Stricken by God? with Brad Jersak, Part 1
Continuing in our series of guests on the podcast, Ray welcomes Brad Jersak to Beyond the Box. This 2-part discussion revolves around the topic of a book edited by Brad entitled “Stricken by God?” which discusses atonement theories alternative to Penal Substitution.
Bringing insight to some passages that are often skimmed over, Brad shares thoughts about the atonement that are sure to make you think! While the Penal Substitution theory of the atonement posits that the Father poured all of his wrath out on his own Son during the crucifixion, Brad offers thoughts that maintain a consistency between a Father who is very loving and compassionate and a Son’s death that is brutal and violent.
Isaiah 53 says that we esteemed him (Jesus) stricken by God. In other words, it appears that is not the correct view, but rather our misunderstanding of what took place. That phrase serves as the basis for Brad’s book and this discussion.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:28:08 — 80.7MB) | Embed
August 31st, 2011 at 3:10 am
Help! My head is spinning. I love this whole concept of looking at Jesus’ death differently especially in light of Brad’s comments re Isa 53:10 but what do I do with the view of OT animal sacrifices pointing to Jesus and John the Baptist saying “See the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world?”
Is there mistranslation involved there also? Perhaps I should go back and listen to Sharon Baker for the umpteenth time. My brain can’t sort it out!
August 31st, 2011 at 9:35 am
Maybe when John talks about the Lamb, he might mean it to be a reference more to the character of Jesus than about any sacrifical nature. The same thing might be applied to the idea of the Lamb found in Revelation. I think that ties in with the point Sharon Baker was trying to make about animal sacrifices. We might want to start changing our assumption about the meaning of animal sacrifice. The fact that they prefigured Jesus’ death doesn’t mean that the interpretation we might give it from the OT is more correct. As the guys say a lot, if scripture seems to say one thing in the OT, but in the NT there is a contradiction, then we should really go with the NT view, and even more so with the Gospels themselves.
September 1st, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Daphne,
Great questions! I think LuisB might have hit it on the head with this statement:
The fact that they prefigured Jesus’ death doesn’t mean that the interpretation we might give it from the OT is more correct.
Sometimes the writers of the New Testament use familiar phrasing and concepts from the Old Testament, but this is not necessarily a wholesale endorsement of the Old Testament use of those concepts. The Old Testament seems to really be a progression of revelation about the nature of God and the nature of relationship with God. The movement from Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son only to be stopped by the voice of God, to animal sacrifice, to the voice of the prophets declaring that God takes no delight in the blood of animals or animal sacrifice shows a progression in the Old Testment idea of who God is and what God requires.
The most troubling New Testament book to understand about this topic is the book of Hebrews. Many people take Hebrews as a New Testament endorsement of the Old Testament sacrifical system. I totally see why, and yet I am not so sure that this is correct. I am still thinking through this, but look at this scripture:
Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:
“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’”
Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them ” (which are offered according to the law), then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10:5-10 NKJV
This passage is really interesting. This seems to be a record of Jesus’ words as He was preparing for the incarnation. Notice that He says God did not desire sacrifice and offerings nor did He take pleasure in sacrifices for sin. Jesus says that what God wanted was for His will to be done. This is why Jesus came; to perform the Father’s will. It actually goes on to say that this will of God completely overrides the Old Testament sacrificial system.
Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them ” (which are offered according to the law), then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
To me, this passage seems to be saying that we have been sanctified by Jesus’ obedience to the Father unto death. I don’t think that the phrase “the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” is necessarily referring to a sacrifice like the Old Testament sacrifices. To me it obviously can’t be since Jesus’ own words above seem to undercut this idea. Instead, it seems like the writer of Hebrews is saying that Jesus’ offering of Himself was a sacrifice of love unto death rather than a Old Testament-like sacrifice to appease God.
Hebrews is a tough book to wrestle with and I am by no means saying that this interpretation is a “slam dunk”. This is still very much in development for me. What do you think?