You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Covenant' tag.
Although most theologians would be at pains to say that God’s plan of redemption in Jesus was conceived before the world was made, many people see it as a kind of plan B necessary to save a world which failed at plan A namely obedience to God’s Law. Is the New Covenant really a breaking of God’s original plan whereby one was saved by obedience and can now be saved by “easy” beliefs? Paul’s vision in Romans is grander, both are by grace and both require obedience. Read the rest of this entry »
Justification by Faith is perhaps the central tenet of evangelical belief. I’ve previously tried to understand and formulate what Justification is, how it is apart from works and what kind of faith is meant. In this article I want to explore what exactly the phrase “by Faith” means and let the spectrum of meaning come to light which we should be keeping in mind as we read and sometimes gloss over this familiar catchphrase. In particular the questions in my mind are: 1) what does “by” mean and 2) whose faith? Read the rest of this entry »
I remember, shortly after conversion, joyfully reading the opening chapters of Romans and thinking “wow, this is amazing, laws are unimportant now, just belief is what counts” – what a relief! I basically read Romans without understanding the context yet latching on to certain phrases as in Romans 3:
20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law;…blah blah bla…a righteousness from God, apart from law, …blah blah bla… 23comes through faith in Jesus…blah blah bla… 24and are justified freely by his grace…blah blah bla…On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
I concluded that Paul was saying that obedience to God’s law(s) was no longer required but just that we have faith (whatever that meant). I was reading the Bible to find out about salvation ignorant of what Paul intended to communicate and which struggle he was combating. Was Paul really fighting “legalistic spirit” in Romans, doing away with obedience and good works, and setting up faith in its place? I no longer think so and have argued elsewhere that we have often misunderstand what “works of the law” and, more especially “faith” mean to Paul. This view is also known as the New Perspective on Paul [1] and is considered by some, to be a mini-Reformation or at least an exciting re-discovery of Pauline Theology. Read the rest of this entry »
I’ve been listening to Romans 6 and 7 repeatedly over the past couple of weeks and it really is an interesting way of absorbing a message being able to hear, pause and replay the same content over an over again without the effort of actually paging and reading. These 2 chapters are about Sin, the Law and how believers relate to these things and are incorporated into Jesus death and resurrection. Paul draws many interesting antitheses out of these themes which, I think, shed light on what actually happened on the cross and how we tend to mix up themes which for Paul, are separate and symbolic.
I’ve been looking at what Jesus’ death means for Paul and what sense it makes today. My conclusion was that we have perhaps overemphasised one aspect of Jesus’ death, perhaps even, mutated Paul’s meaning, in thinking that Jesus death was the penalty and payment for our sins. We often hear that Jesus died the death we sinners should have died but Paul speaks a different language and we often and unfortunately read his writings through reformed spectacles designed to correct 15th century mistakes thereby systematically missing Paul’s message.
Read the rest of this entry »
After what was a somewhat frightening journey through the workings of substitutionary atonement and an intensive study of Romans, Galatians and Philippians I have reached the following conclusions:
- “Atonement”, in the NT, means reconciliation and not “appeasement”
- God does not demand punishment of (or on behalf of) repentant believers
- Jesus death was the final blood sacrifice for those under Mosaic law (Torah)
- The cross was where God symbolically condemned sin and ended Torah
- Jesus blood was the pledge and beginning of the new covenant
- The new covenant is in spirit not in flesh (or blood)
This is Part III of Substitutionary Atonement – How Can Jesus Pay for Our Sins?, an attempt at making sense of the cross and how reconcilliation and forgiveness works.
Making Sense of Jesus’ Bloody Death
What is the meaning of the cross? Why did Jesus die and was it the only way God could forgive us our sins? Is the blood of Jesus the means or the sign of our salvation? Does the cross have a different meaning for Jews and Gentiles?
Can we find a clear coherent answer grounded in Scripture or must this topic remain mysterious? My experience has been that most normal Christians can only offer vague simplistic answers which are based on unquestioned or incoherent assumptions (e.g. “Jesus died for my sins”). Text books and persons trained in theology tend to offer more complex answers but use words and phrases which have unclear meaning outside of the theological realm (“atonement”, “penance”) or ambiguous meaning within (e.g. “life”, “death”). Then there are radical theologies which are fairly clear and coherent but paint a horrible picture of God (e.g. “wrath”, “penal substitution”).
I want to try find a coherent, biblical doctrine which also corresponds to a loving gracious God. Paul’s explanations to a Jewish and Gentile audience made certain assumptions about their understanding and makeup. They certainly had no problem understanding blood atonement because they lived with it daily. How can atonement be explained to a modern audience?
Read the rest of this entry »
