Still Haven't Found the Answers I'm Asking For...

In a recent series of posts, Stan at the Winging It blog, toys around with answering some of the questions I've put to him but never gets right down to it. Again, this is not to say anything about Stan. I'm talking about the ideas and ideals promoted by traditionalists who believe in conservative human traditions like the Penal Substitutionary Atonement and being opposed to LGBTQ people, not about Stan specifically. He's not unique in never quite actually answering reasonable questions that his human traditions and theories beg to be answered.

Stan asks in a variety of ways...

"Is what I'm seeing in Scripture the same thing that God's people has seen in the past, or am I coming up with a novel or variant version?"

and...

" Simple "tradition" or "historic teaching" could be wrong, but if I have "this" interpretation of a text and no one has ever suggested it that way, I'm pretty sure I didn't get that from the Holy Spirit."

My responses...

First of all, the "followers of God," as well as the "rich and powerful" have a long and clear history of silencing those they perceive to be "heretics." Oftentimes, its been at its worst when the followers of God became rich and powerful. Indeed, Jesus and others warn that there ARE "wolves" out there (not meaning literal wolves - these were people rich in imagery) who sought power and wealth and used that power and wealth and position in leadership to silence those they deemed "unclean" or "heretics."

From the pharisees, to actual false teachers (the ones who did it as a wealth and power grab - because false teachers are not just those who are honestly mistaken, in a rational or biblical sense), to the rich and powerful that the prophets, Jesus, Mary and James (and Paul, etc, etc) warned about, saying, "Is it not the rich who oppress you? ...they will face judgement, for they are the ones who have killed Jesus..." (paraphrasing there), to the Roman Catholic church who oppressed and marginalized the Reformers, to the Protestants who oppressed and marginalized those they deemed to be "heretics..." throughout church history, there is a consistent theme of the powerful trying to silence the reformers and radicals (the ones seeking to stay true to the root of God's love).

The point being, that we may not see a line of thought throughout church history does not necessarily mean there have not been people who held those thoughts, for instance, disagreeing with the PS theory of atonement or being opposed to slavery or supportive of human rights for all.

Secondly, you still have the problem of presuming that ancient peoples, collectively - some SET or SUBSET of ancient peoples - must have gotten it "right" throughout the ages, setting aside the reality that cultures change. Slavery was just accepted back then and "the Holy Spirit" did not convince anyone to stand opposed to it. Treating women as non-citizens was just accepted back then... selling or giving your daughter away in marriage was just accepted back then... polygamy was just accepted back then... and in each of these cases, the Spirit of God did not apparently speak to the ancients in a way that sufficiently convinced them of these abuses of human rights and great atrocities.

The reality is that we ARE doing greater things that even Jesus did, as Jesus promised/taught. We have grown as a race of people to recognize more fully the notion of human rights that is clearly consistent with the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God as described in the Bible.

So, "Did ANY ONE of the ancients teach this Thing?" is simply not a perfect barometer of what is and isn't right. How could it be, given their silence on the deliberate killing of babies, enslaving people, abuse of women's rights, etc? That is, your presumption that IF at least some church people (the ones with whom you agree) didn't promote a theory, then that theory can't be of God... it's not rational, nor is it biblical.

How can it be? And as always, WHY is it not the case that YOUR heart may be the one that is deceitful, getting you to buy into the traditions of other humans with deceitful hearts?

Thirdly, it seems to me that you're mistaken the appearance of a word or phrase with the idea that a theory is being taught. Yes, Jesus used the word translated "ransom" ONE TIME in a private discussion with some of his disciples. But what Jesus didn't do was mention a theory of atonement and certainly not the human theory of atonement that you prefer.

Yes, the author of Hebrews - who, as with many biblical authors - used rich imagery, imagery with which the Hebrews themselves would recognize... that author refers to blood and other imagery, saying, "the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." But that is not the author of Hebrews saying that this is in support of the Penal Substitutionary human theory of atonement, which was developed in the 1300s give and take.

Also, the text says there that this is what THE LAW requires, but Jesus and Paul and others make it clear that we're not under some set of human laws reflecting what those humans thought God thinks. We are under grace, if we are people who believe in Grace. Indeed, the New Testament teaches and reason supports that the law is death-dealing, whereas grace is life-giving. We are under grace, not the law, EVEN IF the law almost always requires a blood sacrifice.

And indeed, speaking of blood sacrifices, there are repeated clarifications from God's own Self in the Bible that it is NOT blood sacrifices that God wants, but pouring out our lives in sacrifice... to take care of the widow and the orphan and immigrants... THAT is what God wants. Blood sacrifices are just LITERAL symbology, NOT literally what God demands or is powerless to act or forgive if they are not there. Do you not see how trying to make that literal makes that blood god subservient to these rituals, how it makes that god powerless and impotent? As the prophet Isaiah, for one, notes...

"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the Lord;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of well-fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of goats...

learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow’s cause...."

Do you see the points? That the point of the blood sacrifices to "atone" for sin were always a symbol, one that people then and now misunderstood. God clarifies in multiple places in the Bible, "I don't WANT your blood sacrifices... rather, embrace grace, side with the poor and marginalized, feed the hungry... THAT is the 'sacrifice' I desire..."

And also, that the appearance of a word or phrase does NOT make a theory or rule? ESPECIALLY in these books with so much clear imagery.

Atonement in the Gospel of Matthew?

 

Because of many conversations where I've asked traditional evangelical conservative types, "WHERE is Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) in the teachings of Jesus?" ... and I've asked because Jesus said clearly he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized and we have many of the teachings and sermons of Jesus contained in the four Gospel books. IF Jesus was preaching PSA, where is it? And when I've asked that, I've either gotten no answer or a reference to maybe two verses where Jesus uses a phrase that COULD be taken as a reference to PSA (if you squint and hope). So, I'm just doing a pretty quick review of the entirety of the Gospel of Matthew IN SEARCH OF PSA! Here we go!

Matt 1: we have the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew's genealogy)

Matt 2: we find the story of the powerful Jewish king, Herod, who plots to kill baby Jesus and acts monstrously in his position of wealth and power. We also find that Jesus and his family become political refugees, seeking asylum and safety from a mad king. Herod behaves as powerful despots often do: he orders the mass slaughter of babies to defend his seat of power.

“A voice is heard in Ramah,
    weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
    and refusing to be comforted,
    because they are no more.”

Matt 3: We are introduced to John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin. John is already getting in trouble for calling the Pharisees/Sadducees (the religious leaders) "You brood of vipers!" and worse. Later on we find that John has a heart for preaching good news to the poor and marginalized. In trying to determine if Jesus was "The One," he asked if he was preaching to the poor (Jesus was, of course). John is a wild, simple-living country preacher who preached repentance, but the main target for his rebukes was the Pharisees, the Sadducees and King Herod Antipas (the son of Jesus' King Herod, the Baby Killer)

Matt 4: Jesus tempted in the desert. Jesus begins preaching, citing Isaiah "for the people living in darkness have seen a great light..." Isaiah, to the Jews of the time and today, would be known for calling the people to not be consumed by wealth, but to follow God by defending the poor and marginalized. The very "worship" that Israel did was condemned as worthless, if not being an outgrowth of defending justice for the poor and marginalized.

Jesus begins his preaching with a call to repentance and welcome to the "kingdom of God," the realm of God, the beloved community.

"Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues,
proclaiming the good news of the kingdom,
and healing every disease and sickness among the people."

This "good news of the kingdom" is a consistent message/theme from Jesus and Jesus expounds upon it repeatedly. In Luke we see that Jesus came to preach this good news to the poor and marginalized. The realm of God is Jesus' most mentioned theme.

Jesus calls his disciples from the normal working class people of the day. People who struggled to get by.

Matt 5-7: Sermon on the Mount. THE single most complete passage that we'd recognize as a sermon.

Not once in this most complete sermon do we have a theme of substitutionary atonement (a theory that some Christians developed over the 1200-1400s).

We do see simple, gracious living promoted, the Light of God in a dark world.
In the context of John the Baptist's and eventually Jesus' ongoing rebukes of the religious legalists, Jesus makes clear he's not come to take away the laws, but to fulfill them, to help them be understood rightly.
We see gracious, humble ally-ship with the poor being taught (the people Jesus said he'd come to preach good news to)

We see simple living promoted and warnings of wealth.
We see Jesus telling us clearly that we can recognize the followers of God by the way they act (their "good fruit") which is made clear in many places that this includes how we ally with and for "the least of these."

Matt 8-9: Jesus heals an "unclean" leper

Jesus heals the servant of a Roman centurion (the "enemy")

Jesus heals many others (and a reminder that the physical and mentally ill in that time would be considered unclean and marginalized and would typically be poor and marginalized)

Jesus is rebuked by the religious for "daring" to forgive someone (again setting their legalism up and against Jesus' grace)

The religious legalists continue to snipe at Jesus for hanging out with the marginalized and unclean "sinners." (again, setting their legalism up and against Jesus' grace)

Again and again, more healing and grace and welcome from Jesus for the "sinners" and marginalized. More sniping/attacks from the legalists. Making for a clear context between the protagonist, God, and the way of Grace in opposition to the antagonists, the Legalists, and the way of deadly and exclusionary rule-following, rules that ultimately serve to further marginalize the poor and marginalized (including the women, always).
The legalists begin literally demonizing Jesus, saying he was of the Devil. Sounds familiar, yes?

Matt 10: Jesus sends out his disciples to preach and share with the Jews (specifically), telling them:

As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

and giving some simple living instructions and instructions on grace. "Freely you have received, freely give..."

Jesus warns them that the Legalists will attack and oppress them, but to go, anyway. His instructions (other than the warnings about the legalists) are always about welcome and grace and forgiveness.

Giving a cup of cold water to one of these...

A third of the way through Matthew and no mention of PSA. Many mentions of "the realm of God," service to/ally-ship with the poor and marginalized, and simple, grace-full living, of welcoming.

Matt 11: Jesus and John the Baptist stories. John confirms that Jesus is preaching to the poor and healing, his "evidence" that Jesus was of God. More preaching about the realm of God and the attacks against it (clearly a reference to the Legalists):

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence and violent people have been raiding it....

Jesus confronts the Legalists:

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’  The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

The "THEY" who are saying these things aren't the regular "sinners," the poor and marginalized, the sexually active or others typically demonized. It's the Legalists.

Jesus condemns some cities for their refusal to repent, but doesn't give details. But he does compare them to Sodom and Gomorrah, which the Bible says were condemned because they were arrogant and didn't care for the poor and marginalized.

In contrast to the Legalists and the burdens that weighed people down with, Jesus emphasizes the gentle, welcoming grace and love of God's way:

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Matt 12-13: Jesus continues to be rebuked by and to rebuke the Legalists. They condemn Jesus for "breaking the law" of the Sabbath rest, but Jesus reminds them ("fulfills the law") that the Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around. God is not a legalist cop seeking to punish an endless number of people for endless transgressions. God is a welcoming Lover, seeking to give rest and support.

More confrontations of the Legalists against Jesus and vice versa. Jesus again cites the Prophet Isaiah and his welcoming beloved community where the poor are not oppressed. MULTIPLE rebukes against the legalists.

Still no Substitutionary Atonement mentions.

Jesus' teaches in parables (explaining that the Legalists will not understand them, so long as they are legalists and not grace-followers/accepters.)

Matt 14-15: Jesus feeds the large crowd of his followers, the poor and working class who followed Jesus and listened to his teachings. Or rather, the disciples feed them, as instructed by Jesus.

Jesus walks on water. Jesus heals the sick.

Jesus confrontations with the Legalists increase and get more serious. Jesus heals more people, including the gentile Canaanite woman (triply unclean, being a woman and a gentile and an enemy of Israel!). Jesus allows her to teach him about inclusion and grace.

Jesus again cites the radical Isaiah, who condemned the legalists. Jesus feeds another large crowd of the poor and marginalized and working class who followed him.

Matt 16-20: More conflicts and rebukes of the legalists, who have begun actively testing him, looking for justification to have him killed. Jesus tells on them/tells his disciples it won't be long. More healing. Transfiguration.

Jesus teaches more about grace and humility and welcoming/becoming like a little child.

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

Jesus speaks about the limitless nature of forgiveness and grace.

Jesus speaks about divorce (don't do it). Jesus tells the rich young man that for him to be saved, he'd need to give up his wealth. Jesus clarifies/emphasizes: "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven."

More parables. Parables about money/wealth and workers, which concludes: "So the last will be first, and the first will be last"

THEN, FINALLY, about 2/3 through the Gospel of Matthew, we find ONE line where Jesus utters a phrase that COULD be taken to be referring to some kind of atonement. But it was not part of one of the sermons Jesus taught (again, Jesus came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized!), but in a private conversation where the POINT being discussed was humility within the realm of God.

When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers [James/John]. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Now, IF Jesus had repeatedly, in his sermons and teachings to the poor and least of these had talked about the need for a blood payment to atone (as the ONLY way God would be able/willing to forgive people), THEN this one passage might be taken to speaking of that. But that doesn't happen. Period. But absent that, this seems, on the face of it, to be talking about why we should strive to be humble, not seek to be great. For even God in Jesus came to serve and to pour out his life in service to others. Absent any other mention of (let alone emphasis upon) atonement, I don't see this being perforce understood that way.

Matt 21-22: Jesus enters Jerusalem in the final escalation between the grace of the protagonist, Jesus and the legalism of the antagonists, the Legalists. Jesus arrives humbly upon a mule, not as a triumphant warrior king. The working class and poor who followed Jesus celebrated his arrival.

Jesus enters the temple and sees the moneychangers cheating (especially/specifically the poor) inside the temple and drives/chases them out with a handmade whip. More confrontation with the Legalists. Jesus sides with the humble children (the least of these) over and against the wishes of the powerful legalists.

More parables. Legalists plot to arrest Jesus but fear the regular people, who were his ardent followers. Some of the parables are speaking of the powerful who will abuse the humble King. When the rich and powerful won't come to the dinner, the King welcomes the poor and marginalized, in rebuke of the rich and powerful.

More confrontations and plots from the legalists. Jesus teaches the simple, "greatest commandments" - Love God, Love people.

Matt 23-25: Jesus gives the Legalists a great deal of hell. Rebukes and condemnation for them and their legalism ways.

More parables, including the Sheep and the Goats, in which Jesus makes clear that HE is the least of these. "In as much as you do it to them, you do it to me."

Matt 26-28: The Last Supper. Here, in this private conversation with the disciples, we have the SECOND of only two potential mentions of Atonement. In sharing the supper (in his typical, humble, grace-full way), Jesus says:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Once again, IF in the sermons of "good news for the poor and marginalized" Jesus had clearly mentioned something like atonement, THEN we might could envision that this second sentence in a private conversation COULD be referencing atonement as the modern religionists mean it. But we just don't have that. Period.

From this point on, we have the final kangaroo court of the Legalists who are enraged at Jesus' way of grace and inclusion and failure to follow the rules that they thought were important. Then Jesus Roman trial and capitol punishment torture/execution by more people in power (although, in his defense, the cowardly Roman governor, Pilate, at least had the sense to say "I don't see he's done anything wrong..." and yet, he still had him executed) .

In summation, we don't have ONE single sermon where ANYTHING like the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory (theorized by humans hundreds of years after Jesus' death and resurrection) in the canon of Jesus' teachings to the poor and marginalized as found in Matthew.

IF we assume that Jesus (who, once again, literally said he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized) would have, at some point in at least ONE set of his teachings, seen fit to at least give a passing mention to something like atonement as theorized by some, it would be there in his words in his sermons/teachings. It's literally not.

What we do see is a gospel (good news to the poor and marginalized, remember) full of words of welcome, grace, forgiveness, acceptance and love to all, beginning with the poor and marginalized AND we see a gospel full of warnings and rebukes to the legalists, the rich and powerful. The legalists, the rich and powerful are literally the antagonists in the Gospels of Jesus - the warning to NOT be like THAT.

And while the "regular people," the poor, marginalized and working class are called to repentance and to join the Realm of God, the Beloved Community of Grace, they are never rebuked exceedingly harshly. The warnings of hell and condemnation are nearly exclusively (exclusively?) for the rich, powerful legalists.

fyi.