Add new comment

If God seeking human sacrifice is a problem, which it should be, maybe we should ask if it really is in the text. It isn’t. Nor is God seeking an innocent victim in the text.
1. You have not addressed what I said.
2. You have been very careful to avoid saying clearly or outright that death of Jesus was a penal substitutionary atonement.
3. Ransom from Egypt is probably the most important meaning of the term. You repeat the ‘anticipation’ assertion without any supporting evidence.
4. I’ve demonstrated how little connection there is between Isaiah’s vineyard allegory and Jesus’s parable of the tenants.
5. Punishment and reward is integral to the Deuteronomic strands of the OT especially. Other parts of the OT present a different view if God, and even call into question the whole punishment/reward paradigm. Job fir example. But in the end, we are not required to take a wooden literal acceptance of the text. Jesus radically challenged such a view again and again. If we don’t bring ethical engagement with the text, we are vulnerable to a reading of it that leads to abuse, and to a distorted view of God. The text always serves the higher end of knowing God. If you don’t ask questions of where your interpretation of the text is taking you, you can end up with abusive belief which serves the opposite of the faith you profess. Trump supporting believers across the Atlantic are the proof of this.
6. All three texts you cite refer to “the wrath”, but significantly not “the wrath of God”. But this is a subject needing separate treatment.
Finally, it is precisely in the gospels where Christus Victor, or something like it, is most strongly seen. Where did you get the idea that it wasn’t?

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.