which doesn't mean that the idea is post-pauline, since it is found in the Naassene Hymn and it seems very old in virtue of the absence of any idea of sacrifice.
Sacrifice of Jesus to "purchase" our souls from???
Re: Sacrifice of Jesus to "purchase" our souls from???
Re: Sacrifice of Jesus to "purchase" our souls from???
This issue of the sacrifice of Jesus being the price paid to purchase mankind from a possessor is I think extremely important. Indeed I think this matter lies at the heart of understanding the Pauline scriptures.
Who is the one making the payment and who is the one receiving the payment?
From the orthodox scriptures (NASB):
Merriam Webster:
So another way to read v3:13 is perhaps: Christ freed us from captivity to the Law by taking on the curse in our place
This is followed by:
BeDun reconstructs these passages from Marcion as follows:
Notes here are extensive:
Moving on to Romans:
From BeDuhn's *Ev:
BeDuhn's *Ev has just the following here:
His notes:
BeDuhn has:
Here is what Origen has to say about the matter:
This is the crux of the matter. Origen was correct to understand that the claim being made by Paul was that God the Father gave his Son Jesus as a sacrifice to purchase the freedom of mankind from the "ruler of this world". This, IMO, is the most important concept in the entire New Testament. This is what its all about.
But the real question was/is: Who is the "ruler of this world"?
According to Origen and other such theologians, it was Satan. Satan was the "lord of this world", and so the souls of mankind were being purchased from Satan in exchange for the soul of the Son of God. That's the theory.
But, it was precisely this concept that must have been at the crux of "Marcionism/Gnosticism". The "Gnostics" must have recognized this same concept within the Pauline letters, but instead of identifying the "lord of this world" was Satan, they identified the "lord of this world" as the God of Moses, the Creator and "giver of the Law". It is easy to see why, since Paul repeatedly rails against the Law and indicates that the crucifixion of Jesus has set us free from the Law.
This question may be the best clue as to whether the original layer of the Pauline letters was actually talking about worshiping the God of Moses or railing against the God of Moses and worshiping a new Higher God.
Who is the one making the payment and who is the one receiving the payment?
From the orthodox scriptures (NASB):
Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Galatians 3:12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed (ἐξηγόρασεν) us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Strong's Concordance
exagorazó: to buy up, i.e. ransom, fig. to rescue from loss
Original Word: ἐξαγοράζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: exagorazó
Phonetic Spelling: (ex-ag-or-ad'-zo)
Definition: to buy up, ransom, to rescue from loss
Usage: I buy out, buy away from, ransom; mid: I purchase out, buy, redeem, choose.
exagorazó: to buy up, i.e. ransom, fig. to rescue from loss
Original Word: ἐξαγοράζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: exagorazó
Phonetic Spelling: (ex-ag-or-ad'-zo)
Definition: to buy up, ransom, to rescue from loss
Usage: I buy out, buy away from, ransom; mid: I purchase out, buy, redeem, choose.
Merriam Webster:
1 a : to buy back : REPURCHASE
b : to get or win back
2 : to free from what distresses or harms: such as
a : to free from captivity by payment of ransom
b : to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental
c : to release from blame or debt : CLEAR
d : to free from the consequences of sin
b : to get or win back
2 : to free from what distresses or harms: such as
a : to free from captivity by payment of ransom
b : to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental
c : to release from blame or debt : CLEAR
d : to free from the consequences of sin
So another way to read v3:13 is perhaps: Christ freed us from captivity to the Law by taking on the curse in our place
Galatians 4: 1 My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than those who are enslaved, though they are the owners of all the property, 2 but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir through God.
8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. 9 Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental principles? How can you want to be enslaved to them again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted.
8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. 9 Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental principles? How can you want to be enslaved to them again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted.
This is followed by:
21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. ...
5 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
5 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
BeDun reconstructs these passages from Marcion as follows:
21Tell me, you who want to
be under law, do you not heed the Law? 22For it has been
written that] Abraham had two sons, one from the servant
girl and one from the free woman. 23But the one from
the servant girl was conceived in the manner of flesh,
while the one from the free woman through a promise,
24which things are allegorized: for these (women) represent
two contracts, the one from Mount Sinai, which gives
birth into the synagogue of the Jews in accordance with
the Law, into slavery, the other one giving birth above
all autocracy, authority, and power, and (above) every
name that is named, not only in this world but also in that
(world) which is coming. 26For she is our mother, that sacred
assembly to which we have promised ourselves. . . .
31Therefore, (my) colleagues, we are children, not of a servant
girl, but of a free woman.
5 1Christos set us free for freedom. . . . Do not let
yourselves be confined again in a yoke of slavery, which
is the Law.
be under law, do you not heed the Law? 22For it has been
written that] Abraham had two sons, one from the servant
girl and one from the free woman. 23But the one from
the servant girl was conceived in the manner of flesh,
while the one from the free woman through a promise,
24which things are allegorized: for these (women) represent
two contracts, the one from Mount Sinai, which gives
birth into the synagogue of the Jews in accordance with
the Law, into slavery, the other one giving birth above
all autocracy, authority, and power, and (above) every
name that is named, not only in this world but also in that
(world) which is coming. 26For she is our mother, that sacred
assembly to which we have promised ourselves. . . .
31Therefore, (my) colleagues, we are children, not of a servant
girl, but of a free woman.
5 1Christos set us free for freedom. . . . Do not let
yourselves be confined again in a yoke of slavery, which
is the Law.
Notes here are extensive:
4.22b–24 Tertullian, Marc. 5.4.8; Epiphanius, Scholion 2 (v. 23b); Jerome,
Comm. Gal. 4.25–26 (v. 24a) (Schmid does not credit the evidence of
Epiphanius or Jerome). Epiphanius simply adds his note on v. 23b to
the same scholion as that for Gal 3.13; we should not read anything
into that about the intervening verses. His reading of v. 23 reverses the
phrases relative to their order in the typical catholic text: “But the one
from the promise through the free woman” instead of “but the one
from the free woman through promise”; but Tertullian’s rendering
Text Notes 269
reflects the catholic text. Referring to v. 24a, Jerome comments,
“Marcion and Mani did not want to omit from their versions of the
Bible Paul’s statement ‘these things are allegorical.’” In v. 24, Tertullian
gives the familiar catholic reading “two contracts,” but then comments,
“or two revelations, as I see they have interpreted it (sive duae
ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum).” Does he mean to refer to a
textual variant? Or to a Latin translation of the Apostolikon? Or does
he simply mean that this is how the Marcionites understand “contracts”?
Schmid opts for the latter; others have proposed the other two
choices. I follow Schmid, with reservations.
Tertullian also attests the addition of “into the synagogue of the
Judeans according to the Law”; Ephrem has similar additional elements,
though lacking the reference to “synagogue”: Hae vero fuerunt
symbola duorum testamentorum. Una populi Judaeorum, secundum
legem in servitute generans ad similitudinem ejusdem Agar. Agar enim ipsa
est mons Sina in Arabia; est autem illa similitudo hujus Jerusalem, quia in
subjectione est, et una cum filiis suis servit Romanis.
Eph 1.21 Tertullian, Marc. 5.4.8. Tertullian seems to signal the inclusion
here (in place of catholic v. 25?) of text paralleling catholic Eph
1.21: aliud super omnem principatum generans, vim, dominationem, et
omne nomen quod nominatur, non tantum in hoc aevo sed et in futuro, quae
est mater nostra, in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam (as in codex
Montepessulanus; Adversus Marcionem [1954 ed.], 673, prefers the reading
that reverses the order of the last two clauses, but see the evidence
of Ephrem Syrus below). Harnack (Marcion, 76*) attributes this addition
to Marcion’s editorial hand. But a portion of the same combined
reading is found in Ephrem Syrus’ commentary on the letters of Paul
(135), as first noted by Harris (Four Lectures, 19; cf. Zahn, Der Brief des
Paulus, 298; Clabeaux, A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul, 3, 118–19):
Superior autem Jerusalem libera est, sicut Sara; et eminet supra omnes potestates
ac principatus. Ipsa est Mater nostra, Ecclesia sancta, quam confessi
sumus. Harris explains the difference between Ephrem’s confessi and
Tertullian’s repromisimus by a commonly found uncertainty about how
to render the original Greek hōmologēkamen.
With regard to this allegory based on the story of Abraham and the
mothers of his two principal children in Genesis, Tertullian remarks,
“Now it does happen to thieves that something let fall from their
booty turns to evidence against them: and so I think Marcion has
left behind him this final reference to Abraham—though none had
more need of removal—even if he has changed it a little.” Does this
mean that all previous verses mentioning Abraham were absent from
Marcion’s text? This would mean the omission of 3.6–9, 14, 16–18, 29.
Harnack and Schmid conclude that this is indeed the case; but can
Tertullian’s polemical remark be read safely in such a precise manner?
Gal 4.25 is unattested.
4.26b Tertullian, Marc. 5.4.8. The Apostolikon may have had the shorter
text “mother of us” rather than “mother of us all,” in agreement with
a great many early witnesses to the catholic text, and considered to be
the original wording; but Tertullian himself has the shorter reading
when he quotes the verse from his own text (e.g., Marc. 3.24.3).
Gal 4.27–30 is unattested.
4.31 Tertullian, Marc. 5.4.8.
5.1 Tertullian, Marc. 5.4.9. Even though several Greek manuscripts read
“Christ purchased us for freedom,” which accords with the prominent
Marcionite theme, Tertullian attests the more common reading “freed
us for freedom” here for the Apostolikon. At the end of the phrase
“the yoke of slavery” Tertullian adds, “which is the Law.” Could these
additional words have been in Marcion’s text? Harnack, Marcion, 77*,
thinks not. But some of the capitulation notations for this verse in
Greek manuscripts explicitly refer to “the Law” here, and Ephrem
Syrus similarly has sub jugo servitutis legis intremus.
Comm. Gal. 4.25–26 (v. 24a) (Schmid does not credit the evidence of
Epiphanius or Jerome). Epiphanius simply adds his note on v. 23b to
the same scholion as that for Gal 3.13; we should not read anything
into that about the intervening verses. His reading of v. 23 reverses the
phrases relative to their order in the typical catholic text: “But the one
from the promise through the free woman” instead of “but the one
from the free woman through promise”; but Tertullian’s rendering
Text Notes 269
reflects the catholic text. Referring to v. 24a, Jerome comments,
“Marcion and Mani did not want to omit from their versions of the
Bible Paul’s statement ‘these things are allegorical.’” In v. 24, Tertullian
gives the familiar catholic reading “two contracts,” but then comments,
“or two revelations, as I see they have interpreted it (sive duae
ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum).” Does he mean to refer to a
textual variant? Or to a Latin translation of the Apostolikon? Or does
he simply mean that this is how the Marcionites understand “contracts”?
Schmid opts for the latter; others have proposed the other two
choices. I follow Schmid, with reservations.
Tertullian also attests the addition of “into the synagogue of the
Judeans according to the Law”; Ephrem has similar additional elements,
though lacking the reference to “synagogue”: Hae vero fuerunt
symbola duorum testamentorum. Una populi Judaeorum, secundum
legem in servitute generans ad similitudinem ejusdem Agar. Agar enim ipsa
est mons Sina in Arabia; est autem illa similitudo hujus Jerusalem, quia in
subjectione est, et una cum filiis suis servit Romanis.
Eph 1.21 Tertullian, Marc. 5.4.8. Tertullian seems to signal the inclusion
here (in place of catholic v. 25?) of text paralleling catholic Eph
1.21: aliud super omnem principatum generans, vim, dominationem, et
omne nomen quod nominatur, non tantum in hoc aevo sed et in futuro, quae
est mater nostra, in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam (as in codex
Montepessulanus; Adversus Marcionem [1954 ed.], 673, prefers the reading
that reverses the order of the last two clauses, but see the evidence
of Ephrem Syrus below). Harnack (Marcion, 76*) attributes this addition
to Marcion’s editorial hand. But a portion of the same combined
reading is found in Ephrem Syrus’ commentary on the letters of Paul
(135), as first noted by Harris (Four Lectures, 19; cf. Zahn, Der Brief des
Paulus, 298; Clabeaux, A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul, 3, 118–19):
Superior autem Jerusalem libera est, sicut Sara; et eminet supra omnes potestates
ac principatus. Ipsa est Mater nostra, Ecclesia sancta, quam confessi
sumus. Harris explains the difference between Ephrem’s confessi and
Tertullian’s repromisimus by a commonly found uncertainty about how
to render the original Greek hōmologēkamen.
With regard to this allegory based on the story of Abraham and the
mothers of his two principal children in Genesis, Tertullian remarks,
“Now it does happen to thieves that something let fall from their
booty turns to evidence against them: and so I think Marcion has
left behind him this final reference to Abraham—though none had
more need of removal—even if he has changed it a little.” Does this
mean that all previous verses mentioning Abraham were absent from
Marcion’s text? This would mean the omission of 3.6–9, 14, 16–18, 29.
Harnack and Schmid conclude that this is indeed the case; but can
Tertullian’s polemical remark be read safely in such a precise manner?
Gal 4.25 is unattested.
4.26b Tertullian, Marc. 5.4.8. The Apostolikon may have had the shorter
text “mother of us” rather than “mother of us all,” in agreement with
a great many early witnesses to the catholic text, and considered to be
the original wording; but Tertullian himself has the shorter reading
when he quotes the verse from his own text (e.g., Marc. 3.24.3).
Gal 4.27–30 is unattested.
4.31 Tertullian, Marc. 5.4.8.
5.1 Tertullian, Marc. 5.4.9. Even though several Greek manuscripts read
“Christ purchased us for freedom,” which accords with the prominent
Marcionite theme, Tertullian attests the more common reading “freed
us for freedom” here for the Apostolikon. At the end of the phrase
“the yoke of slavery” Tertullian adds, “which is the Law.” Could these
additional words have been in Marcion’s text? Harnack, Marcion, 77*,
thinks not. But some of the capitulation notations for this verse in
Greek manuscripts explicitly refer to “the Law” here, and Ephrem
Syrus similarly has sub jugo servitutis legis intremus.
Moving on to Romans:
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις) which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Original Word: ἀπολύτρωσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: apolutrósis
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ol-oo'-tro-sis)
Definition: a release effected by payment of ransom
Usage: release effected by payment of ransom; redemption, deliverance.
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: apolutrósis
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ol-oo'-tro-sis)
Definition: a release effected by payment of ransom
Usage: release effected by payment of ransom; redemption, deliverance.
From BeDuhn's *Ev:
23[For all have done wrong and fall short of the glory of God.
24Since we are rectified as a gift by his favor through the indemnity
(paid) by Christos Jesus, 27where then is our boasting? It
is excluded.] . . . 4 2For if Abraham was rectified on the
basis of deeds, he has a boast, but not toward God.
24Since we are rectified as a gift by his favor through the indemnity
(paid) by Christos Jesus, 27where then is our boasting? It
is excluded.] . . . 4 2For if Abraham was rectified on the
basis of deeds, he has a boast, but not toward God.
Romans 5:6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
BeDuhn's *Ev has just the following here:
... 6For while we were yet weak, Christos died as a substitute for impious people at an opportune time. ...
His notes:
5.6 Epiphanius, Scholion 31. Epiphanius has eti gar instead of ei ge at
the beginning, a widely attested variant. Keck, “The Post-Pauline
Interpretation of Jesus’ Death in Rom 5,6–7,” argues that this verse is
part of an interpolation; but the evidence of the Apostolikon does not
support this proposal.
Rom 5.7–19 is unattested. Harnack includes vv. 8–9 based on Adam 5.12;
but Marcion’s text is not being used there.
the beginning, a widely attested variant. Keck, “The Post-Pauline
Interpretation of Jesus’ Death in Rom 5,6–7,” argues that this verse is
part of an interpolation; but the evidence of the Apostolikon does not
support this proposal.
Rom 5.7–19 is unattested. Harnack includes vv. 8–9 based on Adam 5.12;
but Marcion’s text is not being used there.
1 Cor 6:18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
BeDuhn has:
18Flee from sexual misconduct... 19... You do not belong to yourselves, 20for
you were purchased with a price. Glorify and exalt God in your bodies.
you were purchased with a price. Glorify and exalt God in your bodies.
Here is what Origen has to say about the matter:
Without doubt you confess it to be true what is written in Peter’s epistle, ‘We have been redeemed not at a corruptible price of silver and gold but with the precious blood of the only begotten.’ If then we have been bought at a price, as Paul also confirms, undoubtedly we were bought from someone whose slaves we were, who also demanded the price he wanted so that he might release from his authority those whom he was holding. Now it was the devil who was holding us, to whom we had been dragged off by our sins. Therefore he demanded the blood of Christ as the price for us. So then, until the blood of Jesus was given, which was so precious that it alone would suffice for the redemption of all, it was necessary for those who were being trained up in the law to offer their own blood for themselves [in the act of circumcision] as a kind of foreshadowing of the future redemption. And therefore for us as those for whom the price of Christ’s blood has been furnished, we do not have need to offer a price for ourselves anymore, that is to say, to offer the blood of circumcision.
- Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
- Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
Perhaps Christ, who gave his own blood as the price for us, is rightly said to have bought us back. But what sort of price did the devil, too, pay that he might purchase us? Pay attention then. Murder is the money of the devil; for ‘he is a murderer from the beginning.’ You have committed murder; you have received the devil’s money...Theft, false testimony, greediness, violence, all these are the devil’s property and treasure for such money proceeds from his mint. With this money, therefore, he buy those whom he buys and makes all of those his slaves who have received however insignificant a coin from his property of this kind.
-Exodus Homily VI
-Exodus Homily VI
The term ‘redemption’ refers to that which is given to enemies for those whom they are keeping in captivity, in order that they might restore them to their original freedom. Captives conquered by sin, as if by war, were being held fast, then, by the enemies of the human race. The Son of God came, who ‘has become for us’ not only ‘wisdom from God and righteousness and holiness’ but also ‘redemption.’ He gave himself as the redemption price, that is to say, he handed himself over to the enemies and, what is more, poured out his own blood to those thirsting for it...Perhaps even Solomon was describing this under a mystery when he said, ‘The redemption price of a man’s soul is his own wealth.’ For if you ask what the wealth of the soul is, you will discover that its wealth is wisdom, righteousness, and holiness. But the apostle says that Christ is all these things. Christ then is the soul’s wealth and therefore he himself is the soul’s redemption price.
- Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
- Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
And having taken the form of a slave, in accordance with the Father’s will, he offered himself as a sacrifice for the whole world by handing over his own blood to the ruler of this world. This was in accordance with the wisdom which ‘none of the rulers of this world understood; for if they would have understood, they would not have crucified the Lord of majesty,’ nor would that blood after which they thirsted have quenched, not so much their thirst as their power; nor would it have destroyed their kingdom; nor would what the Lord said in the Gospel have befallen them; ‘Behold, now the ruler of this world has been condemned;’ and, ‘Behold, I was seeing Satan falling like lightning from heaven.’
- Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
- Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
This is the crux of the matter. Origen was correct to understand that the claim being made by Paul was that God the Father gave his Son Jesus as a sacrifice to purchase the freedom of mankind from the "ruler of this world". This, IMO, is the most important concept in the entire New Testament. This is what its all about.
But the real question was/is: Who is the "ruler of this world"?
According to Origen and other such theologians, it was Satan. Satan was the "lord of this world", and so the souls of mankind were being purchased from Satan in exchange for the soul of the Son of God. That's the theory.
But, it was precisely this concept that must have been at the crux of "Marcionism/Gnosticism". The "Gnostics" must have recognized this same concept within the Pauline letters, but instead of identifying the "lord of this world" was Satan, they identified the "lord of this world" as the God of Moses, the Creator and "giver of the Law". It is easy to see why, since Paul repeatedly rails against the Law and indicates that the crucifixion of Jesus has set us free from the Law.
This question may be the best clue as to whether the original layer of the Pauline letters was actually talking about worshiping the God of Moses or railing against the God of Moses and worshiping a new Higher God.
-
maryhelena
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Sacrifice of Jesus to "purchase" our souls from???
Richard Dawkins: Among all the ideas ever to occur to a nasty human mind (Paul’s of course), the Christian “atonement” would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity.
This quote comes from an article in Timesonline.UK January 2010: ''Hear the rumble of Christian Hypocrisy“: (paywall)
Two comments from earlier threads:
It was by changing context, from the earthly to the heavenly, that the NT writers found a way to find value in a 'crucifixion'. Yes, the Jerusalem above reflects the Jerusalem below - but the very different contexts requires very different outcomes. Life, death and rebirth 'works' in a heavenly, intellectual context. It does not work in a flesh and blood context.
Two crucifixion NT stories. A gospel crucifixion story placed on earth. A 'heavenly' crucifixion that mirrors what is below.
Yes, of course, there are reflections of one within the other. ..... What's above, so below. Counterparts, parallels - but images and reflections not replacement copies as though the divide between them disappears.
Two crucifixion NT stories. A gospel crucifixion story placed on earth. A 'heavenly' crucifixion that mirrors what is below.
Yes, of course, there are reflections of one within the other. ..... What's above, so below. Counterparts, parallels - but images and reflections not replacement copies as though the divide between them disappears.
Value is not in human flesh and blood sacrifices. It is intellectual 'sacrifices', letting go of old, useless, out of date, ideas, that moves humanity forward - that saves the day and allows for tomorrow. It is life, death and rebirth of the spirit - of our intellectual capacity - that has 'salvation' potential, that has value.
If one wants to 'save' Paul from Dawkins charge - then one needs to allow this ancient writer some dignity - some awareness that he is not advocating an inhuman, anti-humanitarian, sacrifice of flesh and blood. Kick the absurd 'christian' atonement theology to the rubbish heap and let our humanity stand tall.
Re: Sacrifice of Jesus to "purchase" our souls from???
"Dawkins' charge" is entirely irrelevant. This has nothing to do with any value judgement placed on Christian theology. Its purely a matter of understanding what they heck they were talking about. "What was being said" not "The merits of what was being said".
It is clear that the scriptures identify three main actors in this play: #1 God the Father, #2 Jesus Son of God, #3 The Lord of this world. Those are the three actors in the play. There was widespread agreement in the first three to five centuries that these three actors were the stars of the show.
But there was disagreement about the identity of actor #3. Who was the "Lord of this world"? And by the way, that's why Jesus is called Lord. Jesus was Lord because he became "Lord of this world" when he defeated the former "Lord of this world" through his sacrifice, which Origen also explains. He took over Lordship from the former Lord.
So Jesus is sacrificed to the "Lord of this world" and then becomes the "Lord of this world". But who did he dethrone? Did he dethrone Satan or did he dethrone the God of Moses? Orthodox Christians, of course, believed he dethroned Satan. Marcion and other such Christians believed that he dethroned the "God of Moses", the Creator.
However, by the Middle Ages this idea was no longer useful and was seen as problematic, so Christian theology moved away from this concept of the three actors in the play and made it all about only two actors, just God and Jesus. The idea of an exchange between God, Jesus and a third party was rejected. And with that rejection, much of the original logic of "Gnosticism", and early Christianity in general, became incomprehensible.
By the Middle Ages theologians rejected the idea that there was a third party and that God would have "bargained with the devil" or "sacrificed his son to Satan". So Medieval theologians instead reconceptualize the sacrifice of Jesus as an act of contrition to "pay for the sins of man", with God basically sacrificing his son to himself. Of course this makes little sense and has confused many a thoughtful Christian for centuries, but that's how things go.
There was longstanding opposition to the idea that the sacrifice of Jesus was a payment to the devil.
But so we return to the question. Was "Paul" saying that God the Father sacrificed his Son to purchase the souls of mankind from Satan? Or was Paul saying that God the Father sacrificed his Son to purchase the souls of mankind from the maker of the Law - the God of Moses?
Ironically, once past the struggle with "Gnosticism" Christian theologians could not conceive that God would bargain with Satan. And indeed they may be right! God was not bargaining with Satan, God the Father was bargaining with God the Creator and Law Giver.
It is clear that the scriptures identify three main actors in this play: #1 God the Father, #2 Jesus Son of God, #3 The Lord of this world. Those are the three actors in the play. There was widespread agreement in the first three to five centuries that these three actors were the stars of the show.
But there was disagreement about the identity of actor #3. Who was the "Lord of this world"? And by the way, that's why Jesus is called Lord. Jesus was Lord because he became "Lord of this world" when he defeated the former "Lord of this world" through his sacrifice, which Origen also explains. He took over Lordship from the former Lord.
So Jesus is sacrificed to the "Lord of this world" and then becomes the "Lord of this world". But who did he dethrone? Did he dethrone Satan or did he dethrone the God of Moses? Orthodox Christians, of course, believed he dethroned Satan. Marcion and other such Christians believed that he dethroned the "God of Moses", the Creator.
However, by the Middle Ages this idea was no longer useful and was seen as problematic, so Christian theology moved away from this concept of the three actors in the play and made it all about only two actors, just God and Jesus. The idea of an exchange between God, Jesus and a third party was rejected. And with that rejection, much of the original logic of "Gnosticism", and early Christianity in general, became incomprehensible.
By the Middle Ages theologians rejected the idea that there was a third party and that God would have "bargained with the devil" or "sacrificed his son to Satan". So Medieval theologians instead reconceptualize the sacrifice of Jesus as an act of contrition to "pay for the sins of man", with God basically sacrificing his son to himself. Of course this makes little sense and has confused many a thoughtful Christian for centuries, but that's how things go.
There was longstanding opposition to the idea that the sacrifice of Jesus was a payment to the devil.
Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether.
-Gregory Nazianzus 4th century
-Gregory Nazianzus 4th century
For these three came into court, namely God, man, and the devil, the devil and man not having anything to say against God. For the devil was convicted of injuring God, because he fraudulently abducted and violently held his servant, namely man. Man, too, was convicted of injuring God, because he despised his precepts and sold himself as a slave to another lord. The devil was also convicted of injuring man, because first he deceived him by a false promise, and afterwards wounded him by bringing in evils. As to himself, therefore, the devil was unjustly holding man, but man was justly being held; because the devil never merited to have power over man, but man merited by his guilt to suffer the tyranny of the devil.
-Peter Lombard 12th century
-Peter Lombard 12th century
If God, who ruled over both of the others [man and the devil], had wanted to free man by force, he could most righteously free man by the power of his command alone; but for the cause set out above [‘he freed man by the righteousness of his humility’] , he willed to make use of the justice of humility. And while he was crucified in his mortal flesh, we were justified, that is, we were taken away from the power of the devil by the remission of sins, and so the devil is overcome by Christ through justice, and not through power.
-Peter Lombard 12th century
-Peter Lombard 12th century
whoever buys or redeems an object pays the price to the holder. But it was not to the devil, who held us in bondage, that Christ paid His blood as the price of our redemption. Therefore Christ did not redeem us by His Passion.
...
Because, with regard to God, redemption was necessary for man's deliverance, but not with regard to the devil, the price had to be paid not to the devil, but to God. And therefore Christ is said to have paid the price of our redemption---His own precious blood---not to the devil, but to God.
-Thomas Aquinas 13th century
...
Because, with regard to God, redemption was necessary for man's deliverance, but not with regard to the devil, the price had to be paid not to the devil, but to God. And therefore Christ is said to have paid the price of our redemption---His own precious blood---not to the devil, but to God.
-Thomas Aquinas 13th century
But so we return to the question. Was "Paul" saying that God the Father sacrificed his Son to purchase the souls of mankind from Satan? Or was Paul saying that God the Father sacrificed his Son to purchase the souls of mankind from the maker of the Law - the God of Moses?
Ironically, once past the struggle with "Gnosticism" Christian theologians could not conceive that God would bargain with Satan. And indeed they may be right! God was not bargaining with Satan, God the Father was bargaining with God the Creator and Law Giver.
Last edited by rgprice on Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
maryhelena
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Sacrifice of Jesus to "purchase" our souls from???
I'm not interested in playing theological games.....rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:08 am "Dawkins' charge" is entirely irrelevant. This has nothing to do with any value judgement placed on Christian theology. Its purely a matter of understanding what they heck they were talking about. "What was being said" not "The merits of what was being said".
It is clear that the scriptures identify three main actors in this play: #1 God the Father, #2 Jesus Son of God, #3 The Lord of this world. Those are the three actors in the play. There was widespread agreement in the first three to five centuries that these three actors were the stars of the show.
But there was disagreement about the identify of actor #3. Who was the "Lord of this world"? And by the way, that's why Jesus is called Lord. Jesus was Lord because he became "Lord of this world" when he defeated the former "Lord of this world" through his sacrifice, which Origen also explains. He took over Lordship from the former Lord.
So Jesus is sacrificed to the "Lord of this world" and then becomes the "Lord of this world". But who did he dethrone? Did he dethrone Satan or did he dethrone the God of Moses? Orthodox Christians, of course, believed he dethroned Satan. Marcion and other such Christians believed that he dethroned the "God of Moses", the Creator.
However, by the Middle Ages this idea was no longer useful and was seen as problematic, so Christian theology moved away from this concept of the three actors in the play and made it all about only two actors, just God and Jesus. The idea of an exchange between God, Jesus and a third part was rejected. And with that rejection, much of the original logic of "Gnosticism", and early Christianity in general, became incomprehensible.
By the Middle Ages theologians rejected the idea that there was a third party and that God would have "bargained with the devil" or "sacrificed his son to Satan". So Medieval theologians instead reconceptualize the sacrifice of Jesus as an act of contrition to "pay for the sins of man", with God basically sacrificing his son to himself. Of course this makes little sense and has confused many a thoughtful Christian for centuries, but that's how things go.
There was longstanding opposition to the idea that the sacrifice of Jesus was a payment to the devil.
Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether.
-Gregory Nazianzus 4th century
For these three came into court, namely God, man, and the devil, the devil and man not having anything to say against God. For the devil was convicted of injuring God, because he fraudulently abducted and violently held his servant, namely man. Man, too, was convicted of injuring God, because he despised his precepts and sold himself as a slave to another lord. The devil was also convicted of injuring man, because first he deceived him by a false promise, and afterwards wounded him by bringing in evils. As to himself, therefore, the devil was unjustly holding man, but man was justly being held; because the devil never merited to have power over man, but man merited by his guilt to suffer the tyranny of the devil.
-Peter Lombard 12th century
If God, who ruled over both of the others [man and the devil], had wanted to free man by force, he could most righteously free man by the power of his command alone; but for the cause set out above [‘he freed man by the righteousness of his humility’] , he willed to make use of the justice of humility. And while he was crucified in his mortal flesh, we were justified, that is, we were taken away from the power of the devil by the remission of sins, and so the devil is overcome by Christ through justice, and not through power.
-Peter Lombard 12th century
whoever buys or redeems an object pays the price to the holder. But it was not to the devil, who held us in bondage, that Christ paid His blood as the price of our redemption. Therefore Christ did not redeem us by His Passion.
...
Because, with regard to God, redemption was necessary for man's deliverance, but not with regard to the devil, the price had to be paid not to the devil, but to God. And therefore Christ is said to have paid the price of our redemption---His own precious blood---not to the devil, but to God.
-Thomas Aquinas 13th century
But so we return to the question. Was "Paul" saying that God the Father sacrificed his Son to purchase the souls of mankind from Satan? Or was Paul saying that God the Father sacrificed his Son to purchase the souls of mankind from the maker of the Law - the God of Moses?
Ironically, once past the struggle with "Gnosticism" Christian theologians could not conceive that God would bargain with Satan. And indeed they may be right! God was not bargaining with Satan, God the Father was bargaining with God the Creator and Law Giver.
I am interested in 'saving' Paul from the absurd 'christian' flesh and blood atonement theology.
As I keep saying - history matters in understanding the gospel story. In attempting to understand the NT Paul it is philosophy, philosophical ideas, that need to be considered. Theology is a waste of time - as is playing along with an assumed historical Jesus idea. Those who are interested in the New Testament story need to keep above the side-show of theological imaginings. Leave the door-step preacher approach at the door - take the rational approach instead. Do not denigrate Paul by attempting to portray him in such an anti-humanitarian manner. A theological interpretation of the Pauline writings leads to outright anti-humanitarian nonsense. Not withstanding the above - Dawkins charge stands.
Re: Sacrifice of Jesus to "purchase" our souls from???
Was there a Devil as such extant within early Hebrew religious practice, or did this evil "lord of this world" sort of Devil conception evolve only much later? It seems that the earliest 'Satan' was merely a 'son of god' with a god given occupational task to perform (I.E., a job), just as for the other 'sons of god'. (Job, plus Psalms 82 and 89)
Was there only an evil "devil" who evolved during and post the Babylonian exile? After Hebrew exposure to Ahura Mazda and Ahriman?
Was there only an evil "devil" who evolved during and post the Babylonian exile? After Hebrew exposure to Ahura Mazda and Ahriman?
Re: Sacrifice of Jesus to "purchase" our souls from???
As far as I can see, the most developed ideas about Satan/Belial/Beliar come from Qumran. Those Jews certainly made a big deal about Satan/Belial. Their writings are all about the conflict between Satan/Belial and God. Satan/Belial was the leader of the Sons of Darkness and the Messiahs of God would be the leaders of the Sons of Light, who would defeat the Sons of Darkness and return rule of the world to God.lsayre wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 3:47 am Was there a Devil as such extant within early Hebrew religious practice, or did this evil "lord of this world" sort of Devil conception evolve only much later? It seems that the earliest 'Satan' was merely a 'son of god' with a god given occupational task to perform (I.E., a job), just as for the other 'sons of god'. (Job, plus Psalms 82 and 89)
Was there only an evil "devil" who evolved during and post the Babylonian exile? After Hebrew exposure to Ahura Mazda and Ahriman?
According to their view, which is a bit difficult to understand, God had "created" Satan/Belial for the purpose of "administering" "the pit" or Hell, which is where the souls of the unrighteous would be tormented. I'm not entirely sure how or why, but Satan/Belial had become the "lord of this world" and essentially ruled in the world, in opposition to God's desires. And it was up to the Sons of Light to overthrow the rule of Satan/Belial on earth, which required military victory over the Sons of Darkness.
Re: Sacrifice of Jesus to "purchase" our souls from???
rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 11:07 am
Here is what Origen has to say about the matter:
Without doubt you confess it to be true what is written in Peter’s epistle, ‘We have been redeemed not at a corruptible price of silver and gold but with the precious blood of the only begotten.’ If then we have been bought at a price, as Paul also confirms, undoubtedly we were bought from someone whose slaves we were, who also demanded the price he wanted so that he might release from his authority those whom he was holding. Now it was the devil who was holding us, to whom we had been dragged off by our sins. Therefore he demanded the blood of Christ as the price for us. So then, until the blood of Jesus was given, which was so precious that it alone would suffice for the redemption of all, it was necessary for those who were being trained up in the law to offer their own blood for themselves [in the act of circumcision] as a kind of foreshadowing of the future redemption. And therefore for us as those for whom the price of Christ’s blood has been furnished, we do not have need to offer a price for ourselves anymore, that is to say, to offer the blood of circumcision.
- Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
Perhaps Christ, who gave his own blood as the price for us, is rightly said to have bought us back. But what sort of price did the devil, too, pay that he might purchase us? Pay attention then. Murder is the money of the devil; for ‘he is a murderer from the beginning.’ You have committed murder; you have received the devil’s money...Theft, false testimony, greediness, violence, all these are the devil’s property and treasure for such money proceeds from his mint. With this money, therefore, he buy those whom he buys and makes all of those his slaves who have received however insignificant a coin from his property of this kind.
-Exodus Homily VI
The term ‘redemption’ refers to that which is given to enemies for those whom they are keeping in captivity, in order that they might restore them to their original freedom. Captives conquered by sin, as if by war, were being held fast, then, by the enemies of the human race. The Son of God came, who ‘has become for us’ not only ‘wisdom from God and righteousness and holiness’ but also ‘redemption.’ He gave himself as the redemption price, that is to say, he handed himself over to the enemies and, what is more, poured out his own blood to those thirsting for it...Perhaps even Solomon was describing this under a mystery when he said, ‘The redemption price of a man’s soul is his own wealth.’ For if you ask what the wealth of the soul is, you will discover that its wealth is wisdom, righteousness, and holiness. But the apostle says that Christ is all these things. Christ then is the soul’s wealth and therefore he himself is the soul’s redemption price.
- Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
And having taken the form of a slave, in accordance with the Father’s will, he offered himself as a sacrifice for the whole world by handing over his own blood to the ruler of this world. This was in accordance with the wisdom which ‘none of the rulers of this world understood; for if they would have understood, they would not have crucified the Lord of majesty,’ nor would that blood after which they thirsted have quenched, not so much their thirst as their power; nor would it have destroyed their kingdom; nor would what the Lord said in the Gospel have befallen them; ‘Behold, now the ruler of this world has been condemned;’ and, ‘Behold, I was seeing Satan falling like lightning from heaven.’
- Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
This is the crux of the matter. Origen was correct to understand that the claim being made by Paul was that God the Father gave his Son Jesus as a sacrifice to purchase the freedom of mankind from the "ruler of this world". This, IMO, is the most important concept in the entire New Testament. This is what its all about.
But the real question was/is: Who is the "ruler of this world"?
According to Origen and other such theologians, it was Satan. Satan was the "lord of this world", and so the souls of mankind were being purchased from Satan in exchange for the soul of the Son of God. That's the theory.
- ok, all well and good (including the first third I left out).
wrt (and your post-reply immediately before this one of mine) -
rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 11:07 am But, it was precisely this concept that must have been at the crux of "Marcionism/Gnosticism". The "Gnostics" must have recognized this same concept within the Pauline letters, but instead of identifying the "lord of this world" was Satan, they identified the "lord of this world" as the God of Moses, the Creator and "giver of the Law". It is easy to see why, since Paul repeatedly rails against the Law and indicates that the crucifixion of Jesus has set us free from the Law.
- read M David Litwa's The Evil Creator