Care and Go for Sunday, 16 February 2014 with Dr. Frank Carver and Dr. Herb Prince Sunday, 16 February 2014
Long Ago God Spoke
Part 7B: Playin’ First Violin
Hebrews 2:5 For he didn’t subject the world to come, of which we speak, to angels. 6 But one has somewhere testified, saying,
“What is man, that you think of him?
Or the son of man, that you care for him?
7 You made him a little lower than the angels.
8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”[b]
For in that he subjected all things to him, he left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we don’t see all things subjected to him, yet. 9 But we see him who has been made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for everyone.10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many children to glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brothers,[c] 12 saying,
“I will declare your name to my brothers.
13 Again, “I will put my trust in him.”[e] Again, “Behold, here I am with the children whom God has given me.”[f]14 Since then the children have shared in flesh and blood, he also himself in the same way partook of the same, that through death he might bring to nothing him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and might deliver all of them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For most certainly, he doesn’t give help to angels, but he gives help to the offspring[g] of Abraham. 17 Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.
Footnotes:
a. Hebrews 2:7 TR adds “and set him over the works of your hands”
c. Hebrews 2:11 The word for “brothers” here and where context allows may also be correctly translated “brothers and sisters” or “siblings.”
g. Hebrews 2:16 or, seed~~World English Bible
What is the question for which ‘substitution’ is the answer?
The man we are looking for must be such that he dies neither of necessity (since he will be almighty) nor by obligation (since he will never have been a sinner), one who can die of his own free will because it is necessary.
For this [Jesus] came into the world and for this he was born, that he might set us free by his passion.
An atonement that conceives of God voluntarily taking on humility is not for suckers. It is an indictment of all that the world assumes about power.
Introduction
Two weeks ago we adjourned with the promise of picking up where the discussion concluded at the time. So, as I was saying. . .
We are dealing with Jesus and humanity (2:5-18). We are faced with a ‘first fiddle, second fiddle’ situation just as we were earlier. In chapter one it was clear as to which of the two--the Son or angels--was to be given primacy. Hands down, it was the Son! What has been ‘spoken to us by a Son, whom God appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds” (1:2) could hardly be overlooked. However the clarity fades when it comes to the pairing of Jesus and humanity, in chapter two. Jesus is said to be identified with humanity, in particular with all who are God’s children (2:13). In addition, if nothing else emerged from recent lessons from both teachers it has been stressed that the humanity of Jesus has been at the forefront. Flesh and blood, suffering and sacrifice, life and death, all carry overtones of “atonement for the sins of the people” (2:17). Can a man atone for sin? So the question was raised at the close of the previous lesson: Who is capable of handling such weighty matters? Just not anyone can play first violin.
The Cross as the Redemption of Humanity
The previous lesson mentioned Anselm (1033-1109). Modern historians tend to regard Anselm and Abelard (1079-1142/3) as marking the beginning of late medieval Scholasticism. The era is noteworthy for the rise of ‘schools’ that became in time modern universities. The relationship of faith to reason characterizes the period with Anselm favoring the order of faith and then reason, while Abelard favored reason prior to the exercise of faith. This fundamental contrast between the two positions plays out often down into the present.
Given his initial stance Anselm’s thought is captured in the phrase “faith seeking understanding.” That is, an active love of God seeking a more, deeper knowledge of God. Faith may precede reason, but reason can expand upon faith. In that regard Anselm is like Augustine, from whom he probably acquired the idea. In Anselm’s often quoted words,
Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand.
This context, then, provides some background for what Anselm wrote when he penned Why God Became Man? Anselm has the distinction of offering the first substantial and influential examination of why Jesus came to give his life for humankind. Earlier attempts to deal with the issue of the human predicament tended to focus on humanity’s relation to the powers of evil, thereby setting up redemption by means of a “ransom for many” (Mk. 10:43). Since Christ was not under the sway of such powers, having been vindicated by his resurrection, he provided a ransom for human sins and bondage to evil. Written in 1098 the times were ripe for Anselm’s treatise. Jaroslav Pelikan observes that The Rule of Benedict of Nursia (c. 480-c.550) prescribed that nothing should be put before the love of Christ. Thus the monastic period from 900 to AD 1100 can be identified as “‘the uncompromisingly christocentric period of Western civilization;’ it was Christocentric for the very reason that it was monastic” (Pelikan, 106).
Benedictine piety stimulated writers to vie with one another in extolling Christ as the source of all good, an emphasis Anselm was more than willing to affirm. In short, Benedictine piety led writers like Anselm into speculative thought along several lines, including that of atonement.
Atonement (‘at-onement’, a sixteenth century coinage) is the reconciliation of sinners with God, with a particular focus on the gospel and (historically) the sacraments. Atonement makes possible a change in the relation with God possible. Thinking of God like a feudal overlord whose honor is offended by humanity’s sinfulness, Anselm undertook to explain the rational necessity of the atonement by arguing that only a God-man could be sacrificed to atone for sin. This rational necessity would seem to run counter to what has just been said about Anselm. He favored faith. But the times were ‘a changin’ (spelling is intentional), as it were. Dialectics was in. Medievalists saw themselves as “modern,” as up-to-date.
Arguments for or against a position were expected. Quoting a scriptural text was fine but a text with rational support behind it was even stronger. With faith in hand, reason could push for more and deeper understanding. For medieval theologians “it would not have been fitting for any but a human being to have rendered satisfaction for what the human race had committed in the fall.”
Thus Anselm posited that only a human being could make recompense for human sin against God.
The man we are looking for must be such that he dies neither of necessity (since he will be almighty) nor by obligation (since he will never have been a sinner), one who can die of his own free will because it is necessary. (Anselm, as quoted by Pelikan 142).
However this is impossible for any human being as such to fulfill, so such recompense can only be made by God. God’s honor has been infringed. Therefore atonement for sin is only possible through Jesus Christ, the Son, who is both God and man.
The atonement is brought about by Christ’s death, which is of infinite value. Ultimately, in Anselm’s view, divine justice and divine mercy in the fullest senses are shown to be entirely compatible. Salvation must be possible as well as necessary. The focus on God’s justice showed that salvation was necessary and attention to God’s mercy showed that salvation was possible through Christ.
To recap: for Anselm, sin incurs a debt to divine justice, a debt that must be paid. Thus, sin cannot be forgiven without satisfaction given of that debt. Something must be done or to occur. God does not simply overlook the magnitude of what has taken place on the human level. Sin is a major impediment. The incurred debt is something far greater than a human being is capable of paying. All the service that a person can offer is already obligated on other debts to God, for food, shelter, etc. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made--that humans could be set free from their sin--is by the coming of a Redeemer who is both God and man. He himself would have to be sinless, thus having no debt that he owed. His death is something greater than all the sins of humanity. Christ’s death makes a superabundant satisfaction to divine justice. Thus Anselm’s Why God Became Man? provided a rational view of the person and work of Christ that is also “conformable to ‘the greater authority ‘of Scripture and dogma”(Pelikan, 107).
To be sure not everyone has been or will be satisfied with Anselm’s satisfaction theory. For Christopher Momany, why a sacrifice is even necessary may well be an unanswerable question. He goes on to point out that to grant that human behavior created an environment in which Jesus did sacrifice himself instead of withholding love is plausible, even awe-inspiring.
[Moreover,] a God who is not in Christ does little more than thrown Jesus under the bus, but a God who is in Christ empties the self at the cross. This is an astounding proposition (Momany, 25).
Some may contend that Anselm’s view leaves out the decision of the individual believer. He or she plays no part in what occurs even in terms of acceptance. Some on another side say that Anselm’s position depicts God in rather harsh terms, as One consumed with ‘pay back’ time. And yes, there are those who will argue that God’s love is unconditional, period. But all may well agree that what Anselm accomplished in and through his book has dramatically influenced those coming after him. This is particularly true of the Protestant Reformers’ focus on a ‘substitutional’ aspect to the atonement in their sixteenth century context (e.g., Calvin).
More recently, as Eugene Teselle says,
If there is a current trend, it is away from insistence upon a single metaphor for atonement and the conceptual framework that seems to grow from it, and toward appreciation of the variety of [biblical] images, each of which suggests something important about divine initiative, human response, and continuing obstacles to the renewal of life.
Medieval speculation, as in Anselm, is a pursuit in the best sense of the word. Speculation is derived from the Latin speculates (past participle of specular), meaning to spy out, examine, to look, to look at. Perhaps it is unnecessary to point out that to speak of the atonement is to speak of a mystery. Who can know for sure the inner workings of God’s good work in Christ?
And yet, one must try to give a reason for the hope that lies within of what God has wrought in the first coming and dying of Jesus, the Christ. Here is where the biblical witness speaks to us. As hinted but not developed last time, the author of Hebrews answers Anselm’s question as to why the God-Man in several ways.
And yet, one must try to give a reason for the hope that lies within of what God has wrought in the first coming and dying of Jesus, the Christ. Here is where the biblical witness speaks to us. As hinted but not developed last time, the author of Hebrews answers Anselm’s question as to why the God-Man in several ways.
One could well argue, as George Guthrie does, that 2:14-16 provide the reasons for the Incarnation.
14Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death.16For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham.
Kevin Anderson, too, sees 2:14-16 as providing purpose clauses to account for the incarnation of Jesus. Negatively, to destroy the one who held the power of death, that is, the devil. This power is not inherent but “by way of trickery and intimidation” (Acts 13:10; Eph. 6:11; I Tim. 3:6-7; etc.). On the positive side Jesus’ death is to free people from the fear of death. Anderson observes that “the dire condition of death’s victims is described as persistent enslaving fear.”
For present purposes, let’s add to what has just been said by suggesting that verse 17 can also be seen as answering Anselm’s question ‘why the God-man?’ but this time in terms of goals.
17Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people.
The opening words (“he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect”) sum up the preceding argument by the author in a single compact clause, restating earlier thought in fresh ways.
There is total identification of the incarnate Son with humanity, only sin excepted (4:15; 7:26). The two goals are then expressed:
so that Jesus might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, and
to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people.
What then follows? In Jesus the goals set before him are fulfilled. The Hebrews writer can then say, “Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested (2:18).
A Counterintuitive Move
The goals provide context for returning earlier in the chapter to the theme of honor (2:6-9). The Hebrews writer is aware and banks on the surety of what has been accomplished in the suffering and death of Jesus. The fact that honor appears with regard to Jesus and with regard to humanity means that the term is a fundamental term from the author’s point of view. What makes it such? Might it be that what makes honor significant is that the term recognizes, as it were, the value and intention for what God had in mind in the first place. Honor is distinction. It makes a claim to be special, particular, and specific in recognition. Honor can hardly be regarded as a general term absent of the particular. Medieval transcendentals such as ‘the good, the true and the beautiful’ are hardly the focus here. No, honor needs to be discussed in the light of Jesus death on the cross to overcome each person’s dishonor. Jesus died that he “might taste death for everyone” (2:9).
Thus as Karl Barth says,
We may call honour the supremely earthly good; in it our concern is with the man himself, with his soul. It may well be true that ‘to lose honour is to lose everything.’ But if honour, and with it, everything, is not to be lost, it must be supremely true of it that it be secured, protected and guaranteed to man in such a way that it does not fall out of the hand of God and pass into the hands of man, to become something for him to possess, guard and administer, but that it remains in God’s hands as His honour, as a gift the reality of which remains bound to the Giver and His giving, thus being genuinely guaranteed in Him and His action.
Honor is an “adornment, vesture and crown” with which a person is now clothed by God and precious but only for a person as long as that adornment is recognized as gift. It follows that a Christian’s life is to be marked by modesty. Such modesty is known for its thankfulness, its humility, and especially its humor. These factors alone suggest that a third lesson on Hebrews 2:5-18 may need to be done.
~~~~~~~
Endnotes
1Title of an essay by Robert Bernasconi in The Cambridge Companion to Levinas (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 234-25.
2 Observation by Anselm, as quoted by Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, vol. 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology (University of Chicago Press, 1978), 142.
3An observation by Peter Damian (1007-72), as quoted by Jaroslav Pelikan, 131.
4 Christopher Momany, “Affirmation of Being: In Defense of Atonement Theology,” Christian Century (February 5, 2014), 26.
5 Not only was a focus on Christology pivotal for the period but also the matters of discipline and discipleship. Examples included such interests as the unity of the Bible with an emphasis on the Four Gospels central to the liturgy. Adoration (but not veneration) of the cross with the sign of the cross were seen as instruments of Christ’s power over the devil. The mixture of wine and water in the chalice became a symbol of the atoning sacrifice (wine represented Christ; water represented the people) with both needed to represent the full significance of redemption.
6The temptation is to think of “medievalists” as standing between the categories of “ancient” and “modern.” However for them there was no third category of “medieval.” As early as the ninth century Florus of Lyons refers to his era as “modern times.”
7 A stance attributed to Guibert of Nogent (c. 1053/65-c.1125), as noted by Jaroslav Pelikan, 140.
8 Here is a case where previous church decisions on Christ are being re-affirmed. As class members may recall from the series on early creeds two years ago, both the Nicene Creed (381 CE) and the definition of Chalcedon (451 CE) affirm that Jesus Christ is very God and very man.
9 “Dogma” is the traditional term for official church teachings and not simply the view of this or that theologian. By no means is dogma to be associated with the attitude and popular meaning of someone being ‘dogmatic.’
10 Eugene Teselle, “Atonement,” A New Handbook of Christian Theology (Abingdon Press, 1992), 43.
11 Kevin Anderson, Hebrews (Beacon Hill Press, 2013), 98-9.
12 Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010).
13 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 3: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 (Hendrickson Publishers, 2010 reprint [first English edition 1961], 663. Words in quoted material from this volume reflect not only British spelling but also the times in which the translation of the 13 German volumes of CD took place (1956-75) so “man” appears frequently.
14 As this sentence shows, German theologians and philosophers are not known for clear, direct, simple sentences. If memory is correct, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) once wrote a sentence that was over 100 lines long! This brings to mind from a scholarly debate in the 1960s (a la Antony Flew) that a sentence can die the death of a thousand qualifications!
~~~~~~~
First Church of the Nazarene
3901 Lomaland Drive
San Diego, CA 921041885
~~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment