None of these theories, including the Satisfaction and Penal Theories which are the most accepted in the modern church, consider the narrative dynamics that existed between man and God before the ministry of Christ. I believe the 21st century has a view of truth that has the potential to add such rich depth to meaning. It requires narrative meaning. That is not to say that truth is relative, but that it is communal and dynamic. In Genesis 17 we are introduced to the covenant that frames Christ sacrifice. The covenant was actually pretty basic:
Gen. 17: 3-14
3Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4"As for me, this is my covenant with you:
You will be the father of many nations. 5No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."
9Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
What is most interesting to me as I read this is that all Abraham is required to do as part of His covenant with God is that he make a symbolic gesture of his commitment toward the covenant, but the covenant itself is simply God using Abraham (a faithful follower of a God whose character is most similar the God we worship today) to increase His kingdom. There is no doubt that an Old Testament approach to a relationship with Christ is far too religious and that Old Testament approach is often based on the Old Covenant, but as one reads what the original Old Covenant is it appears that it is actually not that different than what the New Covenant brought by Christ reflects. The New Covenant allows God’s constant presence and frees us from a dutiful approach toward holiness. But the Old and New Testament are about God’s covenant, not our role. A covenant is a contract, but not the type of contract that the church often portrays it to be. It is more like a last will. The Old Covenant was God’s promise to His people where the only obligation was acceptance demonstrated through a symbolic act. The Old Covenant was flawed, yes because it developed into a religious system, but more directly because it wasn’t complete. Christ completed it through His commitment to being always present. Without the Holy Spirit available to all, man was subject to developing on his own ways to come closer to God.
Sometime later as described in Exodus 12 we see an evolution in what it means to keep the covenant of God. As Moses prepares the Israelites for the first Passover he gives clear instructions regarding a religious and symbolic act of devotion. The instructions concluded with:
24 "Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants. 25When you enter the land that the LORD will give you as he promised, observe this ceremony. 26And when your children ask you, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' 27then tell them, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.' "Then the people bowed down and worshiped. 28The Israelites did just what the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron.
Man’s role in the covenant grew as the religious leaders required greater acts of righteousness to renew their devotion to God. God’s mercy allowed this evolution of what at first was a very simple covenant. Most evidently, God provides the people of Israel with ten simple instructions that can guide them in their faithfulness toward God. But the evolution continued to become more cumbersome. In Leviticus 5 we read about the instructions for sacrifice. But as the Old Testament continued (at least in the early books) one can’t help but wonder what is from the mercy of God and what is from religious leaders. Instructions become less and less about guidelines to aid followers in their devotion and more about requirements for acceptable living. Every law has a symbolic meaning that we can even glean truth from today, but every requirement also makes it more and more difficult to follow God and keep the original covenant.
When Christ came He came to fulfill the law. Paul argues that Jesus is the seed of Abraham and that followers of Christ are the true children of God. If then, it is the purpose of Christ to renew the original covenant why did he subject himself to the religious requirements of how atonement must take place as it became outlined in the Old Testament? I am not speaking of the validity of the prophesies concerning the sacrifice that Jesus would make, but the ritualistic means which were developed by Old Testament religious leaders for what must occur for a sacrifice to be acceptable. If the law had become the product of religion and not faith, why would Christ subject Himself to the requirements of man?
I am not suggesting that the crucifixion was not necessary. Nor do I deny the amazing breadth of meaning, even religious meaning, that was accomplished through the crucifixion. I am simply questioning if the reason for the violent self sacrifice of Christ is because there was truly no other way for God to reconcile Himself to man or if it was simply another example of how God is merciful toward our religious narcissism and obsession. The New Covenant was introduced before Christ’s death, but the Spirit didn’t come until after His resurrection. When Christ proclaims “It is finished” could that had been God’s final act of mercy toward accepting the religion of man?
Ultimately my question is if Christ’s submission on the cross was God’s submission to man? Was Christ’s submission a symbolic act of the lengths to which God will go to have communion with man, even if that means submitting to the religious requirements established by man? I tend to believe that the crucifixion of Christ, as real and critical for atonement as it was, was a symbolic act that represented the ushering in of a New Covenant. Christ’s entire ministry was just as critical to the New Covenant as His crucifixion and resurrection. His New Covenant isn’t that different from the original. It is as one sided today as it was with Abraham. It is about God’s desire to have communion with man and the lengths that He will go to preserve it. All that God requires now is an active commitment toward that covenant. The only difference is that with the New Covenant we are now empowered by the Holy Spirit so that we don’t have to rely on religion and tradition. And even though the New Covenant began in the Upper Room, the Holy Spirit came after the resurrection of Christ. Christ demonstrates His grace and mercy with one last act of religion (regardless of how human in nature it may be) to reconciliation God with humanity.
Pragmatically speaking, what is the significance of this proposition? I am not a theologian and have no desire to restructure denominational dogma. I am not a philosopher who desires to simply battle intellects. And I do not have an agenda that requires me to manipulate scripture to justify a personal political ideal. I am, however, an individual who desires to love God more intimately and love others more deeply. If so, then what is the purpose of deconstructing semantics?
No comments:
Post a Comment