"29 As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. 30 Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they immediately told Jesus about her. 31 So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.
32 That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. 33 The whole town gathered at the door, 34 and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.
Jesus Prays in a Solitary Place
35 Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed. 36 Simon and his companions went to look for him, 37 and when they found him, they exclaimed: “Everyone is looking for you!”
38 Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.” 39 So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons."
I have to come up with some sort of quick devotional based on this passage for tomorrow night. So far, everything I've come up with is too much for that situation.
But not for here. The three things that have struck me are as follows.
1. Jesus was very clear about what His purpose was. He came to preach the Gospel.
2. Jesus could have easily stayed in one place and did what the people wanted Him to do, heal people. He was more interested in pursuing His/His Father's agenda than in doing what was popular. To be sure, the healing and casting out of demons were part of His ministry. By doing those things He demonstrated His power and authority, in essence His miracles were done to demonstrate the Truth of His teaching.
3. He knew the importance of spending time alone with His Father as a way to better prepare Him for doing the work His Father sent Him here to do.
It seems clear that Jesus chose not to heal everyone that wanted His healing. It seems clear that Jesus wasn't driven by what people expected from Him. I seems strange to think that the gospel Jesus preached was primarily about offering things to the poor/oppressed, when He intentionally chose not to help all of the poor/oppressed that wanted/asked/expected Him to help them with their physical needs. He literally abandoned them in their poverty and oppression.
If we take Dan's philosophy to heart, we learn that the following parts of Jesus' ministry were less significant/valid.important etc because He came to preach the gospel to the "poor/marginalized/people/groups". His first public miracle, Raising Jairus' daughter, Mary anointing Him with oil, the prostitute washing His feet, His interaction with the woman at the well, His interaction with the woman caught in adultery, His interaction with Zacchaeus, His interaction with the disciples on the Emmaus road, and the last supper.
Jesus lied to the people, when He told them that He was casting out demons.
Finally, this healing was a glimpse of how The Gospel looks, Simon's mother-in-law is sick (possibly serious) and can't do anything about it on her own, Jesus heals her, she begins to serve His.
45 comments:
Let's see if we can find some common ground here:
1. "he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.
That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases
Jesus DID heal the sick and marginalized. He also spent much time with the poor and marginalized. Oftentimes.
Agreed?
2. Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.”
Jesus did NOT heal "everyone." He also spent time in preaching the Good News.
Agreed?
3. Jesus DID preach the good news. He says so here and other places.
Agreed?
4. We have the text (at least in part) of several sermons/lessons taught. There are, by some accounts, the "five discourses" found in Matthew. We have the words that Jesus taught, the "gospel" he preached.
Agreed?
5. In those sermons/lessons, we have MANY lessons speaking about the good news to the poor and marginalized. We have warnings against the rich and religious oppressors. We have the Golden Rule in various formats.
Agreed?
6. And yet, in NOT ONE of those sermons/lessons/discourses do we have ANY significant teaching that focuses on what modern conservatives consider the Atonement or Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory.
We DO have two (?) lines, two phrases, where Jesus utters the word Ransom (in one) and "Blood poured out for the forgiveness of sin" in another. BOTH of those instances are in private conversations with his disciples, NOT in sermons that he preached to the poor and marginalized he'd come to bring good news to.
Do we agree on that much?
7. And that there simply is no clear message of atonement in the teachings/sermons of Jesus when he preached to the people?
Agreed?
8. Now, if it's a given that we AGREE that Jesus said he'd come to preach good news (to the poor and marginalized) and that we HAVE Jesus' words and sermons (in part), don't you think the MAIN MESSAGE that he came to preach would be clearly taught and written down by the disciples?
Can you see how that's reasonable, at least?
9. Can you see how the very absence of any clear "Atonement Theory" teaching directly from Jesus is a rational reason to question this atonement theory humans have developed over the years?
I'm not in any way trying to belittle you or fight with you. I'm just saying that my SERIOUS devotion to the teachings of Jesus and this very real absence of the Atonement Theory is my primary reason for having to abandon that theory as not in keeping with Jesus' teachings.
10. Do you have compelling reasons why you'd conjecture that the Atonement Theory is largely/entirely missing from Jesus' sermons/teachings?
I think these are reasonable questions to ask and by and large, I've had only silence when I've asked them of conservatives.
Jesus could have easily stayed in one place and did what the people wanted Him to do, heal people. He was more interested in pursuing His/His Father's agenda than in doing what was popular. To be sure, the healing and casting out of demons were part of His ministry.
IF one believes/assumes a "Good News"
(which means literal Good News, not some religious theory, but simply Good News as it's typically understood)
FOR/TO/WITH the poor and marginalized
(which just means actual good news to the actual poor) and
that Good News is that God is Loving, Forgiving, Inclusive/Accepting, and a God of Grace ("gift," just what the word means as it's typically understood)
...if one believes these things as reasonable, biblical and Godly, then we can also understand that Jesus' Good News of the Realm of God/Beloved Community/Welcome Table of God for the poor and marginalized is, itself, a grace-filled Way. That is, Jesus demonstrates that EVEN the Son of God couldn't/didn't heal everyone...
he could only be in one place at a time.
he needed some down time, a chance to rest and pray/meditate.
Jesus his OWN Self demonstrated/modeled by his way of teaching, grace not ONLY to the poor and marginalized, but also for the allies/Beloved Community of God. "The poor we will always have with us," sadly, he said. We're not expected to be superhuman and be everywhere and help everyone all the time, no rest involved. THAT would not be a grace-full way to live.
Is he not modeling grace in his way of taking breaks when he got tired? Isn't that a reasonable understanding of what he's modeling and teaching by his actions?
The healing WAS part of his Good News to the poor and marginalized. AND the preaching of actual good news to the actual poor and marginalized WAS part of his Good News/message. We can see all of that in the four gospels.
What we can't see (I can't see, anyway), is any huge emphasis or even a SNIPPET of a sermon teaching PS Atonement Theory.
Is that not at least understandable?
And is it understandable that for a follower of Christ who wants to take Jesus' teachings VERY seriously, that the absence of a tenet in the words of Jesus is a reasonable problem?
It seems strange to think that the gospel Jesus preached was primarily about offering things to the poor/oppressed, when He intentionally chose not to help all of the poor/oppressed that wanted/asked/expected Him to help them with their physical needs.
1. I'm not saying that the Good News to the poor and marginalized that Jesus said he'd come to preach was "primarily about offering things to the poor/oppressed."
Do you understand that this is not what I'm saying? Maybe someone somewhere is saying that (I doubt it), but not me, nor folks like me.
2. We're saying that Jesus came preaching literal good news to the literal poor and marginalized as Jesus literally said.
3. Beyond that, we are faced with the reality that Jesus NEVER specifically said, "And HERE PRECISELY is what I mean by that."
Agreed?
4. But then, Jesus does repeatedly make clear that the rule-following pushed by the predatory religious zealots of his day was antithetical to Grace. "the Sabbath (these rules we follow) was made for humanity, NOT humanity for the Sabbath."
That is, it's reasonable to conclude (even if you ultimately disagree) that Jesus was making a case that the deadly legalism that Paul later speaks of and that was the problem with the Pharisees of the day was NOT "of Grace," and not life-giving. It was/is death-dealing, as Paul said.
We are NOT saved by rule following, but by GRACE (the Kindness of God who, biblically speaking, said in multiple places things like it's not GOD's Will that ANY should perish, but all be "saved..." that God so loved the whole world that he wanted to include them all! That ALL should come to this Welcome Table of the Beloved Community/Realm of God) and that a deadly clinging to rules and to adding rule upon rule upon the backs of people who are already poor and oppressed, that this is just death and destruction, not Grace and Welcome.
5. So... if this Good News to the poor and marginalized was about GRACE and Welcome, beginning with the poor and marginalized, as Jesus began with, then any one person or even all of humanity failing to "fix" all poverty and hunger... well, that's to be expected in an imperfect world where people DO and WILL suffer hard times. It's not the "Fixing" of everything that is the Good News, it's the welcome and grace to even those who'd been traditionally Kept Out.
Can you at least see how some would look at Jesus' teachings and find this exceptionally in fitting with what Jesus' actually said? And much more so than the PSA Theory developed centuries after Jesus? I'm not asking if you agree... I'm asking if you can at least see how some of us who read the Bible in good faith and reach that conclusion in good faith?
It really comes down to what the Gospel was. Ultimately, it was how He was the Way, the Truth and the Life...the path to God which no good deed could blaze.
"Agreed?"
No. The text is pretty clear that He healed the sick and cast out demons. Doesn't mention "the marginalized" once. It seems like you are reading "the marginalized" into the text where it doesn't belong.
"Agreed?"
Since one of the literal points that I made in the post was that Jesus didn't heal all of the sick, and that His purpose was to preach the Gospel, why would you ask if I agree with myself.
"Agreed?"
See above.
"Agreed?"
Yes.
"Agreed?"
No.
"Agreed?"
A couple.
"Agreed?"
No.
"Agreed?"
No.
"Agreed?"
Theoretically.
9. No.
10. No.
"Is that not at least understandable?"
If one accepts all of your "If" statements as True and as the only possible explanation, and if one ignores the larger context of what those closest to Jesus wrote, and if one completely ignores Jesus crucifixion and what He said on the cross, and if one buys into Dan's hunches about Jesus, then your screed does have some internal consistency. Unfortunately, it's based 100% on your personal, subjective, hunches, and therefore only makes sense to those who slavishly agree with your hunches.
"
1. Really, I posted a direct quote of your own words that seems to disagree with this current claim. In one of the previous comments in this thread you insist that this "give things to the poor/marginalized" was the "MAIN" focus of Jesus' gospel. But whatever.
2. You're just limiting this "good news" to giving stuff to the poor/marginalized, and ignoring or minimizing any other possible "Good News".
3. If you say so.
4. It's interesting that you latch onto the fact that the "rules" that the Pharisees added to the law do not bring salvation, and then use that as an excuse to justify not being expected to follow the commands of Jesus. Of course, your whole point (that someone is claiming that adherence to the "rules" is what saves us) is simply false and made up.
5. Any time you start with "If", I simply ignore anything you say after "if". Your entire theology is based on all of the unproven assumptions that are before your "if".
Art,
Exactly. But according to this text, we can conclude that Jesus' was more interested in preaching, than in healing. Which raises the question of why. It seems like healing the sick and casting out demons would have been a great way to give "good news" to them. It also seems like leaving people behind who wanted/needed healing or deliverance would cause those who were ignored not to follow Jesus.
It's also interesting that Dan seems focused on the healing of the sick, yet says nothing about the whole casting out demons thing.
"but is WAY more concerned about what we do to, with and for the "least of these..."
I'll simply point out that the God posited in this meme is "more concerned about what we" "DO", "with and" "FOR" "the least of these".
I could be wrong but it sounds like you are promoting a theology where what we "DO" "FOR" certain groups of people is more important that anything else.
But please explain how a theology where what we "DO" "FOR", doesn't hinge on what we "DO"?
"I have to think that the God of perfect love and grace is not going to be so angry that we had a misunderstanding about this point or that point of theology,"
This is interesting, because it completely eliminates motivation from action. As long as we "DO" the right things/actions "FOR" the right group of people, why we do those things is immaterial.
Dan's problem with substitutionary atonement seems to be his hunch that what makes Jesus' sacrifice efficacious is our belief in this particular summary of scriptures teaching. Yet, those who conclude that substitutionary atonement is the best summary of biblical teaching on the subject would likely disagree. The argument would likely be that Jesus' atonement for our sins (regardless of the specifics) would be efficacious for salvation regardless of what a single individual believes. While I have heard many scholars argue very persuasively and with ample biblical support that substitutionary atonement is the best explanation, I've never heard anyone say that it is flawless. I've further never heard anyone demand that belief in SA is an absolute requirement for salvation.
Finally, SA is the very embodiment of grace. The concept that YHWH loved His creation so much that He sent His son to do what His created could not do is the complete opposite of depending on our works or on what we "DO" "FOR" particular people.
I, for one, don't want to be judged based on what I did. That doesn't sound like grace at all.
What the "Good News" preached by Christ actually is explained differently by different scholars, as they each focus on a particular aspect. But it always includes accepting Christ as Savior. From what did He save us? From the wrath of the Father we've earned by our sin nature which renders us imperfect and unworthy of His Holy Presence. So God's wrath was poured out on Christ on the cross and because of that, because Christ was indeed a substitute for us in that regard, we are redeemed. That...what Dan mockingly refers to as an angry godling demanding blood...which ironically isn't totally far from the truth Dan refuses to accept...is what God's grace looks like in application.
Dan also once again refers to God as "inclusive", when that' totally opposite of reality. Indeed, God is quite EXclusive in saving whom He chooses based on His terms...on what He regards as justice given He's the aggrieved party deserving of it.
I would also warn that Dan has a ready excuse for constantly using the word "marginalized", which, by his own reasoning, would necessarily include the poor and thus is redundant. And it must be materially poor as opposed to "poor in spirit" because, as we all know, Jesus was all about the Benjamins...or whatever they called cash back then.
The text is pretty clear that He healed the sick and cast out demons. Doesn't mention "the marginalized" once. It seems like you are reading "the marginalized" into the text where it doesn't belong.
It's clearly there in the context. You ARE aware of how the physically and mentally ill (demon possessed) were treated in the time period, right? They were considered unclean, kept apart. They were literally marginalized.
I think you know this, right?
At any rate, in the sense that Jesus, the prophets and the various authors of the Bible mention "the poor and marginalized" in a wide and yet consistent variety of ways using a variety of conditions to speak about the marginalized is probably THE most common topic in the Bible. The enslaved who were marginalized plays a huge role in the OT. The widows and orphans mentioned throughout the Bible who were marginalized. The foreigners an widows who literally lived at the margins, being given permission to glean from the margins in the OT. The sick, the disabled, the "unclean," the lepers, the women, the children, the orphans, the poor, the outcast, the "demon-possessed," the mentally ill, the beggars, the imprisoned the oppressed... on and on and on the Bible refers to the marginalized. No, it never uses that word (or at least not often), but it is speaking of those literally marginalized/literally living on the margins by circumstances and culture. That's certainly true for Jesus our Lord and his teachings.
As you all know, that a word isn't used in the Bible doesn't mean the idea isn't there. You know, right, that the lepers had to stay away from people (marginalized) and holler out "unclean!" if anyone approached them? That the demon-possessed who were living in the cemeteries and amongst the pigs... literally marginalized. That "unclean" women were marginalized/kept apart/"unclean" and "unfit" to be with the "morally upright" in the "house of God."
You know all this, right? Do you just disagree that "marginalized" is an apt term to talk about those forced by circumstances and poverty to live at the margins of society? If so, sorry. I think it's a great word. Feel free to make another suggestion. I use it to give a shorthand term to ALL those who are defended by God/Jesus in the Bible (the list I gave before).
Craig, when you do this:
"Agreed?"
See above.
"Agreed?"
Yes.
It becomes very difficult to understand what it is you're referring to. I'd suggest you find another way if you're wanting to actually communicate rather than obfuscate. And I'm sure you're not interested in obfuscating, right?
To make it easier, here are the main questions I'm trying to understand from you these two points, A and B:
A. In those sermons/lessons, we have MANY lessons speaking about the good news to the poor and marginalized. We have warnings against the rich and religious oppressors. We have the Golden Rule in various formats.
Do you agree/recognize the many places where Jesus warns against the rich and religious oppressors? Do you recognize that the religious pharisees, the rich and the powerful (Herod) for instance, are the main targets of Jesus' rebukes? (I'll have to do a search, but it's certainly there in the Gospels.)
And...
B.. And yet, in NOT ONE of those sermons/lessons/discourses do we have ANY significant teaching that focuses on what modern conservatives consider the Atonement or Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory.
We DO have two (?) lines, two phrases, where Jesus utters the word Ransom (in one) and "Blood poured out for the forgiveness of sin" in another. BOTH of those instances are in private conversations with his disciples, NOT in sermons that he preached to the poor and marginalized he'd come to bring good news to.
Do we agree on that much?
That is, do you agree that there is not one sermon or set of teachings where something like Substitutionary Atonement is the main thrust of the Gospel Jesus actually preached?
And I'll add a third, C:
C. Do you think this Atonement theory was a brand new teaching from Jesus? If so, does it not seem strange that Jesus isn't quoted - at all - making that abundantly clear in his sermons/teachings? If not, where is it found in the OT, anywhere at all?
But please explain how a theology where what we "DO" "FOR", doesn't hinge on what we "DO"?
It's a Good News of GRACE, not "doing for" or "doing." That those who embrace a philosophy/way of Grace can be identified in how they ally with and for the least of these (the poor and marginalized) is an identifier, not a cause. IF one accepts the notion of grace, of acceptance, inclusion, forgiveness, beloved community... Grace, THEN one acts on that within the scope of grace (ie, they also take time for themselves, even while pouring out their lives with and alongside the poor and marginalized).
The "theology" (philosophy/study of God and God's ways) of Grace is simply recognizing that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God is a God of grace, of gift, of acceptance. The orthodoxy of that grace philosophy leads to orthopraxy. Perhaps you can even agree with this notion?
As long as we "DO" the right things/actions "FOR" the right group of people, why we do those things is immaterial.
That's a fine theory for you to hold, but it's nothing that I'm saying, just fyi. IF one is acting in a kind way IN ORDER to take advantage of people, that matters. For instance. It's not about doing, though, this Good News of Grace. It's about being and accepting.
"It's clearly there in the context."
Yes it is, you just choose not to deal with it.
"You ARE aware of how the physically and mentally ill (demon possessed) were treated in the time period, right?"
Are you suggesting that the people Mark records as having demons cast out of, and specifically mentions Christ not allowing them to speak, were really just "mentally ill"?
Yes, I do realize that some of the sick and demon possessed were kept out of society. In the case of communicable disease, this was for the safety of the community. The problem is that Jesus didn't join them in their outcastness, He fully healed or delivered them so that they could not be outcast any more.
If this was the "main" purpose of Jesus' gospel, then why did he choose not to heal/deliver the crowds of people who gathered the next day? It seems like you can't even come up with a version of Jesus who spreads the gospel the way you think it should be spread.
Blah, blah, blah, eisegesis, blah blah, blah.
"It becomes very difficult to understand what it is you're referring to. I'd suggest you find another way if you're wanting to actually communicate rather than obfuscate. And I'm sure you're not interested in obfuscating, right?"
Oh, I'm sorry. I was unaware that copy/pasting your exact questions and answering in a simple direct manner was a problem. Perhaps if you'd stop making unproven claims, then adding the sentence "Agreed?" that would solve the problem. The only reason my agreement with you is even something of concern is if you actually made a statement that was actually proven to be True. My agreement with your unproven hunches, isn't worth wasting any more time with.
But hey, if you think answering a yes or no question with yes or no is obfuscating, maybe the problem is with you.
I agree that there are some places where Jesus speaks as you say He does. There are other places where He says things that contradict your hunches about what He really means. I do recognize that sometimes Jesus called out the Jewish leaders for their sins. I was unaware that He only called out the Jewish leaders for their sins. Yet, He clearly didn't include all of the Jewish leaders.
NO, we don't agree on that much. It assumes that your unproven hunch is True and it assumes that what Jesus said to His disciples is somehow less important than what He said to the masses. He also pointed out that He spoke to His disciples in a certain way because they had a greater understanding than the masses.
I think that your construct is arbitrary, and irrelevant. The fact that you've chosen to arbitrarily place a higher value on Jesus teachings to the masses as opposed to His training the disciples to carry on after Him is just you making shit up. It's bad enough that you place special value on the red letters, but now you decide that some of the red letters are more important than others.
"It's a Good News of GRACE, not "doing for" or "doing." That those who embrace a philosophy/way of Grace can be identified in how they ally with and for the least of these (the poor and marginalized) is an identifier, not a cause."
This makes absolutely zero sense, especially when compared to the entirety of the NT. But, it's still predicated by our action "embrace" and by focusing on a specific group of people "poor/marginalized". You were very clear in your explanation of how that must work earlier.
"IF one accepts the notion of grace, of acceptance, inclusion, forgiveness, beloved community... Grace, THEN one acts on that within the scope of grace (ie, they also take time for themselves, even while pouring out their lives with and alongside the poor and marginalized)."
So it is only by our actions of "acceptance" that we are given this "grace" as a reward for our actions. Got it.
"The "theology" (philosophy/study of God and God's ways) of Grace is simply recognizing that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God is a God of grace, of gift, of acceptance. The orthodoxy of that grace philosophy leads to orthopraxy. Perhaps you can even agree with this notion?"
Thanks for the condescending definition of theology.
"Do you think this Atonement theory was a brand new teaching from Jesus?"
No, the doctrine of atonement based of substituting something else for the humans who sinned is a practice that YHWH introduces early in the OT, and that runs through the entire OT, and which consistently points to Christ as the final sacrifice.
"If so, does it not seem strange that Jesus isn't quoted - at all - making that abundantly clear in his sermons/teachings?"
No, one reason Jesus gave for using parables was that many in the crowds would not understand them. Jesus repeatedly used scripture to point to Himself as the incarnation of YHWH. Jesus was quite clear to His disciples that there were certain things that were only to be told to them. For that matter, where is it written that Jesus' sermons/teachings were required to be "abundantly clear"?
"If not, where is it found in the OT, anywhere at all?"
It's found throughout the OT, and directly linked to the coming of Messiah who came to be the final sacrifice.
"That's a fine theory for you to hold, but it's nothing that I'm saying, just fyi."
"Those who show love to others give them food when they're hungry. Help them find work when they need work. Accept them for who they are, so long as they're not hurting others. Support. Accept. Welcome. It's not hard to understand."
Except where you do say exactly that.
"IF one is acting in a kind way IN ORDER to take advantage of people, that matters. For instance. It's not about doing, though, this Good News of Grace. It's about being and accepting."
You've consistently defined this "good news" in terms of it be dependent on our actions, and this is no different. If this "good news" is predicated or "about" our "accepting", then it stands to reason that it's nothing if we don't accept.
It's strange how much time Jesus devotes to not "accepting" others for "who they are", yet you demand this sort of acceptance as some sort of shibboleth.
Jesus didn't accept Matthew that tax collector as he was. He literally expected all of His disciples to become something other then what they were when He met them. Zacceus, the woman at the well, the one leper who came back, the healed blind guy in John 9, the rich young ruler, everyone He told to "sin no more", Jesus was about anything but the status quo. It's why the NT is full of "death to life" imagery, and why the 12 transformed from cowering in a locked room waiting for the Romans to bringing the Good News of Jesus to the world.
It's strange that the Apostles who were Jesus closest followers and Paul who was taught by eyewitnesses to Jesus' life, never once mention any of the stuff you mention when they preached The Gospel. Hell, do you really think that your help the poor/oppressed would have gotten them killed? Not to mention the fact that the early Christians were poor and oppressed, because of the Gospel they preached and lived out. But hey, the Apostles probably just made mistakes when they preached the "good news" and left out all the parts you claim are vital.
Are you suggesting that the people Mark records as having demons cast out of, and specifically mentions Christ not allowing them to speak, were really just "mentally ill"?
Yes, I do. They didn't know about mental illness then. Any people acting in the strange way that we see the "demon-possessed" do in the Gospels would of course be considered to be demon-possessed. They didn't have a context for understanding it in any other way. I have no data to suggest that there are real "demons" in reality (the ghostly, spooky, devilish sort imagined by conservative religionists) to make me think we're speaking of actual "demons," which I don't believe in.
I'm gathering you DO believe in literal demons? Do you also believe in Young Earth, in spite of evidence?
But all of that is an aside.
So it is only by our actions of "acceptance" that we are given this "grace" as a reward for our actions. Got it.
Literally not what I said. Literally the OPPOSITE of what I'm saying. I'm sorry I don't know how to help you other than clear words. We are not "given" grace as a "reward" for our "actions of acceptance."
I'm saying if we accept God's Grace then it shows in our lives in how we live.
Jesus closest followers and Paul who was taught by eyewitnesses to Jesus' life, never once mention any of the stuff you mention when they preached The Gospel. Hell, do you really think that your help the poor/oppressed would have gotten them killed?
It's there. Look again. Have you forgotten the epistle of Jesus' own brother, James? Or Luke's words about how the church shared all things in common and gave to those in need? Or Paul's words about how Peter, etc, sent them out... "They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."
It's there.
And remember that we, as followers of Jesus, should interpret PAUL'S and the other authors' words THROUGH the teachings of Jesus, and not the other way around, which would make Jesus subservient to these human authors. It's just good biblical exegesis.
And yes, Jesus literally got killed because of his opposition to the Legalist Pharisees and actions like chasing the moneychangers out of the temple where they were oppressing the poor and Jesus repeated rebukes of the Legalists for their legalism and lack of grace. Again, the explanation is in the text. Look again. So, yes, questioning legalists and the rich and powerful has often led to people being oppressed, imprisoned and killed, and that's what happened with Jesus.
Okay, so you've answered the question. Thanks.
"If so, does it not seem strange that Jesus isn't quoted - at all - making that abundantly clear in his sermons/teachings?"
You said:
No, one reason Jesus gave for using parables was that many in the crowds would not understand them. Jesus repeatedly used scripture to point to Himself as the incarnation of YHWH. Jesus was quite clear to His disciples that there were certain things that were only to be told to them. For that matter, where is it written that Jesus' sermons/teachings were required to be "abundantly clear"?
Do you mind if I try to get clarity?
So, to you, it doesn't seem strange that Jesus who came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized, who went out and PREACHED this "good news..." that he never actually MENTIONED the good news that he was preaching? IF Jesus was keeping it a secret for only a few/some, why does it say he would preach good news to the people (ie, the poor and marginalized)?
I can't follow the reasoning.
We agree that Jesus made clear that he came to preach good news.
We agree that Jesus made clear that he DID preach the good news.
We agree that we have some of the words (presumably the more important words..?) of his good news.
BUT, in spite of preaching this good news, he intentionally kept it vague and hard to understand...? Is that what you're saying?
Can you see how that seems contradictory (at least to some of us) to what the text says?
That is, the text never says he came to preach the good news to the poor and marginalized BUT, "I'm gonna do it in coded language so no one is sure what that good news is..."? It doesn't follow.
If I say, I'm going to tell you the answer to that VERY important math equation and then I proceed to say a bunch of things that never directly answers that very important math equation, then I HAVEN'T told them the answer to the math equation, have I?
For that matter, where is it written that Jesus' sermons/teachings were required to be "abundantly clear"?
Well, where Jesus unequivocally begins his ministry by saying, "I HAVE COME to preach good news to the poor and marginalized," then THAT text seems to be saying that he would preach it in a way that they'd understand.
What's the point of sharing an answer or a story if most people can't understand it? How is that helpful?
Do you believe in a sneaky trickster god who deliberately obfuscates?
Again, I'm honestly trying to understand your opinion on this matter. Help me understand.
Do you not understand why I'm asking?
Here are a couple of interesting and helpful articles about James and Paul's teachings on the concern for the poor.
https://faithinireland.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/paul-and-remembering-the-poor/
https://tyndalehouse.com/explore/articles/james-and-paul-on-wealth-and-poverty/
It's strange how much time Jesus devotes to not "accepting" others for "who they are", yet you demand this sort of acceptance as some sort of shibboleth.
I've just posted a fairly quick review of every chapter of Matthew as it relates to Atonement (spoiler alert: It ain't there!) and who Jesus did and didn't rebuke. The warnings of gnashing of teeth and hell and the strong rebukes we find in the teachings/words of Jesus are almost exclusively directed towards the unconcerned wealthy and powerful and the deadly legalists opposed to grace. Jesus clearly did NOT accept oppression or the mistreatment/abuse/demonization of the poor, marginalized and every day imperfect people. But there is just a dearth of condemnations - especially brutal condemnations or a lack of acceptance for the regular people of the world.
The harshest Jesus comes is as with the statement he made when the woman (not the man) "caught in adultery," where he said, "NEITHER do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."
Jesus clearly literally did not condemn the woman, just bid her to go and sin no more. That sounds very accepting to me.
You?
You've consistently defined this "good news" in terms of it be dependent on our actions, and this is no different. If this "good news" is predicated or "about" our "accepting", then it stands to reason that it's nothing if we don't accept.
?
In the sheep and the goats, the "goats" give no indication of being deliberately evil towards the poor, they just didn't accept it as a given that they'd side with them. And to THAT lack of acceptance/embrace of grace, Jesus warns of a fiery hell. That's not "nothing."
Just look to my words and what they actually say and quit interpreting them and you'll have a better sense of what I mean. Friendly hint.
the doctrine of atonement based of substituting something else for the humans who sinned is a practice that YHWH introduces early in the OT, and that runs through the entire OT, and which consistently points to Christ as the final sacrifice.
I don't think you speak for Jewish understanding of their Bible/the Old Testament.
Jewish thoughts on Atonement as is discussed in the OT:
Rabbi Singer’s next argument is that God replaced sacrifice with repentance and charity:
Throughout the Jewish Scriptures, the prophets declared that repentance and charity are more pleasing to God for atonement than a blood sacrifice. They repeatedly warned the Jewish people not to rely on blood offerings. Other methods of atonement were more efficacious and would even replace animal sacrifices.
https://medium.com/interfaith-now/atonement-for-sin-in-the-hebrew-bible-715f472718fc
In short, ritual sacrifices were one method of trying to repent for either unintential or intentional misdeeds. But not the only one. And not the main one, ultimately. Repentance and change of behavior, that is the Jewish understanding of being made right/atonement.
As the author of Hebrews makes clear, a blood sacrifice was just a symbol, not the actual forgiveness.
When we forgive someone, we do it as an act of will. When someone has wronged us and repented of that wronging, we forgive them. We don't demand that they first spill the blood of their child to "pay" for that misdeed. That's not a satisfaction of Justice (an innocent paying for a wrong they didn't do!) nor is it a satisfaction of rational love and grace. It is, frankly, barbaric, at least outside of a symbolic statement.
Seems to me and, I think, many Jewish folk, including back in the day.
Another Jewish opinion:
In response to this argument, I have explained that contrary to the missionary claim that blood sacrifice is the only method of atonement, the Bible clearly prescribes three methods of atonement: the sin sacrifice, repentance, and charity. Moreover, the sin sacrifice (called in the Jewish Scriptures as korban chatat) did not atone for all types of sin, but rather, only for man’s most insignificant iniquity: unintentional sins
https://outreachjudaism.org/jesus-death-atone-for-sin/
And another...
The Christian view of having someone else to do the heavy lifting while you push it off onto them is a child’s view. Instead of taking responsibility and seeing the essential element not as being the atonement but as being the taking of responsibility and improving yourself it becomes the action of an adult. Vicarious atonement is about some one else taking responsibility, about someone else doing the heavy lifting, the opposite of what Judaism sees atonement being.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-Judaism-see-the-concept-of-atonement-that-Christians-hold
Is it possible you're not understanding ancient Hebraic notions of atonement and repentance?
"Yes, I do. They didn't know about mental illness then. Any people acting in the strange way that we see the "demon-possessed" do in the Gospels would of course be considered to be demon-possessed. They didn't have a context for understanding it in any other way. I have no data to suggest that there are real "demons" in reality (the ghostly, spooky, devilish sort imagined by conservative religionists) to make me think we're speaking of actual "demons," which I don't believe in."
Interesting, I wouldn't have the courage to flt out suggest that Jesus' lied to people, but you just go there all brazenly.
"I'm gathering you DO believe in literal demons?"
With the caveat that this is off topic and I will not go any further on this subject. Yes, I believe that when Jesus talks about demons, Satan and the rest of the things beyond our physical realm, I have no reason to doubt him.
"Do you also believe in Young Earth, in spite of evidence?"
Off topic, irrelevant, and stupid.
"Literally not what I said. Literally the OPPOSITE of what I'm saying. I'm sorry I don't know how to help you other than clear words. We are not "given" grace as a "reward" for our "actions of acceptance.""
Yet you keep focusing on our "accepting" this grace before God does anything. So how can the action of "accepting" not precede our experiencing this grace?
"I'm saying if we accept God's Grace then it shows in our lives in how we live."
I know, you are placing our action of "accepting" this grace as a prerequisite for anything else that happens. Although, the way you phrase things doesn't communicate this very well.
"It's there. Look again. Have you forgotten the epistle of Jesus' own brother, James? Or Luke's words about how the church shared all things in common and gave to those in need? Or Paul's words about how Peter, etc, sent them out... "They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.""
My bad, I was using hyperbole and should have said that it isn't mentioned very often. As for Acts, it seems reasonably clear that they were only speaking of believers, and that they were not suggesting that their actions be normative for eternity. But hey, if you want to read things into the text, that's fine, just hold others to the same standards.
"And yes, Jesus literally got killed because of his opposition to the Legalist Pharisees and actions like chasing the moneychangers out of the temple where they were oppressing the poor and Jesus repeated rebukes of the Legalists for their legalism and lack of grace. Again, the explanation is in the text. Look again. So, yes, questioning legalists and the rich and powerful has often led to people being oppressed, imprisoned and killed, and that's what happened with Jesus."
If you say so, although the text tells us that the plot to kill Jesus started long before some of those actions, and that the Jews didn't have the authority to kill Jesus. Pilate himself found no reason to kill Jesus, and the Jews chose Barabbas, who was literally a revolutionary.
"Okay, so you've answered the question. Thanks."
I almost always do, and if I don't it's because I missed it or I'll tell you why I'm not answering.
"Do you mind if I try to get clarity?"
Since you thrive on the opposite of clarity, go right ahead.
"So, to you, it doesn't seem strange that Jesus who came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized, who went out and PREACHED this "good news..." that he never actually MENTIONED the good news that he was preaching?"
1. You can't simply make assumptions and treat them like proven facts.
2. Well, you seem to think that HE primarily came to preach to the poor/marginalized with virtually no proof that this is correct, especially since Jesus and his closest followers did make multiple statements bout why Jesus came which don't mention the poor/marginalized. John 3:16 which seems like a reasonably clear mission statement (at least of YHWH's mission) doesn't mention the poor/marginalized once.
3. This notion that somehow Jesus public preaching has more weight than with his private conversations, interesting.
4. SInce I reject the premise of your question, as it's based on a false premise) I see no reason to dignify your false premise with an answer.
"IF Jesus was keeping it a secret for only a few/some, why does it say he would preach good news to the people (ie, the poor and marginalized)?"
1. Again with the unproven assumption that Jesus kept the "Good News" a secret.
2. One could argue that He was literally the incarnated embodiment of the "Good News".
3. Jesus knew that the apostles would be the one's spreading the "Good News" beyond Israel and Samaria and He spent more time preparing them for their work.
4. Equating "the people" with the "poor/marginalized", assumes facts not in evidence.
"I can't follow the reasoning."
I don't care.
"BUT, in spite of preaching this good news, he intentionally kept it vague and hard to understand...? Is that what you're saying?"
No. I'm saying that Jesus said that.
"Can you see how that seems contradictory (at least to some of us) to what the text says?"
I don't care.
"That is, the text never says he came to preach the good news to the poor and marginalized BUT, "I'm gonna do it in coded language so no one is sure what that good news is..."? It doesn't follow."
If you ignore the sections of the text where He explains why He preached the way He did, then sure. If you insist on assuming that He only/primarily came to preach to the poor/marginalized, you'll need more proof than a couple of proof texts that you've read meaning into that isn't there.
"If I say, I'm going to tell you the answer to that VERY important math equation and then I proceed to say a bunch of things that never directly answers that very important math equation, then I HAVEN'T told them the answer to the math equation, have I?"
No, but you're not Jesus.
"Well, where Jesus unequivocally begins his ministry by saying, "I HAVE COME to preach good news to the poor and marginalized," then THAT text seems to be saying that he would preach it in a way that they'd understand."
1. He didn't say that.
2. That is an assumption on your part, which you admit.
"What's the point of sharing an answer or a story if most people can't understand it? How is that helpful?"
I'm not Jesus, I don't know. Based on what we do see in scripture, I conclude that Jesus knew that His message would be rejected by many of those who heard Him, and preached/taught in a way that would lead those who were interested to follow Him and learn more, while leaving those who weren't interested free to leave. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
"Do you believe in a sneaky trickster god who deliberately obfuscates?"
I believe in a sovereign God who does things as He chooses and who isn't subject to answering to human whims. I believe the words of Jesus' when He told the disciples why He used parables and stories to preach/teach.
"Do you not understand why I'm asking?"
I understand why you say your asking. I also know what they say about fixing stupid.
What's interesting is that you have not one example of Jesus' preaching/teaching your version of this "good news", and have to read your hunch into your proof texts.
Even in your pet proof text, you manage to ignore that Jesus was claiming to be the very person Isiah was prophesying about, that He was fulfilling Isiah's prophecy right in front of them. It's one of His clearer early claims of being the Messiah, and both the congregation and you don't think that's the point.
"I've just posted a fairly quick review of every chapter of Matthew as it relates to Atonement (spoiler alert: It ain't there!) and who Jesus did and didn't rebuke. The warnings of gnashing of teeth and hell and the strong rebukes we find in the teachings/words of Jesus are almost exclusively directed towards the unconcerned wealthy and powerful and the deadly legalists opposed to grace. Jesus clearly did NOT accept oppression or the mistreatment/abuse/demonization of the poor, marginalized and every day imperfect people. But there is just a dearth of condemnations - especially brutal condemnations or a lack of acceptance for the regular people of the world.
The harshest Jesus comes is as with the statement he made when the woman (not the man) "caught in adultery," where he said, "NEITHER do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more.""
Well, that's nice. You've managed to post your eisegesis of an entire book and do so at your blog where I'm not welcome to comment, and even if allowed to comment would be subject to your capricious and inconsistently enforced rules. How brave you are.
Jesus clearly literally did not condemn the woman, just bid her to go and sin no more. That sounds very accepting to me.
"In the sheep and the goats, the "goats" give no indication of being deliberately evil towards the poor, they just didn't accept it as a given that they'd side with them. And to THAT lack of acceptance/embrace of grace, Jesus warns of a fiery hell. That's not "nothing.""
Well, if you choose to go for the surface level, facile eisegesis, I guess that's what you get. Of course, in your theology, Jesus was just lying about the fiery Hell, right. In your theology, the goats were made into goats because of their actions, right?
"Just look to my words and what they actually say and quit interpreting them and you'll have a better sense of what I mean. Friendly hint."
Strangely enough, this is just one more example of you demanding that I do something that you won't do.
Jewish thoughts on Atonement as is discussed in the OT:
Rabbi Singer’s next argument is that God replaced sacrifice with repentance and charity:
Throughout the Jewish Scriptures, the prophets declared that repentance and charity are more pleasing to God for atonement than a blood sacrifice. They repeatedly warned the Jewish people not to rely on blood offerings. Other methods of atonement were more efficacious and would even replace animal sacrifices.
https://medium.com/interfaith-now/atonement-for-sin-in-the-hebrew-bible-715f472718fc
In short, ritual sacrifices were one method of trying to repent for either unintential or intentional misdeeds. But not the only one. And not the main one, ultimately. Repentance and change of behavior, that is the Jewish understanding of being made right/atonement.
As the author of Hebrews makes clear, a blood sacrifice was just a symbol, not the actual forgiveness.
When we forgive someone, we do it as an act of will. When someone has wronged us and repented of that wronging, we forgive them. We don't demand that they first spill the blood of their child to "pay" for that misdeed. That's not a satisfaction of Justice (an innocent paying for a wrong they didn't do!) nor is it a satisfaction of rational love and grace. It is, frankly, barbaric, at least outside of a symbolic statement.
Seems to me and, I think, many Jewish folk, including back in the day.
Another Jewish opinion:
In response to this argument, I have explained that contrary to the missionary claim that blood sacrifice is the only method of atonement, the Bible clearly prescribes three methods of atonement: the sin sacrifice, repentance, and charity. Moreover, the sin sacrifice (called in the Jewish Scriptures as korban chatat) did not atone for all types of sin, but rather, only for man’s most insignificant iniquity: unintentional sins
https://outreachjudaism.org/jesus-death-atone-for-sin/
And another...
The Christian view of having someone else to do the heavy lifting while you push it off onto them is a child’s view. Instead of taking responsibility and seeing the essential element not as being the atonement but as being the taking of responsibility and improving yourself it becomes the action of an adult. Vicarious atonement is about some one else taking responsibility, about someone else doing the heavy lifting, the opposite of what Judaism sees atonement being.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-Judaism-see-the-concept-of-atonement-that-Christians-hold
Is it possible you're not understanding ancient Hebraic notions of atonement and repentance?
Well, done. You can cherry pick a couple of Jewish authors who agree with you. What you missed is that even in your cherry picked snippet, they agree that a sacrificial atonement for sin was throughout the OT.
Dan,
One last thought. This discussion just circles back to some unanswered questions about your hunch about 1 John.
1. It's literally blatantly obvious through the entire book that your cherry picked proof texts are not the main point John was making. Based on the % of the book if nothing else.
2. You've never given any repeatable rubric for how you personally decide what a particular text really means, and how you pick and choose between to verses/phrases/sentences that are adjacent to determine what's really important.
I just googled atonement throughout scripture, and found a multitude of sources. I could easily copy/paste links and quotes here for you to not read and ignore. But given that fact that you've never (I don't say never lightly) actually engaged with and disproved any source I've ever given you, it seems foolish to waste my time. The information is out there, it's up to you to find it and prove me wrong.
Rabbi Singer, who you quote, appears to be a significant part of an organization dedicated to countering Christian's who might try to convert Jews. Given his clear bias, I see no reason to blindly accept his conclusions.
As to your other source "Quora", you do realize that it's simply a bunch of random people answering questions. If you look beyond the one you quoted you'll notice that they paint Judaism as a works based salvation. You sin, you feel guilty, you work very hard to fix what you did, then once a year you go to the correct place, say the correct things, and you hope that you've done enough to get forgiven. Doesn't sound like anything Jesus taught at all.
It's hard to look at 21st century Jewish answers to the question of atonement and extrapolate back to what the pre Jesus Jews taught. Because so much of modern Jewish thought is heavily influenced by the Talmud.
I skimmed your post, and as it's short on details, and dismisses one of the significant mentions of the atonement, it's at best a self serving whitewash and eisegesis. This notion that unless something was mentioned in one of Jesus' recorded sermons/public teachings that it is somehow secondary is simply absurd and arbitrary.
If all one had was Mark 10:45, then one could not in good faith and all honesty say that penal substitutionary atonement is not taught by Jesus, for what else can "give his life as a ransom for many" be? Is He not substituting His life in order that one be absolved, that one is then redeemed?
And if all on has is Mark 10:45, why wouldn't that be enough to agree with the concept of PSA, except that one chooses to reject that bloody reality in favor of some rainbows and unicorns alternative more pleasing to one's personal sensitive nature? God doesn't save by Grace. God saves by Grace provided through Christ's atoning death on the cross.
And of course, to reject PSA would need some way to reconcile John the Baptist's exclamation upon seeing the approaching Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God". Why would he refer to Christ in that manner if he was not comparing Jesus to the sacrificial lamb? What could be the significance of such a comparison, except that lambs were used as sacrifices for the atonement of sin, as sin requires death?
PSA is indeed an accurate term for the purpose of Christ's First Coming. Without Him we are bound by Mosaic Law, having no means by which we can have access to eternity in God's presence.
I would also again speak of the Dan's insistence on asserting Christ ever said He came to bring the "Good News" to "the poor and marginalized". Dan above speaks of some who were marginalized as, ironically, a result of God's Law handed down to Moses. I don't think that's at all appropriate, to suggest the Son came to preach to those God said were outside His favor. This is distinctly different than the materially poor, not all of whom believed they needed God more than more money. I've presented many scholarly explanations for what was meant by "the poor" in the passage Dan likes to cite, and how "the poor" would have been understood given the precise word used at the time and the context in which it was spoken. It simply makes no sense that Christ was concerned with only the materially poor with regard to why He came and what He intended to do. Yet, "spiritually poor" makes far more sense given His purpose was our spiritual state and how that impacted our relationship with God and our access to His Presence eternally.
Dan's "understanding" of Scripture is informed by his marxist bent, not the other way around.
Art,
You are right. If one was trying to build their entire theology of the Atonement on that one verse, it certainly is not enough by itself. Fortunately, most of us don't try to build our theology on one verse. In the context of the entirety of scripture the theme of what became known as PSA runs through consistently. Further PSA is an accurate summary of the entirety of scripture and what it tells us about sin and atonement. Is it perfect, no. Is it scripture, no. Is it an attempt to express a much larger concept in a concise term, yes it is.
Frankly, Craig...I'm saying one can support the theory on this one verse and it's parallel in Matthew. My point is that it isn't necessary for Christ to have said it two thousand times for the truth to be clear. Christ's words clearly speak of Him paying the price, which is what PSA is. And of course, what else could John the Baptist have meant in referring to Christ as the Lamb of God? PSA is a "perfect enough" term to use to describe the teaching as the whole of Scripture presents, despite the term not appearing in Scripture.
I really don't know why this concept is so offensive to Dan, except that he needs for any to be saved who hasn't put their faith in Christ, who doesn't abide the Will of God or who dares decide what must be obeyed and what mustn't. Dan's "theology" is what Dan prefers to be true despite being unable to back it up with substance. Conversely, he'll deny what's clear with the same lack of substantive evidence.
Another thing...at his blog, Dan is minimizing Christ's preaching of PSA simply because it's not to large groups of people. Somehow, it doesn't mean anything if He's speaking only to His Apostles or to a group of Pharisees. I don't get how that means anything.
Art,
The passage is clearly one of many that is used to support PSA, and yes it's possible to build one's theology on one verse (a la Dan), but I'm not sure it's the best option.
I suspect it's offensive to Dan because it highlights many of YHWH's attributes that Dan finds out of step with the god he's constructed.
I addressed this issue in the post, and elsewhere. The notion that we must prioritize the red letters above everything else (at least the red letters in the gospels), and now that we must prioritize Jesus' preaching to large groups (which he insists are filled with the "poor/marginalized) is simply his construction of new rules to protect his philosophy.
I'm not sure that Dan's hunches are really a theology, as much as just his personal philosophy.
Post a Comment