (And yes I know I’m conflating willful evil and “natural” evil here. No matter; it’s ALL the enemy…)
I have this ongoing conversation with a friend who insists that IF an act we see as evil leads to eventual good, it can’t really be said to be evil. Evil for Good; violence and love. Boy can it get complicated. What I do not want to do is lay evil at the feet of God that does not belong there… Nor do you I am sure.
I think I sympathize with your vision of a God who is so closely aligned with our eventual redemption that it is hard to separate that God from the evil itself. I do realize you yourself do NOT see that God as causing evil at all; but wow – it’s hard to escape that conclusion for me…
Moving on, I am curious why you have not addressed my central observation about relationships; violence breeds fear – yet God insists we are NOT to fear. I recall here an incident as a child where I had to have a lot of dental work. And the dentist (this was in Africa, where I grew up) was an Italian with a type A personality) in his frustration with me would yell “RELAX DAMMIT!” He had little clue that his “encouragements” had the opposite effect on me; they terrified me. NO one ever talked that way in our missionary home.
But to say (not that you do) that it is only the “mature” understanding of God that allows the proper understanding of violence (just like my mature understanding now at age 52 tells me the man really did mean well; and he really did have my best dental interest at heart…) makes me cringe a bit. For, when we consider the violence in an abusive marriage, and that the temptation of the abused wife is to be “mature” and accept that her husband really does “love” her, any right thinking person recoils in horror and sees her ‘acceptance’ not as maturity, but as psychosis and pathology. For what she must do is get the hell out.
(Understanding the danger I’m in comparing God’s acts with those of the abusive husband… Hope this point is not too obscure.)
So, for me, there is great irony here. You, so deeply aware of God’s intense and keen involvement with us that He even risks being seen as willing to use violence to effect His purposes, and me, who sees violence as the very antithesis of God. By your statements, it seems you are ready to excuse God of ALL charges of violence; while I am equally convinced that the violence which happens (I use violence broadly here of course) is never in God’s will but, because of His grace, since that is the medium in which He must work, He brings good from that evil and violence. So you are able to lay ALL violence at God’s feet, while I am able to lay NONE at His feet. That’s about as different as two could possibly get!
And yet, I really do resonate with the loving God of which you so earnestly and lovingly speak; we worship the same God – you and I. And celebrate, via the Cross, and “ahead of time” (so to speak) His Total Victory. The redemption of all. As do you.
Jason, you are a blessing to me.
PS – more later on my troubles with your articulations of Trinitarian orthodoxy. Also on your moving description of the Last Supper.
Just a note that I have a reply ready; but I didn’t know if it was a good idea to continue the discussion yet before you have a chance to address our possible disagreements in regard to articulations of Trinitarian orthodoxy, Bob. Particularly since I think our disagreements elsewhere are likely to hinge on disagreements about articulations, or understandings of implications, here.
It isn’t even a question of “merging” the two topics. The question of whether God ever enacts violence, ever, is instantly going to be relevant, for any Christian, to the violence of the cross. And one cannot consider the question of whether, or to what degree, God was responsible for the violence of the cross without one way or another engaging in Christology: the question of relationship between Christ and God.
As I noted in a previous comment, this is also then connected to things like the Lord’s Supper and prior typological shadows. Which foreshadowings themselves turn out to sometimes have strong relationship to the question of whether God ever claims active responsibility for violence.
For someone who isn’t a Christian but is only considering this or that kind of theism (or even trinitarian theism from a purely metaphysical direction, not a historical one), the two topics could easily be only indistinctly relevant at best, admittedly. (Although, on the other hand, a very close analysis from the direction of metaphysics might also turn up surprising relevancies between the two topics!–or so I discovered myself. But it takes a very long time to get there.)
Unless you meant something else by “the 2 topics”? Possibly I misunderstood.
There really are a lot of topical ingredients in the soup that is this discussion; which is not really surprising since there really is a great deal of overlap in all our articulations about God. I console myself that if it were easy, then we likely wouldn’t be talking about the true God! So it’s important to me to affirm with you our mutual adoration of God – especially as seen in the Christ – even though we do differ big time on this.
I find it curious that you would make a statement like this:
when the very premise of this site (EU) is, by those same “Christian authorities”, seen to be heresy. Just an observation…
I am seeing that the theology you are articulating (and with which I disagree) is itself based upon a premise with which I also disagree. Namely, that sin somehow requires a response of violence and punishment; that sin demands retributive punishment for its own sake. Challenge, (successfully in my estimation) of that very premise is what motivates J Denny Weavers “The NonViolent Atonement." So our disagreement may go back even further than you are suggesting.
As to avoiding the charge of “divine child abuse” I guess I have to reject your assertion that since it was God doing it to Himself (a truly bewildering expression to any non-Trinitarian listening in) He is therefore absolved. The roles, titles, labels, of “Father/Son” are the ones God chose Himself – and of course the pre-existing Son was not a “child” in the sense that I am my own father’s child. Nonetheless, at least we can say they are somehow (again human terms given for humans) “family”. To suggest violence is somehow “OK” because it’s “in the family” does not compute with me at all. So I take that charge of divine child abuse far more seriously than do you.
Moving on, you say this:
but also say this:
For me that’s a glaring contradiction. You sound like you are excusing the God’s act (I guess if by definition God can’t sin, and if God did kill His Son, the killing of Christ couldn’t be a sin) while at the same time admitting to the act. So the act of killing Jesus is not a sin when God does it, but IS a sin when we do it? For me that’s “pretzel think”.
Here’s a couple quotes from Weaver…
Lastly, again I confess bewilderment by this statement:
So not only does UR not “trump the Myth of Redemptive Violence” for you, (nor does it need to,) UR is deeply subservient to the Myth of Redemptive Violence. How else TO interpret this statement?
My real interest though, is how interesting I find it that while I disagree with you on this, we do agree on the Reflection of God as seen in Universal Reconciliation. As I see it, UR is quite compatible with both your views on God’s violence as well as with mine. God will do, and has done, everything necessary, within the bounds of freedom (another fascinating discussion) and morality (I’m certain we both agree God is moral) to reconcile His whole creation back to Himself through the Christ. Obviously there are some details on which we disagree on now, but in time (maybe the hereafter) resolution will emerge.
Thanks muchly! I’ll incorporate the further comment into my reply, then. (Probably this weekend. Possibly no sooner than Sunday, though.)
Jeff,
Oh!–okay, cool, that would have been my other guess.
While there is a lot of topical overlap, and while I wouldn’t remotely mind other people commenting here, I don’t want to comment in both places myself due to the typically lengthy… um… lengths of my comments. I’m already likely to swamp this thread.
I am following along the other thread with great interest, and may ref some things here that are said over there. Similarly, I hope Tom will proceed with commenting on Bob’s question, too, in the relevant thread (with which this discussion started) over in Tom’s Corner; which I will also follow with great interest.
Thank you for the compliment, btw, on my words concerning the Lord’s Supper. {bow!}
For what it’s worth, I do not typically see violence in the Bible as being beautiful or admirable, even when the heroes are the ones doing it. But there are differences which make the crucifixion crucially different (sorry for the pun ) from any other violence in the Bible.
Which is why I brought it up.
Note: this is a fairly long reply, which could have been and in fact actually is much longer than it looks, since I am appending a .doc file reference sheet along with it! More on this later…
By your own admission, if the lack of mention (in a parable no less–not exactly the first place to go for clear doctrinal teaching) proved anything, it would instantly prove that there was not only no hope for the “tares” but also no hope that God would even bring anything good from the sowing of the tares. Yet you also nevertheless believe (because you’ve read other things in the Bible, for example) that God will bring good from this evil act regardless of the fact that the story ends with no mention of this whatever. (Moreover, we both agree that there is hope for the tares despite immediate appearances otherwise in the parable!)
I do not think that I can be faulted, then, for believing on grounds far beyond this parable, that this enemy was operating within the permission and even the grace of God (abusing that grace though he was), instead of, for instance, operating as an equal and opposite Anti-God who manages to snooker one in when God isn’t looking, leaving God to clean up the mess afterward.
This would be more of a problem for me, if I was claiming that God was tempting people to do evil. Confirming them for a time in their own choices, yes. Working with them despite their evil choices, yes. Sending evil entities to afflict them (after they’ve chosen to do evil themselves)? Yes. Sending evil entities to afflict them for the sake of the evil entities? Yes! (This is basically the story of Job as noted in the prologue.) Sending evil entities to afflict someone for the sake of someone other than the evil entities? Yes. (Also basically the story of Job, as is more widely recognized.)
Seducing people into doing evil? No. But such seductions still happen within (I have to call it this) the permissive will of God. Otherwise we are talking about a very different theology, such as a Manichaeistic God/Anti-God dualism. And there is no sure and certain hope for anyone in that. (Aside from some other more technical difficulties.)
While I would quibble with a few points of the quote Jeff gives, I am obliged to agree with the bulk of it, and thus with its general gist (insofar as the quote presents this). One of the important elements to that gist, is that God, being sinless Himself, takes His own responsibility for the evil, and even the sin, that happens in the world. And He pays for it Himself.
By lying to them, to help them feel better?? God didn’t really intend for me to be here to help you, and had nothing at all to do with you sending me here–but pretend that He did, and don’t blame yourselves or be angry at each other for doing it?
The comfort of Joseph depends on what he’s saying being true: that even though the brothers intended it for evil (that’s their responsibility), God intended it for good–including especially for their own good.
Or, putting it another way, nothing in your explanation requires Joseph to be pretending that God cooperated with them, despite their evil, in sending him here. The figure of speech adds nothing to the forgiveness of the brothers if it isn’t true. Joseph would be just as much of a gentleman and fine brother, only wanting healing for his evil brothers, giving incredible forgiveness etc., without bringing in God’s (ostensible but not real) cooperation with the brothers in what happened. (For example, in Gen 50. Which, notably, you quoted without realizing that back in chp 45 Joseph was explaining to his brothers that God had somehow cooperated with them, at the time of their sin against him, in getting him into place to save them and many other people.)
In lieu of clear prophetic revelation otherwise, I would rather just be agnostic on the topic of which evils occur because God is acting to bring those sufferings about in cooperation with the evil choices of people (though unlike them His intentions are actually good) and which ones God isn’t directly and specifically cooperating with in bringing the incidents about.
However: so long as I believe supernaturalistic theism to be true, then there are corollaries to that, one of which is that any evil occurs within the permissive grace and will of God. But rather than simply standing back and allowing such things to happen (and then condemning them, with or without acknowledging that He had to have at least permitted them to happen), the Biblical narrative contains some examples of God actively cooperating with the evil choices of persons in order to bring about something better than they were intending or expecting.
And in any case, God pays, and has paid, for the evil we do.
I agree with all that; including that I mean more than only that God hasn’t abandoned us. But I also mean more than that God busies Himself redeeming our rebellion (although not less or other than that either).
For allowing which, God pays on the cross. (Showing there, once and for all in history, that He always is paying for this.)
Whereas, although I don’t know (not being a prophet who has been told this) whether God actively collaborated to bring this particular situation about, I do know that it happened on His watch (so to speak) and that He didn’t prevent it from coming about. I also know that an enemy, operating on his own independent resources, didn’t sneak into God’s territory when God wasn’t looking to do something that God had absolutely no connection to and now has to put up with because He lacks the power to do otherwise. (i.e. “not even remotely in His will.”)
I also know that regardless of enemies per se (intentional evil) the natural system is set up in such a way that these things happen occasionally. Nature isn’t an independently existent undesigned entity. Who is the one ultimately responsible for that? The guy up on the cross: it can’t even be blamed on an enemy.
I do also notice, in the scriptural record, that God sometimes actively collaborates in Bad Things Happening To Good People (beyond even bad things happening to bad people). The chief example of which is, again, that guy up on the cross, Who is fully responsible for laying down His own life for our sakes. (But Who didn’t climb up on that cross without cooperation from people either; ones with bad intentions, and ones with good but misguided intentions, and ones just doing their job and trying to survive another day.)
I really do. I promise. If you don’t understand why I’m saying what I’m saying, then it’s better not to believe it–and maybe not even to think about it very far. Even when horrid things like brain cancer force the issue into our face.
But, emotion aside, there are corollaries to saying that something happens entirely apart from the will of God. They’re much the same corollaries we bring up when a traditional damnationist wants to claim that someone continues existing in hell entirely separated and apart from God.
True, I don’t. Which is why I am careful to distinguish between intentions. (And between intention and non-intention, for that matter. Pun in regard to “matter”, not originally intended. )
I also think incidents are more complicated sometimes than simply good or simply evil. Not grey so much as greyscale (where tiny dots of white and black combine at a distance to create an appearance of various grey shading.)
On the other hand, the one Who permissively allows something shares in the personal responsibility of its occurrence. That includes God. In that sense, every evil does lay at the feet of God. (Which are pierced through as a result. )
My previous comment, to which you were replying, was already more than a little long. I thought about addressing it, but I’m not sure how to do so without pointing out, from the outset, that while God insists we are not to fear, He also leads people to understand that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and many other things of that sort.
The complexity of universal salvation is succinctly demonstrated by the sermon in which Jesus tells us quite briskly that we are not to fear those who, after killing us, have no more power, but rather to fear Him (meaning by context Himself) Who has power to destroy both body and soul in hell. (And he’s paraphrasing Isaiah regarding God while doing so.) This is at the outset of a lesson where He proceeds to tell us not to fear, for God loves us more than flowers which are destined to be burned. (Though the statement about fearing God and not man is repeated elsewhere in context of boldly witnessing for Christ before thrones and principalities.)
I take both of those statements seriously. My teacher, Lewis, used to say that perfect love casts out fear, but so do plenty of other things like greed, lust, pride, anger, foolishness etc. Until we are perfect in love, we who are unjust sinners do well to fear God! (MacDonald, in a quote I’ve already given somewhere else a few months ago, puts the matter even more strongly in regard to the Israelites. Incidentally, since the time I wrote this part of the reply, I’ve had occasion to post MacD’s writing on this again. See the thread, in the “Christian Living” category, "George MacDonald on “The Consuming Fire”.)
It is true that violence breeds fear; which may be the only lesson we will listen to if we insist on being sinners. But, unless such a teaching is divorced from our theology (or even worse by a non-theological ‘Christianity’), then behind that fear and even that violence stands the cross where the One we should fear, Who told us we should fear Him, Who can destroy both body and soul in hell–is hanging, voluntarily, in solidarity with us, bearing our punishments with us, taking His own responsibility for our sin, paying for our sin with His own blood (betrayed by those whom He allows to be sinners). And why? To reveal the heart of God, and what the cost of sin is that He willingly pays for us; so that we will learn to trust the One Whom we would do well to be fearing.
He doesn’t do this to have (even) more of an ‘excuse’ to punish us. He does this in acting toward our final salvation from sin–to free us from sin, and so also to free us from punishment for sin.
(But neither to save us from any death. Rather, so that our deaths may be like His–into life eternal.)
Your story with the dentist is an example of inappropriate encouragement–for a child in your position. It might be the only appropriate way to get through to someone else (like an Italian veteran of WWII campaigning in Africa perhaps.) I trust God to use the best level of encouragement proper to the occasion and to the person.
The point isn’t too obscure; but it does miss a crucial distinction: the husband might be abusive regardless of the exterior treatment of the wife. He could be enslaving and degrading her through pleasure, for example, addicting her to himself. But the man is not an interpersonal fundamental reality whose very existence would cease if he was acting in any way toward a fulfillment of non-fair-togetherness with his wife.
We cannot be immediately sure of the intentions of the man; but we can be sure of the intentions of God. We can be sure that He isn’t trying to enslave us by pleasure for example! Similarly, if He cooperates in violence, He isn’t trying to enslave the objects of that violence through fear, promoting Himself at our expense.
Actually, I thought I had written somewhere earlier that I am not committed to accepting every charge of violence attributed directly to God in scripture. (Although looking back through my posts I can’t find where I’ve said so. Possibly edited out during revisions, by accident.)
But I am obligated to accept at least one charge of violence attributed to God: namely the violence He brings against Himself on the cross, in self-sacrifice.
And I am consequently more likely to accept charges of violence attributed to God which have some typological prefiguring of the cross. Joseph’s story is one such. Job’s story is very interesting in this regard, to give another such example. (Where God’s defense is not that He didn’t do this to Job, but Satan did! In effect God takes responsibility for what happens to Job and his family: and challenges Job, rather forcefully, to trust Him on this. The narrative structure of the poem is very interesting, and dramatically complex; especially from a universalistic standpoint.)
And, admittedly, I am required not to dismiss out of hand even charges of violence that I am very suspicious about (like various massacres.) I am more inclined to reject those as some kind of major misunderstanding (at best), when they are not treated as tragedies for which God nevertheless announces His own direct responsibility.
The various invasion-punishments against Israel, by contrast, are highly complex thematically. God grieves with the victims–but He also insists on having right and full responsibility for their occurrence. He doesn’t only take credit for the good that eventually comes out of being overrun by the Babylonians and Assyrians; He takes responsibility for the sorrow, too.
To me, that’s impressive. And it helps me understand a highly complex combination case like the tragedy of Absalom’s rebellion: God takes direct responsibility beforehand for the saddest, most sordid part of the rebellion, long before it happens–despite the fact that if this hadn’t been mentioned beforehand, no one would have a clue from the later details that God was supposed to have had some kind of direct hand in it. Yet the end result not only typologically prefigures Christ’s own sacrifice on the cross (as a sort of anti-son-of-David ), but provides a set of imagery for later prophets to use in painting God’s grief and hope for Israel as a rebel son: still loved by God despite Israel’s death.
While I am not obligated to accept every direct claim of God’s responsibility in violence in scripture, though, I do lay ALL violence at God’s feet in several real ways.
And those feet hung from a cross, paying for all violence and all sorrow–whether allowed or participated in by Him.
Apparently due to more fundamental theological differences (even though inadvertent ones).
For example. (Regardless of who is more or less accurate there, obviously we have some differences, though perhaps only in consistency of application.)
Looking forward to that, and to the continuation of the discussion! Which I very much appreciate your time and effort on. {bow!} It’s an important topic.
(Note: TV posted some introductory reflections on the topic for Easter here. I have put my reply, although topically connected to this thread, in that thread instead, for purposes of reducing wordcount in my current reply here. )
Back, then, to TVs troubles with my articulation of Trinitarian orthodoxy:
I don’t normally make that kind of statement unless I expect the issues to be non-debated or unless I’m bringing it in as a secondary element. Obviously I don’t expect the issue to be non-debated, because I was already replying to your affirmation otherwise. What should be just as obvious is that I’m bringing it in as a secondary element, since primarily I am referring to logical corollaries from trinitarian theism (or even from a simpler supernaturalistic theism), with supporting references to scriptural testimony. The latter of which I could expand at great length. (But haven’t done so yet, in order to try to keep my comment length down. Relatively down. )
That being the case, you are free to ignore my observation that I’m standing with the vast majority of Christian authoritative commentators on this issue (including ones who would treat universalism as a heresy). I would rather you be concentrating on my rationales and data anyway; so I shouldn’t have confused the issue by making this comment. My fault, not yours.
Instead, please accept the .doc file which I am including with this comment, which brings together numerous statements across the New Testament indicating that the death of Christ is not done primarily by sinners (although sinners surely share in doing it), but by God Himself (including as Christ).
I think sinners sometimes refuse to repent of their sins; and I think God is committed to saving those persons from sin. It follows as a corollary that God is going to act in some fashion toward those sinners. Insofar as sinners refuse to repent of their sins, that action will eventually be punishment. Call it retributive punishment if you like (since the goal is to bring the sinner back into cooperation with God, re-tribute)–it’s for the sinner’s sake, not for its own sake. I have certainly never once said otherwise, or even tacitly required otherwise.
This is in regard to the sinner. If you mean in regard to Christ, then it becomes more complex. We do in fact require the self-sacrifice of Christ, even only to exist in the first place; also to continue existing at all. And I am saying that this is a necessity. This would still be true in an unfallen world, but the difference would be that (in such a case) we are not also abusing the grace of God by sinning. The Passion of the Incarnation in such an unfallen world would not be the murder of God; I strongly suspect it would be the marriage of God Incarnate to a chosen woman (having also been first born of a chosen woman), though I might be wrong about that. But whatever mode the Passion might have been in such a case, it would still be consonant with the eternal self-sacrifice of the Son for our sakes.
As it happens, though, we in our sins murder God–insofar as we can. Meaning insofar as He allows us to do so. (The Greek of the Synoptic Gospels even has an occasional phrase or two in several places which is horribly suggestive of rape, in regard to our attempts to “seize the kingdom by force”: we are “forcing our way into” the kingdom.) We cannot sin and not be abusing God. The crucifixion is a physical manifestation of that abuse on our part toward Him. (Also a physical manifestation of our abuse of other people and even of our selves, which God Himself bears in solidarity with the victims of our sins.)
The scriptures are clear that this is not something that God only allows to happen, though. It is something God Himself acts to bring about, in cooperation with sinners, though with very different intentions than they (we) have in their (our) sins.
Personally, I am bewildered why you would consider the self-sacrifice of someone out of love’s sake for the sake of someone else, to be the same as that person abusing himself (in the unethical sense implied by the term “divine child abuse”). Or even the cooperation of two substantially distinct persons toward that end, being the unethical “abuse” of one by the other. No moreso then would God the Father be “abusing” God the Son as two Persons in substantial unity (so that God is doing this upon Himself, as well as the Father and Son enacting this in cooperation with one another.)
The comparison to child abuse is utterly inapt, as it implies first that the child is not in authoritative cooperation with the parent, of one mind and intention with the parent (which even a “unitarian” Christian ought to be willing to accept about Christ), and secondly that the child is not somehow himself also the same as the parent.
I take the charge of “divine child abuse” with exceeding seriousness; enough so, that I am not whiffling it away by saying ‘oh but it was family members doing it to one another’–which seems to be all that you got out of my response to this, last time.
Be that as it may: if we are going to speak of this as trinitarians (and I certainly am), then the substantial unity of the Father and the Son must be kept in the account, as well as the distinction of the Persons. In sacrificing Himself for our sakes, the Son is doing only as the Father does, and shows us the Father: a position that even a “unitarian” Christian ought to be able to accept, but which is the same as saying that God Himself is sacrificing Himself for our sakes when we are trinitarians. I thus reiterate: how is the sacrifice of God for our sakes tantamount to the crime of child abuse!!?
It simply is not; no moreso than St. Paul condemns God or anyone else of a crime when he says that for a good man one might even dare to die but that, far beyond this, while we were still sinners Christ died for us. Nor does Jesus condemn His own action or anyone else’s when He says that no greater love has a man than this, to give up his life for his friend.
Or, one of us is accounting for a difference of intentions. And since I mentioned a difference of intentions last time (as well as this time), that would be me.
It is only a “glaring contradiction” if the intentions are identical. But they are not. I think even last time I was quite clear about this. How is it “pretzel think” to distinguish between the charitable giving of one’s own life in order to save the life of another, and the taking of another life in order to promote the selfishness of one’s own life?!
The quote from Weaver is more than a little shortsighted: even in the Gospels, Jesus warns about violence that He will be bringing eventually; and RevJohn has much of this violence being poetically described, culminating in the final throwdown of the rebel kings of the earth in chp 19. Nor is the topic of the Son acting “violently” absent from other New Testament texts; far from it. Moreover, insofar as the Son is to be identified (in whatever way, trinitarian or otherwise) with the Angel of the Presence of YHWH in the Old Testament, the Son is directly responsible in those narratives for numerous acts of violence.
It is Weaver who is creating a false distinction of operation between the Father and the Son (not to say the Spirit as well), where none exists in the actual texts; something he can only do by ignoring or drastically reinterpreting reams of material. The “role of violence” is (literally “on the face of it”!) “exercised” more often “by the Son” in canonical scriptures than “by the Father”.
That being said: I strenuously agree that violence (even as “punishment”, even as “divinely sanctioned punishment”), is !!!NOT!!! “the basis of justice”. I have never once said this; nor ever once required this by any implicit logic. I have routinely, not to say monotonously , claimed instead that the basis of justice is the fair-togetherness enacted between the Persons of the substantial Trinity, upon Whose interactions all of reality (even the reality of God Himself) ultimately depends. If God even once did not act toward fulfilling fair-togetherness between persons, even between derivative persons, He would be as guilty of sin as any derivative sinner, with only this substantial difference: that God Himself would cease to exist along with everything else (including us) which depends upon Him for their existence, past present and future (from our perspective).
The logical corollary to this is that even the wrath of God, however it may be expressed, must be directed toward fulfilling fair-togetherness with and in the object of God’s wrath. God’s wrath is contingent upon His love. The result may be delayed by circumstance (especially the circumstance of sinful obstinacy in loving and fondling our sins, although also by the circumstances of a field of “natural history”). But the aim remains true and reliable.
The cross does not show that God (Father and Son and Holy Spirit) is simply not violent at all. It shows us what the truth is behind any violence that God may enact: that God in fact suffers in solidarity with those who suffer violence, whether they are sinners or whether they are innocent. He does not (as a sceptic recently put it on another forum elsewhere) leave us alone as an absent parent in a Lord of the Flies type environment; not on the cross, and so not ever. Nor does He punish us in exclusion from Himself. (The quote from 1 Peter concerning Christ descending to preach to the spirits in bondage, which can be found toward the end of my scriptural digest on this topic by the way, is extremely appropriate to this observation: including in connection to Christ’s enacted sacrifice on the cross.)
Well, one might have interpreted it along the line I gave it, namely that in such a situation there would be no need for ‘reconciliation’ per se in an unfallen Nature! But inasmuch as God sacrifices Himself for us to exist at all, then even in an unfallen Nature I could easily (as I said before, to which you were replying) expect an Incarnation and a Passion and a Resurrection simply as part of God’s loving communion with us. The loving self-sacrifice of God for our sakes is not something restricted to a fallen world of sin, but is necessary for any possible world to exist, even an unfallen one. We depend upon God giving Himself for our sake; we depend upon the Son submitting to the Father, and pouring Himself out for our sake. As I said last time, in an unfallen world the shape of this sacrifice would be rather different, not least because we would not be (as sinners) trying to murder God. But the sacrifice would still be occurring, and I have no reason to believe it would not be echoed in at least one way (more likely many ways) in the Incarnation of the Son.
May it be so!! {bow!} I quite agree that (as you have well put it), God will do, and has done, everything necessary, within the bounds of freedom (yes, another fascinating discussion ) and morality (and yes, I’m certain we both agree God is moral ) to reconcile His whole creation back to Himself through the Christ.
This was where this posting should have been (apologies for putting it here too in its entirety).
The following is an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Stephen Jones’ online booklet Free Will Versus Ownership (I wish I didn’t keep coming over as an SJ fanboy ). I have always liked this line of thinking.
I don’t think SJ here believes that God is subject to the Law of the OT but that, because those laws are an expression of his Divine nature (written on His heart so to speak), he will always act in accordance with those laws and so can in some way be said to be bound by them.
(Note: Jeff posted this also in the “Freedom and Annihilationism” thread. So for consistency, I’m porting my reply there here, too. )
A fine exegetical example, Jeff. Thanks!
I myself would not claim that God’s plan “called for” man to sin. Neither would SJ, apparently, since later he emphasizes that he is not saying that God pushed man to sin. I can see readers rightly complaining about either an inconsistency or a poor choice of wording in SJ’s explanation!
But it does seem clear from the narrative contexts (leaving aside the question of how literally the story ought to be taken) that God did set up the situation of the temptation; not so that man would certainly sin, but so that man would have a choice to exercise and so to grow–or not. God from His vantage would “already” (from our perspective) know what man’s free choice would be (as well as that of whatever creature was doing the tempting!) and would be acting “already” (from our perspective) across all natural history with that choice in view: condescending to cooperate with that choice in God’s own way. But, He would be acting in His own responsibility for the tragic events that happened, too: so that those events would someday lead to something other than tragedy for those affected by the events.
I think the other aspect of this that I like are the examples of the pit, the Ox trampling about and the rail on the roof of the house. God’s laws included the liability for damage by the owner of something that inadvertantly leads to the harm of a third party even though the owner can rightly claim that they themselves did not actively harm the third party.
For God’s laws to have any moral authority they MUST spring from His essential nature (otherwise it’s just moral relativeism on a grand scale) and so by creating this particular universe in which bad stuff happens He must be ultimately liable (if not responsible) for the consequences. This price is fully and freely paid. It seems with the Christian God the end DOES justify the means.
Some kind of myth of redemptive violence, true or false (to whatever degree), starts early in the Bible (i.e. Gen 1:2) and runs the length of it (i.e. Rev 22).
)
)
; much of it went right over my head. 
If that was your intent, or if that disqualifies me from further discussing this topic here, best let me know now. 
To clarify, me – Anesthesiologist; you - Theologian. And you’ll have to trust me on this but I do anesthesia much better than I “do” theology!! 
(Which begs the question: was the bible written for theologians? or for regular folks? – just curious)
to find that conviction here on such a prominent UR site. The fault is all mine of course; I have not let you be who you are and have assumed incorrect things about your theology. My bad; I’ll cope. 
From what I’m hearing, it sounds to me that the question itself is incoherent for you since for you violence by God is not only His but it is necessary! So of course the MRV cannot trump UR because UR NEEDS God’s violence to become a reality! For you UR and the MRV are not in tension at all – with Violence being Necessary for UR.
But I think I could expect a tomb, and a rising from the tomb; for much the same reason that I would expect a Virgin Birth. (The thematic meaning is much the same. 
of my comments. I’m already likely to swamp this thread.
), but provides a set of imagery for later prophets to use in painting God’s grief and hope for Israel as a rebel son: still loved by God despite Israel’s death.