God’s Punishment or Satan’s Defeat? Part 2
Posted by Steve - October 1, 2008
In this conclusion to the two-part series about the atonement, Ray and Steve continue to discuss the implications — both pros and cons — of viewing the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as the means of paying ransom to Satan vs. appeasing an angry Father.
Thoughts from our listeners in response to this topic are definitely welcome!
Beyond the Box: God's Punishment or Satan's Defeat? Part 2 [33:48m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Beyond the Box is the podcast of Raborn Johnson and Steve Sensenig. We have been encouraging each other in the journey outside the bounds of institutional religion for several years now and share many of our candid thoughts and questions in our podcast.
October 17th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Very interesting discussion. I’ll have to think about this.
I’ve come to see the sin nature as a corrupted and exagerated sense of self that is in direct opposition to love. Christ’s death and resurrection destroyed the monopoly power of that selfish sin nature over our lives and enabled us to receive a new nature. Now that we have recieved this new nature we have the ability to walk in the spirit instead of walking in our old selfish sin nature.
I haven’t tried to work this understanding into a systematic theology, but at the very least I am confident Christ’s death accomplished much more than just enabling God to forgive us for sinful acts we have done. God’s purpose is clearly a much greater transformation than that – it is a transformation into his very image.
Have you considered the therapeutic option?
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:30 am
Brent,
Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to you. I agree that Jesus came to destroy the sin nature. However, I think that the sin nature is more than just a characteristic of sinful humanity. According to Romans 8 the sin nature has infected the entire cosmos so that not only are we affected, but so is the entire creation. I have examined the therapeutic option somewhat and this is where I find it inadequate as the central way of understanding the atonement–it seems to be completely human-centered whereas the Christus Victor view seems to include the entirety of creation in the redemption just as it was originally included in the fall. I completely believe that Jesus came to heal sinful and sick humanity and I don’t believe that you can separate Jesus’ teaching ministry from His healing ministry in the Gospels, but I don’t see this as the central framework of the atonement. Rather, I think that 1 John 3:8 sums it up quite well:
“The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.”
I think that the best paradigm through which we can understand all of the aspects of the atonement is described in this verse. I don’t completely understand how, but Jesus’ work brought healing, deliverance, freedom, restored relationship with Father and life to every person…and to all of creation. I think that Greg Boyd said it well in the book mentioned in the podcast; “We now live between D-Day and V-Day.”
What do you think?
December 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I am just discovering the site and like the conversation. This pair of episodes really provoked some good thinking. I wondered if you could expand on how Satan was ‘legally’ over the earth and Adam’s descendants.
The idea that Jesus paid a ransom to Satan rather than God is really interesting. But that would mean that Satan had some type of legal right that had to be satisfied by God. I’m wondering what that might be.
Just thinking out loud, if Satan knowingly rebelled from God and God judged his action maybe there was something about his coming judgment that God declared. For example, you and all who follow you in rebellion will be cut off from me. Therefore to rescue us, God had to satisfy the judgment or debt. Jesus was wrongly killed by virtue that He had never sinned.
A bit of babbling. But I am trying to think through how God was obligated to Satan. The other side of the coin is the ‘just’ nature of God. That is where most traditional thinking comes from. God had to satisfy His justice.
Your conversation opens up a different path. Appreciate your thoughts.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 am
Dwight,
Thanks for joining the conversation!
Here is one of the accounts in the Gospel of Luke of satan tempting Jesus.
“The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, ‘I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours.’
Luke 4:5-7NIV
Now the interesting thing is that Jesus did not challenge this. So who gave away this authority to satan? We did, in Adam and Eve, who I would say were the “federal heads” of the human race. Just as you cannot pick and choose the genes that you inherit from your parents, we did not have a choice in the decisions that our ancestors made which have led to negative consequences for the entire human race.
Jesus also describes the Pharisees as the “children of the devil”. Why would Jesus do this? How did they become such?
I believe that satan had a legal right, in the same way that Adam did, to dominion over everything on planet earth. God gave mankind authority over everything upon the earth in the beginning, and I believe that man turned this authority over to the devil in the garden when they rebelled against God, and instead chose to put their trust in the devil’s words.
I don’t believe that God had to do anything about this. But, because of His great love for us, I believe that He decided to redeem us out from under the “kingdom of darkness” (Colossians 1:13). Since God is a just God, I believe that He decided to “play by the rules”; that is to honor the freewill humanity, and therefore treat satan as if he did have authority over this planet. Paul bears this out when he refers to satan as the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4). In order to regain the comprised authority rightfully, Jesus came to earth as a man in order “undo the works of the devil”. The Bible says that “had the princes of this world known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”. Why not? Because Jesus’ death and resurrection meant that the old dynasty was over and God’s kingdom was breaking into this world in order to restore, first humanity, and then the entirety of creation. What do you think?
December 27th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Thanks Raborn. Appreciate the comments. Makes sense. It really helps reconcile that tension between the Father (bad cop) and Jesus (good cop). I will continue to noodle on this. We see through the glass darkly. It is good to challenge our thinking.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I’m trying to catch up…I’m getting there…I don’t listen to every podcast but only the ones that catch me (so far, the majority of them).
Anyway, I’m listening to this one and wanted to comment on a thought you had in this podcast. It may be minor and may even just be a difference of wording. You said Jesus didn’t tell anyone that they “had to clean up their act before they came in”. If I understand what you are trying to say, it seems like that goes against (at least in spirit) the injunctions Jesus gave to people to “go and sin no more (lest a worse thing happen to you)”. I do agree Jesus wasn’t being nasty in those statements (and I know not all included “lest a worse thing happen”) but rather warning the individual of continued sin having serious consequences. And going back to John the Baptist, we hear the proclamation “Repent and be baptized”. That, as I understand it (which includes recognizing OT declarations) means a man must turn from his sin BEFORE coming to God. If one looks at what is said, it should be clear that repentance implies that Jesus DOESN’T accept someone the way they are. Now, having said that, turning from one’s sin is, first of all, a matter of the heart. And realizing that, it must be the work of the Holy Spirit. But even that requires a man be willing. How a man made willing is the hidden work. Some examples of the OT command to turn FIRST include 2 Chronicles 2:26, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Isaiah 55:7 and Ezekiel 18:21.
I think the humanistic charge (speaking generally, not about you guys) often comes because men don’t make the distinction between their will and God’s will. When someone says something like “God is on your side” (I think one of you used a phrase like that in this podcast), the phrase is loaded because it is apparent that God is NOT for you as you are prior to being in Christ. Or, more specifically, He seeks your restoration but you naturally fight against Him until you are broken by your sin. Then (and only then) can you recognize that what you thought was God’s distant vengeful nature was really your natural man doing all that it can do. Resist God (Romans 8:7-8; Ephesians 2:12-18; and Colossians 1:20-22 (!!)). God may be on our side, but when we resist Him, we are resisting that which is for our good. And the consequences are not desirable. Thus, to tell the natural man that God is on his side is to more or less sanction his natural instincts (which are thoroughly wicked and against God).
I’m going to leave it at that for this podcast (at least for an initial response).