The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Messiah That Could've Been

The Messiah That Could’ve Been

I’d like to begin a new thread from a discussion carryover from a related thread titled “If Christ’s death God’s will, then His killers are heros…” found in the Articles section, which is an article essay that TotalVictory wished comment on. Basically, to quote from that thread, the dilemma is presented as such:

I didn’t want to impose too far on his thread with the tangent the discussion veered off towards, even though indirectly it could answer in part his inquiry on the process of thought that went through the minds of the Jewish leadership to the point of wanting to put Jesus to death.

In an ongoing conversation in that thread I went on a pretty lengthy discourse with the premise that Jesus didn’t have to die, IF, and only if Israel accepted Christ as Messiah and King. Basically this amounts to saying that the Cross was Plan B. I realize what this does to the Atonement as traditionally taught, especially in the Penal Substitutionary Atonement model. But I will suggest an alternative.

I hope to outline a plausible theory to my premise that the initial expectation of Jesus was not that He should die, but that if Israel had accepted Him as Messiah, Jesus would then have ushered in the Kingdom at that time.

Before I begin, I like to say a word about prophesy. I am aware that there are scriptures suggesting that Christ’s death was preordained, such as Rev 13:8:

“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

It could be argued that the ‘foundation of the world’ could refer just to the Book of Life, as a similar verse in Rev 17:8 suggests, rather than the thought that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. Nevertheless, there are other verses likewise predicting Jesus’ death, which I’ll be glad to address later. But even if we grant such verses as referring to Christ slain from the beginning, we need to keep this in context of God as He relates to time and eternity.

It is said that when God created the heavens and the earth, He created time as well, at least linear time. If God inhabits eternity, then He knows the beginning from the end, in fact all things from His viewpoint have already happened. All points in time are simultaneous His perspective. And science agrees that time is relative, and that time was perhaps created at the Big Bang. It’s a difficult thing to wrap one’s head around that concept, but bear with me for a moment.

So what this is suggesting is that rather than being pre-determinate, the prophesies of Christ’s impending death are a reflection of the foreknowledge of God of what is going to happen, from our view. So things didn’t have to turn out that way, but because God is eternal, He knows that it will. But I do not believe that that means that things couldn’t have gone in a different direction, had certain criteria been performed, like the repentance of Israel in accepting her Messiah the first time.

To bring credence to my theory, I would have to demonstrate that there were conditions existing at the time of Jesus’ presence that suggest that a change of direction was available to the people of Israel at the time. And that would require a careful examination of all four Gospels, plus any supporting scripture, particularly from the OT, to support my claim.
Over the last weekend, I started an intense study of the issue poring through all four Gospels examining from beginning to end of each and making some marked comparisons of the timeline in each gospel and thought processes of various people and factions involved as the story progressed.

The results I found pretty interesting. But due to the length of the study, I’m going to break it down in sections which I’ll post as soon as i have compiled and edited my findings, which I’ll share in my next post.

The Messiah That Could’ve Been – Part 1

NOTE: The previous post was really an Introduction and I should have really labeled it that way. And incidently, I plan to post a Summary at the end of my presentation so that you may view the key points without having to trudge through the dross of these infernally exhaustive posts. :smiley:

In the thread I referenced, If Christ’s death God’s will, then His killers are heros…, one of the OP’s concerns is whether we ought to be thankful to those who played a direct part in Christ’s crucifixion, namely the Jewish leadership and the Romans, seeing it was all God’s plan to begin with, since it was prophetically foretold by the OT prophets. But as james.goetz’s timely input in the Eschatology section titled Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophesy contends, a good portion the prophesies foretold in the OT are conditional. (I can assure you that James’ input and this ongoing discussion have been arrived at independently).

My investigation begins with an examination of the four Gospels. But we will start by collectively examining the three Synoptic Gospels since the sequence of events tends to follow the same pattern. (John is a bit stickier in that it is structured much differently that the others, does not nearly share the same material or timeline as the other three, and it has certain idiosyncrasies that must be addressed, which I will get to in a later post).

Specifically, I would like to map out in all the Synoptics the points in which a) Jesus first predicts or announces to the disciples that He will be delivered up to be crucified and b) the point at which the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees first plot to kill Jesus. Then we will examine events before these pronoucements and see the sequence of events leading up to them. (I will also note certain earlier statements that would appear to suggest that the idea of Jesus’ death before the one’s listed)

Matthew

Christ’ prediction – Matthew 16:21 – “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.”

Chief priest’s plot – Matthew 26:3-4 – *“Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.” *

Note: Matthew 12:14 (see also Mark 3:6, Mark 11:18, and Luke 19:47-48) – “Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.” I don’t think in context that the Pharisees sought to kill Jesus at this point, rather they wanted to ruin his reputation. Some definitions in the Strong’s renders ‘destroy’ as ‘to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin’, ‘render useless’. It is clear in later chapters, like Matt. 22:15, that the Pharisees increasingly sought to trip Jesus up in His words, in order to discredit Him. Usually when one sees ‘destroy in association with the Pharisees, some attempts are made to trap Jesus as in Luke 20 and the discussion about paying tribute to Caesar. Or likewise in Matthew 22, where the Pharisees commissions the Herodians and the Sadducees to test Jesus, before sending one of their own to approach Jesus (one, two, three strikes…Yer Out!, I say).

Mark

Christ’ prediction – Mark 8:31 – “And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”

Chief priest’s plot – Mark 14:1 – “After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.”

Luke

Christ’ prediction – Luke 18:32 – *“Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.” *

Chief priest’s plot – Luke 22:1-2 – *“Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.” *

Note: Luke 4:28-30 – “And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way…” The early incident did not involve the Jewish leadership, but rather folks in His own hometown.

Luke 13:31 – “The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.” I thought this was of interest since it has some Pharisees actually protecting Jesus from Herod’s threat.

To appreciate the significance of these comparisons we should note that these statements come fairly late in the Gospel accounts, keeping in mind, for example, that Mark is the shortest book (16 chapters, so chapter 8 is halfway) and that the latter bulk of the chapters of each gospel deal with events of the Passion Week. So it wouldn’t be incorrect to say that these sayings occurred during the latter half of Jesus’ ministry. Another marker is that Jesus’ predictions in each of the Synoptics come at the time of Peter’s revelation that Jesus is the Christ, something Jesus took great pains to conceal during the first part of His ministry (more on this later).

Now that we can pinpoint the time in which these threats are made, we can now go back and move forward from the beginning and examine the mindsets of the principle figures involved. We will start in Luke 1, and the birth of John the Baptist.

I mentioned in the other thread that when Jesus said that John the Baptist could be Elias (Elijah) to come, if they accepted it, then the kingdom could have been ushered in at that time. Jesus would be made King and Messiah, and all power would be at His discretion to rule the nations. In a verse in Luke 1:17, an angel of the Lord, speaking to Zacharias, gives this prophesy concerning John:

“And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

This is a direct reference to Malachi 4:5-6. But there is a condition, or rather a warning, in Malachi for this to be accomplished, ‘lest I come and smite the earth with a curse’. This tells us that there is a possibility that things could go wrong in the ministry of Elijah (or in this case John) when he comes. It is conditional.

Later, after John is born and his father becomes unmated, Zacharias give this prophesy:

*Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” – Luke 68-79 *

So it would appear that the extent of John the Baptist’s ministry is to prepare the way to usher in the deliverance of Israel from their enemies through the Holy One. At it would come in that present generation. John’s (and Jesus’, for that matter) message was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The term ‘hand’ according to this verse in Strong’s states ‘to bring near, to join one thing to another and ‘to draw or come near to, to approach’. There is every reason to believe that it would occur very soon. This is why John preached repentance to Israel through the baptism for remission of sins. The water represents cleansing one’s soul to receive the things of God. Why was Jesus baptized? To fulfill all righteousness. Jesus didn’t need to be cleansed. But by partaking in baptism, He identified with us as sinners need repentance and is working in solidarity with Israel (and us), to descend down to us from heaven and ascend to God with us with Him and present us to God in righteousness. And this is why the heaven’s opened, the Holy Spirit as a dove descended , and the Voice from heaven saying, “This is my believed Son, in whom I am well pleased” Not only does this testify to the Trinity, but in His Baptism, the operation of the Spirit opened up for Jesus in His ministry to us to bring us near to God. God was saying that in Christ, we can rise up to God, though our sins are as scarlet, and we may have access to God through the Holy Spirit.

Repentance is always necessary before God can work in the hearts of His Children, in this case Israel. It was hoped that the message of John and the message of Jesus would bring the nation to repentance, and thus Redemption right then and there during the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, ‘lest I smite the earth with a curse’. Well, we know what happened, right?

It is a common believe among Jews today that the Messiah will appear when the nation of Israel is prepared to receive Him. It was available then, but Israel rejected Him. But it will be available contingent on Israel today.

Now when Jesus was in the Temple at age 12 with the doctor’s of the Law, who were amazed at His understanding and answers, and Jesus’ parents came looking for Him, He said, “wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” I personally believe that the Father’s business referred to here is that Jesus was teaching the doctors of the Law and not the other way around. He was attempting to pre-empt the thinking of the teachers for when He would return years later to begin His ministry.

Next, staying with the Synoptic Gospels for now, we will look at Jesus’ ministry and see how in the beginning He taught the kingdom of God as being in the present, contemporary time of 1st century Palestine.

I’m going to wait until you finish the series before commenting much (or at all if I can help it :mrgreen: For those who don’t know or don’t remember, I’m rather not in favor of this idea.)

But thanks hugely for starting up and running with the topic! Even though I see what I think is a serious problem from the outset of your introduction (somewhat related to my critique of William Lane Craig’s defense of middle-knowledge theory, which he deploys for purposes of apologetic in favor of Arm vs. Calv condemnation theology–see also Tom Talbott’s and Robin Parry/“Gregory MacDonald”'s similar critiques in their published works.)

Dondi:

This is surely one of the most fascinating questions for believers in Christ as our savior. I’ll be interested to see where you take this.

However…
… not to jump the gun on your conclusions or anything but …

I hold to God’s openness so I find it quite reasonable that God could “know” He would have to die apart from necessarily seeing actual “future history”. (Curious question; we think of history as being past acts – yet if future acts are know with certainty, it’s as if that too is “history”!)

If God is eternal and Sovereign and creator and omniscient (in that He knows all that it is possible to know) then He would see with complete clarity the true nature of sin. Thus seeing, He can state with certainty that in case of sin, He WILL act in a specific self-revelatory way. (Whether the idea of being slain from the foundation of the world ALSO means that sin itself was a certainty, I’m less sure…)

God’s dying to save us for THIS reason is very very different from God dying to “pay our penalty” it seems rather obvious. If for penalty payment, then we should be honoring His killers. (Referring back to the other thread; “If Christ’s death God’s will, then His killers are heros…”) Since that is so self-evidently abhorrent, one is compelled to look deeper into why Jesus “had” to die. And that abhorrence is only resolved, in my opinion, when Christ’s death is seen as self-revelation of God instead of as vicarious punishment. Further, it places us squarely at the Cross as participants in the death of the Christ as Jason has mentioned several times before.

This view of the sacrifice of God also shines more light into the nature of sin it seems to me and why the death really was necessary given the fact of sin. Sin it seems is at it’s core profoundly disconnected from the realities – which is to say the truths – of and about God. Those realities include the fact of our creation; we are not, as many now hold, simply the random collection of molecules interacting in ever more ordered and organized ways. Life is simply not possible apart from God. There is no such thing as a self-sustained life.

Sin, at it’s core, relies on falseness and delusion to be sustainable; The lie that we don’t need God for life. However, if one imagines a creator God removing, for whatever reason, this life giving and sustaining power, it becomes clear that He will Himself be charged with murder! And He will be charged with murder by those deluded by the belief that their life is their own and that they answer only to themselves. God is thus put, apparently, into a classic double bind by “Satan” (be he a real “person” or the personalization of this way of deluded thinking): Go ahead and let sinners die, and He risks lending credence to the charge of murder; let them live on indefinitely to avoid the charge of murder, and He thereby facilitates and sponsors the very continuation of sin forever.

The opposite of sin then, as I’m seeing this evolve, is Love. If sin is delusion and self-deception, Love is light and truth and complete transparency to the realities of our existence. Sin looks inward for it’s sustenance and meaning; Love looks outward toward the creator. The call of the serpent at the tree was an appeal to selfishness, self-existence, self rule, autonomy; the desire to makes one’s way apart from God. This reality can, with some merit and usefulness, be thought of in terms of the “Law” by which God “runs” His universe. One does not so much “break” the Law as he is broken by the Law. I don’t go out and “break” the law of gravity so much as I get broken by that law should I act on the delusion that it doesn’t apply to me.

The only “Law” that matters then, is the Law of Love and Life and Liberty. (Liberty from acting upon illusions and delusions; Liberty to act in the Truth… Which is what I’m trying to assert in this thread over on Discussion Affirmative: Freedom: the power to perceive, and act on, reality) The “law” of sin and death have been thoroughly and totally defeated by Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. It is shown therein in the true light of it’s impotence. It’s apparent existence only is possible as God allows it to exist as teaching tool as He draws His entire Universe to the understanding and embrace of His true Law; the law of Love. One can no more Love apart from God than he can Live apart from God.

That all being the case (which of course may be under debate itself), your question (as I’m seeing the matter) wonders if, given these realities upon which all truth rests, is there some other way to come to know them with such certainty that God’s self-revelation of the Cross (and life and resurrection too) of the Messiah would not have been necessary?

For me, it’s important to recognize the speculative nature of this question. Better to say that God would do whatever is necessary; almost by definition, we can say that prior to sins entry, it was not necessary. For it would have no context to speak of. But further, if and when sin entered the picture, the answer must be given to everyone; even if they don’t now appear to particularly need it. This idea helps me make sense of Col 1:16-20 where the entire Universe is said to be reconciled by this act of God.

Now I fully admit and concede that it is probably not rational or legitimate for a creature to question God’s truthfulness. (“Did God say if you ate the fruit you would die? Not true…”) Yet what is utterly startling is that God seems to have taken that question, that challenge, very seriously indeed! Serious enough that He “emptied heaven” so-to-speak in order to respond! That strikes me as stunning in the extreme; that God would stoop to answer so thoroughly – by sending His own Son! – our creaturely doubts.

So yes; these sorts of promises and interventions are, strictly speaking, conditional. Yet God surely also knew that the conditions would never be met. Nonetheless, He pressed on with His full self-revelation.

A huge deception of sin is that it tells it’s captive that it is just not as bad as it’s all made out to be; it’s just not quite as serious as Christians have claimed it was. Being an utter lie, it must be unmasked; and the Cross lays waste that lie. By sending His own Son into the fray and chaos of the battle, God forced the hand of “Satan” (again, this works both as personal being leading the rebels, or as that inner force of self-delusion) who showed his true nature. For to kill the very creator as an act of self preservation is the height and depth of depravity and delusion. Sin simply can not self-modulate; it demonstrates neither rationality nor self control.

Might these truths have been accessible in other ways? I’m note quite sure actually. But once the notion of the “apart from God” alternative path (why not just call it “sin”) was hypothesized, it became a valid question for the entire universe. Hence the Cross must explain far far more than mere “payment” for the rebellious acts of sinners.

Running way too long here. Await the unfolding of your thesis!!

TotalVictory
Bobx3

Oh – and forgot to mention one more thing Dondi – perhaps the thing that matters most to me on this site…

If I am correct in my understanding of the utterly crucial understanding of the Messiah as God’s perfect self-revelation, and that this revelation effects the reconciliation of the entire universe (eg Col 1:16-20) then it’s very hard to argue against the truth of eventual Universal Reconciliation.

TotalVictory
Bobx3

Good posts Bob - you always increase the drag of the net on me :wink:

Sorry I haven’t replied recently. I’ve been on hiatus on vacation for the last week and for the most part been away from my computer, except for a few brief posts here. I shall continue with my series shortly.

But first a couple of ‘brief’ replies:

Jason: Even though I see what I think is a serious problem from the outset of your introduction (somewhat related to my critique of William Lane Craig’s defense of middle-knowledge theory, which he deploys for purposes of apologetic in favor of Arm vs. Calv condemnation theology–see also Tom Talbott’s and Robin Parry/“Gregory MacDonald”'s similar critiques in their published works.)

Dondi: I’m not familiar with the middle-knowledge theory. I shall look into it now that I have time. But I’m writing this with a universalist view in mind, not Cav and/or Arm, though I understand that there may be elements from these views involved in my presentation. I appreciate you waiting until I’m dome with this first. Then if you still have questions or comments on it regarding middle-knowledge, either by that time perhaps things will have cleared up in the series presentation or by I will be better learned of the theory. Looking forward to discussing this then.

Bobx3: If God is eternal and Sovereign and creator and omniscient (in that He knows all that it is possible to know) then He would see with complete clarity the true nature of sin. Thus seeing, He can state with certainty that in case of sin, He WILL act in a specific self-revelatory way. (Whether the idea of being slain from the foundation of the world ALSO means that sin itself was a certainty, I’m less sure…)

Dondi: I believe the God has an aim for The Plan, His purpose concerning all of humanity, and I believe in Universal Reconciliation. But I also believe that God values the fact that we make our own decisions, even though it risks that we make the wrong ones. That said, I also believe that God has contengency for such wrong decisions. We see this all through scripture.

For example, take the one small case of Onan (re: Gen. 38). Judah fathered three sonsthrough Shuah: Er, Onan, and Shelah. Now it was the Hebrew custom that the oldest son take precedence and receive the first blessing by his father, as we learned in the case of Jacob and Esau. So naturally, Er followed that line, and would have passed the blessing on to his son, as ordained by God. However, because Er died at the hand of God for being wicked in the sight of the Lord, Tamar, his wife , was left without a child. So Judah tells Onan to go into Tamar, Er’s wife as it is customed, to conceive with her so that thet line can continue (first contingency). However, Onan spilt his seed on the ground before the act was completed and was struck down dead by God for his disobedence (some believe that this is warning against masterbation, but all Onan did was pull out). So now Tamar is still left without a son and the last child, Shelah is still too young to marry. So then, Tamar, being twice the widow and in mourning, but being impatient to wait for Shelah to reach puberty, she decides to trick Judah into thinking that she is a harlot by covering herself and putting herself in Judah’s path to seduce him. Which she does, and ends up getting knocked up by him (2nd contengency), and actually producing twins. The names of the chidlren are Pharez and Zarah. Pharez ends up being in the line of descent toward Christ. Why is this significant? Because later in the blessing of Jacob to his sons, he tells Judah that ‘the sceptre will not depart from Judah,’ in a prophesy that through Judah’s line will come the Messiah, who would reign Israel.

Other similar examples include Saul, Amnon (See I Chron 3. Not technically the first so of David as the first child died in childbirth as a result of David’s sin against Uriah and Bathesheba, and that set up the course of events that followed. But Amnon by rights ought to have secceeded David). Solomon, by the way, was David’s ninth son and became heir to the throne.

This whole king business was itself a contingency. In Deut. 17, God anticipates Israels preference for a king by laying out the rules for a king some 500 years before Saul became Israel’s first king. And according to I Samuel 8:6, it wasn’t even God’s preference that they even have a king. It’s just that Israel rejected God’s rule over them.

Seems like all through the scripture that God has to correct Israel’s mistakes.

In the same manner, Israel rejected Jesus, and He died because of that rejection. So God had to fix that mistake as well.

And I will say this. I believe that God revealed things to Jesus through the Spirit during His ministry (John 5:20), and that God gave Jesus the perogative whether or not to become Israel’s king at that time or not. And that there was a certain point when that line of demarcation was drawn. Why else would Jesus tell Peter that He could ask the Father and call down 12 legions of angels if He weren’t able to alter the course? But by that time, Israel had made it’s decision.

The Messiah That Could’ve Been – Part 2

Again, staying with the Synoptic Gospels, there were certain trends in the first part of Jesus’ ministry that are characteristic to expectations of preparation of Jesus as Messiah.

  1. He would be a healer (Jeremiah 30:17). But again, this is contingent upon Israel’s obedience, as Deut. 28 blessings and curse lays out. God preserved Israel in the wilderness from illness and kept their garments from wearing out. So in the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, there were many healings performed because the people believed Him.
  2. Great Multitudes – Many gathered to hear the teachings of Jesus and witness his miracles. The harvest is plentiful (Matthew 9:37-38).
  3. Contemporary teachings – The Sermon on the Mount is an example where Jesus taught kingdom teachings that were to be practiced in preparation for the kingdom (though it did contain scattered warnings of consequences if such teachings weren’t followed when the kingdom is realized).
  4. Gospel preached by disciples, with the emphasis that the kingdom is at hand (Matthew 10). This indicates a sense of immanency to those who would listen. Late in His ministry, when the Pharisees, Jesus replied that the Kingdom of God comes not with observation (as if it would come down from heaven), but that the Kingdom of God is within them. Here the Jewish leaders are told that the kingdom is within their grasp if they would only grab hold of it. It’s available, but they needed to accept it. There again is the contingency. The disciple demonstrated the power given to them by Jesus to heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead, and they came back with a good report.
  5. John the Baptist still was living. There is reason to believe that Jesus thought there was hope for John, even while he was in prison.
  6. The identity of Jesus as Messiah was kept secret during the first half of His ministry. His miracles were even kept secret as Jesus told those whom He healed to keep quiet about it. He wasn’t ready to announce who He was yet. He was waiting. For what? He was waiting to see what Israel would do. He didn’t even tell His disciples who He was and even then it was because His Father in heaven revealed it to Peter. And that was just before He told them He would be delivered up to die! It seems a rather odd time to tell them that, isn’t it?

These trends are evident in all the Synoptic gospels. The beginning of His ministry is marked with hope. And Jesus had hope that Israel would come to repentance. Then He would announce to them all that He was the Messiah, but not before. By the time He told the disciples who He was, it was already too late. But it also gave the disciples hope when He told them as He told them He would die and rise again three days later.

Next, we’ll look at how the tide slowly turns downward as Israel , and specifically the Jewish leaders, fails to repent

I realize that I didn’t get back to this post for a very long time. (And actually haven’t been around this forum much in the last couple of years, in fact.) I didn’t follow through because I wanted to re-evaluate my posistion. I think what stopped me in my tracks is the comment made by Jason about this being related to middle knowledge (and quite frankly, I wasn’t familiar with that term until he mentioned it). And unfortunately, it kinda of deflated my enthusiasm in completing this series because the concept of middle knowledge seems rather complex and at the same time I didn’t want to appear in some kind of obvious theological error, especially in something I don’t quite understand.

Plus the magnitude that Jesus could have been the Messiah upon Israel’s acceptance back then has huge implications in regards to the Cross, and subsequently the method and means of salvation that God has provided through that avenue. And I certainly do not wish to be wrong or taken wrong in that regard.

And yet, I’ve asked myself whether there was really any harm in exploring a confactual contigent to the way things have gone? Because the question really explores possibilities of that confactual that while the Cross seems to be the way it ended up in reality, could there have been another way? That question posed in my mind in reading how rebel Israel was about to be wiped out totally by the Lord God Himself in Exodus but for Moses’ intercession in Exodus 32. What would have happened if Moses didn’t intercede and God went through with His promise?

I find it hard to believe what some scholars would say that God knew that Moses would have interceded and God was merely “testing” him. It seems rather a cop out. I mean if you look at the tone of the passage, was God was genuinely and rightfully pissed or was He merely pretending?

That said, if one considers the alternative, and God did wipe out Israel, what would have He done? well, if you look closely at the passage, you will see that God had a contingency even then, ***and right in the same breath as the threat to wipe them out! *** In verse 10 it says,

“Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.”

Who is God speaking to? Moses. He would have raised up another people through Moses. He would have killed off everyone else and left Moses and his family to re-populate the nation of Israel (and I would conjecture part of that family would have included Aaron his brother as well, since he is the high priest).

And so all I am doing here is exploring the possibility of what if God had a contingency for Israel in regard to their Messiah and what that would entail. Would it mean another avenue for salvation? Could God have made some other way to establish His Kingdom and eventual Universal Reconciliation via the nation of Israel had they accepted their Jesus as Messiah the first time He came? Is it even possible for salvation to happen in that manner? And possibly how that would have been realized?

I realize that we may veer in aberrant territory, but I don’t mean to be flippant about the Cross, or the nature of the Cross. I’m grateful for the salvation afforded me through the Cross. But I’m also mindful that according to various Old Testament scriptures, it appears to me that God is less concerned about sacrifice than He is with our obedience. “To obey is better than sacrifice” and so forth. And in some cases it seems like Israel’s sacrifices didn’t amount to anything (Isaiah 1:11, Malachi 1:8). And sometimes a physical sacrifice doesn’t appear the priority for God (Psalm 51:16-17, Hosea 6:6). Could Jesus the Messiah have ushered the Kingdom of God without having to die?

What I’d like to ask of you here in the forum, is would you be interested to exploring this further? would it be worth discussing? Or should I just let it drop and be content with what is?

It’s worth exploring.
Moses was expressing his Hebrew belief of a righteous man being offered as a replacement sacrifice for the unrighteous.
God said no to Moses.
This idea is very Jewish until Rabbis talk about Jesus and then it changes to ‘no one can offer themselves as a replacement sacrifice’.
Yeah right.
Yes it’s a good topic.
Blood (death) is the price of sin.
Either an animal, your own or someone elses, the price of sin will be paid.
Why blood (death)?
It wouldn’t be a replacement if it didn’t result in death because sin is death.
Animal sacrifice was a temporary replacement (covering) of the death of sin and Christ is a permanent replacement.
Yes Christ had to die and he had to shed his blood.
Why did God do it this way?
Because he’s a lot smarter than we are and knows what ultimate sacrifice and it’s connection with love is.
The ultimate sacrifice is giving yourself for another.
God made that especially clear when he died for us.

Interesting take on sacrifices. But I don’t see that Moses was trying to offer himself sacrificially in the sense of redeeming Israel, since He accepts the guilt along with them. Nor is the idea of a human replacement sacrifice a Hebrew idea especially taking into consideration of this ban:

“And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord." - Leviticus 18:21

"When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. - Deut 18:9-12

I’m going to continue with this series tomorrow and see what develops. I’m learning as I go.