The victory on the cross was against a force whose primary tactic is that of the lie. Jesus submits to the lie – the old lie – and so exposes it to the truth. In the wilderness and in Gethsemane, he refuses the temptations of the Satan to follow an alternate path. He combats the lies of Satan with truth-telling. It is almost as if, on the cross, Jesus allows the lie an apparent victory, but by the manner of his dying, shows how corrupt it always was. He also exposes the untruth of the human conspiracy against him. Against his accusers, he is actually proved innocent.
Is this, properly speaking, a victory? I think it ought to be construed as such... Jesus himself speaks about binding up Satan (Mark 3). Satan is the primeval liar, the 'Father of lies'. To defeat him is to expose his lies to the truth - to unmask him. John 8 is a fascinating interchange in which Jesus links these themes, and also indicates that his cross ('when you have lifted up the son of Man') will be the moment of his vindication and triumph.
One of the points I have been trying to make (in Doc 2) is that the use of these metaphors for the atonement radically changes our whole perspective on the original terms. If 'this is victory' as the song says, then it says a lot about how God wins victories. Truth-telling is ultimately the way to defeat the chief of liars...
12 comments:
I like this.
I like this a lot.
if the message of the cross is folly and weakness, and yet the power and wisdom of God, then in effective apologetics/evangelism is God calling our bluff - "you're weak, you're a fool"?
Resonates with the image of God's Justice Ive been reading in Nahum 3 "woe to the city of blood, full of lies..for her graceful and deadly charms...who betrays nations with her whorings..." God shows them for what they are - "I will lift up your skirts over your face, I will make nations look at your nakedness & shame. I will treat you with contempt, and make you a spectacle, and all who look at you will shrink from you..."
also interesting to see the link between truth telling, defeating the lies of the evil one, and the statement of the prologue - Jesus comes full of grace and truth
In Colossians 2:8-23 the evil forces which Christ defeats on the cross (2:14) are portrayed as human lies: the 'elementary spirits' appear as human philosophy, rules and traditions.
And maybe you could say the Roman Empire's tradition of victory via humiliation of your human opposition was also a tradition being nailed up and done away with.
To defeat him is to expose his lies to the truth - to unmask him.
I agree. We see lots of unmaskings, using the saints as bait. The true nature of Pharaoh, of Job's accusers, and of the enemies of God in Esther. God's people become weak and His enemies suddenly reveal their true nature. A corpse always brings out the dirty birds (Matt 24:28), the 'Edomite' false brothers waiting to loot a razed Jerusalem.
Their defeat becomes a public spectacle. Pharaoh's army's destruction, Job's 'resurrection' and the two-day slaughter of Jew-haters from India to Ethiopia all picture for us the work of the cross.
Then the body, the church, followed the head in making a shameful public spectacle of the powers-that-were (Colossians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 4:9; Hebrews 10:33). Such was said of Nero, who orchestrated his own public spectacles:
"Mockery of every sort was added to their (Christians') deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being punished." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44.)
This is the difference between amillennial and postmillennial definitions of suffering. The suffering of the saints is not the mark of an irredeemable world, but the very means of its transformation.
"Job wouldn’t take the blame. As a public spectacle of innocent suffering, he shamed those in power. The wonder of this refusal by an innocent victim to take the blame is that whether he lives or dies, a new culture forms around his testimony. This is why Christian martyrdom expands the kingdom."
I don't see what post vs amill has to do with it at all.
The sufferings of Christ and the saints don't just add people to heaven. They eventually bring evil powers tumbling down and transform this world for Christ. Besides the disempowering of Rome and Holy Rome, I think of the thousands of underground Christians who finally came out and risked their lives to march through the streets just before the fall of the USSR, carrying placards that said, "We forgive you." They publicly shamed the powers.
Indeed, the only reason you and I are free is the deaths of saints who transformed the world before us. Christendom is bought with blood.
"I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men."
I believe we have lost sight of dying for a tangible Christian future.
What, so the new heavena and new earth aren't tangible?
Like I said, it's not just about adding people to heaven. It's about transforming the world through union with Christ and His suffering. I look at what's happening in Orissa, with houses burnt and Christians hacked to pieces by demonised Hindus. While we pray and work to stop it, we also see the lie of Hinduism exposed for what it is and the expansion of the kingdom on earth in that territory that must result.
I won't get into the new heavens & earth. That's a whole other topic.
I would also add that this might affect how we carry out communion. The minister, imaging Christ, passes bread and wine to the first saints, who pass it along the line. Pictorially, just as He died for us, we die for each other (to pass on union with Him), until all are filled.
What?? I mean, that's a pretty picture and all, but...
The trouble with the postmill view is that you end up confusing the triumph of liberal democracy (or the triumph of Constantine) with the triumph of the Kingdom... yes, I am with you, the martyrs expose the lie and witness to the truth, and so win great victories in history... but these are not a progressive establishment of the reign of Christ on earth. The argument for postmill can't survive its own historical disappointment I am afraid (in addition to the scriptural difficulties).
Sure, it can (and has been) confused with Constantine etc, but I don't believe the great victories in history can be divorced from kingdom expansion. As far as historical disappointment goes, 1) it's not over yet - and it won't be until the whole loaf is leavened, and 2) despite the ups and downs, look how far we have come.
Regarding the confusion of earthly institutions with the city of God, I wrote this after a debate with a Catholic on their blind dependence on church authority over Scripture:
"Which one is the True Church?
Regarding churches claiming apostolic authority, particularly the Catholic/Protestant divide, something that is overlooked is that worship was centralised on earth but this ended in AD70. It was possible for Satan to roll the political power of Rome into bed with the religious authority of Judaism, and bring both systems down upon all true worship as persecution.
Since that time, the centre of true worship is in heaven. It is now impossible for Satan to corrupt or attack its centre because the new Jerusalem is above. We see this in Revelation 2-3. Not only is the menora now split into seven separate lampstands, the lampstands are in the holy place, 'seated with Christ.'
So, when the Roman church became corrupt, God’s people came out. When protestantism becomes corrupt, God’s people come out. As Christianity declines in the west, it is booming in the southern hemisphere. Satan is bound from mounting an all-out worldwide attack on the church until he is released for a short time, and then only so he can be drawn out of Egypt like Pharaoh to be destroyed once and for all. Until then, God uses Him to grow and mature the church.
There is an institutional church, but in her visible form she is only ever local assemblies. The ‘city of God’ is in heaven, incorruptible, unassailable. If her earthly ‘branches’ leave the vine, they wither up. When they have only darkness to share, Jesus snuffs them out. They are no longer 'the church' regardless of whether the physical institutions remain.
Magisterially, the church governs from heaven. The new Jerusalem will descend at the end of history, but any attempt at a centralised, earthly city of God before then is doomed to failure, Roman Catholic or otherwise."
And regarding the Scriptural difficulties, it probably depends on your eschatological framework. I would be interested to read them.
Was Aulén arguing liberation, more than defeat?
Binding Satan is a great contrast (capturing the captor).
MPJ, your thoughts seem to hint 'the truth will set you free.'
But, what I find most beautiful is how you love relates: i.e. I'm thinking love is valuing the other person (in all realms of life) according to divine order (God, humanity, things) and above self; and therefore, using things (e.g. spiritual gifts, knowledge etc) to serve others, and doing so to love, serve and glorify God, completely accords with this orderly Truth. In sum, as 1 Cor 13 shows, with the use of such things, serving righteousness, valuing others above self, and (at the centre of the narrative arc) we rejoice with the truth.
So, to tie together Paul's thinking (if I'm getting it) truth is at the heart of love. Applying this to the cross, the point/person/place of greatest truth be point of greatest love (and vice versa). [make sense?]
Though a novice in atonement studies, I'm tempted to think of the real victory over (not just satan, sin, and the punishment of death, but over) the Holy God's character trait of justice and consequent decree.
thoughts?
Post a Comment