Add new comment

This must be my last comment on the subject, but you are still avoiding reflection on the issue, and being very dogmatic about it. It’s absurd to say that at the passover, the Israelite houses were being protected but not the people. The people were to stay in the houses because that is where the blood over the lintels/doorposts protected them. The blood had the effect of protecting them, whilst they stayed under its cover. If they moved out from under its cover, they were no longer protected. Of course the people were bring protected by the blood.

In Joshua 24, Joshua is challenging the people to whole-hearted loyalty to YHWH, which involves abandonment of their Egyptian gods. (Astonishing that they still had them). Nobody is saying that there is a fully formed, explicit statement of atoning significance in the passover lamb’s blood in the passover account, or at all in Joshua’s challenge. I’m simply asking the rather obvious question: why did the Israelites (in their houses) need protection from YHWH? What had they done which might put them in danger of the same judgment as the Egyptian firstborn? (Please don’t keep saying that the blood was only a “sign” when you haven’t answered the question why they or YHWH or “the destroyer” needed a sign).

Romans 3:21-25 has the passover feast as its context through its timing; blood and redemption are words and concepts which are crucial in the passover/Exodus story. Blood (but not redemption) also applies to the sacrifice of atonement for sin. You haven’t considered at all the detailed argument about the meaning of hilasterion (in the light of proetheto - Romans 3:25) which is central to the discussion here. The passover and forgiveness of sins are brought together in Jesus’s passover meal with the disciples and in his death on the cross. Jesus does not try to make a distinction between them. If there was a distinction, tell me where it is clearly made.

Jesus was his own commentator on the atoning significance of the passover. Another example of this is in the passover feast of John 6. In the context of that passover and the feast of unleavened bread, Jesus throws down the challenge of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in order to have life and be raised up on the last day (ie final judgment). The bread here is associated with the manna in the wilderness, but the context is passover and the associated feast of unleavened bread. Jesus is now that bread. His blood is not to be daubed on doorposts, but to be drunk.

Once again, the key imagery of the passover is being pressed into the service of associations beyond the passover, and the people were just as outraged as you are at the suggestion (and of course, more, with the invitation to eat his flesh and drink his blood). Life was in Jesus’s blood, which was to be drunk if those who came to him were to have life. Life was in the blood of the sacrifices of atonement (Leviticus 17:11, 14). The blood on the doorposts of the houses granted life in place of death to the occupants.

The counterpart to life of condemnation for sin is not developed in John 6, but it is in the immediately preceding chapter. John 6 continues and expands on the same themes, which are also central to John’s gospel. It would be absurd to say that John 6 has nothing to do with the preceding chapter, or all of these key themes.

I fully realise that the association of atonement with the passover has rarely been made by commentators (although it has been observed by Dunn and Howard). I also realise that to make the association is provocative, but I thought that this above all places was where provocative ideas could be aired and thoughtfully considered, without incurring instant dismissal.

This rather intense ‘conversation’ arose, if you remember,  because I connected “justified” and “counted/credited as righteousness (as ”covenant forming”) in Romans 4:1-4 with “justified” in Romans 3:24, which is explained as being “through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a hilasterion, through faith in his blood” - Romans 3:24-25. Initially it was prompted by a sense of the need to fill out your explanation of “credited as righteousness” in Genesis 15 as “doing the right thing”.

So my proposal is that atonement and passover/Exodus are identified in one person through one event (or nexus of events) in Jesus, which was the substance of the new covenant fulfilled in him. It looks as if we need to agree to disagree, but please don’t keep saying that there is nothing in the text to support the case I’m advancing.

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